Sacubitril/Valsartan in Patients With Heart Failure and Deterioration in eGFR to <30 mL/min/1.73 m2.

BACKGROUND: Sacubitril/valsartan is a foundational therapy for patients with heart failure. Although current U.S. Food and Drug Administration labeling does not provide guidance regarding initiation or continuation of sacubitril/valsartan in patients with worsening kidney function, guidelines identify estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) <30 mL/min/1.73 m2 as a contraindication to therapy. OBJECTIVES: This study aims to assess the safety and efficacy of continuing sacubitril/valsartan in patients with deterioration of kidney function below an eGFR of 30 mL/min/1.73 m2. METHODS: The association between a deterioration in eGFR <30 mL/min/1.73 m2, efficacy and safety outcomes, and treatment with sacubitril/valsartan vs renin-angiotensin system inhibitor were evaluated using time updated Cox models in a post hoc parallel trial analyses of PARADIGM-HF and PARAGON-HF. RESULTS: Among 8,346 randomized patients in PARADIGM-HF and 4,746 in PARAGON-HF, 691 (8.3%) and 613 (12.9%), respectively, had an eGFR <30 mL/min/1.73 m2 at least once in follow-up. Patients experiencing such deterioration were at higher risk of the primary outcome in both PARADIGM-HF and PARAGON-HF. However, the incidence of the primary outcome remained lower with sacubitril/valsartan vs renin-angiotensin system inhibitor, regardless of deterioration in kidney function in both PARADIGM-HF (Pinteraction = 0.50) and PARAGON-HF (Pinteraction = 0.64). Rates of key safety outcomes were higher among patients experiencing eGFR deterioration; however, rates were similar between treatment groups including among those who remained on treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Patients experiencing deterioration of kidney function to a value below eGFR 30 mL/min/1.73 m2 faced high risk of cardiovascular and kidney disease outcomes. Continuation of sacubitril/valsartan was associated with persistent clinical benefit and no incremental safety risk. These data support continuation of sacubitril/valsartan for heart failure treatment even when eGFR declines below this threshold (PARADIGM-HF [Prospective Comparison of ARNI with ACEI to Determine Impact on Global Mortality and Morbidity in Heart Failure], NCT01035255; and PARAGON-HF [Prospective Comparison of ARNI with ARB Global Outcomes in HF with Preserved Ejection Fraction], NCT01920711).

Effects of Sacubitril/Valsartan Across the Spectrum of Renal Impairment in Patients With Heart Failure.

BACKGROUND: The Kidney Disease Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) classification integrates both estimated glomerular filtration rate and urine-albumin-creatinine ratio to stratify risk more comprehensively in patients with chronic kidney disease. There are limited data assessing whether this classification system is associated with prognosis and treatment response in heart failure populations. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to evaluate the relative treatment effects of sacubitril/valsartan across the KDIGO risk categories in patients with HFrEF. METHODS: PARADIGM-HF (Prospective Comparison of ARNI with ACEI to Determine Impact on Global Mortality and Morbidity in Heart Failure) was a global randomized controlled trial evaluating sacubitril/valsartan vs enalapril in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). Patients were classified according to low, moderate, and high/very high KDIGO risk. Treatment responses were assessed according to baseline KDIGO risk. The primary outcome was a composite of cardiovascular (CV) death or heart failure hospitalization. A renal composite outcome was defined as sustained decline in estimated glomerular filtration rate by ≥40% or end-stage kidney disease. RESULTS: Among 1,910 (23% of total) participants with available data, 42%, 32%, and 26% were classified as low, moderate, and high/very high KDIGO risk, respectively. Patients in the highest KDIGO risk categories experienced the highest rates of the primary composite outcome (7.6 per 100 person-years [95% CI: 6.5-9.0 per 100 person-years], 9.4 per 100 person-years [95% CI: 7.9-11.2 per 100 person-years], and 14.9 per 100 person-years [95% CI: 12.7-17.6 per 100 person-years]; P < 0.001). Sacubitril/valsartan had a similar safety profile and demonstrated consistent effects on the risk of both the primary outcome (PInteraction = 0.31) and the renal composite outcome (PInteraction = 0.50) across the spectrum of KDIGO risk. CONCLUSIONS: One in 4 patients with HFrEF were classified as at least high KDIGO kidney risk; these individuals faced concordantly the highest risks of CV events. Sacubitril/valsartan exhibited consistent CV and kidney protective benefits as well as safety across the spectrum of baseline kidney risk. These data further support initiation of sacubitril/valsartan in HFrEF across a broad range of kidney risk. (This Study Will Evaluate the Efficacy and Safety of LCZ696 Compared to Enalapril on Morbidity and Mortality of Patients With Chronic Heart Failure [PARADIGM-HF]; NCT01035255).

Rationale and design of NUDGE-FLU-CHRONIC and NUDGE-FLU-2: Two nationwide randomized trials of electronic nudges to increase influenza vaccination among patients with chronic diseases and older adults during the 2023/2024 influenza season.

BACKGROUND: Yearly influenza vaccination is strongly recommended for older adults and patients with chronic diseases including cardiovascular disease (CVD); however, vaccination rates remain suboptimal, particularly among younger patients. Electronic letters incorporating behavioral nudges are highly scalable public health interventions which can potentially increase vaccination, but further research is needed to determine the most effective strategies and to assess effectiveness across different populations. The purpose of NUDGE-FLU-CHRONIC and NUDGE-FLU-2 are to evaluate the effectiveness of electronic nudges delivered via the Danish governmental electronic letter system in increasing influenza vaccination among patients with chronic diseases and older adults, respectively. METHODS: Both trials are designed as pragmatic randomized implementation trials enrolling all Danish citizens in their respective target groups and conducted during the 2023/2024 influenza season. NUDGE-FLU-CHRONIC enrolls patients aged 18-64 years with chronic diseases. NUDGE-FLU-2 builds upon the NUDGE-FLU trial conducted in 2022/2023 and aims to expand the evidence by testing both previously successful and new nudges among adults ≥65 years during a subsequent influenza season. Persons with exemptions from the electronic letter system are excluded from both trials. In both trials, participants are randomized in a 2.45:1:1:1:1:1:1 ratio to either receive no electronic letter (usual care) or to receive one of 6 different behaviorally informed electronic letters. NUDGE-FLU-CHRONIC has randomized 299,881 participants with intervention letters delivered on September 24, 2023, while NUDGE-FLU-2 has randomized 881,373 participants and delivered intervention letters on September 13, 2023. Follow-up is currently ongoing. In both trials, the primary endpoint is receipt of influenza vaccination on or before January 1, 2024, and the secondary endpoint is time to vaccination. Clinical outcomes including respiratory and cardiovascular hospitalizations, all-cause hospitalization, and mortality are included as prespecified exploratory endpoints. Prespecified individual-level pooled analyses will be conducted across NUDGE-FLU, NUDGE-FLU-CHRONIC, and NUDGE-FLU-2. DISCUSSION: NUDGE-FLU-CHRONIC is the first nationwide randomized trial of electronic nudges to increase influenza vaccination conducted among 18-64-year-old high-risk patients with chronic diseases. NUDGE-FLU-2 will provide further evidence on the effectiveness of electronic nudges among older adults ≥65 years. Collectively, the NUDGE-FLU trials will provide an extensive evidence base for future public health communications. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NUDGE-FLU-CHRONIC: Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT06030739, registered September 11, 2023, https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT06030739. NUDGE-FLU-2: Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT06030726, registered September 11, 2023, https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT06030726.

The HFSA Advanced Heart Failure and Transplant Cardiology Fellowship Consensus Conference.

There is waning interest among cardiology trainees in pursuing an Advanced Heart Failure/Transplant Cardiology (AHFTC) fellowship as evidenced by fewer applicants in the National Resident Matching Program match to this specialty. This trend has generated considerable attention across the heart failure community. In response, the Heart Failure Society of America convened the AHFTC Fellowship Task Force with a charge to develop strategies to increase the value proposition of an AHFTC fellowship. Subsequently, the HFSA sponsored the AHFTC Fellowship Consensus Conference April 26-27, 2023. Before the conference, interviews of 44 expert stakeholders diverse across geography, site of practice (traditional academic medical center or other centers), specialty/area of expertise, sex, and stage of career were conducted virtually. Based on these interviews, potential solutions to address the declining interest in AHFTC fellowship were categorized into five themes: (1) alternative training pathways, (2) regulatory and compensation, (3) educational improvements, (4) exposure and marketing for pipeline development, and (5) quality of life and mental health. These themes provided structure to the deliberations of the AHFTC Fellowship Consensus Conference. The recommendations from the Consensus Conference were subsequently presented to the HFSA Board of Directors to inform strategic plans and interventions. The HFSA Board of Directors later reviewed and approved submission of this document. The purpose of this communication is to provide the HF community with an update summarizing the processes used and concepts that emerged from the work of the HFSA AHFTC Fellowship Task Force and Consensus Conference.

Outpatient Worsening Among Patients With Mildly Reduced and Preserved Ejection Fraction Heart Failure in the DELIVER Trial.

BACKGROUND: Hospitalization is recognized as a sentinel event in the disease trajectory of patients with heart failure (HF), but not all patients experiencing clinical decompensation are ultimately hospitalized. Outpatient intensification of diuretics is common in response to symptoms of worsening HF, yet its prognostic and clinical relevance, specifically for patients with HF with mildly reduced or preserved ejection fraction, is uncertain. METHODS: In this prespecified analysis of the DELIVER trial (Dapagliflozin Evaluation to Improve the Lives of Patients With Preserved Ejection Fraction Heart Failure), we assessed the association between various nonfatal worsening HF events (those requiring hospitalization, urgent outpatient visits requiring intravenous HF therapies, and outpatient oral diuretic intensification) and rates of subsequent mortality. We further examined the treatment effect of dapagliflozin on an expanded composite end point of cardiovascular death, HF hospitalization, urgent HF visit, or outpatient oral diuretic intensification. RESULTS: In DELIVER, 4532 (72%) patients experienced no worsening HF event, whereas 789 (13%) had outpatient oral diuretic intensification, 86 (1%) required an urgent HF visit, 585 (9%) had an HF hospitalization, and 271 (4%) died of cardiovascular causes as a first presentation. Patients with a first presentation manifesting as outpatient oral diuretic intensification experienced rates of subsequent mortality that were higher (10 [8-12] per 100 patient-years) than those without a worsening HF event (4 [3-4] per 100 patient-years) but similar to rates of subsequent death after an urgent HF visit (10 [6-18] per 100 patient-years). Patients with an HF hospitalization as a first presentation of worsening HF had the highest rates of subsequent death (35 [31-40] per 100 patient-years). The addition of outpatient diuretic intensification to the adjudicated DELIVER primary end point (cardiovascular death, HF hospitalization, or urgent HF visit) increased the overall number of patients experiencing an event from 1122 to 1731 (a 54% increase). Dapagliflozin reduced the need for outpatient diuretic intensification alone (hazard ratio, 0.72 [95% CI, 0.64-0.82]) and when analyzed as a part of an expanded composite end point of worsening HF or cardiovascular death (hazard ratio, 0.76 [95% CI, 0.69-0.84]). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with HF with mildly reduced or preserved ejection fraction, worsening HF requiring oral diuretic intensification in ambulatory care was frequent, adversely prognostic, and significantly reduced by dapagliflozin. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT03619213.

Influence of background medical therapy on efficacy and safety of dapagliflozin in patients with heart failure with improved ejection fraction in the DELIVER trial.

AIMS: The Dapagliflozin Evaluation to Improve the Lives of Patients with Preserved Ejection Fraction Heart Failure (DELIVER) trial demonstrated the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor dapagliflozin to be beneficial in patients with symptomatic heart failure (HF) with improved ejection fraction (HFimpEF; those with prior left ventricular ejection fraction ≤40% that had improved to >40% by enrolment). Whether this benefit differs by background medical therapy is unclear. The current study aims to determine the efficacy and safety of dapagliflozin among patients with HFimpEF by background medical therapy. METHODS AND RESULTS: Treatment effects on the primary endpoint (worsening HF or cardiovascular death) were assessed by number of background HF medical therapies (angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor/angiotensin receptor blocker/angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor, evidence-based beta-blocker, and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist). Among the 6263 patients randomized in DELIVER, 1151 (18%) had HFimpEF. Of those, 21% of patients were on 0-1 therapies, 44% were on two therapies, and 35% were on three therapies. During 2.3 years of median follow-up, the incidence rate of the primary outcome was 9.7, 8.8, and 8.4 per 100 person-years for patients on 0-1, 2 and 3 HF medications at baseline, respectively. Treatment effects with dapagliflozin on the primary outcome may be greater in patients with HFimpEF on 0-1 therapies at baseline (pinteraction = 0.09), driven mostly by a significant interaction for HF hospitalization (pinteraction = 0.023) with no evidence of effect modification for cardiovascular death (pinteraction = 0.65). Treatment effects of dapagliflozin on the primary outcome were, however, consistent when assessed across the modified Heart Failure Collaboratory Medical Therapy Score integrating both therapeutic use and dosing (pinteraction = 0.39). The use of dapagliflozin was not associated with changes in use or doses of background HF therapies, and among patients on three HF medications at baseline, the addition of dapagliflozin did not lead to higher adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with HFimpEF, the safety and efficacy of dapagliflozin were largely similar by background use and dosing of HF medical therapies. The benefit of dapagliflozin in reducing HF events tended to be greater in those patients on 0-1 medications at baseline. Among patients already on three HF medical therapies, the addition of dapagliflozin was safe without requiring de-escalation of other therapies.

Dapagliflozin in Patients With Heart Failure and Deterioration in Renal Function.

BACKGROUND: Sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitors are guideline recommended in the management of heart failure (HF). Although these therapies can be initiated even in patients with comorbid chronic kidney disease, some patients may face deterioration of kidney function over time. OBJECTIVES: In this study, the authors sought to examine the safety and efficacy of continuing SGLT2 inhibitors in HF when the estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) falls below thresholds for initiation. METHODS: Associations between a deterioration of eGFR to <25 mL/min/1.73 m2, efficacy, and safety outcomes and treatment with dapagliflozin were evaluated in time-updated Cox proportional hazard models in a participant-level pooled analysis of the DAPA-HF (Study to Evaluate the Effect of Dapagliflozin on the Incidence of Worsening Heart Failure or Cardiovascular Death in Patients With Chronic Heart Failure) and DELIVER (Dapagliflozin Evaluation to Improve the Lives of Patients With Preserved Ejection Fraction Heart Failure) trials. RESULTS: Among 11,007 patients, 347 (3.2%) experienced a deterioration of eGFR to <25 mL/min/1.73 m2 at least once in follow-up. These patients had a higher risk of the primary composite outcome (HR: 1.87; 95% CI: 1.48-2.35; P < 0.001). The risk of the primary outcome was lower with dapagliflozin compared with placebo among patients who did (HR: 0.53; 95% CI: 0.33-0.83) as well as did not (HR: 0.78; 95% CI: 0.72-0.86) experience deterioration of eGFR to <25 mL/min/1.73 m2 (Pinteraction = 0.17). The risk of safety outcomes, including drug discontinuation, was higher among patients with deterioration of eGFR to <25 mL/min/1.73 m2; however, rates remained similar between treatment groups including among those who remained on study drug. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with deterioration of eGFR to <25 mL/min/1.73 m2 had elevated risks of cardiovascular outcomes yet appeared to benefit from continuation of dapagliflozin with no excess in safety outcomes between treatment groups. The benefit-to-risk ratio may favor continuation of dapagliflozin treatment in patients with HF experiencing deterioration of kidney function. Study to Evaluate the Effect of Dapagliflozin on the Incidence of Worsening Heart Failure or Cardiovascular Death in Patients With Chronic Heart Failure [DAPA-HF]; NCT03036124; and Dapagliflozin Evaluation to Improve the Lives of Patients With Preserved Ejection Fraction Heart Failure [DELIVER]; NCT03619213).

Monitoring treatment with cardiac myosin inhibitors in symptomatic obstructive hypertrophic cardiomyopathy.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Cardiac myosin inhibitors (CMIs) represent a major milestone in the treatment of patients with symptomatic obstructive hypertrophic cardiomyopathy. The objective of this review is to discuss the mechanisms of action, clinical trial evidence, safety profile and monitoring of CMIs, which are important to the implementation of these drugs in clinical practice. RECENT FINDINGS: Mavacamten and aficamten have both been shown to substantially improve left ventricular outflow tract gradients, biomarkers and symptoms in patients with obstructive hypertrophic cardiomyopathy. Both agents are well tolerated with few adverse events in clinical trial follow up. Transient reductions in left ventricular ejection fraction may be associated with both mavacamten and aficamten but respond to dose reduction. SUMMARY: There is now robust clinical trial evidence base to support the use of mavacamten for patients with symptomatic obstructive hypertrophic cardiomyopathy. Generation of long-term safety and efficacy data and exploring applications of CMI to nonobstructive cardiomyopathy and heart failure with preserved ejection fraction represent important next steps.

Dapagliflozin and diuretic utilization in heart failure with mildly reduced or preserved ejection fraction: the DELIVER trial.

AIMS: Dapagliflozin reduced the combined risk of worsening heart failure or cardiovascular death among patients with heart failure with mildly reduced or preserved ejection fraction. In this study, the safety and efficacy of dapagliflozin according to background diuretic therapy and the influence of dapagliflozin on longitudinal diuretic use were evaluated. METHODS AND RESULTS: In this pre-specified analysis of the Dapagliflozin Evaluation to Improve the LIVEs of Patients With Preserved Ejection Fraction Heart Failure (DELIVER) trial, the effects of dapagliflozin vs. placebo were assessed in the following subgroups: no diuretic, non-loop diuretic, and loop diuretic furosemide equivalent doses of <40, 40, and >40 mg, respectively. Of the 6263 randomized patients, 683 (10.9%) were on no diuretic, 769 (12.3%) were on a non-loop diuretic, and 4811 (76.8%) were on a loop diuretic at baseline. Treatment benefits of dapagliflozin on the primary composite outcome were consistent by diuretic use categories (Pinteraction = 0.64) or loop diuretic dose (Pinteraction = 0.57). Serious adverse events were similar between dapagliflozin and placebo arms, irrespective of diuretic use or dosing. Dapagliflozin reduced new initiation of loop diuretics by 32% [hazard ratio (HR) 0.68; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.55-0.84, P < 0.001] but did not influence discontinuations/disruptions (HR 0.98; 95% CI: 0.86-1.13, P = 0.83) in follow-up. First sustained loop diuretic dose increases were less frequent, and sustained dose decreases were more frequent in patients treated with dapagliflozin: net difference of -6.5% (95% CI: -9.4 to -3.6; P < 0.001). The mean dose of loop diuretic increased over time in the placebo arm, a longitudinal increase that was significantly attenuated with treatment with dapagliflozin (placebo-corrected treatment effect of -2.5 mg/year; 95% CI: -1.5, -3.7, P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: In patients with heart failure with mildly reduced or preserved ejection fraction, the clinical benefits of dapagliflozin relative to placebo were consistent across a wide range of diuretic categories and doses with a similar safety profile. Treatment with dapagliflozin significantly reduced new loop diuretic requirement over time.

Renal and blood pressure effects of dapagliflozin in recently hospitalized patients with heart failure with mildly reduced or preserved ejection fraction: Insights from the DELIVER trial.

AIMS: Patients recently hospitalized for heart failure (HF) often have unstable haemodynamics and experience worsening renal failure, and are at elevated risk for recurrent HF events. In DELIVER, dapagliflozin reduced HF events or cardiovascular death including among patients who were hospitalized or recently hospitalized. METHODS AND RESULTS: We examined the effects of dapagliflozin versus placebo on estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) slope (acute and chronic), 1-month change in systolic blood pressure, and the occurrence of serious hypovolaemic or renal adverse events in patients with and without HF hospitalization within 30 days of randomization. The 654 (90 randomized during hospitalization, 147 1-7 days post-discharge and 417 8-30 days post-discharge) recently hospitalized patients had lower baseline eGFR compared with those without recent HF hospitalization (median [interquartile range] 55 [43, 71] vs. 60 [47, 75] ml/min/1.73 m2 ). Dapagliflozin consistently reduced the risk of all-cause (pinteraction = 0.20), cardiac-related (pinteraction = 0.75), and HF-specific (pinteraction = 0.90) hospitalizations, irrespective of recent HF hospitalization. In those recently hospitalized, acute placebo-corrected eGFR reductions with dapagliflozin were modest and similar to patients without recent hospitalization (-2.0 [-4.1, +0.1] vs. -3.4 [-3.9, -2.9] ml/min/1.73 m2 , pinteraction = 0.12). Dapagliflozin's effect to slow chronic eGFR decline was similar regardless of recent hospitalization (pinteraction = 0.57). Dapagliflozin had a minimal effect on 1-month systolic blood pressure and to a similar degree in patients with and without recent hospitalization (-1.3 vs.-1.8 mmHg, pinteraction = 0.64). There was no treatment-related excess in renal or hypovolaemic serious adverse events, irrespective of recent HF hospitalization. CONCLUSION: In patients recently hospitalized with HF, initiation of dapagliflozin had minimal effects on blood pressure and did not increase renal or hypovolaemic serious adverse events, yet afforded long-term cardiovascular and kidney protective effects. These data suggest that the benefit to risk ratio favours initiation of dapagliflozin among stabilized patients hospitalized or recently hospitalized for HF. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03619213.

Effects of dapagliflozin on heart failure hospitalizations according to severity of inpatient course: Insights from DELIVER and DAPA-HF.

AIMS: Dapagliflozin resulted in significant and sustained reductions in first and recurrent heart failure (HF) hospitalizations among patients with HF across the spectrum of ejection fraction. How treatment with dapagliflozin differentially impacts hospitalization for HF of varying complexity is not well studied. METHODS AND RESULTS: In the DELIVER and DAPA-HF trials, we examined the effects of dapagliflozin on adjudicated HF hospitalizations of varying complexity and hospital length of stay (LOS). HF hospitalizations requiring intensive care unit stay, intravenous vasoactive therapies, invasive/non-invasive ventilation, mechanical fluid removal or mechanical circulatory support were categorized as complicated. The balance was classified as uncomplicated. Of the total 1209 HF hospitalizations reported in DELIVER, 854 (71%) were uncomplicated and 355 (29%) were complicated. Of the total 799 HF hospitalizations reported in DAPA-HF, 453 (57%) were uncomplicated and 346 (43%) were complicated. Relative to patients experiencing a first uncomplicated HF hospitalization, those with complicated HF hospitalizations had a significantly higher in-hospital mortality both in DELIVER (16.7% vs. 2.3%, p < 0.001) and DAPA-HF (15.1% vs. 3.8%, p < 0.001). Dapagliflozin similarly reduced total 'uncomplicated' (DELIVER: rate ratio [RR] 0.67, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.55-0.82 and DAPA-HF: RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.54-0.87) and 'complicated' HF hospitalizations (DELIVER: RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.63-1.06 and DAPA-HF: RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.58-0.97). Dapagliflozin consistently reduced hospitalizations irrespective of their LOS: <5 days (DELIVER: RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.58-0.99 and DAPA-HF: RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.42-0.80) or ≥5 days (DELIVER: RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.58-0.86 and DAPA-HF: RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.62-0.94). CONCLUSION: A substantial proportion of hospitalizations (∼30-40%) among patients with HF irrespective of ejection fraction required intensification of treatment beyond standard intravenous diuretics. Such patients experienced significantly higher in-hospital mortality. Treatment with dapagliflozin consistently reduced HF hospitalizations regardless of severity of inpatient course or LOS. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, DELIVER (NCT03619213) and DAPA-HF (NCT03036124).

Virtual Care Team Guided Management of Patients With Heart Failure During Hospitalization.

BACKGROUND: Scalable and safe approaches for heart failure guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) optimization are needed. OBJECTIVES: The authors assessed the safety and effectiveness of a virtual care team guided strategy on GDMT optimization in hospitalized patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). METHODS: In a multicenter implementation trial, we allocated 252 hospital encounters in patients with left ventricular ejection fraction ≤40% to a virtual care team guided strategy (107 encounters among 83 patients) or usual care (145 encounters among 115 patients) across 3 centers in an integrated health system. In the virtual care team group, clinicians received up to 1 daily GDMT optimization suggestion from a physician-pharmacist team. The primary effectiveness outcome was in-hospital change in GDMT optimization score (+2 initiations, +1 dose up-titrations, -1 dose down-titrations, -2 discontinuations summed across classes). In-hospital safety outcomes were adjudicated by an independent clinical events committee. RESULTS: Among 252 encounters, the mean age was 69 ± 14 years, 85 (34%) were women, 35 (14%) were Black, and 43 (17%) were Hispanic. The virtual care team strategy significantly improved GDMT optimization scores vs usual care (adjusted difference: +1.2; 95% CI: 0.7-1.8; P < 0.001). New initiations (44% vs 23%; absolute difference: +21%; P = 0.001) and net intensifications (44% vs 24%; absolute difference: +20%; P = 0.002) during hospitalization were higher in the virtual care team group, translating to a number needed to intervene of 5 encounters. Overall, 23 (21%) in the virtual care team group and 40 (28%) in usual care experienced 1 or more adverse events (P = 0.30). Acute kidney injury, bradycardia, hypotension, hyperkalemia, and hospital length of stay were similar between groups. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients hospitalized with HFrEF, a virtual care team guided strategy for GDMT optimization was safe and improved GDMT across multiple hospitals in an integrated health system. Virtual teams represent a centralized and scalable approach to optimize GDMT.

Variation in Renal Function Following Transition to Sacubitril/Valsartan in Patients With Heart Failure.

BACKGROUND: Some patients with heart failure may experience transient changes in kidney function upon transition to sacubitril/valsartan. Whether such changes portend adverse outcomes or influence long-term treatment benefits with sacubitril/valsartan continuation is unknown. OBJECTIVES: This investigation aimed to evaluate the association between the occurrence of moderate estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) decline (>15%) after initial exposure to sacubitril/valsartan and subsequent cardiovascular outcomes and its treatment benefits in PARADIGM-HF and PARAGON-HF. METHODS: In sequential run-in phases, patients were titrated to enalapril 10 mg twice daily and then sacubitril/valsartan 97 mg/103 mg twice daily (in PARADIGM-HF) or valsartan 80 mg twice daily and then sacubitril/valsartan 49 mg/51 mg twice daily (in PARAGON-HF). RESULTS: Among randomized participants, 11% in PARADIGM-HF and 10% in PARAGON-HF experienced eGFR decline (>15%) during sacubitril/valsartan run-in. eGFR partially recovered (from nadir to postrandomization week 16) regardless of sacubitril/valsartan continuation or switch to renin-angiotensin system inhibitor (RASi) postrandomization. Initial eGFR decline was not consistently associated with clinical outcomes in either trial. Treatment benefits of sacubitril/valsartan vs RASi on primary outcomes were similar irrespective of run-in eGFR decline in PARADIGM-HF (eGFR decline, HR: 0.69; 95% CI: 0.53-0.90; and no eGFR decline, HR: 0.80; 95% CI: 0.73-0.88; Pinteraction = 0.32) and PARAGON-HF (eGFR decline, rate ratio [RR]: 0.84; 95% CI: 0.52-1.36 and no eGFR decline, RR: 0.87; 95% CI: 0.75-1.02, Pinteraction = 0.92). The treatment effect of sacubitril/valsartan remained consistent across a range of eGFR declines. CONCLUSIONS: Moderate eGFR decline when transitioning from RASi to sacubitril/valsartan is not consistently associated with adverse outcomes, and its long-term benefits are retained in heart failure across a broad range of eGFR declines. Early eGFR changes should not deter continuation of sacubitril/valsartan or stall uptitration. (Efficacy and Safety of LCZ696 Compared to Valsartan, on Morbidity and Mortality in Heart Failure Patients With Preserved Ejection Fraction [PARAGON-HF]; NCT01920711; Prospective Comparison of Angiotensin Receptor-Neprilysin Inhibitors with Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitors to Determine Impact on Global Mortality and Morbidity in Heart Failure [PARADIGM-HF]; NCT01035255).

Sacubitril/valsartan and loop diuretic requirement in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction in the PARAGON-HF trial.

AIMS: As sacubitril/valsartan may potentiate early natriuresis, expert consensus documents recommend diuretic dose reduction on first initiation. However, there are limited data on the effects of sacubitril/valsartan on the background of varying diuretic regimens or on diuretic requirements over time in heart failure (HF) with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). METHODS AND RESULTS: In this post hoc analysis of PARAGON-HF, of the 4796 patients, background diuretic therapy was distributed as follows: 341 (7%) on no diuretic, 698 (15%) on non-loop diuretic, and 3757 (78%) were on loop diuretics (1255, 1589, and 913 were on <40, 40 and >40 mg furosemide equivalent doses, respectively). The primary composite outcome of total HF hospitalizations and cardiovascular death was analysed using semiparametric proportional rates methods. The cumulative incidence of the primary composite outcome (first events) was lowest in patients on no diuretic and highest in those on >40 mg of loop diuretic (p < 0.001). The effects of sacubitril/valsartan (vs. valsartan) on the primary composite outcome (recurrent events) did not significantly vary by baseline diuretic use (pinteraction  = 0.65). Treatment effects on safety outcomes were similar across diuretic categories. Sacubitril/valsartan reduced new loop diuretic initiations over the course of the trial (hazard ratio 0.83; 95% confidence interval 0.68-1.00, p = 0.055), with similar mean loop diuretic dose and rates of diuretic discontinuation between treatment groups in follow-up. Patients randomized to sacubitril/valsartan experienced a slight early reduction in diuretic initiation or dose escalation at 30 days after initiation (net reduction 1.7%, p = 0.02), but these differences were not sustained beyond this timepoint. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with HFpEF on higher baseline diuretic doses were at heightened risk of HF events, but similarly benefited from sacubitril/valsartan with a consistent safety profile across a range of diuretic doses. Initiation of sacubitril/valsartan was associated with modestly lower new loop diuretic requirement in follow-up.

Longitudinal trajectories in renal function before and after heart failure hospitalization among patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction in the PARAGON-HF trial.

AIMS: Worsening renal function may impact long-term outcomes in heart failure (HF). However, little is known about the longitudinal trajectories in renal function in relation to HF hospitalization or how this high-risk clinical event impacts renal outcomes. METHODS AND RESULTS: In PARAGON-HF, we evaluated the association between recency of prior HF hospitalization (occurring pre-randomization) and subsequent first renal composite outcome: (i) time to ≥50% decline in estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR); (ii) development of end-stage renal disease; or (iii) death attributable to renal causes. A total of 2306 (48.1%) patients had a history of prior HF hospitalization. Incident rates of the renal outcome were highest in those most recently hospitalized and decreased with longer time from last hospitalization. Treatment effect on the renal outcome of sacubitril/valsartan versus valsartan was similar between patients with (hazard ratio [HR] 0.43; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.24-0.76) and without (HR 0.63; 95% CI: 0.33-1.18; pinteraction  = 0.39) a prior history of HF hospitalization and appeared consistent regardless of timing of prior hospitalization for HF (pinteraction  = 0.39). Serial eGFR measurements leading up to and after a HF hospitalization (occurring during the study period) and estimated eGFR trajectories using repeated measures regression models with restricted cubic splines were also examined. Patients experiencing a post-randomization HF hospitalization had a significant decline in eGFR prior to hospitalization while patients without HF hospitalization experienced a relatively stable eGFR trajectory (p < 0.001). A change in the rate of decline of eGFR trajectory was observed 12 months preceding a HF hospitalization, and continued in the post-discharge window to 12 months following hospitalization. CONCLUSIONS: Heart failure hospitalization denotes increased risk for kidney disease progression which continues following recovery from HF decompensation in patients with HF with preserved ejection fraction. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: PARAGON-HF (Prospective Comparison of ARNI with ARB Global Outcomes in HF with Preserved Ejection Fraction), ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01920711.

Effects of sacubitril/valsartan versus valsartan on renal function in patients with and without diabetes and heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: insights from PARAGON-HF.

AIMS: Diabetes is associated with a faster rate of renal function decline in patients with heart failure (HF). Sacubitril/valsartan attenuates the deterioration of renal function to a greater extent in patients with diabetes and HF with reduced ejection fraction compared with renin-angiotensin system inhibitors alone. We assessed whether the same may be true in HF with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). METHODS AND RESULTS: In the PARAGON-HF trial in patients with HF and left ventricular ejection fraction of ≥45% (n = 4796), we characterized the effects of sacubitril/valsartan on changes in estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) over a period of 192 weeks, and on the pre-specified renal composite outcome (eGFR reduction of ≥50%, end-stage renal disease, or death attributable to renal causes) in patients with (n = 2388) and without diabetes (n = 2408). The decline in eGFR was greater in patients with diabetes than in those without (-2.6 vs. -1.7 ml/min/1.73 m2 per year, p < 0.001), regardless of treatment assignment. Sacubitril/valsartan attenuated decline in eGFR similarly in patients with (-2.2 vs. -2.9 ml/min/1.73 m2 per year, p = 0.001) and without diabetes (-1.5 vs. -2.0 ml/min/1.73 m2 per year, p = 0.006) (pinteraction for difference in eGFR slopes = 0.40). Compared with valsartan, sacubitril/valsartan reduced the renal composite outcome similarly in patients without diabetes (hazard ratio [HR] 0.42, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.19-0.91) and those with diabetes (HR 0.54, 95% CI 0.33-0.89; pinteraction  = 0.59), as well as across a range of baseline glycated haemoglobin (pinteraction  = 0.71). CONCLUSION: Sacubitril/valsartan, compared with valsartan, attenuates the decline of eGFR and reduces clinically relevant kidney events similarly among patients with HFpEF with and without diabetes.