Asundexian versus Apixaban in Patients with Atrial Fibrillation.

BACKGROUND: Stroke prevention with direct-acting oral anticoagulant agents in patients with atrial fibrillation confers a risk of bleeding and limits their use. Asundexian, an activated factor XI (XIa) inhibitor, is an oral anticoagulant that may prevent strokes with less bleeding. METHODS: In a phase 3, international, double-blind trial, we randomly assigned high-risk patients with atrial fibrillation in a 1:1 ratio to receive asundexian at a dose of 50 mg once daily or standard-dose apixaban. The primary efficacy objective was to determine whether asundexian is at least noninferior to apixaban for the prevention of stroke or systemic embolism. The primary safety objective was to determine whether asundexian is superior to apixaban with respect to major bleeding events. RESULTS: A total of 14,810 randomly assigned patients were included in the intention-to-treat population. The mean (±SD) age of the patients was 73.9±7.7 years, 35.2% were women, 18.6% had chronic kidney disease, 18.2% had a previous stroke or transient ischemic attack, 16.8% had received oral anticoagulants for no more than 6 weeks, and the mean CHA2DS2-VASc score (range, 0 to 9, with higher scores indicating a greater risk of stroke) was 4.3±1.3. The trial was stopped prematurely at the recommendation of the independent data monitoring committee. Stroke or systemic embolism occurred in 98 patients (1.3%) assigned to receive asundexian and in 26 (0.4%) assigned to receive apixaban (hazard ratio, 3.79; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.46 to 5.83). Major bleeding occurred in 17 patients (0.2%) who received asundexian and in 53 (0.7%) who received apixaban (hazard ratio, 0.32; 95% CI, 0.18 to 0.55). The incidence of any adverse event appeared to be similar in the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with atrial fibrillation at risk for stroke, treatment with asundexian at a dose of 50 mg once daily was associated with a higher incidence of stroke or systemic embolism than treatment with apixaban in the period before the trial was stopped prematurely. There were fewer major bleeding events with asundexian than with apixaban during this time. (Funded by Bayer; OCEANIC-AF ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT05643573; EudraCT number, 2022-000758-28.).

Heart Failure Risk Assessment Using Biomarkers in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation: Analysis From COMBINE-AF.

BACKGROUND: Heart failure (HF) is common among patients with atrial fibrillation (AF), and accurate risk assessment is clinically important. OBJECTIVES: The goal of this study was to investigate the incremental prognostic performance of N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP), high-sensitivity cardiac troponin T (hs-cTnT), and growth differentiation factor (GDF)-15 for HF risk stratification in patients with AF. METHODS: Individual patient data from 3 large randomized trials comparing direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) with warfarin (ARISTOTLE [Apixaban for Reduction in Stroke and Other Thromboembolic Events in Atrial Fibrillation], ENGAGE AF-TIMI 48 [Effective Anticoagulation With Factor Xa Next Generation in Atrial Fibrillation-Thrombolysis In Myocardial Infarction 48], and RE-LY [Randomized Evaluation of Long-Term Anticoagulation Therapy]) from the COMBINE-AF (A Collaboration Between Multiple Institutions to Better Investigate Non-Vitamin K Antagonist Oral Anticoagulant Use in Atrial Fibrillation) cohort were pooled; all patients with available biomarkers at baseline were included. The composite endpoint was hospitalization for HF (HHF) or cardiovascular death (CVD), and secondary endpoints were HHF and HF-related death. Cox regression was used, adjusting for clinical factors, and interbiomarker correlation was addressed using weighted quantile sum regression analysis. RESULTS: In 32,041 patients, higher biomarker values were associated with a graded increase in absolute risk for CVD/HHF, HHF, and HF-related death. Adjusting for clinical variables and all biomarkers, NT-proBNP (HR per 1 SD: 1.68; 95% CI: 1.59-1.77), hs-cTnT (HR: 1.39; 95% CI: 1.33-1.44), and GDF-15 (HR: 1.20; 95% CI: 1.15-1.25) were significantly associated with CVD/HHF. The discrimination of the clinical model improved significantly upon addition of the biomarkers (c-index: 0.70 [95% CI: 0.69-0.71] to 0.77 [95% CI: 0.76-0.78]; likelihood ratio test, P < 0.001). Using weighted quantile sum regression analysis, the contribution to risk assessment was similar for NT-proBNP and hs-cTnT for CVD/HHF (38% and 41%, respectively); GDF-15 provided a statistically significant but lesser contribution to risk assessment. Results were similar for HHF and HF-related death, individually, and across key subgroups of patients based on a history of HF, AF pattern, and reduced or preserved left ventricular ejection fraction. CONCLUSIONS: NT-proBNP, hs-cTnT, and GDF-15 contributed significantly and independently to the risk stratification for HF endpoints in patients with AF, with hs-cTnT being as important as NT-proBNP for HF risk stratification. Our findings support a possible future use of these biomarkers to distinguish patients with AF at low or high risk for HF.

Anti-Obesity Medications in Patients With Heart Failure: Current Evidence and Practical Guidance.

Obesity is a significant risk factor for heart failure (HF) development, particularly HF with preserved ejection fraction and as a result, many patients with HF also have obesity. There is growing clinical interest in optimizing strategies for the management of obesity in patients with HF across the spectrums of both ejection fraction and disease severity. The emergence of anti-obesity medications with cardiovascular outcomes benefits, principally glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists, has made it possible to study the impact of anti-obesity medications for patients with baseline cardiovascular conditions, including HF. However, clinical trials data supporting the safety and efficacy of treating obesity in patients with HF is currently limited to patients with HF with preserved ejection fraction, but do confirm safety and weight loss efficacy in this patient population as well as improvements in HF functional status, biomarkers of inflammation and HF stability. Here, we review the current data available surrounding the management of obesity for patients with HF, including the limitations of this evidence and ongoing areas for investigation, summarize the next phase of emerging anti-obesity medications and provide practical clinical advice for the multidisciplinary management of patients with both HF and obesity.

Deep Learning Resolves Myovascular Dynamics in the Failing Human Heart.

The adult mammalian heart harbors minute levels of cycling cardiomyocytes (CMs). Large numbers of images are needed to accurately quantify cycling events using microscopy-based methods. CardioCount is a new deep learning-based pipeline to rigorously score nuclei in microscopic images. When applied to a repository of 368,434 human microscopic images, we found evidence of coupled growth between CMs and cardiac endothelial cells in the adult human heart. Additionally, we found that vascular rarefaction and CM hypertrophy are interrelated in end-stage heart failure. CardioCount is available for use via GitHub and via Google Colab for users with minimal machine learning experience.

Anti-obesity medications in the management of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: available evidence and next STEPS.

Obesity is associated with an increased risk of incident heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) and, among patients with existing heart failure, is associated with worse quality of life, higher symptom burden, and more HF hospitalizations. Anti-obesity medication (AOM) semaglutide has been shown to be efficacious at both causing intentional weight loss and improving HF symptom burden, with some evidence to suggest that HF clinical events may also be reduced. Additional ongoing trials of AOM in patients with cardiovascular disease, including HFpEF, will further improve insight into the potential role of managing obesity to improve HF status among patients with HFpEF and obesity.

Severe obesity among patients with left ventricular assist devices.

BACKGROUND: Patients with obesity and advanced heart failure requiring left ventricular assist device (LVAD) support are more likely to experience LVAD complications and may be disproportionately Black and/or female when compared to patients without obesity. Among these patients, obesity may represent a barrier to transplant eligibility and a marker of inequity in heart transplantation and health outcomes in advanced heart failure. METHODS: To better understand this issue at our institution, we examined our active LVAD cohort and found that almost one-third of all patients had severe obesity with BMI ≥ 35 kg/m2. RESULTS: Patients with LVADs and severe obesity were significantly younger and more likely to self-identify as Black, and numerically more likely to be female. CONCLUSION: Weight management in this group represents a vital area for improved equity in health outcomes and barriers to heart transplantation. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NA.

Characterization of serum phosphate levels over time with intravenous ferric carboxymaltose versus placebo as treatment for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction and iron deficiency: An exploratory prospective substudy from HEART-FID.

AIMS: Ferric carboxymaltose (FCM) is guideline-recommended for iron deficiency (ID) in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). Despite a well-established safety profile, the magnitude and clinical significance of FCM-induced hypophosphataemia in HFrEF remains unclear. This pre-specified substudy of HEART-FID evaluated serum phosphate, 1,25-dihydroxyvitamin D, and plasma parathyroid hormone (PTH) subsequent to FCM. METHODS AND RESULTS: HEART-FID was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of ambulatory patients with HFrEF and ID randomized to FCM versus placebo. This substudy assessed mean change from baseline across eight visits over 6 months for the following endpoints: serum phosphate, 25-hydroxyvitamin D, 1,25-dihydroxyvitamin D, and PTH, in addition to the clinical severity of potential hypophosphataemia. Overall, 133 patients (n = 62 FCM, n = 71 placebo) were prospectively enrolled. Mean age was 68 ± 11 years, 55 (41.4%) were women, and 29 (21.8%) had chronic kidney disease. Phosphate levels decreased in 34 (57.6%) patients in the FCM group compared with 7 (10.3%) in the placebo group. Mean change in phosphate levels reached a nadir at day 21 (-0.36 ± 0.27 mmol/L) subsequent to FCM infusion with 28 (51%) having moderate-to-severe hypophosphataemia. Reductions in 1,25-dihydroxyvitamin D were also observed, whilst PTH increased. These biochemical changes returned to baseline levels by day 91. Serum levels of 25-hydroxyvitamin D remained stable throughout the study. No serious adverse events associated with hypophosphataemia were reported. CONCLUSIONS: Transient moderate-to-severe hypophosphataemia was frequent subsequent to FCM infusion, accompanied by 1,25-dihydroxyvitamin D decrease and PTH increase. Serum levels of 25-hydroxyvitamin D remained stable. No evidence of symptomatic hypophosphataemia was reported, collectively indicating FCM-related hypophosphataemia to be clinically benign and transient in HFrEF.

Proteomics discovery in children and young adults with HIV identifies fibrosis, inflammatory, and immune biomarkers associated with myocardial impairment.

People with HIV are at increased risk of cardiac dysfunction; however, limited tools are available to identify patients at highest risk for future cardiac disease. We performed proteomic profiling using plasma samples from children and young adults with perinatally acquired HIV without clinical cardiac disease, comparing samples from participants with and without an abnormal myocardial performance index (MPI). We identified four proteins independently associated with subclinical cardiac dysfunction: ST2, CA1, EN-RAGE, and VSIG2.

Sacubitril/valsartan and cardiovascular biomarkers among patients with recent COVID-19 infection: The PARACOR-19 randomized clinical trial.

AIMS: The PARACOR-19 randomized controlled trial (RCT) was designed to examine the effects of sacubitril/valsartan on markers of cardiac injury, inflammation, structure, and function among patients who have recovered from acute coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection. METHODS AND RESULTS: PARACOR-19 was a single-centre, double-blind RCT of patients with cardiovascular risk factors and a history of COVID-19 infection 4-16 weeks prior to enrolment. Patients were randomized to sacubitril/valsartan (titrated to the maximum dose of 97/103 mg twice daily) versus matching placebo. Co-primary endpoints were change from baseline to 12 weeks in high-sensitivity cardiac troponin T (hs-cTnT) and soluble ST2 (sST2). Exploratory endpoints included change from baseline to 12 weeks in additional circulating biomarkers. Overall, 42 patients were randomized between August 2021 and March 2023 (n = 20 sacubitril/valsartan, n = 22 placebo). Median (25th-75th) time from COVID-19 diagnosis to enrolment was 67 (48-80) days. Median age was 67 (62-71) years, 48% were female, and 91% were White. Compared with placebo, sacubitril/valsartan did not have a significant effect on the co-primary endpoints of change from baseline in hs-TnT and sST2 (all p ≥ 0.29). In exploratory analyses, sacubitril/valsartan led to a 46% greater reduction in N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) and 51% greater reduction in C-terminal telopeptide of collagen type I (CITP). Permanent drug discontinuation occurred in four patients in the sacubitril/valsartan group and three patients in the placebo group. There were no deaths and one patient was hospitalized in each group. CONCLUSION: In this pilot RCT of patients who recovered from acute COVID-19, sacubitril/valsartan did not lower hs-cTnT or sST2 compared with placebo. Exploratory analyses suggested potential benefits of sacubitril/valsartan on cardiac wall stress and collagen turnover as measured by NT-proBNP and CITP. Sacubitril/valsartan was well tolerated. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04883528.

Assessment of Days Alive Out of Hospital as a Possible End Point in Trials of Stroke Prevention for Atrial Fibrillation: A ROCKET AF Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Days alive out of hospital (DAOH) is an objective and patient-centered net benefit end point. There are no assessments of DAOH in clinical trials of interventions for atrial fibrillation (AF), and it is not known whether this end point is of clinical utility in these populations. METHODS AND RESULTS: ROCKET AF (Rivaroxaban Once Daily Oral Direct Factor Xa Inhibition Compared With Vitamin K Antagonism for Prevention of Stroke and Embolism Trial in Atrial Fibrillation) was an international double-blind, double-dummy randomized clinical trial that compared rivaroxaban with warfarin in patients with atrial fibrillation at increased risk for stroke. We assessed DAOH using investigator-reported event data for up to 12 months after randomization in ROCKET AF. We assessed DAOH overall, by treatment group, and by subgroup, including age, sex, and comorbidities, using Poisson regression. The mean±SD number of days dead was 7.3±41.2, days hospitalized was 1.2±7.2, and mean DAOH was 350.7±56.2, with notable left skew. Patients with comorbidities had fewer DAOH overall. There were no differences in DAOH by treatment arm, with mean DAOH of 350.6±56.5 for those randomized to rivaroxaban and 350.7±55.8 for those randomized to warfarin (P=0.86). A sensitivity analysis found no difference in DAOH not disabled with rivaroxaban versus warfarin (DAOH not disabled, 349.2±59.5 days and 349.1 days±59.3 days, respectively, P=0.88). CONCLUSIONS: DAOH did not identify a treatment difference between patients randomized to rivaroxaban versus warfarin. This may be driven in part by the low overall event rates in atrial fibrillation anticoagulation trials, which leads to substantial left skew in measures of DAOH.

Implications of trial eligibility in patients with heart failure with mildly reduced or preserved ejection fraction.

AIMS: Clinical trials in heart failure with mildly reduced or preserved ejection fraction (HFmrEF/HFpEF) commonly have detailed eligibility criteria. This may contribute to challenges with efficient enrolment and questions regarding the generalizability of trial findings. METHODS AND RESULTS: Patients with HFmrEF/HFpEF from a large US healthcare system were identified through a computable phenotype applied in linked imaging and electronic health record databases. We evaluated shared eligibility criteria from five recent/ongoing HFmrEF/HFpEF trials (PARAGON-HF, EMPEROR-Preserved, DELIVER, FINE-ARTS, and SPIRRIT-HFpEF) and compared clinical and echocardiographic features as well as outcomes between trial-eligible and trial-ineligible patients. Among 5552 patients with HFpEF/HFmrEF, 792 (14%) were eligible for trial consideration, having met all criteria assessed. Causes of ineligibility included lack of recent loop diuretics (37%), significant pulmonary disease (24%), reduced estimated glomerular filtration rate (17%), recent stroke/transient ischaemic attack (13%), or low natriuretic peptides (12%); 53% of ineligible patients had >1 reason for exclusion. Compared with eligible patients, ineligible patients were younger (age 71 vs. 75 years, P < 0.001) with higher rates of coronary artery disease (66% vs. 59%, P < 0.001) and peripheral vascular disease (40% vs. 33%, P < 0.001), but less mitral regurgitation, lower E/e' ratio, and smaller left atrial sizes. Both eligible and ineligible patients demonstrated high rates of structural heart disease consistent with HFpEF [elevated left atrial size or left ventricular (LV) hypertrophy/increased LV mass], although this was slightly higher among eligible patients (95% vs. 92%, P = 0.001). The two cohorts demonstrated similar LV global longitudinal strain along with a similar prevalence of atrial fibrillation/flutter, hypertension, and obesity. Ineligible patients had similar all-cause mortality (33% vs. 33% at 3 years) to those eligible but lower rates of heart failure hospitalization (20% vs. 28% at 3 years, P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with HFmrEF/HFpEF from a large health system, approximately one in seven were eligible for major trials based on key criteria applied through a clinical computable phenotype. These findings highlight the large proportion of patients with HFmrEF/HFpEF ineligible for contemporary trials for whom the generalizability of trial findings may be questioned and further investigation would be beneficial.

Effect of Empagliflozin on Heart Failure Outcomes After Acute Myocardial Infarction: Insights From the EMPACT-MI Trial.

BACKGROUND: Empagliflozin reduces the risk of heart failure (HF) events in patients with type 2 diabetes at high cardiovascular risk, chronic kidney disease, or prevalent HF irrespective of ejection fraction. Whereas the EMPACT-MI trial (Effect of Empagliflozin on Hospitalization for Heart Failure and Mortality in Patients With Acute Myocardial Infarction) showed that empagliflozin does not reduce the risk of the composite of hospitalization for HF and all-cause death, the effect of empagliflozin on first and recurrent HF events after myocardial infarction is unknown. METHODS: EMPACT-MI was a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, event-driven trial that randomized 6522 patients hospitalized for acute myocardial infarction at risk for HF on the basis of newly developed left ventricular ejection fraction of <45% or signs or symptoms of congestion to receive empagliflozin 10 mg daily or placebo within 14 days of admission. In prespecified secondary analyses, treatment groups were analyzed for HF outcomes. RESULTS: Over a median follow-up of 17.9 months, the risk for first HF hospitalization and total HF hospitalizations was significantly lower in the empagliflozin compared with the placebo group (118 [3.6%] versus 153 [4.7%] patients with events; hazard ratio, 0.77 [95% CI, 0.60, 0.98]; P=0.031, for first HF hospitalization; 148 versus 207 events; rate ratio, 0.67 [95% CI, 0.51, 0.89]; P=0.006, for total HF hospitalizations). Subgroup analysis showed consistency of empagliflozin benefit across clinically relevant patient subgroups for first and total HF hospitalizations. The need for new use of diuretics, renin-angiotensin modulators, or mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists after discharge was less in patients randomized to empagliflozin versus placebo (all P<0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Empagliflozin reduced the risk of HF in patients with left ventricular dysfunction or congestion after acute myocardial infarction. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT04509674.

Putting More Weight on Obesity Trials in Heart Failure.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: To review ongoing and planned clinical trials of weight loss among individuals with or at high risk of heart failure. RECENT FINDINGS: Intentional weight loss via semaglutide among persons with heart failure and preserved ejection fraction and obesity significantly improves weight loss and health status as assessed by the KCCQ-CSS score and is associated with improvements in 6-min walk test. Ongoing and planned trials will explore the role of intentional weight loss with treatments such as semaglutide or tirzepatide for individuals with heart failure across the entire ejection fraction spectrum.

Body mass index and cardiorenal outcomes in the EMPEROR-Preserved trial: Principal findings and meta-analysis with the DELIVER trial.

AIMS: Both low and high body mass index (BMI) are associated with poor heart failure outcomes. Whether BMI modifies benefits of sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors (SGLT2i) in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) requires further investigation. METHODS AND RESULTS: Using EMPEROR-Preserved data, the effects of empagliflozin versus placebo on the risks for the primary outcome (hospitalization for heart failure [HHF] or cardiovascular [CV] death), change in estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) slopes, change in Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire clinical summary score (KCCQ-CSS), and secondary outcomes across baseline BMI categories (<25 kg/m2, 25 to <30 kg/m2, 30 to <35 kg/m2, 35 to <40 kg/m2 and ≥40 kg/m2) were examined, and a meta-analysis conducted with DELIVER. Forty-five percent had a BMI of ≥30 kg/m2. For the primary outcome, there was a consistent treatment effect of empagliflozin versus placebo across the BMI categories with no formal interaction (p trend = 0.19) by BMI categories. There was also no difference in the effects on secondary outcomes including total HHF (p trend = 0.19), CV death (p trend = 0.20), or eGFR slope with slower declines with empagliflozin regardless of BMI (range 1.12-1.71 ml/min/1.73 m2 relative to placebo, p trend = 0.85 for interaction), though there was no overall impact on the composite renal endpoint. The difference in weight change between empagliflozin and placebo was -0.59, -1.48, -1.54, -0.87, and - 2.67 kg in the lowest to highest BMI categories (p trend = 0.016 for interaction). A meta-analysis of data from EMPEROR-Preserved and DELIVER showed a consistent effect of SGLT2i versus placebo across BMI categories for the outcome of HHF or CV death. There was a trend toward greater absolute KCCQ-CSS benefit at 32 weeks with empagliflozin at higher BMIs (p = 0.08). CONCLUSIONS: Empagliflozin treatment resulted in broadly consistent cardiac effects across the range of BMI in patients with HFpEF. SGLT2i treatment yields benefit in patients with HFpEF regardless of baseline BMI.

Left Ventricular Function, Congestion, and Effect of Empagliflozin on Heart Failure Risk After Myocardial Infarction.

BACKGROUND: Empagliflozin reduces the risk of heart failure (HF) hospitalizations but not all-cause mortality when started within 14 days of acute myocardial infarction (AMI). OBJECTIVES: This study sought to evaluate the association of left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), congestion, or both, with outcomes and the impact of empagliflozin in reducing HF risk post-AMI. METHODS: In the EMPACT-MI (Trial to Evaluate the Effect of Empagliflozin on Hospitalization for Heart Failure and Mortality in Patients with Acute Myocardial Infarction) trial, patients were randomized within 14 days of an AMI complicated by either newly reduced LVEF<45%, congestion, or both, to empagliflozin (10 mg daily) or placebo and were followed up for a median of 17.9 months. RESULTS: Among 6,522 patients, the mean baseline LVEF was 41 ± 9%; 2,648 patients (40.6%) presented with LVEF <45% alone, 1,483 (22.7%) presented with congestion alone, and 2,181 (33.4%) presented with both. Among patients in the placebo arm of the trial, multivariable adjusted risk for each 10-point reduction in LVEF included all-cause death or HF hospitalization (HR: 1.49; 95% CI: 1.31-1.69; P < 0.0001), first HF hospitalization (HR: 1.64; 95% CI: 1.37-1.96; P < 0.0001), and total HF hospitalizations (rate ratio [RR]: 1.89; 95% CI: 1.51-2.36; P < 0.0001). The presence of congestion was also associated with a significantly higher risk for each of these outcomes (HR: 1.52, 1.94, and RR: 2.03, respectively). Empagliflozin reduced the risk for first (HR: 0.77; 95% CI: 0.60-0.98) and total (RR: 0.67; 95% CI: 0.50-0.89) HF hospitalizations, irrespective of LVEF or congestion, or both. The safety profile of empagliflozin was consistent across baseline LVEF and irrespective of congestion status. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with AMI, the severity of left ventricular dysfunction and the presence of congestion was associated with worse outcomes. Empagliflozin reduced first and total HF hospitalizations across the range of LVEF with and without congestion. (Trial to Evaluate the Effect of Empagliflozin on Hospitalization for Heart Failure and Mortality in Patients with Acute Myocardial Infarction [EMPACT-MI]; NCT04509674).

Empagliflozin after Acute Myocardial Infarction.

BACKGROUND: Empagliflozin improves cardiovascular outcomes in patients with heart failure, patients with type 2 diabetes who are at high cardiovascular risk, and patients with chronic kidney disease. The safety and efficacy of empagliflozin in patients who have had acute myocardial infarction are unknown. METHODS: In this event-driven, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial, we assigned, in a 1:1 ratio, patients who had been hospitalized for acute myocardial infarction and were at risk for heart failure to receive empagliflozin at a dose of 10 mg daily or placebo in addition to standard care within 14 days after admission. The primary end point was a composite of hospitalization for heart failure or death from any cause as assessed in a time-to-first-event analysis. RESULTS: A total of 3260 patients were assigned to receive empagliflozin and 3262 to receive placebo. During a median follow-up of 17.9 months, a first hospitalization for heart failure or death from any cause occurred in 267 patients (8.2%) in the empagliflozin group and in 298 patients (9.1%) in the placebo group, with incidence rates of 5.9 and 6.6 events, respectively, per 100 patient-years (hazard ratio, 0.90; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.76 to 1.06; P = 0.21). With respect to the individual components of the primary end point, a first hospitalization for heart failure occurred in 118 patients (3.6%) in the empagliflozin group and in 153 patients (4.7%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.60 to 0.98), and death from any cause occurred in 169 (5.2%) and 178 (5.5%), respectively (hazard ratio, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.78 to 1.19). Adverse events were consistent with the known safety profile of empagliflozin and were similar in the two trial groups. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients at increased risk for heart failure after acute myocardial infarction, treatment with empagliflozin did not lead to a significantly lower risk of a first hospitalization for heart failure or death from any cause than placebo. (Funded by Boehringer Ingelheim and Eli Lilly; EMPACT-MI ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04509674.).

Worth Their Weight? An Update on New and Emerging Pharmacologic Agents for Obesity and Their Potential Role for Persons with Cardiac Conditions.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Obesity is associated with cardiovascular (CV) conditions, including but not limited to atherosclerotic disease, heart failure, and atrial fibrillation. Despite this, the impact of intentional weight loss on CV outcomes for persons with obesity and established CV conditions remains poorly studied. New and emerging pharmacologic therapies for weight loss primarily targeting the incretin/nutrient sensing axes induce substantial and sustained weight loss. The glucagon-like-peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RA) liraglutide and semaglutide have US FDA approval for the treatment of obesity, and the application for an obesity indication for the dual GLP-1/glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP) receptor agonist tirzepatide is presently under FDA review. Extensive phase II and IIIa randomized controlled trials are underway evaluating permutations of combined GLP-1 RA, GIP receptor agonist, GIP receptor antagonist, and glucagon receptor agonists. Clinical outcome trials of these therapies in persons with obesity at high risk of established CV conditions should make it possible to estimate the role of intentional weight loss in managing CV risk via these medications. RECENT FINDINGS: High-dose once weekly injectable semaglutide (2.4 mg/week) use among persons with obesity and heart failure with preserved ejection fraction was effective at both reducing weight and improving health status; exercise capacity was also improved. Ongoing CV outcome trials of oral semaglutide and once weekly injectable tirzepatide will help to establish the role of these therapies among persons with other CV conditions. In addition to these two therapies targeting a CV claim or indication, many other new therapeutics for weight loss, as reviewed, are currently in development. The impact of pharmacologic-induced weight loss on CV conditions for persons with obesity and established CV conditions is currently under investigation for multiple agents. These therapies may offer new avenues to manage CV risk in persons with obesity and with established or at high risk for CV disease.

Hierarchical End Points in Prior Heart Failure Trials and the HEART-FID Trial.

BACKGROUND: Clinical trials in heart failure (HF) traditionally use time-to-event analyses focusing on death and hospitalization for HF. These time-to-first event analyses may have more limited abilities to assess the probability of benefiting from a therapy, especially if that benefit manifests as improved functional status rather than reduced risk of death or HF hospitalization. Hierarchical end points including clinical outcomes and patient status measures allow for ranked evaluation of outcomes in 1 metric assessing whether patients randomized to intervention or control are more likely to derive an overall benefit while also allowing more patients to contribute to the primary outcome. METHODS: We review the rationale for using hierarchical end points in HF trials, provide examples of HF trials that used this type of end point, and discuss its use in the HEART-FID trial (Randomized Placebo-Controlled Trial of Ferric Carboxymaltose as Treatment for Heart Failure With Iron Deficiency), the largest HF trial to date implementing a hierarchical end point analysis for the primary outcome. RESULTS: Using a hierarchical end point as the primary outcome allows for the inclusion of different types of outcomes in 1 ranked end point, making it possible to more holistically assess the potential utility of a new therapy on patient well-being and outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Hierarchical end points assess the potential utility of a new therapy on patient well-being and outcome more holistically than time-to-first event analysis. Trials that would not have been feasible due to decreasing rates of death and hospitalization in the HF population can use hierarchical end points to successfully power studies to identify promising HF therapies. The HEART-FID trial used hierarchical end points to better determine the role of intravenous ferric carboxymaltose in patients with HF. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT03037931.

Managing Obesity in Heart Failure: A Chance to Tip the Scales?

Obesity is associated with incident heart failure (HF), independent of other cardiovascular risk factors. Despite rising rates of both obesity and incident HF, the associations remain poorly understood between: 1) obesity and HF outcomes; and 2) weight loss and HF outcomes. Evidence shows that patients with HF and obesity have high symptom burdens, lower exercise capacity, and higher rates of hospitalization for HF when compared with patients with HF without obesity. However, the impact of weight loss on these outcomes for patients with HF and obesity remains unclear. Recent advances in medical therapies for weight loss have offered a new opportunity for significant and sustained weight loss. Ongoing and recently concluded cardiovascular outcomes trials will offer new insights into the role of weight loss through these therapies in preventing HF and mitigating HF outcomes and symptom burdens among patients with established HF, particularly HF with preserved ejection fraction.