Age and Aspirin Dosing in Secondary Prevention of Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease.

BACKGROUND: In patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, increasing age is concurrently associated with higher risks of ischemic and bleeding events. The objectives are to determine the impact of aspirin dose on clinical outcomes according to age in atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. METHODS AND RESULTS: In the ADAPTABLE (Aspirin Dosing: A Patient-Centric Trial Assessing Benefits and Long-Term Effectiveness) trial, patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease were randomized to daily aspirin doses of 81 mg or 325 mg. The primary effectiveness end point was death from any cause, hospitalization for myocardial infarction, or hospitalization for stroke. The primary safety end point was hospitalization for bleeding requiring transfusion. A total of 15 076 participants were randomized to aspirin 81 mg (n=7540) or 325 mg (n=7536) daily (median follow-up: 26.2 months; interquartile range: 19.0-34.9 months). Median age was 67.6 years (interquartile range: 60.7-73.6 years). Among participants aged <65 years (n=5841 [38.7%]), a primary end point occurred in 226 (7.54%) in the 81 mg group, and in 191 (6.80%) in the 325 mg group (adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 1.23 [95% CI, 1.01-1.49]). Among participants aged ≥65 years (n=9235 [61.3%]), a primary end point occurred in 364 (7.12%) in the 81 mg group, and in 378 (7.96%) in the 325 mg group (adjusted HR, 0.95 [95% CI, 0.82-1.10]). The age-dose interaction was not significant (P=0.559). There was no significant interaction between age and the randomized aspirin dose for the secondary effectiveness and the primary safety bleeding end points (P>0.05 for all). CONCLUSIONS: Age does not modify the impact of aspirin dosing (81 mg or 325 mg daily) on clinical end points in secondary prevention of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease.

Comparative Effectiveness of Aspirin Dosing in Cardiovascular Disease and Diabetes Mellitus: A Subgroup Analysis of the ADAPTABLE Trial.

OBJECTIVE: Patients with diabetes mellitus (DM) and concomitant atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) must be on the most effective dose of aspirin to mitigate risk of future adverse cardiovascular events. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: ADAPTABLE, an open-label, pragmatic study, randomized patients with stable, chronic ASCVD to 81 mg or 325 mg of daily aspirin. The effects of aspirin dosing was assessed on the primary effectiveness outcome, a composite of all-cause death, hospitalization for myocardial infarction, or hospitalization for stroke, and the primary safety outcome of hospitalization for major bleeding. In this prespecified analysis, we used Cox proportional hazards models to compare aspirin dosing in patients with and without DM for the primary effectiveness and safety outcome. RESULTS: Of 15,076 patients, 5,676 (39%) had DM of whom 2,820 (49.7%) were assigned to 81 mg aspirin and 2,856 (50.3%) to 325 mg aspirin. Patients with versus without DM had higher rates of the composite cardiovascular outcome (9.6% vs. 5.9%; P < 0.001) and bleeding events (0.78% vs. 0.50%; P < 0.001). When comparing 81 mg vs. 325 mg of aspirin, patients with DM had no difference in the primary effectiveness outcome (9.3% vs. 10.0%; hazard ratio [HR] 0.98 [95% CI 0.83-1.16]; P = 0.265) or safety outcome (0.87% vs. 0.69%; subdistribution HR 1.25 [95% CI 0.72-2.16]; P = 0.772). CONCLUSIONS: This study confirms the inherently higher risk of patients with DM irrespective of aspirin dosing. Our findings suggest that a higher dose of aspirin yields no added clinical benefit, even in a more vulnerable population.

Effectiveness and Safety of Enteric-Coated vs Uncoated Aspirin in Patients With Cardiovascular Disease: A Secondary Analysis of the ADAPTABLE Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Clinicians recommend enteric-coated aspirin to decrease gastrointestinal bleeding in secondary prevention of coronary artery disease even though studies suggest platelet inhibition is decreased with enteric-coated vs uncoated aspirin formulations. Objective: To assess whether receipt of enteric-coated vs uncoated aspirin is associated with effectiveness or safety outcomes. Design, Setting, and Participants: This is a post hoc secondary analysis of ADAPTABLE (Aspirin Dosing: A Patient-Centric Trial Assessing Benefits and Long-term Effectiveness), a pragmatic study of 15 076 patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease having data in the National Patient-Centered Clinical Research Network. Patients were enrolled from April 19, 2016, through June 30, 2020, and randomly assigned to receive high (325 mg) vs low (81 mg) doses of daily aspirin. The present analysis assessed the effectiveness and safety of enteric-coated vs uncoated aspirin among those participants who reported aspirin formulation at baseline. Data were analyzed from November 11, 2019, to July 3, 2023. Intervention: ADAPTABLE participants were regrouped according to aspirin formulation self-reported at baseline, with a median (IQR) follow-up of 26.2 (19.8-35.4) months. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary effectiveness end point was the cumulative incidence of the composite of myocardial infarction, stroke, or death from any cause, and the primary safety end point was major bleeding events (hospitalization for a bleeding event with use of a blood product or intracranial hemorrhage). Cumulative incidence at median follow-up for primary effectiveness and primary safety end points was compared between participants taking enteric-coated or uncoated aspirin using unadjusted and multivariable Cox proportional hazards models. All analyses were conducted for the intention-to-treat population. Results: Baseline aspirin formulation used in ADAPTABLE was self-reported for 10 678 participants (median [IQR] age, 68.0 [61.3-73.7] years; 7285 men [68.2%]), of whom 7366 (69.0%) took enteric-coated aspirin and 3312 (31.0%) took uncoated aspirin. No significant difference in effectiveness (adjusted hazard ratio [AHR], 0.94; 95% CI, 0.80-1.09; P = .40) or safety (AHR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.49-1.37; P = .46) outcomes between the enteric-coated aspirin and uncoated aspirin cohorts was found. Within enteric-coated aspirin and uncoated aspirin, aspirin dose had no association with effectiveness (enteric-coated aspirin AHR, 1.13; 95% CI, 0.88-1.45 and uncoated aspirin AHR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.83-1.18; interaction P = .41) or safety (enteric-coated aspirin AHR, 2.37; 95% CI, 1.02-5.50 and uncoated aspirin AHR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.49-1.64; interaction P = .07). Conclusions and Relevance: In this post hoc secondary analysis of the ADAPTABLE randomized clinical trial, enteric-coated aspirin was not associated with significantly higher risk of myocardial infarction, stroke, or death or with lower bleeding risk compared with uncoated aspirin, regardless of dose, although a reduction in bleeding with enteric-coated aspirin cannot be excluded. More research is needed to confirm whether enteric-coated aspirin formulations or newer formulations will improve outcomes in this population. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02697916.

Comparison of the effectiveness and safety of 2 aspirin doses in secondary prevention of cardiovascular outcomes in patients with chronic kidney disease: A subgroup analysis of ADAPTABLE.

BACKGROUND: Among patients with established cardiovascular disease, the ADAPTABLE trial found no significant differences in cardiovascular events and bleeding rates between 81 mg and 325 mg of aspirin (ASA) daily. In this secondary analysis from the ADAPTABLE trial, we studied the effectiveness and safety of ASA dosing in patients with a history of chronic kidney disease (CKD). METHODS: ADAPTABLE participants were stratified based on the presence or absence of CKD, defined using ICD-9/10-CM codes. Within the CKD group, we compared outcomes between patients taking ASA 81 mg and 325 mg. The primary effectiveness outcome was defined as a composite of all cause death, myocardial infarction, or stroke and the primary safety outcome was hospitalization for major bleeding. Adjusted Cox proportional hazard models were utilized to report differences between the groups. RESULTS: After excluding 414 (2.7%) patients due to missing medical history, a total of 14,662 patients were included from the ADAPTABLE cohort, of whom 2,648 (18%) patients had CKD. Patients with CKD were older (median age 69.4 vs 67.1 years; P < .0001) and less likely to be white (71.5% vs 81.7%; P < .0001) when compared to those without CKD. At a median follow-up of 26.2 months, CKD was associated with an increased risk of both the primary effectiveness outcome (adjusted HR 1.79 [1.57, 2.05] P < .001 and the primary safety outcome (adjusted HR 4.64 (2.98, 7.21), P < .001 and P < .05, respectively) regardless of ASA dose. There was no significant difference in effectiveness (adjusted HR 1.01 95% CI 0.82, 1.23; P = .95) or safety (adjusted HR 0.93; 95% CI 0.52, 1.64; P = .79) between ASA groups. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with CKD were more likely than those without CKD to have adverse cardiovascular events or death and were also more likely to have major bleeding requiring hospitalization. However, there was no association between ASA dose and study outcomes among these patients with CKD.

External Control Arms in Idiopathic Pulmonary Fibrosis Using Clinical Trial and Real-World Data Sources.

Rationale: Idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) is a progressive lung disease for which novel therapies are needed. External controls (ECs) could enhance IPF trial efficiency, but the direct comparability of ECs versus concurrent controls is unknown. Objectives: To develop IPF ECs by fit-for-purpose data standards to historical randomized clinical trial (RCT), multicenter registry (Pulmonary Fibrosis Foundation Patient Registry), and electronic health record (EHR) data and to evaluate endpoint comparability among ECs and the phase II RCT of BMS-986020. Methods: After data curation, the rate of change in FVC from baseline to 26 weeks among participants receiving BMS-986020 600 mg twice daily was compared with the BMS-placebo arm and ECs using mixed-effects models with inverse probability weights. Measurements and Main Results: At 26 weeks, the rates of change in FVC were -32.71 ml for BMS-986020 and -130.09 ml for BMS-placebo (difference, 97.4 ml; 95% confidence interval [CI], 24.6-170.2), replicating the original BMS-986020 RCT. RCT ECs showed treatment effect point estimates within the 95% CI of the original BMS-986020 RCT. Pulmonary Fibrosis Foundation Patient Registry ECs and EHR ECs experienced a slower rate of FVC decline compared with the BMS-placebo arm, resulting in treatment-effect point estimates outside of the 95% CI of the original BMS-986020 RCT. Conclusions: IPF ECs generated from historical RCT placebo arms result in comparable primary treatment effects to that of the original clinical trial, whereas ECs from real-world data sources, including registry or EHR data, do not. RCT ECs may serve as a potentially useful supplement to future IPF RCTs.

Electronic health record characterization and outcomes of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction.

BACKGROUND: Electronic health record (EHR)-based identification of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) in the clinical setting may facilitate screening for clinical trials by improving the understanding of its epidemiology and outcomes; yet, previous data have yielded variable results. We sought to characterize groups identified with HFpEF by different EHR screening strategies and their associated long-term outcomes across a large and diverse population. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed 116,499 consecutive patients from an academic referral center who underwent echocardiography, and 9,263 patients who underwent echocardiography within 6 months of right heart catheterization (RHC), between 2008 and 2018. EHR-based screening strategies identified patients with HFpEF using 1) International Classification of Diseases (ICD)-9/10 codes, 2) H2FpEF score ≥6 and ejection fraction (EF) ≥50%, or 3) RHC wedge pressure ≥15 mmHg and EF ≥50%, when available. Primary outcomes were 1) cumulative incident heart failure hospitalization (HFH), and 2) death, over 10 years. RESULTS: There were 33,461 (29%) patients who met either ICD or H2FpEF-HFpEF definition, of whom 5,310 (16%) met both criteria. Compared to ICD-HFpEF, patients with H2FpEF-HFpEF were more likely older (median age 72 vs 67), White (78% vs 64%), and had atrial fibrillation (97% vs 41%). Among those also with RHC, 6,353 (69%) patients met any HFpEF criteria, of whom only 783 (12%) satisfied all three criteria. Female sex was more common among RHC-HFpEF (55%) compared to other methods (H2FpEF-HFpEF, 47%; ICD-HFpEF, 43%). Atrial fibrillation was substantially higher among HFpEF identified by the H2FpEF score (97%) compared to other methods (49% for ICD and 47% for RHC). Across HFpEF screening methods, 10-year cumulative incidence rates for HFH was 32% to 45% for echocardiography only and 43% to 52% for echocardiography and RHC populations; 10-year risk of death was 54% to 56% for echocardiography only and 52% to 57% for echocardiography and RHC populations. CONCLUSIONS: Different EHR-based HFpEF definitions identified cohorts with modest overlap and varying baseline characteristics. Yet, long-term risk for HFH and death were similarly high for cohorts identified among both populations undergoing echocardiography only or echocardiography and RHC. These data aid in identifying relevant subgroups in clinical trials of HFpEF.

Standardizing, harmonizing, and protecting data collection to broaden the impact of COVID-19 research: the rapid acceleration of diagnostics-underserved populations (RADx-UP) initiative.

OBJECTIVE: The Rapid Acceleration of Diagnostics-Underserved Populations (RADx-UP) program is a consortium of community-engaged research projects with the goal of increasing access to Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) tests in underserved populations. To accelerate clinical research, common data elements (CDEs) were selected and refined to standardize data collection and enhance cross-consortium analysis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The RADx-UP consortium began with more than 700 CDEs from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) CDE Repository, Disaster Research Response (DR2) guidelines, and the PHENotypes and eXposures (PhenX) Toolkit. Following a review of initial CDEs, we made selections and further refinements through an iterative process that included live forums, consultations, and surveys completed by the first 69 RADx-UP projects. RESULTS: Following a multistep CDE development process, we decreased the number of CDEs, modified the question types, and changed the CDE wording. Most research projects were willing to collect and share demographic NIH Tier 1 CDEs, with the top exception reason being a lack of CDE applicability to the project. The NIH RADx-UP Tier 1 CDE with the lowest frequency of collection and sharing was sexual orientation. DISCUSSION: We engaged a wide range of projects and solicited bidirectional input to create CDEs. These RADx-UP CDEs could serve as the foundation for a patient-centered informatics architecture allowing the integration of disease-specific databases to support hypothesis-driven clinical research in underserved populations. CONCLUSION: A community-engaged approach using bidirectional feedback can lead to the better development and implementation of CDEs in underserved populations during public health emergencies.

Iterative approaches to the use of electronic health records data for large pragmatic studies.

Randomized controlled trials (RCT) are the gold standard for evaluating the effectiveness and safety of interventions and treatments, yet traditional clinical trials have relied on cumbersome and redundant processes such as electronic data entry which involves manual abstraction of already available electronic health record (EHR) data. This review focuses on the opportunities to expand the use of EHR data for pragmatic clinical trials using methods and lessons learned from the Aspirin Dosing: A Patient-Centric Trial Assessing Benefits and Long-Term Effectiveness (ADAPTABLE) study, the demonstration project from PCORnet® (the National Patient-Centered Clinical Research Network).

At-home testing to mitigate community transmission of SARS-CoV-2: protocol for a public health intervention with a nested prospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic caused by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) continues to evolve as a global health crisis. Although highly effective vaccines have been developed, non-pharmaceutical interventions remain critical to controlling disease transmission. One such intervention-rapid, at-home antigen self-testing-can ease the burden associated with facility-based testing programs and improve testing access in high-risk communities. However, its impact on SARS-CoV-2 community transmission has yet to be definitively evaluated, and the socio-behavioral aspects of testing in underserved populations remain unknown. METHODS: As part of the Rapid Acceleration of Diagnostics-Underserved Populations (RADx-UP) program funded by the National Institutes of Health, we are implementing a public health intervention titled "Say Yes! COVID Test" (SYCT) involving at-home self-testing using a SARS-CoV-2 rapid antigen assay in North Carolina (Greenville, Pitt County) and Tennessee (Chattanooga City, Hamilton County). The intervention is supported by a multifaceted communication and community engagement strategy to ensure widespread awareness and uptake, particularly in marginalized communities. Participants receive test kits either through online orders or via local community distribution partners. To assess the impact of this intervention on SARS-CoV-2 transmission, we will conduct a non-randomized, ecological study using community-level outcomes. Specifically, we will evaluate trends in SARS-CoV-2 cases and hospitalizations, SARS-CoV-2 viral load in wastewater, and population mobility in each community before, during, and after the SYCT intervention. Individuals who choose to participate in SYCT will also have the option to enroll in an embedded prospective cohort substudy gathering participant-level data to evaluate behavioral determinants of at-home self-testing and socio-behavioral mechanisms of SARS-CoV-2 community transmission. DISCUSSION: This is the first large-scale, public health intervention implementing rapid, at-home SARS-CoV-2 self-testing in the United States. The program consists of a novel combination of an at-home testing program, a broad communications and community engagement strategy, an ecological study to assess impact, and a research substudy of the behavioral aspects of testing. The findings from the SYCT project will provide insights into innovative methods to mitigate viral transmission, advance the science of public health communications and community engagement, and evaluate emerging, novel assessments of community transmission of disease.

Validation of Cardiovascular End Points Ascertainment Leveraging Multisource Electronic Health Records Harmonized Into a Common Data Model in the ADAPTABLE Randomized Clinical Trial.

BACKGROUND: The ADAPTABLE trial (Aspirin Dosing: A Patient-Centric Trial Assessing Benefits and Long-Term Effectiveness) is the first randomized trial conducted within the National Patient-Centered Clinical Research Network to use the electronic health record data formatted into a common data model as the primary source of end point ascertainment, without confirmation by standard adjudication. The objective of this prespecified study is to assess the validity of nonfatal end points captured from the National Patient-Centered Clinical Research Network, using traditional blinded adjudication as the gold standard. METHODS: A total of 15 076 participants with established atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease were randomized to two doses of aspirin (81 mg and 325 mg once daily). Nonfatal end points (hospitalization for nonfatal myocardial infarction, nonfatal stroke, and major bleeding requiring transfusion of blood products) were captured with the use of programming algorithms applied to National Patient-Centered Clinical Research Network data. A random subset of end points was independently reviewed by a disease-specific expert adjudicator. The positive predictive value of the programming algorithms were calculated separately for end points listed as primary and as nonprimary diagnoses. RESULTS: A total of 225 end points were identified (91 myocardial infarction events, 89 stroke events, and 45 bleeding events), including 142 (63%) that were listed as primary diagnoses. Complete source documents were missing for 14% of events. The positive predictive value were 90%, 72%, and 93% for hospitalizations for myocardial infarction, stroke, and major bleeding, respectively, as compared to adjudication. When only primary diagnoses were considered, positive predictive value were 93%, 91%, and 97%, respectively. When only nonprimary diagnoses were considered, positive predictive value were 82%, 36%, and 71%. CONCLUSIONS: As compared with blinded adjudication, clinical end point ascertainment from queries of the National Patient-Centered Clinical Research Network distributed harmonized data was valid to identify hospitalizations for myocardial infarction in ADAPTABLE. The proportion of contradicted events was high for hospitalizations for bleeding and strokes when nonprimary diagnoses were analyzed, but not when only primary diagnoses were considered.

Comparative Effectiveness of Aspirin Dosing in Cardiovascular Disease.

BACKGROUND: The appropriate dose of aspirin to lower the risk of death, myocardial infarction, and stroke and to minimize major bleeding in patients with established atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease is a subject of controversy. METHODS: Using an open-label, pragmatic design, we randomly assigned patients with established atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease to a strategy of 81 mg or 325 mg of aspirin per day. The primary effectiveness outcome was a composite of death from any cause, hospitalization for myocardial infarction, or hospitalization for stroke, assessed in a time-to-event analysis. The primary safety outcome was hospitalization for major bleeding, also assessed in a time-to-event analysis. RESULTS: A total of 15,076 patients were followed for a median of 26.2 months (interquartile range [IQR], 19.0 to 34.9). Before randomization, 13,537 (96.0% of those with available information on previous aspirin use) were already taking aspirin, and 85.3% of these patients were previously taking 81 mg of daily aspirin. Death, hospitalization for myocardial infarction, or hospitalization for stroke occurred in 590 patients (estimated percentage, 7.28%) in the 81-mg group and 569 patients (estimated percentage, 7.51%) in the 325-mg group (hazard ratio, 1.02; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.91 to 1.14). Hospitalization for major bleeding occurred in 53 patients (estimated percentage, 0.63%) in the 81-mg group and 44 patients (estimated percentage, 0.60%) in the 325-mg group (hazard ratio, 1.18; 95% CI, 0.79 to 1.77). Patients assigned to 325 mg had a higher incidence of dose switching than those assigned to 81 mg (41.6% vs. 7.1%) and fewer median days of exposure to the assigned dose (434 days [IQR, 139 to 737] vs. 650 days [IQR, 415 to 922]). CONCLUSIONS: In this pragmatic trial involving patients with established cardiovascular disease, there was substantial dose switching to 81 mg of daily aspirin and no significant differences in cardiovascular events or major bleeding between patients assigned to 81 mg and those assigned to 325 mg of aspirin daily. (Funded by the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute; ADAPTABLE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02697916.).

Predictors of Mortality by Sex and Race in Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction: ARIC Community Surveillance Study.

Background Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) accounts for half of heart failure hospitalizations, with limited data on predictors of mortality by sex and race. We evaluated for differences in predictors of all-cause mortality by sex and race among hospitalized patients with HFpEF in the ARIC (Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities) Community Surveillance Study. Methods and Results Adjudicated HFpEF hospitalization events from 2005 to 2013 were analyzed from the ARIC Community Surveillance Study, comprising 4 US communities. Comparisons between clinical characteristics and mortality at 1 year were made by sex and race. Of 4335 adjudicated acute decompensated heart failure cases, 1892 cases (weighted n=8987) were categorized as HFpEF. Men had an increased risk of 1-year mortality compared with women in adjusted analysis (hazard ratio [HR], 1.27; 95% CI, 1.06-1.52 [P=0.01]). Black participants had lower mortality compared with White participants in unadjusted and adjusted analyses (HR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.64-0.97 [P=0.02]). Age, heart rate, worsening renal function, and low hemoglobin were associated with increased mortality in all subgroups. Higher body mass index was associated with improved survival in men, with borderline interaction by sex. Higher blood pressure was associated with improved survival among all groups, with significant interaction by race. Conclusions In a diverse HFpEF population, men had worse survival compared with women, and Black participants had improved survival compared with White participants. Age, heart rate, and worsening renal function were associated with increased mortality across all subgroups; high blood pressure was associated with decreased mortality with interaction by race. These insights into sex- and race-based differences in predictors of mortality may help strategize targeted management of HFpEF.

Heart Failure and Cognitive Impairment in the Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities (ARIC) Study.

BACKGROUND: Previous studies suggest that heart failure (HF) is an independent risk factor for cognitive decline. A better understanding of the relationship between HF, cognitive status, and cognitive decline in a community-based sample may help clinicians understand disease risk. OBJECTIVE: To examine whether persons with HF have a higher prevalence of cognitive impairment and whether persons developing HF have more rapid cognitive decline. DESIGN: This observational cohort study of American adults in the Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities (ARIC) study has two components: cross-sectional analysis examining the association between prevalent HF and cognition using multinomial logistic regression, and change over time analysis detailing the association between incident HF and change in cognition over 15 years. PARTICIPANTS: Among visit 5 (2011-2013) participants (median age 75 years), 6495 had neurocognitive information available for cross-sectional analysis. Change over time analysis examined the 5414 participants who had cognitive scores and no prevalent HF at visit 4 (1996-1998). MEASUREMENTS: The primary outcome was cognitive status, classified as normal, mild cognitive impairment [MCI], and dementia on the basis of standardized cognitive tests (delayed word recall, word fluency, and digit symbol substitution). Cognitive change was examined over a 15-year period. Control variables included socio-demographic, vascular, and smoking/drinking measures. RESULTS: At visit 5, participants with HF had a higher prevalence of dementia (adjusted relative risk ratio [RRR] = 1.60 [95% CI 1.13, 2.25]) and MCI (RRR = 1.36 [1.12, 1.64]) than those without HF. A decline in cognition between visits 4 and 5 was - 0.07 standard deviation units [- 0.13, - 0.01] greater among persons who developed HF compared to those who did not. Results did not differ by ejection fraction. CONCLUSION: HF is associated with neurocognitive dysfunction and decline independent of other co-morbid conditions. Further study is needed to determine the underlying pathophysiology.

Prevalent digoxin use and subsequent risk of death or hospitalization in ambulatory heart failure patients with a reduced ejection fraction-Findings from the Heart Failure: A Controlled Trial Investigating Outcomes of Exercise Training (HF-ACTION) randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Despite more than 200 years of clinical experience and a pivotal trial, recently published research has called into question the safety and efficacy of digoxin therapy in heart failure (HF). METHODS: HF-ACTION (ClinicalTrials.gov Number: NCT00047437) enrolled 2331 outpatients with HF and an EF ≤35% between April 2003 and February 2007 and randomized them to aerobic exercise training versus usual care. Patients were grouped according to prevalent digoxin status at baseline. The association between digoxin therapy and outcomes was assessed using Cox proportional hazard and inverse-probability weighted (IPW) regression models adjusted for demographics, medical history, medications, laboratory values, quality of life, and exercise parameters. RESULTS: The prevalence of digoxin therapy decreased from 52% during the first 6 months of enrollment to 35% at the end of the HF-ACTION trial (P <0.0001). Study participants were 59± 13 years of age, 72% were male, and approximately half had an ischemic etiology of HF. Patients receiving digoxin at baseline tended to be younger and were more likely to report New York Heart Association functional class III/IV symptoms (rather than class II) compared to those not receiving digoxin. Patients taking digoxin had worse baseline exercise capacity as measured by peak VO2 and 6-min walk test and greater impairments in health status as reflected by the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire. The association between digoxin and the risk of death or hospitalization differed depending on whether Cox proportional hazard (Hazard Ratio 1.03, 95% Confidence Interval 0.92-1.16; P = .62) or IPW regression models (HR 1.08, 95% CI 1.00-1.17; P = .057) were used to adjust for potential confounders. CONCLUSION: Although digoxin use was associated with high-risk clinical features, the association between digoxin therapy and outcomes was dependent on the statistical methods used for multivariable adjustment. Clinical equipoise exists and additional prospective research is required to clarify the role of digoxin in contemporary clinical practice including its effects on functional capacity, quality of life, and long-term outcomes.

Trends in Hospitalizations and Survival of Acute Decompensated Heart Failure in Four US Communities (2005-2014): ARIC Study Community Surveillance.

BACKGROUND: Community trends of acute decompensated heart failure (ADHF) in diverse populations may differ by race and sex. METHODS: The ARIC study (Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities) sampled heart failure-related hospitalizations (≥55 years of age) in 4 US communities from 2005 to 2014 using International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification codes. ADHF hospitalizations were validated by standardized physician review and computer algorithm, yielding 40 173 events after accounting for sampling design (unweighted n=8746). RESULTS: Of the ADHF hospitalizations, 50% had reduced ejection fraction, and 39% had preserved EF (HFpEF). HF with reduced ejection fraction was more common in black men and white men, whereas HFpEF was most common in white women. Average age-adjusted rates of ADHF were highest in blacks (38.1 per 1000 black men, 30.5 per 1000 black women), with rates differing by HF type and sex. ADHF rates increased over the 10 years (average annual percentage change: black women +4.3%, black men +3.7%, white women +1.9%, white men +2.6%), mostly reflecting more acute HFpEF. Age-adjusted 28-day and 1-year case fatality proportions were ≈10% and 30%, respectively, similar across race-sex groups and HF types. Only blacks showed decreased 1-year mortality over time (average annual percentage change: black women -5.4%, black men -4.6%), with rates differing by HF type (average annual percentage change: black women HFpEF -7.1%, black men HF with reduced ejection fraction -4.7%). CONCLUSIONS: Between 2005 and 2014, trends in ADHF hospitalizations increased in 4 US communities, primarily driven by acute HFpEF. Survival at 1 year was poor regardless of EF but improved over time for black women and black men.

Predicting Risk in Patients Hospitalized for Acute Decompensated Heart Failure and Preserved Ejection Fraction: The Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities Study Heart Failure Community Surveillance.

BACKGROUND: Risk-prediction models specifically for hospitalized heart failure with preserved ejection fraction are lacking. METHODS AND RESULTS: We analyzed data from the ARIC (Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities) Study Heart Failure Community Surveillance to create and validate a risk score predicting mortality in patients ≥55 years of age admitted with acute decompensated heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (ejection fraction ≥50%). A modified version of the risk-prediction model for acute heart failure developed from patients in the EFFECT (Enhanced Feedback for Effective Cardiac Treatment) study was used as a composite predictor of 28-day and 1-year mortalities and evaluated together with other potential predictors in a stepwise logistic regression. The derivation sample consisted of 1852 hospitalizations from 2005 to 2011 (mean age, 77 years; 65% women; 74% white). Risk scores were created from the identified predictors and validated in hospitalizations from 2012 to 2013 (n=821). Mortality in the derivation and validation sample was 11% and 8% at 28 days and 34% and 31% at 1 year. The modified EFFECT score, including age, systolic blood pressure, blood urea nitrogen, sodium, cerebrovascular disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and hemoglobin, was a powerful predictor of mortality. Another important predictor for both 28-day and 1-year mortalities was hypoxia. The risk scores were well calibrated and had good discrimination in the derivation sample (area under the curve: 0.76 for 28-day and 0.72 for 1-year mortalities) and validation sample (area under the curve: 0.73 and 0.71, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Mortality after acute decompensation in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction is high, with one third of patients dying within a year. A prediction tool may allow for greater discrimination of the highest risk patients. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00005131.

Community burden and prognostic impact of reduced kidney function among patients hospitalized with acute decompensated heart failure: The Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities (ARIC) Study Community Surveillance.

BACKGROUND: Kidney dysfunction is prevalent and impacts prognosis in patients with acute decompensated heart failure (ADHF). However, most previous reports were from a single hospital, limiting their generalizability. Also, contemporary data using new equation for estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) are needed. METHODS AND RESULTS: We analyzed data from the ARIC Community Surveillance for ADHF conducted for residents aged ≥55 years in four US communities between 2005-2011. All ADHF cases (n = 5, 391) were adjudicated and weighted to represent those communities (24,932 weighted cases). The association of kidney function (creatinine-based eGFR by the CKD-EPI equation and blood urea nitrogen [BUN]) during hospitalization with 1-year mortality was assessed using logistic regression. Based on worst and last serum creatinine, there were 82.5% and 70.6% with reduced eGFR (<60 ml/min/1.73m2) and 37.4% and 26.6% with severely reduced eGFR (<30 ml/min/1.73m2), respectively. Lower eGFR (regardless of last or worst eGFR), particularly eGFR <30 ml/min/1.73m2, was significantly associated with higher 1-year mortality independently of potential confounders (odds ratio 1.60 [95% CI 1.26-2.04] for last eGFR 15-29 ml/min/1.73m2 and 2.30 [1.76-3.00] for <15 compared to eGFR ≥60). The association was largely consistent across demographic subgroups. Of interest, when both eGFR and BUN were modeled together, only BUN remained significant. CONCLUSIONS: Severely reduced eGFR (<30 ml/min/1.73m2) was observed in ~30% of ADHF cases and was an independent predictor of 1-year mortality in community. For prediction, BUN appeared to be superior to eGFR. These findings suggest the need of close attention to kidney dysfunction among ADHF patients.