Effects of dapagliflozin according to QRS duration across the spectrum of left ventricular ejection fraction: An analysis of DAPA-HF and DELIVER.

AIMS: The primary aim was to evaluate the effect of dapagliflozin according to QRS duration across the spectrum of left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), given that prolongation of QRS duration is associated with less favourable ventricular remodelling with pharmacological therapy and worse outcomes. METHODS AND RESULTS: A pooled analysis of the DAPA-HF and DELIVER trials, excluding patients with a paced rhythm and cardiac resynchronization therapy. Overall, 4008 patients had heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), and 5816 had HF with mildly reduced/preserved ejection fraction (HFmrEF/HFpEF). QRS duration was <120 ms in 7039 patients (71.7%), 120-149 ms in 1725 (17.6%), and ≥150 ms in 1060 patients (10.8%). The median follow-up time was 23 months. The rate of the primary composite outcome of cardiovascular death or worsening HF was 9.2 (95% confidence interval [CI] 8.7-9.7), 14.3 (13.0-15.7), and 15.9 (14.1-17.9) per 100 patient-years in the <120, 120-149, and ≥150 ms groups, respectively. This gradient in event rates was observed both in HFrEF and HFmrEF/HFpEF. Dapagliflozin, compared with placebo, reduced the risk of the primary outcome consistently across the QRS duration subgroups (hazard ratio [95% CI] 0.75 [0.67-0.85], 0.79 [0.65-0.96], and 0.89 [0.70-1.13] in the <120, 120-149, and ≥150 ms groups, respectively; p for interaction = 0.28). The effect of dapagliflozin on the primary outcome was consistent across the QRS duration regardless of HF phenotype that is, HFrEF or HFmrEF/HFpEF. CONCLUSIONS: Prolongation of QRS duration is associated with worse outcomes irrespective of HF phenotype. Dapagliflozin reduced the risk of the primary outcome, regardless of QRS duration, in DAPA-HF and DELIVER.

Effects of Sacubitril/Valsartan vs Valsartan in De Novo vs Acute on Chronic HFpEF and HFmrEF.

Background: Decompensated heart failure (HF) can be categorized as de novo or worsening of chronic HF. In PARAGLIDE-HF (Prospective comparison of ARNI with ARB Given following stabiLization In DEcompensated HFpEF), among patients with an ejection fraction >40% that stabilized after worsening HF, sacubitril/valsartan led to a significantly greater reduction in N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) and was associated with clinical benefit compared to valsartan. Objectives: This prespecified analysis characterized patients with de novo vs worsening chronic HF in PARAGLIDE-HF and assessed the interaction between HF chronicity and the effect of sacubitril/valsartan. Methods: Patients were classified as de novo (first diagnosis of HF) or chronic (known HF prior to the index event). Time-averaged proportional change in NT-proBNP from baseline to weeks 4 and 8 was analyzed using an analysis of covariance model. A win ratio consisting of time to cardiovascular death, number and times of HF hospitalizations during follow-up, number and times of urgent HF visits during follow-up, and time-averaged proportional change in NT-proBNP was assessed for each group. Results: Of the 466 participants, 153 (33%) had de novo HF and 313 (67%) had chronic HF. De novo patients had lower rates of atrial fibrillation/flutter and lower creatinine. There was a nonsignificant reduction in NT-proBNP with sacubitril/valsartan vs valsartan for de novo (0.82; 95% CI: 0.62-1.07) and chronic HF (0.88; 95% CI: 0.73-1.07), interaction P = 0.66. The win ratio was nominally in favor of sacubitril/valsartan for both de novo (1.12; 95% CI: 0.70-1.58) and chronic HF (1.24; 95% CI: 0.89-1.71). Conclusions: There is no interaction between HF chronicity and the effect of sacubitril-valsartan.

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).

Geographical variation in patient characteristics and outcomes in heart failure with mildly reduced and preserved ejection fraction.

AIMS: Compared to heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction, HF with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), and HF with mildly reduced ejection fraction (HFmrEF) are increasing in prevalence, yet little is known about the geographic variation in patient characteristics, treatments and outcomes among these two HF phenotypes. The aim of this study was to investigate geographic differences in HFpEF and HFmrEF. METHODS AND RESULTS: We conducted an individual patient analysis of five clinical trials enrolling patients with HFpEF or HFmrEF from North America (NA), Latin America (LA), Western Europe (WE), Central/Eastern Europe and Russia (CEER), and Asia-Pacific (AP). We compared regions using descriptive statistics and multivariable regression models. Among the 19 959 patients included, 4066 (23.1%) had HFmrEF and 15 353 (76.9%) HFpEF. Regardless of HF phenotype, patients from WE were oldest, and those in CEER youngest. LA had the largest portion of females and NA most black patients. Obesity and diabetes were most prevalent in NA and hypertension and coronary heart disease most common in CEER. Self-reported health status varied strikingly and was the worst in NA and best in AP. Among patients with HFmrEF, rates of the primary composite endpoint (cardiovascular death or HF hospitalization) were: NA 12.56 per 100 patient-years (/100py), AP 11.67/100py, CEER 10.12/100py, LA 8.90/100py, and WE 8.43/100py, driven by differences in the rate of HF hospitalization. The corresponding values in HFpEF were 11.47/100py, 7.80/100py, 5.47/100py, 5.92/100py, and 7.80/100py, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: There is substantial geographic variation in patient characteristics, treatment and outcomes among patients with HFpEF and HFmrEF. These findings have implications for interpretation and generalizability of trial results, design and conduct of future trials, and optimization of care for these patients.

Cardiovascular-kidney-metabolic overlap in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: Cardiac structure and function, clinical outcomes, and response to sacubitril/valsartan in PARAGON-HF.

AIMS: Cardiovascular-kidney-metabolic (CKM) multimorbidity is prevalent among individuals with heart failure (HF), but whether cardiac structure and function, clinical outcomes, and treatment response to sacubitril/valsartan vary in relation to CKM status is unknown. METHODS AND RESULTS: In this PARAGON-HF post-hoc analysis, we evaluated the impact of CKM multimorbidity (atherosclerotic cardiovascular [CV] disease, chronic kidney disease, and type 2 diabetes) on cardiac structure and function, clinical outcomes, and treatment effects of sacubitril/valsartan versus valsartan. The primary outcome was a composite of total HF hospitalizations and CV death. Secondary outcomes included the individual components of the primary outcome and a composite kidney outcome (sustained estimated glomerular filtration rate reduction of ≥50%, end-stage kidney disease, or kidney-related death). At baseline, 35.2% had one CKM condition, 33.3% had two, 15.9% had three, and only 15.6% had HF alone. CKM multimorbidity was associated with higher septal and posterior wall thickness, lower global longitudinal strain, higher E/e', and worse right ventricular function. Total HF hospitalizations or CV death increased with greater CKM multimorbidity, with the highest relative risk observed with three CKM conditions (rate ratio 3.06, 95% confidence interval 2.33-4.03), compared with HF alone. Treatment effects of sacubitril/valsartan were consistent irrespective of the number of CKM conditions for the primary endpoint (pinteraction = 0.75), CV death (pinteraction = 0.82), total HF hospitalizations (pinteraction = 0.67), and the composite kidney endpoint (pinteraction = 0.99). CONCLUSIONS: Cardiovascular-kidney-metabolic multimorbidity was common in PARAGON-HF and associated with adverse changes in cardiac structure and function and with a stepwise increase in risk of clinical outcomes. Treatment effects of sacubitril/valsartan were consistent irrespective of CKM burden. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01920711.

Sodium Zirconium Cyclosilicate in HFrEF and Hyperkalemia: REALIZE-K Design and Baseline Characteristics.

BACKGROUND: Mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRAs) improve outcomes in patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). However, MRAs are often underused because of hyperkalemia concerns. OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to assess whether sodium zirconium cyclosilicate (SZC), a nonabsorbed crystal that traps and rapidly lowers potassium, enables MRA use in patients with HFrEF and prevalent hyperkalemia (or at high risk). METHODS: REALIZE-K is a prospective, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial in patients with HFrEF (NYHA functional class II-IV; left ventricular ejection fraction ≤40%), optimal therapy (except MRA), and prevalent hyperkalemia (or at high risk). During the open-label run-in, all participants underwent protocol-mandated spironolactone titration (target: 50 mg daily); those with prevalent (cohort 1) or incident (cohort 2) hyperkalemia during titration started SZC. Participants achieving normokalemia while on spironolactone ≥25 mg daily were randomized to continuing SZC or matching placebo for 6 months. The primary composite endpoint was proportion of participants with optimal response (normokalemia, on spironolactone ≥25 mg daily, no rescue for hyperkalemia [months 1-6]). RESULTS: Of 365 patients (run-in), 202 were randomized. Baseline characteristics included mean age 70 years, prevalent comorbidities (78% estimated glomerular filtration rate <60 mL/min/1.73 m2, 38% atrial fibrillation/flutter), high N-terminal pro B-type natriuretic peptide (median 1,136 pg/mL), and high HFrEF therapy use (64% sacubitril/valsartan, 96% beta-blocker, 42% sodium glucose co-transporter 2 inhibitor). At randomization, 78% were receiving spironolactone 50 mg daily. CONCLUSIONS: REALIZE-K is the first trial to evaluate whether SZC can enable rapid and safe MRA optimization and long-term continuation in patients with HFrEF and prevalent/high risk of hyperkalemia. (Study to Assess Efficacy and Safety of SZC for the Management of High Potassium in Patients with Symptomatic HFrEF Receiving Spironolactone; NCT04676646).

Effect of Sacubitril/Valsartan on Cognitive Function in Patients With Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction: A Prespecified Analysis of PARAGON-HF.

BACKGROUND: A hypothetical concern has been raised that sacubitril/valsartan might cause cognitive impairment because neprilysin is one of several enzymes degrading amyloid-ß peptides in the brain, some of which are neurotoxic and linked to Alzheimer-type dementia. To address this, we examined the effect of sacubitril/valsartan compared with valsartan on cognitive function in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction in a prespecified substudy of PARAGON-HF (Prospective Comparison of Angiotensin Receptor Neprilysin Inhibitor With Angiotensin Receptor Blocker Global Outcomes in Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction). METHODS: In PARAGON-HF, serial assessment of cognitive function was conducted in a subset of patients with the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE; score range, 0-30, with lower scores reflecting worse cognitive function). The prespecified primary analysis of this substudy was the change from baseline in MMSE score at 96 weeks. Other post hoc analyses included cognitive decline (fall in MMSEs score of ≥3 points), cognitive impairment (MMSE score <24), or the occurrence of dementia-related adverse events. RESULTS: Among 2895 patients included in the MMSE substudy with baseline MMSE score measured, 1453 patients were assigned to sacubitril/valsartan and 1442 to valsartan. Their mean age was 73 years, and the median follow-up was 32 months. The mean±SD MMSE score at randomization was 27.4±3.0 in the sacubitril/valsartan group, with 10% having an MMSE score <24; the corresponding numbers were nearly identical in the valsartan group. The mean change from baseline to 96 weeks in the sacubitril/valsartan group was -0.05 (SE, 0.07); the corresponding change in the valsartan group was -0.04 (0.07). The mean between-treatment difference at week 96 was -0.01 (95% CI, -0.20 to 0.19; P=0.95). Analyses of a ≥3-point decline in MMSE, decrease to a score <24, dementia-related adverse events, and combinations of these showed no difference between sacubitril/valsartan and valsartan. No difference was found in the subgroup of patients tested for apolipoprotein E ε4 allele genotype. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction in PARAGON-HF had relatively low baseline MMSE scores. Cognitive change, measured by MMSE, did not differ between treatment with sacubitril/valsartan and treatment with valsartan in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT01920711.

Aptamer Proteomics for Biomarker Discovery in Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction: The PARAGON-HF Proteomic Substudy.

BACKGROUND: Prognostic markers and biological pathways linked to detrimental clinical outcomes in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) remain incompletely defined. METHODS AND RESULTS: We measured serum levels of 4123 unique proteins in 1117 patients with HFpEF enrolled in the PARAGON-HF (Efficacy and Safety of LCZ696 Compared to Valsartan, on Morbidity and Mortality in Heart Failure Patients With Preserved Ejection Fraction) trial using a modified aptamer proteomic assay. Baseline circulating protein concentrations significantly associated with the primary end point and the timing and occurrence of total heart failure hospitalization and cardiovascular death were identified by recurrent events regression, accounting for multiple testing, adjusted for age, sex, treatment, and anticoagulant use, and compared with published analyses in 2515 patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction from the PARADIGM-HF (Prospective Comparison of ARNI With ACEI to Determine Impact on Global Mortality and Morbidity in Heart Failure) and ATMOSPHERE (Efficacy and Safety of Aliskiren and Aliskiren/Enalapril Combination on Morbidity-Mortality in Patients With Chronic Heart Failure) clinical trials. We identified 288 proteins that were robustly associated with the risk of heart failure hospitalization and cardiovascular death in patients with HFpEF. The baseline proteins most strongly related to outcomes included B2M (ß-2 microglobulin), TIMP1 (tissue inhibitor of matrix metalloproteinase 1), SERPINA4 (serpin family A member 4), and SVEP1 (sushi, von Willebrand factor type A, EGF, and pentraxin domain containing 1). Overall, the protein-outcome associations in patients with HFpEF did not markedly differ as compared with patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction. A proteomic risk score derived in patients with HFpEF was not superior to a previous proteomic score derived in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction nor to clinical risk factors, NT-proBNP (N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide), or high-sensitivity cardiac troponin. CONCLUSIONS: Numerous serum proteins linked to metabolic, coagulation, and extracellular matrix regulatory pathways were associated with worse HFpEF prognosis in the PARAGON-HF proteomic substudy. Our results demonstrate substantial similarities among serum proteomic risk markers for heart failure hospitalization and cardiovascular death when comparing clinical trial participants with heart failure across the ejection fraction spectrum. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique Identifiers: NCT01920711, NCT01035255, NCT00853658.

Association of Sacubitril/Valsartan vs Valsartan With Blood Pressure Changes and Symptomatic Hypotension: the PARAGLIDE-HF Trial.

BACKGROUND: In PARAGLIDE-HF, in patients with ejection fraction (EF) > 40%, stabilized after worsening heart failure (WHF), sacubitril/valsartan led to greater reduction in plasma NT-proBNP levels and was associated with clinical benefit compared to valsartan alone, despite more symptomatic hypotension (SH). Concern about SH may be limiting the use of sacubitril/valsartan in appropriate patients. METHODS: We characterized patients by the occurrence of SH (investigator-reported) after randomization to either sacubitril/valsartan or valsartan. A key trial inclusion criterion was systolic blood pressure (SBP) ≥ 100 mmHg for the preceding 6 hours and no SH. We also compared outcomes based on baseline SBP stratified by the median blood pressure. The primary endpoint was time-averaged proportional change in NT-proBNP levels from baseline through weeks 4 and 8. A secondary hierarchical outcome (win ratio) consisted of: (1) cardiovascular death; (2) hospitalizations due to HF; (3) urgent HF visits; and (4) change in NT-proBNP levels. RESULTS: Among 466 randomized patients, 92 (19.7%) experienced SH (sacubitril/valsartan, n = 56 [24.0%]; valsartan, n = 36 [15.5%]; P = 0.020). The median time to the first SH event was similar between treatment arms (18 days vs 15 days, respectively; P = 0.42) as was the proportion of first SH events classified as serious by investigators. Patients who experienced SH with sacubitril/valsartan were more likely to be white (OR 1.87 [95% CI: 0.31, 11.15]), to have a lower baseline SBP (per 10 mmHg increase, OR 0.68 [95% CI: 0.55, 0.85]), or to have a left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) of > 60% (OR 2.21 [95% CI: 1.05, 4.65]). Time-averaged change in NT-proBNP levels did not differ between patients with baseline SBP ≥ 128 mmHg vs SBP < 128 mmHg (interaction, P = 0.43). The composite hierarchical outcome for sacubitril/valsartan in patients with baseline SBP ≥ 128 mmHg had a win ratio of 1.34 ([95% CI: 0.91, 1.99]; P = 0.096) vs SBP < 128 mmHg with a win ratio of 1.09 ([95%CI: 0.73, 1.66]; P = 0 .62; interaction P value = 0.42). CONCLUSION: Among patients with LVEF > 40% stabilized after WHF, incident SH was more common with sacubitril/valsartan compared with valsartan. SH was associated with lower baseline SBP, being white, and having higher LVEF. Treatment benefits with sacubitril/valsartan may be more pronounced in patients with higher baseline SBP and lower LVEF (≤ 60%). (Funded by Novartis Pharmaceutical Corporation; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03988634.).

Baseline characteristics of patients with heart failure with mildly reduced or preserved ejection fraction: The FINEARTS-HF trial.

AIMS: To describe the baseline characteristics of participants in the FINEARTS-HF trial, contextualized with prior trials including patients with heart failure (HF) with mildly reduced and preserved ejection fraction (HFmrEF/HFpEF). The FINEARTS-HF trial is comparing the effects of the non-steroidal mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist finerenone with placebo in reducing cardiovascular death and total worsening HF events in patients with HFmrEF/HFpEF. METHODS AND RESULTS: Patients with symptomatic HF, left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) ≥40%, estimated glomerular filtration rate ≥ 25 ml/min/1.73 m2, elevated natriuretic peptide levels and evidence of structural heart disease were enrolled and randomized to finerenone titrated to a maximum of 40 mg once daily or matching placebo. We validly randomized 6001 patients to finerenone or placebo (mean age 72 ± 10 years, 46% women). The majority were New York Heart Association functional class II (69%). The baseline mean LVEF was 53 ± 8% (range 34-84%); 36% of participants had a LVEF <50% and 64% had a LVEF ≥50%. The median N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) was 1041 (interquartile range 449-1946) pg/ml. A total of 1219 (20%) patients were enrolled during or within 7 days of a worsening HF event, and 3247 (54%) patients were enrolled within 3 months of a worsening HF event. Compared with prior large-scale HFmrEF/HFpEF trials, FINEARTS-HF participants were more likely to have recent (within 6 months) HF hospitalization and greater symptoms and functional limitations. Further, concomitant medications included a larger percentage of sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors and angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitors than previous trials. CONCLUSIONS: FINEARTS-HF has enrolled a broad range of high-risk patients with HFmrEF and HFpEF. The trial will determine the safety and efficacy of finerenone in this population.

Finerenone in patients with heart failure with mildly reduced or preserved ejection fraction: Rationale and design of the FINEARTS-HF trial.

AIM: Steroidal mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRAs), spironolactone and eplerenone, are strongly recommended in the treatment of patients with chronic heart failure (HF) with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), but the balance of efficacy and safety in those with higher LVEF has not been well established. Broad use of steroidal MRAs has further been limited in part due to safety concerns around risks of hyperkalaemia, gynecomastia, and kidney dysfunction. These risks may be mitigated by the unique pharmacological properties of the non-steroidal MRA finerenone. The FINEARTS-HF trial is designed to evaluate the long-term efficacy and safety of the selective non-steroidal MRA finerenone among patients with HF with mildly reduced or preserved ejection fraction. METHODS: FINEARTS-HF is a global, multicentre, event-driven randomized trial evaluating oral finerenone versus matching placebo in symptomatic patients with HF with LVEF ≥40%. Adults (≥40 years) with HF with New York Heart Association class II-IV symptoms, LVEF ≥40%, evidence of structural heart disease, and diuretic use for at least the previous 30 days were eligible. All patients required elevated natriuretic peptide levels: for patients in sinus rhythm, N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) ≥300 pg/ml (or B-type natriuretic peptide [BNP] ≥100 pg/ml) were required, measured within 30 days (in those without a recent worsening HF event) or within 90 days (in those with a recent worsening HF event). Qualifying levels of NT-proBNP or BNP were tripled if a patient was in atrial fibrillation at screening. Estimated glomerular filtration rate <25 ml/min/1.73 m2 or serum potassium >5.0 mmol/L were key exclusion criteria. Patients were enrolled irrespective of clinical care setting (whether hospitalized, recently hospitalized, or ambulatory). The primary endpoint is the composite of cardiovascular death and total (first and recurrent) HF events. The trial started on 14 September 2020 and has validly randomized 6001 participants across 37 countries. Approximately 2375 total primary composite events are targeted. CONCLUSIONS: The FINEARTS-HF trial will determine the efficacy and safety of the non-steroidal MRA finerenone in a broad population of hospitalized and ambulatory patients with HF with mildly reduced or preserved ejection fraction. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04435626 and EudraCT 2020-000306-29.

Kaposi sarcoma in an individual recently diagnosed with HIV.

Kaposi Sarcoma (KS) commonly manifests with multiple vesicular cutaneous and mucosal nodules, with four subtypes clinically recognized. Although commonly seen in younger men, our patient presented with presumed epidemic KS at an older age. Additionally, our patient presented with Kaposi sarcoma during primary HIV infection which is atypical for Kaposi sarcoma presentation. The patient's clinical course is important to follow, as his rectal involvement indicates the patient would benefit from systemic therapy. Furthermore, our case highlights the need for a keen clinical index of suspicion in all patients with new HIV diagnosis and new onset suspicious lesions, regardless of age.

Dapagliflozin and quality of life measured using the EuroQol 5-dimension questionnaire in patients with heart failure with reduced and mildly reduced/preserved ejection fraction.

AIMS: Although much is known about the usefulness of heart failure (HF)-specific instruments for assessing patient well-being, less is known about the value of generic instruments for the measurement of health-related quality of life (HRQL) in HF. The aim of this study was to assess the relationship between the EuroQol 5-dimension 5-level (EQ-5D-5L) visual analogue scale (VAS) and index scores, clinical characteristics, and outcomes in patients with HF and the effect of dapagliflozin on these scores. METHODS AND RESULTS: We performed a patient-level pooled analysis of the DAPA-HF and DELIVER trials, which investigated the effectiveness and safety of dapagliflozin in patients with HF and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and mildly reduced/preserved ejection fraction (HFmrEF/HFpEF), respectively. Patients reporting higher (better) EQ-5D-5L VAS and index scores had a lower prevalence of comorbidities, including atrial fibrillation and hypertension, than patients with a worse score. They were also more likely to have better investigator-reported (New York Heart Association class) and patient-self-reported (Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire) health status and lower median N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide levels. Compared to patients with the lowest scores (Q1), those with higher EQ-5D-5L VAS scores had better outcomes: the hazard ratio for the composite of cardiovascular death or worsening HF was 0.81 (95% confidence interval 0.72-0.91) in Q2, 0.74 (0.65-0.84) in Q3, and 0.62 (0.54-0.72) in Q4. The risk of each component of the composite outcome, and all-cause death, was also lower in patients with better scores. Similar findings were observed for the index score. Treatment with dapagliflozin improved both EQ-5D-5L VAS and index scores across the range of ejection fraction. CONCLUSIONS: Both higher (better) EQ-5D-5L VAS and index scores were associated with better outcomes. Dapagliflozin treatment improved EQ-5D-5L VAS and index scores, irrespective of ejection fraction.

Effect of dapagliflozin in patients with diabetes and heart failure with mildly reduced or preserved ejection fraction according to background glucose-lowering therapy: A pre-specified analysis of the DELIVER trial.

AIMS: Type 2 diabetes (T2D) and heart failure (HF) frequently coexist, but whether clinical outcomes and treatment effects of sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors (SGLT2i) vary in relation to background glucose-lowering therapy (GLT) in this population is uncertain. METHODS AND RESULTS: DELIVER randomized patients with HF and left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) >40% to dapagliflozin or placebo. The primary outcome was a composite of worsening HF (HF hospitalization or urgent HF visit) or cardiovascular death. In this pre-specified analysis of participants with T2D, treatment effects were assessed by number and class of background GLT(s). Of 3150 participants with T2D at baseline, 22.9% were on no GLT, 36.5% were treated with 1 GLT, and 40.6% with ≥2 GLTs. During follow-up (median: 2.3 years), treatment benefits of dapagliflozin (vs. placebo) on the primary outcome were consistent irrespective of the number of background GLTs (0 GLTs: hazard ratio [HR] 0.71, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.50-1.00; 1 GLT: HR 1.04, 95% CI 0.80-1.34; ≥2 GLTs: HR 0.71, 95% CI 0.56-0.90; pinteraction = 0.59). Similar findings were observed among participants with (HR 0.73, 95% CI 0.59-0.92) and without background metformin use (HR 0.89, 95% CI 0.72-1.11; pinteraction = 0.22) and in participants with (HR 0.89, 95% CI 0.69-1.16) and without background insulin use (HR 0.78, 95% CI 0.65-0.95; pinteraction = 0.45). Dapagliflozin was well-tolerated irrespective of the number of background GLTs. CONCLUSIONS: Dapagliflozin safely and consistently improved clinical outcomes among individuals with T2D and HF with LVEF >40% irrespective of the number and class of background GLTs, and the benefits were not influenced by concomitant metformin or insulin use. These data bolster contemporary guidelines supporting first-line SGLT2i among individuals with T2D and HF, irrespective of background GLT.

Effects of sacubitril/valsartan according to polypharmacy status in PARAGON-HF.

AIMS: Patients with heart failure (HF) and preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) have a particularly high prevalence of comorbidities, often necessitating treatment with many medications. The aim of this study was to evaluate the association between polypharmacy status and outcomes in PARAGON-HF. METHODS AND RESULTS: In this post hoc analysis, baseline medication status was available in 4793 of 4796 patients included in the primary analysis of PARAGON-HF. The effects of sacubitril/valsartan, compared with valsartan, were assessed according to the number of medications at baseline: 683 non-polypharmacy (<5 medications); 2750 polypharmacy (5-9 medications), and 1360 hyper-polypharmacy (≥10 medications). The primary outcome was total HF hospitalizations and cardiovascular deaths. Patients with hyper-polypharmacy were older, had more severe limitations due to HF (worse New York Heart Association class and Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire scores), and had greater comorbidity. The non-adjusted risk of the primary outcome was significantly higher in patients taking more medications, and similar trends were seen for HF hospitalization and cardiovascular and all-cause death. The effect of sacubitril/valsartan versus valsartan on the primary outcome from the lowest to highest polypharmacy category was (as a rate ratio): 1.19 (0.76-1.85), 0.94 (0.77-1.15), and 0.77 (0.61-0.96) (pinteraction = 0.16). Treatment-related adverse events were more common in patients in the higher polypharmacy categories but not more common with sacubitril/valsartan, versus valsartan, in any polypharmacy category. CONCLUSIONS: Polypharmacy is very common in patients with HFpEF, and those with polypharmacy have worse clinical status and a higher rate of non-fatal and fatal outcomes. The benefit of sacubitril/valsartan was not diminished in patients taking a larger number of medications at baseline.

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).