Effectiveness of integrated person-centered interventions for older people's care: Review of Swedish experiences and experts' perspective.

Older adults have multiple medical and social care needs, requiring a shift toward an integrated person-centered model of care. Our objective was to describe and summarize Swedish experiences of integrated person-centered care by reviewing studies published between 2000 and 2023, and to identify the main challenges and scientific gaps through expert discussions. Seventy-three publications were identified by searching MEDLINE and contacting experts. Interventions were categorized using two World Health Organization frameworks: (1) Integrated Care for Older People (ICOPE), and (2) Integrated People-Centered Health Services (IPCHS). The included 73 publications were derived from 31 unique and heterogeneous interventions pertaining mainly to the micro- and meso-levels. Among publications measuring mortality, 15% were effective. Subjective health outcomes showed improvement in 24% of publications, morbidity outcomes in 42%, disability outcomes in 48%, and service utilization outcomes in 58%. Workshop discussions in Stockholm (Sweden), March 2023, were recorded, transcribed, and summarized. Experts emphasized: (1) lack of rigorous evaluation methods, (2) need for participatory designs, (3) scarcity of macro-level interventions, and (4) importance of transitioning from person- to people-centered integrated care. These challenges could explain the unexpected weak beneficial effects of the interventions on health outcomes, whereas service utilization outcomes were more positively impacted. Finally, we derived a list of recommendations, including the need to engage care organizations in interventions from their inception and to leverage researchers' scientific expertise. Although this review provides a comprehensive snapshot of interventions in the context of Sweden, the findings offer transferable perspectives on the real-world challenges encountered in this field.

Anthropometric measures and adverse outcomes in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction: revisiting the obesity paradox.

AIMS: Although body mass index (BMI) is the most commonly used anthropometric measure, newer indices such as the waist-to-height ratio, better reflect the location and amount of ectopic fat, as well as the weight of the skeleton, and may be more useful. METHODS AND RESULTS: The prognostic value of several newer anthropometric indices was compared with that of BMI in patients with heart failure (HF) and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) enrolled in prospective comparison of ARNI with ACEI to determine impact on global mortality and morbidity in heart failure. The primary outcome was HF hospitalization or cardiovascular death. The association between anthropometric indices and outcomes were comprehensively adjusted for other prognostic variables, including natriuretic peptides. An 'obesity-survival paradox' related to lower mortality risk in those with BMI ≥25 kg/m2 (compared with normal weight) was identified but this was eliminated by adjustment for other prognostic variables. This paradox was less evident for waist-to-height ratio (as an exemplar of indices not incorporating weight) and eliminated by adjustment: the adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) for all-cause mortality, for quintile 5 vs. quintile 1, was 1.10 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.87-1.39]. However, both BMI and waist-to-height ratio showed that greater adiposity was associated with a higher risk of the primary outcome and HF hospitalization; this was more evident for waist-to-height ratio and persisted after adjustment e.g. the aHR for HF hospitalization for quintile 5 vs. quintile 1 of waist-to-height ratio was 1.39 (95% CI 1.06-1.81). CONCLUSION: In patients with HFrEF, alternative anthropometric measurements showed no evidence for an 'obesity-survival paradox'. Newer indices that do not incorporate weight showed that greater adiposity was clearly associated with a higher risk of HF hospitalization.

Importance of cystatin C in estimating glomerular filtration rate: the PARADIGM-HF trial.

AIMS: The 2021 Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration (CKD-EPI) equation combining creatinine and cystatin C provides a better estimation of glomerular filtration rate (GFR) compared to the creatinine-only equation. METHODS AND RESULTS: CKD-EPI creatinine-cystatin C equation (creatinine-cystatin) was compared to creatinine-only (creatinine) equation in a subpopulation of Prospective comparison of ARNI with ACEI to Determine Impact on Global Mortality and morbidity in Heart Failure (PARADIGM-HF). Patients were categorized according to difference in eGFR using the two equations: Group 1 (<-10 mL/min/1.73 m2, i.e. creatinine-cystatin more than 10 mL/min lower than creatinine), Group 2 (>-10 and <10 mL/min/1.73 m2), and Group 3 (>10 mL/min/1.73 m2, i.e. creatinine-cystatin more than 10 mL/min higher than creatinine). Cystatin C and creatinine were available in 1966 patients at randomization. Median (interquartile range) eGFR difference was -0.7 (-6.4-4.8) mL/min/1.73 m2. Compared to creatinine, creatinine-cystatin led to a substantial reclassification of chronic kidney disease stages. Overall, 212 (11%) and 355 (18%) patients were reallocated to a better and worse eGFR category, respectively. Compared to patients in Group 2, those in Group 1 (lower eGFR with creatinine-cystatin) had higher mortality and those in Group 3 (higher eGFR with creatinine-cystatin) had lower mortality. Increasing difference in eGFR (due to lower eGFR with creatinine-cystatin compared to creatinine) was associated with increasing elevation of biomarkers (including N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide and troponin) and worsening Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire clinical summary score. The reason why the equations diverged with increasing severity of heart failure was that creatinine did not rise as steeply as cystatin C. CONCLUSION: The CKD-EPI creatinine-only equation may overestimate GFR in sicker patients. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique Identifier: NCT01035255.

Stroke in patients with heart failure and reduced or preserved ejection fraction.

AIMS: Stroke is an important problem in patients with heart failure (HF), but the intersection between the two conditions is poorly studied across the range of ejection fraction. The prevalence of history of stroke and related outcomes were investigated in patients with HF. METHODS AND RESULTS: Individual patient meta-analysis of seven clinical trials enrolling patients with HF with reduced (HFrEF) and preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). Of the 20 159 patients with HFrEF, 1683 (8.3%) had a history of stroke, and of the 13 252 patients with HFpEF, 1287 (9.7%) had a history of stroke. Regardless of ejection fraction, patients with a history of stroke had more vascular comorbidity and worse HF. Among those with HFrEF, the incidence of the composite of cardiovascular death, HF hospitalization, stroke, or myocardial infarction was 18.23 (16.81-19.77) per 100 person-years in those with prior stroke vs. 13.12 (12.77-13.48) in those without [hazard ratio 1.37 (1.26-1.49), P < 0.001]. The corresponding rates in patients with HFpEF were 14.16 (12.96-15.48) and 9.37 (9.06-9.70) [hazard ratio 1.49 (1.36-1.64), P < 0.001]. Each component of the composite was more frequent in patients with stroke history, and the risk of future stroke was doubled in patients with prior stroke. Among patients with prior stroke, 30% with concomitant atrial fibrillation were not anticoagulated, and 29% with arterial disease were not taking statins; 17% with HFrEF and 38% with HFpEF had uncontrolled systolic blood pressure (≥140 mmHg). CONCLUSION: Heart failure patients with a history of stroke are at high risk of subsequent cardiovascular events, and targeting underutilization of guideline-recommended treatments might be a way to improve outcomes in this high-risk population.

Revisiting Race and the Benefit of RAS Blockade in Heart Failure: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Clinical Trials.

Importance: Concerns have arisen that renin-angiotensin system (RAS) blockers are less effective in Black patients than non-Black patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). Objective: To determine whether the effects of RAS blockers on cardiovascular outcomes differ between Black patients and non-Black patients with HFrEF. Data Sources: MEDLINE and Embase databases through December 31, 2023. Study Selection: Randomized trials investigating the effect of RAS blockers on cardiovascular outcomes in adults with HFrEF that enrolled Black and non-Black patients. Data Extraction and Synthesis: Individual-participant data were extracted following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses Independent Personal Data (PRISMA-IPD) reporting guidelines. Effects were estimated using a mixed-effects model using a 1-stage approach. Main Outcome and Measure: The primary outcome was first hospitalization for HF or cardiovascular death. Results: The primary analysis, based on the 3 placebo-controlled RAS inhibitor monotherapy trials, included 8825 patients (9.9% Black). Rates of death and hospitalization for HF were substantially higher in Black than non-Black patients. The hazard ratio (HR) for RAS blockade vs placebo for the primary composite was 0.84 (95% CI, 0.69-1.03) in Black patients and 0.73 (95% CI, 0.67-0.79) in non-Black patients (P for interaction = .14). The HR for first HF hospitalization was 0.89 (95% CI, 0.70-1.13) in Black patients and 0.62 (95% CI, 0.56-0.69) in non-Black patients (P for interaction = .006). Conversely, the corresponding HRs for cardiovascular death were 0.83 (95% CI, 0.65-1.07) and 0.84 (95% CI, 0.77-0.93), respectively (P for interaction = .99). For total hospitalizations for HF and cardiovascular deaths, the corresponding rate ratios were 0.82 (95% CI, 0.66-1.02) and 0.72 (95% CI, 0.66-0.80), respectively (P for interaction = .27). The supportive analyses including the 2 trials adding an angiotensin receptor blocker to background angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor treatment (n = 16 383) gave consistent findings. Conclusions and Relevance: The mortality benefit from RAS blockade was similar in Black and non-Black patients. Despite the smaller relative risk reduction in hospitalization for HF with RAS blockade in Black patients, the absolute benefit in Black patients was comparable with non-Black patients because of the greater incidence of this outcome in Black patients.

Integrating health promotion with and for older people - eHealth (IHOPe) - evaluating remote integrated person-centred care : Protocol of a randomised controlled trial with effectiveness, health economic, and process evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Healthcare and welfare systems worldwide are unprepared to accommodate the growing population of older people. Simultaneously, the cost of reactive care for older people is increasing. However, healthcare systems in many countries are reforming towards integrated and person-centred care with a focus on health promotion and proactive actions. The Integrating Health Promotion with and for Older People - eHealth (IHOPe) project aims to describe and evaluate a person-centred e-support intervention that promotes a sustainable partnership between community-dwelling frail older people and health and social care professionals. METHODS: The IHOPe project is designed as a randomised controlled trial comparing a control group receiving standard care with an intervention group receiving standard care and add-on person-centred care through telephone support and a digital platform. The primary outcome measure is a composite score of changes in general self-efficacy and the need for unscheduled hospital care. The project is conducted in Gothenburg, Sweden. At least 220 participants aged ≥ 75 years will be included after being screened using a frailty instrument. The study design, intervention components, digital platform, and questionnaires were developed in close collaboration with an advisory group of inter-professional researchers, stakeholders, clinicians, and older representatives. Data will mainly be collected through questionnaires at baseline and 3, 6, and 12 months after inclusion in the study. Recruitment is ongoing and should be completed during 2023. Data will be analysed using quantitative and qualitative methods. The evaluation will include effectiveness, process, and health economics. The study was approved by the Regional Ethical Review Board in Gothenburg, Sweden (Dnr 2019-05364, Dnr 2020-03550, Dnr 2021-03255). DISCUSSION: The findings will expand our knowledge of remotely integrated person-centred care for frail older people. Thereby, the IHOPe project is expected to fill highlighted knowledge gaps on intervention evaluations including the triad of person-centred, digital, and integrated care elements, as well as economic evaluations of remote health services for frail older people. The study is ongoing, and the results are not completed but if they turn out to be positive, implementation is not limited to time or location. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrial.gov: NCT04416815. Registered 07/06/2021.

Predicting stroke in heart failure and reduced ejection fraction without atrial fibrillation.

AIMS: Patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) are at significant risk of stroke. Anticoagulation reduces this risk in patients with and without atrial fibrillation (AF), but the risk-to-benefit balance in the latter group, overall, is not favourable. Identification of patients with HFrEF, without AF, at the highest risk of stroke may allow targeted and safer use of prophylactic anticoagulant therapy. METHODS AND RESULTS: In a pooled patient-level cohort of the PARADIGM-HF, ATMOSPHERE, and DAPA-HF trials, a previously derived simple risk model for stroke, consisting of three variables (history of prior stroke, insulin-treated diabetes, and plasma N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide level), was validated. Of the 20 159 patients included, 12 751 patients did not have AF at baseline. Among patients without AF, 346 (2.7%) experienced a stroke over a median follow up of 2.0 years (rate 11.7 per 1000 patient-years). The risk for stroke increased with increasing risk score: fourth quintile hazard ratio (HR) 2.35 [95% confidence interval (CI) 1.60-3.45]; fifth quintile HR 3.73 (95% CI 2.58-5.38), with the first quintile as reference. For patients in the top quintile, the rate of stroke was 21.2 per 1000 patient-years, similar to participants with AF not receiving anticoagulation (20.1 per 1000 patient-years). Model discrimination was good with a C-index of 0.84 (0.75-0.91). CONCLUSION: It is possible to identify a subset of HFrEF patients without AF with a stroke-risk equivalent to that of patients with AF who are not anticoagulated. In these patients, the risk-to-benefit balance might justify the use of prophylactic anticoagulation, but this hypothesis needs to be tested prospectively.

Effects of sacubitril/valsartan on glycemia in patients with diabetes and heart failure: the PARAGON-HF and PARADIGM-HF trials.

BACKGROUND: Compared with enalapril, sacubitril/valsartan lowered HbA1c and reduced new insulin therapy in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and diabetes in the PARADIGM-HF trial. We sought to assess the glycemic effects of sacubitril/valsartan in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) and diabetes, and across the spectrum of left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) in heart failure and diabetes. METHODS: We compared the effect of sacubitril/valsartan, relative to valsartan, on HbA1c, new insulin therapy and hypoglycemia in the randomized controlled trial PARAGON-HF, and performed pooled analyses of PARAGON-HF and PARADIGM-HF. RESULTS: Among 2395 patients with HFpEF and diabetes in PARAGON-HF, sacubitril/valsartan compared with valsartan reduced HbA1c (baseline-adjusted between-group difference in HbA1c change at 48 weeks: - 0.24%, 95% CI - 0.33 to - 0.16%, P < 0.001). Numerically, new insulin treatment was initiated less often in the sacubitril/valsartan group than in the valsartan group, but the difference was not statistically significant (12.8% vs. 16.1%; HR: 0.80, 95% CI 0.62-1.02, P = 0.07). Hypoglycemia adverse event reports were low, but more frequent in those receiving sacubitril/valsartan than in the valsartan group (4.2% vs. 2.6%; HR: 1.64, 95% CI 1.05-2.56, P = 0.030). In a pooled analysis of PARAGON-HF and PARADIGM-HF, the effect of sacubitril/valsartan on change in HbA1c was not significantly modified by LVEF (Pinteraction = 0.56). Across the spectrum of LVEF, sacubitril/valsartan reduced new insulin therapy (HR: 0.75, 95% CI 0.63-0.89, P = 0.001), compared with enalapril or valsartan. CONCLUSIONS: Sacubitril/valsartan reduced HbA1c and new insulin therapy in patients with heart failure and diabetes across the spectrum of LVEF but may be associated with a slightly higher risk for hypoglycemia. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01920711.

Sacubitril/Valsartan Across the Spectrum of Ejection Fraction in Heart Failure.

BACKGROUND: While disease-modifying therapies exist for heart failure (HF) with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), few options are available for patients in the higher range of LVEF (>40%). Sacubitril/valsartan has been compared with a renin-angiotensin-aldosterone-system inhibitor alone in 2 similarly designed clinical trials of patients with reduced and preserved LVEF, permitting examination of its effects across the full spectrum of LVEF. METHODS: We combined data from PARADIGM-HF (LVEF eligibility≤40%; n=8399) and PARAGON-HF (LVEF eligibility≥45%; n=4796) in a prespecified pooled analysis. We divided randomized patients into LVEF categories: ≤22.5% (n=1269), >22.5% to 32.5% (n=3987), >32.5% to 42.5% (n=3143), > 42.5% to 52.5% (n=1427), > 52.5% to 62.5% (n=2166), and >62.5% (n=1202). We assessed time to first cardiovascular death and HF hospitalization, its components, and total heart failure hospitlizations, all-cause mortality, and noncardiovascular mortality. Incidence rates and treatment effects were examined across categories of LVEF. RESULTS: Among 13 195 randomized patients, we observed lower rates of cardiovascular death and HF hospitalization, but similar rates of noncardiovascular death, among patients in the highest versus the lowest groups. Overall sacubitril/valsartan was superior to renin-angiotensin-aldosterone-system inhibition for first cardiovascular death or heart failure hospitalization (Hazard Ratio [HR] 0.84 [95% CI, 0.78-0.90]), cardiovascular death (HR 0.84 [95% CI, 0.76-0.92]), heart failure hospitalization (HR 0.84 [95% CI, 0.77-0.91]), and all-cause mortality (HR 0.88 [95% CI, 0.81-0.96]). The effect of sacubitril/valsartan was modified by LVEF (treatment-by-continuous LVEF interaction P=0.02), and benefit appeared to be present for individuals with EF primarily below the normal range, although the treatment benefit for cardiovascular death diminished at a lower ejection fraction. We observed effect modification by LVEF on the efficacy of sacubitril/valsartan in both men and women with respect to composite total HF hospitalizations and cardiovascular death, although women derived benefit to higher ejection fractions. CONCLUSIONS: The therapeutic effects of sacubitril/valsartan, compared with a renin-angiotensin-aldosterone-system inhibitor alone, vary by LVEF with treatment benefits, particularly for heart failure hospitalization, that appear to extend to patients with heart failure and mildly reduced ejection fraction. These therapeutic benefits appeared to extend to a higher LVEF range in women compared with men. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifiers: NCT01920711 (PARAGON-HF), NCT01035255 (PARADIGM-HF).

Natriuretic peptide plasma concentrations and risk of cardiovascular versus non-cardiovascular events in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction: Insights from the PARADIGM-HF and ATMOSPHERE trials.

BACKGROUND: N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) plasma concentrations are independent prognostic markers in patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). Whether a differential risk association between NT-proBNP plasma concentrations and risk of cardiovascular (CV) vs non-CV adverse events exists is not well known. OBJECTIVE: To assess if there is a differential proportional risk of CV vs non-CV adverse events by NT-proBNP plasma concentrations. METHODS: In this post hoc combined analysis of PARADIGM-HF and ATMOSPHERE trials, proportion of CV vs non-CV mortality and hospitalizations were assessed by NT-proBNP levels (<400, 400-999, 1000-1999, 2000-2999, and >3000 pg/mL) at baseline using Cox regression adjusting for traditional risk factors. RESULTS: A total of 14,737 patients with mean age of 62 ± 8 years (24% history of atrial fibrillation [AF]) were studied. For CV deaths, the event rates per 1000 patient-years steeply increased from 33.8 in the ≤400 pg/mL group to 142.3 in the ≥3000 pg/mL group, while the non-CV death event rates modestly increased from 9.0 to 22.7, respectively. Proportion of non-CV deaths decreased across the 5 NT-proBNP groups (21.1%, 18.4%, 17.9%, 17.4%, and 13.7% respectively). Similar trend was observed for non-CV hospitalizations (46.4%, 42.6%, 42.9%, 42.0%, and 36.9% respectively). These results remained similar when stratified according to the presence of AF at baseline and prior HF hospitalization within last 12 months. CONCLUSIONS: The absolute CV event rates per patient years of follow-up were greater and had higher stepwise increases than non-CV event rates across a broad range of NT-proBNP plasma concentrations indicating a differential risk of CV events at varying baseline NT-proBNP values. These results have implications for future design of clinical trials.

Effects of Person-Centered Care Using a Digital Platform and Structured Telephone Support for People With Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease and Chronic Heart Failure: Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and chronic heart failure (CHF) are characterized by severe symptom burden and common acute worsening episodes that often require hospitalization and affect prognosis. Although many studies have shown that person-centered care (PCC) increases self-efficacy in patients with chronic conditions, studies on patients with COPD and CHF treated in primary care and the effects of PCC on the risk of hospitalization in these patients are scarce. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to evaluate the effects of PCC through a combined digital platform and telephone support for people with COPD and CHF. METHODS: A multicenter randomized trial was conducted from 2018 to 2020. A total of 222 patients were recruited from 9 primary care centers. Patients diagnosed with COPD, CHF, or both and with internet access were eligible. Participants were randomized into either usual care (112/222, 50.5%) or PCC combined with usual care (110/222, 49.5%). The intervention's main component was a personal health plan cocreated by the participants and assigned health care professionals. The health care professionals called the participants in the intervention group and encouraged narration to establish a partnership using PCC communication skills. A digital platform was used as a communication tool. The primary end point, divided into 2 categories (improved and deteriorated or unchanged), was a composite score of change in general self-efficacy and hospitalization or death 6 months after randomization. Data from the intention-to-treat group at 3- and 6-month follow-ups were analyzed. In addition, a per-protocol analysis was conducted on the participants who used the intervention. RESULTS: No significant differences were found in composite scores between the groups at the 3- and 6-month follow-ups. However, the per-protocol analysis of the 3-month follow-up revealed a significant difference in composite scores between the study groups (P=.047), although it was not maintained until the end of the 6-month follow-up (P=.24). This effect was driven by a change in general self-efficacy from baseline. CONCLUSIONS: PCC using a combined digital platform and structured telephone support seems to be an option to increase the short-term self-efficacy of people with COPD and CHF. This study adds to the knowledge of conceptual innovations in primary care to support patients with COPD and CHF. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03183817; http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03183817.

Prognostic Implications of Congestion on Physical Examination Among Contemporary Patients With Heart Failure and Reduced Ejection Fraction: PARADIGM-HF.

BACKGROUND: The contemporary prognostic value of the physical examination- beyond traditional risk factors including natriuretic peptides, risk scores, and symptoms-in heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction is unknown. We aimed to determine the association between physical signs of congestion at baseline and during study follow-up with quality of life and clinical outcomes and to assess the treatment effects of sacubitril/valsartan on congestion. METHODS: We analyzed participants from PARADIGM-HF (Prospective Comparison of Angiotensin Receptor-Neprilysin Inhibitor With Angiotensin Converting Enzyme Inhibitor to Determine Impact on Global Mortality and Morbidity in HF) with an available physical examination at baseline. We examined the association of the number of signs of congestion (jugular venous distention, edema, rales, and third heart sound) with the primary outcome (cardiovascular death or HF hospitalization), its individual components, and all-cause mortality using time-updated, multivariable-adjusted Cox regression. We further evaluated whether sacubitril/valsartan reduced congestion during follow-up and whether improvement in congestion is related to changes in clinical outcomes and quality of life, assessed by Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire overall summary scores. RESULTS: Among 8380 participants, 0, 1, 2, and 3+ signs of congestion were present in 70%, 21%, 7%, and 2% of patients, respectively. Patients with baseline congestion were older, more often female, had higher MAGGIC risk scores (Meta-Analysis Global Group in Chronic Heart Failure) and lower Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire overall summary scores (P<0.05). After adjusting for baseline natriuretic peptides, time-updated Meta-Analysis Global Group in Chronic Heart Failure score, and time-updated New York Heart Association class, increasing time-updated congestion was associated with all outcomes (P<0.001). Sacubitril/valsartan reduced the risk of the primary outcome irrespective of clinical signs of congestion at baseline (P=0.16 for interaction), and treatment with the drug improved congestion to a greater extent than did enalapril (P=0.011). Each 1-sign reduction was independently associated with a 5.1 (95% CI, 4.7-5.5) point improvement in Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire overall summary scores. Change in congestion strongly predicted outcomes even after adjusting for baseline congestion (P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: In HF with reduced ejection fraction, the physical exam continues to provide significant independent prognostic value even beyond symptoms, natriuretic peptides, and Meta-Analysis Global Group in Chronic Heart Failure risk score. Sacubitril/valsartan improved congestion to a greater extent than did enalapril. Reducing congestion in the outpatient setting is independently associated with improved quality of life and reduced cardiovascular events, including mortality. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01035255.

Declining Risk of Sudden Death in Heart Failure.

BACKGROUND: The risk of sudden death has changed over time among patients with symptomatic heart failure and reduced ejection fraction with the sequential introduction of medications including angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibitors, angiotensin-receptor blockers, beta-blockers, and mineralocorticoid-receptor antagonists. We sought to examine this trend in detail. METHODS: We analyzed data from 40,195 patients who had heart failure with reduced ejection fraction and were enrolled in any of 12 clinical trials spanning the period from 1995 through 2014. Patients who had an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator at the time of trial enrollment were excluded. Weighted multivariable regression was used to examine trends in rates of sudden death over time. Adjusted hazard ratios for sudden death in each trial group were calculated with the use of Cox regression models. The cumulative incidence rates of sudden death were assessed at different time points after randomization and according to the length of time between the diagnosis of heart failure and randomization. RESULTS: Sudden death was reported in 3583 patients. Such patients were older and were more often male, with an ischemic cause of heart failure and worse cardiac function, than those in whom sudden death did not occur. There was a 44% decline in the rate of sudden death across the trials (P=0.03). The cumulative incidence of sudden death at 90 days after randomization was 2.4% in the earliest trial and 1.0% in the most recent trial. The rate of sudden death was not higher among patients with a recent diagnosis of heart failure than among those with a longer-standing diagnosis. CONCLUSIONS: Rates of sudden death declined substantially over time among ambulatory patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction who were enrolled in clinical trials, a finding that is consistent with a cumulative benefit of evidence-based medications on this cause of death. (Funded by the China Scholarship Council and the University of Glasgow.).

Systolic blood pressure, cardiovascular outcomes and efficacy and safety of sacubitril/valsartan (LCZ696) in patients with chronic heart failure and reduced ejection fraction: results from PARADIGM-HF.

Background: Compared to heart failure patients with higher systolic blood pressure (SBP), those with lower SBP have a worse prognosis. To make matters worse, the latter patients often do not receive treatment with life-saving therapies that might lower blood pressure further. We examined the association between SBP and outcomes in the Prospective Comparison of angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI) with an angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor to Determine Impact on Global Mortality and Morbidity in Heart Failure trial (PARADIGM-HF), as well as the effect of sacubitril/valsartan, compared with enalapril, according to baseline SBP. Methods: We analysed the effect of treatment on SBP and on the primary composite outcome (cardiovascular death or heart failure hospitalization), its components and all-cause death. We examined baseline SBP as a categorical (<110, 110 to < 120, 120 to < 130, 130 to < 140 and ≥140 mmHg) and continuous variable, as well as average in-trial SBP and time-updated SBP. Findings: All-cause and cardiovascular mortality rates were highest in patients with the lowest SBP whereas there was a U-shaped relationship between SBP and the rate of heart failure hospitalization. The benefit of sacubitril/valsartan over enalapril was consistent across all baseline SBP categories for all outcomes. For example, the sacubitril/valsartan versus enalapril hazard ratio for the primary endpoint was 0.88 (95%CI 0.74-1.06) in patients with a baseline SBP <110 mmHg and 0.81 (0.65-1.02) for those with a SBP ≥140 mmHg (P for interaction = 0.55). Symptomatic hypotension, study drug dose-reduction and discontinuation were more frequent in patients with a lower SBP. Interpretation: In PARADIGM-HF, patients with lower SBP at randomization, notably after tolerating full doses of both study drugs during a run-in period, were at higher risk but generally tolerated sacubitril/valsartan and had the same relative benefit over enalapril as patients with higher baseline SBP.

Risk of stroke in chronic heart failure patients with preserved ejection fraction, but without atrial fibrillation: analysis of the CHARM-Preserved and I-Preserve trials.

AIMS: The incidence and predictors of stroke in patients with heart failure and preserved ejection fraction (HF-PEF), but without atrial fibrillation (AF), are unknown. We described the incidence of stroke in HF-PEF patients with and without AF and predictors of stroke in those without AF. METHODS AND RESULTS: We pooled data from the CHARM-Preserved and I-Preserve trials. Using Cox regression, we derived a model for stroke in patients without AF in this cohort and compared its performance with a published model in heart failure patients with reduced ejection fraction (HF-REF)-predictive variables: age, body mass index, New York Heart Association class, history of stroke, and insulin-treated diabetes. The two stroke models were compared and Kaplan-Meier curves for stroke estimated. The risk model was validated in a third HF-PEF trial. Of the 6701 patients, 4676 did not have AF. Stroke occurred in 124 (6.1%) with AF and in 171 (3.7%) without AF (rates 1.80 and 1.00 per 100 patient-years, respectively). There was no difference in performance of the stroke model derived in the HF-PEF cohort and the published HF-REF model (c-index 0.71, 95% confidence interval 0.57-0.84 vs. 0.73, 0.59-0.85, respectively) as the predictive variables overlapped. The model performed well in the validation cohort (0.86, 0.62-0.99). The rate of stroke in patients in the upper third of risk approximated to that in patients with AF (1.60 and 1.80 per 100 patient-years, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: A small number of clinical variables identify a subset of patients with HF-PEF, but without AF, at elevated risk of stroke.

Person-Centered Incontinence Care in Residential Care Facilities for Older Adults With Cognitive Decline: Feasibility and Preliminary Effects on Quality of Life and Quality of Care.

The current study operationalized, assessed, and evaluated the feasibility and preliminary effects of implementing a person-centered approach to incontinence care for older adults with cognitive decline in residential care facilities (RCFs) in Sweden. Twenty health care workers were purposively sampled from two intervention RCFs. Process outcome was measured as number of assessments conducted for incontinence management. Impact outcome measures were quality of life, basal assessment of incontinence, incontinence actions taken, and personally chosen incontinence aids. A usual care control group RCF was matched by resident case-mix and geographic region. Introduction of a person-centered approach showed an increase in residents' quality of life in the intervention group compared to baseline and the control group. A positive effect was found on the number of urinary incontinence assessments conducted (p < 0.05). In addition, the number of person-centered caring actions (e.g., toilet assistance) was significantly higher during and 6 months after implementation of the person-centered approach. Implementing a person-centered approach in clinical practice focused on incontinence care, quality of care, and quality of life is supported for RCF residents. [Journal of Gerontological Nursing, 44(11), 10-19.].

Importance of Clinical Worsening of Heart Failure Treated in the Outpatient Setting: Evidence From the Prospective Comparison of ARNI With ACEI to Determine Impact on Global Mortality and Morbidity in Heart Failure Trial (PARADIGM-HF).

BACKGROUND: Many episodes of worsening of heart failure (HF) are treated by increasing oral therapy or temporary intravenous treatment in the community or emergency department (ED), without hospital admission. We studied the frequency and prognostic importance of these episodes of worsening in the Prospective Comparison of ARNI (angiotensin-receptor-neprilysin inhibitor) with ACEI (angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor) to Determine Impact on Global Mortality and Morbidity in Heart Failure Trial (PARADIGM-HF). METHODS AND RESULTS: Outpatient intensification of HF therapy was added to an expanded composite outcome with ED visits, HF hospitalizations, and cardiovascular deaths. In an examination of first nonfatal events, 361 of 8399 patients (4.3%) had outpatient intensification of HF therapy without a subsequent event (ie, ED visit/HF hospitalizations) within 30 days; 78 of 8399 (1.0%) had an ED visit without previous outpatient intensification of HF therapy or a subsequent event within 30 days; and 1107 of 8399 (13.2%) had HF hospitalizations without a preceding event. The risk of death (in comparison with no-event patients) was similar after each manifestation of worsening: outpatient intensification of HF therapy (hazard ratio, 4.8; 95% confidence interval, 3.9-5.9); ED visit (hazard ratio, 4.5; 95% confidence interval, 3.0-6.7); HF hospitalizations (hazard ratio, 5.9; 95% confidence interval, 5.2-6.6). The expanded composite added 14% more events and shortened time to accrual of a fixed number of events. The benefit of sacubitril/valsartan over enalapril was similar to the primary outcome for the expanded composite (hazard ratio, 0.79; 95% confidence interval, 0.73-0.86) and was consistent across the components of the latter. CONCLUSIONS: Focusing only on HF hospitalizations underestimates the frequency of worsening and the serious implications of all manifestations of worsening. For clinical trials conducted in an era of heightened efforts to avoid HF hospitalizations, inclusion of episodes of outpatient treatment intensification (and ED visits) in a composite outcome adds an important number of events and shortens the time taken to accrue a target number of end points in an event-driven trial. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01035255.

Angiotensin-neprilysin inhibition versus enalapril in heart failure.

BACKGROUND: We compared the angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor LCZ696 with enalapril in patients who had heart failure with a reduced ejection fraction. In previous studies, enalapril improved survival in such patients. METHODS: In this double-blind trial, we randomly assigned 8442 patients with class II, III, or IV heart failure and an ejection fraction of 40% or less to receive either LCZ696 (at a dose of 200 mg twice daily) or enalapril (at a dose of 10 mg twice daily), in addition to recommended therapy. The primary outcome was a composite of death from cardiovascular causes or hospitalization for heart failure, but the trial was designed to detect a difference in the rates of death from cardiovascular causes. RESULTS: The trial was stopped early, according to prespecified rules, after a median follow-up of 27 months, because the boundary for an overwhelming benefit with LCZ696 had been crossed. At the time of study closure, the primary outcome had occurred in 914 patients (21.8%) in the LCZ696 group and 1117 patients (26.5%) in the enalapril group (hazard ratio in the LCZ696 group, 0.80; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.73 to 0.87; P<0.001). A total of 711 patients (17.0%) receiving LCZ696 and 835 patients (19.8%) receiving enalapril died (hazard ratio for death from any cause, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.76 to 0.93; P<0.001); of these patients, 558 (13.3%) and 693 (16.5%), respectively, died from cardiovascular causes (hazard ratio, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.71 to 0.89; P<0.001). As compared with enalapril, LCZ696 also reduced the risk of hospitalization for heart failure by 21% (P<0.001) and decreased the symptoms and physical limitations of heart failure (P=0.001). The LCZ696 group had higher proportions of patients with hypotension and nonserious angioedema but lower proportions with renal impairment, hyperkalemia, and cough than the enalapril group. CONCLUSIONS: LCZ696 was superior to enalapril in reducing the risks of death and of hospitalization for heart failure. (Funded by Novartis; PARADIGM-HF ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01035255.).

The effects of sacubitril/valsartan on coronary outcomes in PARADIGM-HF.

BACKGROUND: Angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors (ACE-I), are beneficial both in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HF-REF) and after myocardial infarction (MI). We examined the effects of the angiotensin-receptor neprilysin inhibitor sacubitril/valsartan, compared with the ACE-I enalapril, on coronary outcomes in PARADIGM-HF. METHODS AND RESULTS: We examined the effect of sacubitril/valsartan compared with enalapril on the following outcomes: i) the primary composite endpoint of cardiovascular (CV) death or HF hospitalization, ii) a pre-defined broader composite including, in addition, MI, stroke, and resuscitated sudden death, and iii) a post hoc coronary composite of CV-death, non-fatal MI, angina hospitalization or coronary revascularization. At baseline, of 8399 patients, 3634 (43.3%) had a prior MI and 4796 (57.1%) had a history of any coronary artery disease. Among all patients, compared with enalapril, sacubitril/valsartan reduced the risk of the primary outcome (HR 0.80 [0.73-0.87], P<.001), the broader composite (HR 0.83 [0.76-0.90], P<.001) and the coronary composite (HR 0.83 [0.75-0.92], P<.001). Although each of the components of the coronary composite occurred less frequently in the sacubitril/valsartan group, compared with the enalapril group, only CV death was reduced significantly. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with enalapril, sacubitril/valsartan reduced the risk of both the primary endpoint and a coronary composite outcome in PARADIGM-HF. Additional studies on the effect of sacubitril/valsartan on atherothrombotic outcomes in high-risk patients are merited.