Genitourinary Tract Infections in Patients Taking SGLT2 Inhibitors: JACC Review Topic of the Week.

Sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors (SGLT2is) have been shown to reduce adverse cardiovascular events in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus, all-cause mortality, and heart failure hospitalization in patients with heart failure, as well as adverse renal outcomes. However, concerns regarding the heightened risk of genitourinary (GU) infections, particularly urinary tract infections, remain a significant barrier to their wider adoption. Addressing these misconceptions using existing evidence is needed to ensure proper risk-benefit assessment and optimal utilization of this efficacious therapy. This review aims to provide a balanced perspective on the evidence-based cardiovascular and renal benefits of SGLT2is and the associated risk of GU infections. We also summarize and propose clinical practice considerations for SGLT2i-associated GU infections focusing on patients with cardiovascular disease.

Clinical Trial Inclusion and Impact on Early Adoption of Medical Innovation in Diverse Populations.

BACKGROUND: Inadequate inclusion in clinical trial enrollment may contribute to health inequities by evaluating interventions in cohorts that do not fully represent target populations. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to determine if characteristics of patients with heart failure (HF) enrolled in a pivotal trial are associated with who receives an intervention after approval. METHODS: Demographics from 2,017,107 Medicare patients hospitalized for HF were compared with those of the first 10,631 Medicare beneficiaries who received implantable pulmonary artery pressure sensors. Characteristics of the population studied in the pivotal CHAMPION (CardioMEMS Heart Sensor Allows Monitoring of Pressure to Improve Outcomes in NYHA Class III Heart Failure Patients) clinical trial (n = 550) were compared with those of both groups. All demographic data were analyzed nationally and in 4 U.S. regions. RESULTS: The Medicare HF cohort included 80.9% White, 13.3% African American, 1.9% Hispanic, 1.3% Asian, and 51.5% female patients. Medicare patients <65 years of age were more likely to be African American (33%) and male (58%), whereas older patients were mostly White (84%) and female (53%). Forty-one percent of U.S. HF hospitalizations occurred in the South; demographic characteristics varied significantly across all U.S. regions. The CHAMPION trial adequately represented African Americans (23% overall, 35% <65 years of age), Hispanic Americans (2%), and Asian Americans (1%) but underrepresented women (27%). The trial's population characteristics were similar to those of the first patients who received pulmonary artery sensors (82% White, 13% African American, 1% Asian, 1% Hispanic, and 29% female). CONCLUSIONS: Demographics of Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services beneficiaries hospitalized with HF vary regionally and by age, which should be considered when defining "adequate" representation in clinical studies. Enrollment diversity in clinical trials may affect who receives early application of recently approved innovations.

Training the Next Generation of Data Monitoring Committee Members: An Initiative of the Heart Failure Collaboratory.

Clinical trials are vital for assessing therapeutic interventions. The associated data monitoring committees (DMCs) safeguard patient interests and enhance trial integrity, thus promoting timely, reliable evaluations of those interventions. We face an urgent need to recruit and train new DMC members. The Heart Failure Collaboratory (HFC), a multidisciplinary public-private consortium of academics, trialists, patients, industry representatives, and government agencies, is working to improve the clinical trial ecosystem. The HFC aims to improve clinical trial efficiency and quality by standardizing concepts, and to help meet the demand for experienced individuals on DMCs by creating a standardized approach to training new members. This paper discusses the HFC's training workshop, and an apprenticeship model for new DMC members. It describes opportunities and challenges DMCs face, along with common myths and best practices learned through previous experiences, with an emphasis on data confidentiality and need for quality independent statistical reporting groups.

Standardized Definitions for Evaluation of Acute Decompensated Heart Failure Therapies: HF-ARC Expert Panel Paper.

Acute decompensated heart failure (ADHF) is one of the most common reasons for hospitalizations or urgent care and is associated with poor outcomes. Therapies shown to improve outcomes are limited, however, and innovation in pharmacologic and device-based therapeutics are therefore actively being sought. Standardizing definitions for ADHF and its trajectory is complex, limiting the generalizability and translation of clinical trials to effect clinical care and policy change. The Heart Failure Collaboratory is a multistakeholder organization comprising clinical investigators, clinicians, patients, government representatives (including U.S. Food and Drug Administration and National Institutes of Health participants), payors, and industry collaborators. The following expert consensus document is the product of the Heart Failure Collaboratory convening with the Academic Research Consortium, including members from academia, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, and industry, for the purposes of proposing standardized definitions for ADHF and highlighting important endpoint considerations to inform the design and conduct of clinical trials for drugs and devices in this clinical arena.

Prognostic Impact of Repeated NT-proBNP Measurements in Patients With Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction.

BACKGROUND: Although clinical studies have demonstrated the association between a single N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) measurement and clinical outcomes in chronic heart failure, the biomarker is frequently measured serially in clinical practice. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to determine the added prognostic value of repeated NT-proBNP measurements compared with single measurements alone for chronic heart failure patients. METHODS: In the GUIDE-IT (Guiding Evidence Based Therapy Using Biomarker Intensified Treatment in Heart Failure) study, 894 study participants with chronic heart failure with reduced ejection fraction were enrolled at 45 outpatient sites in the United States and Canada. Repeated NT-proBNP levels were measured over a 2-year study period. Associations between repeated NT-proBNP measurements and trial endpoints were assessed using a joint longitudinal and survival model. RESULTS: After adjustment for baseline covariates, each doubling of the baseline NT-proBNP level was associated with a HR of 1.17 (95% CI: 1.08-1.28; P = 0.0003) for the primary trial endpoint of cardiovascular death or heart failure hospitalization. Serial measurements increased the adjusted HR for the primary trial endpoint to 1.66 (95% CI: 1.50-1.84; P < 0.0001), and a similar increased risk was observed across secondary trial endpoints. In joint modeling, an increase in NT-proBNP occurred weeks before the onset of adjudicated events. CONCLUSIONS: Repeated NT-proBNP measurements are a strong predictor of outcomes in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction with an increase in concentration occurring well before event onset. These results may support routine NT-proBNP monitoring to assist in clinical decision making. (Guiding Evidence Based Therapy Using Biomarker Intensified Treatment in Heart Failure [GUIDE-IT]; NCT01685840).

Left Ventricular Ejection Fraction and the Future of Heart Failure Phenotyping.

Heart failure (HF) is a complex syndrome traditionally classified by left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) cutpoints. Although LVEF is prognostic for risk of events and predictive of response to some HF therapies, LVEF is a continuous variable and cutpoints are arbitrary, often based on historical clinical trial enrichment decisions rather than physiology. Holistic evaluation of the treatment effects for therapies throughout the LVEF range suggests the standard categorization paradigm for HF merits modification. The multidisciplinary Heart Failure Collaboratory reviewed data from large-scale HF clinical trials and found that many HF therapies have demonstrated therapeutic benefit across a large range of LVEF, but specific treatment effects vary across that range. Therefore, HF should practically be classified by association with an LVEF that is reduced or not reduced, while acknowledging uncertainty around the precise LVEF cutpoint, and future research should evaluate new therapies across the continuum of LVEF.

Heart failure medical therapy prior to mitral transcatheter edge-to-edge repair: the STS/ACC Transcatheter Valve Therapy Registry.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) is recommended before mitral valve transcatheter edge-to-edge repair (MTEER) in patients with heart failure (HF) and severe functional mitral regurgitation (FMR). Whether MTEER is being performed on the background of optimal GDMT in clinical practice is unknown. METHODS: Patients with left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) < 50% who underwent MTEER for FMR from 23 July 2019 to 31 March 2022 in the Society of Thoracic Surgeons/American College of Cardiology Transcatheter Valve Therapy Registry were identified. Pre-procedure GDMT utilization was assessed. Cox proportional hazards models were constructed to evaluate associations between pre-MTEER therapy (no/single, double, or triple therapy) and risk of 1-year mortality or HF hospitalization (HFH). RESULTS: Among 4199 patients across 449 sites, beta-blockers, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors/angiotensin receptor blockers, mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists, and angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitors were used in 85.1%, 44.4%, 28.6%, and 19.9% before MTEER, respectively. Triple therapy was prescribed for 19.2%, double therapy for 38.2%, single therapy for 36.0%, and 6.5% were on no GDMT. Significant centre-level variation in the proportion of patients on pre-intervention triple therapy was observed (0%-61%; adjusted median odds ratio 1.48 [95% confidence interval (CI) 1.25-3.88]; P < .001). In patients eligible for 1-year follow-up (n = 2014; 341 sites), the composite rate of 1-year mortality or HFH was lowest in patients prescribed triple therapy (23.0%) compared with double (24.8%), single (35.7%), and no (41.1%) therapy (P < .01 comparing across groups). Associations persisted after accounting for relevant clinical characteristics, with lower risk in patients prescribed triple therapy [adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) 0.73, 95% CI .55-.97] and double therapy (aHR 0.69, 95% CI .56-.86) before MTEER compared with no/single therapy. CONCLUSIONS: Under one-fifth of patients with LVEF <50% who underwent MTEER for FMR in this US nationwide registry were prescribed comprehensive GDMT, with substantial variation across sites. Compared with no/single therapy, triple and double therapy before MTEER were independently associated with reduced risk of mortality or HFH 1 year after intervention.

Natriuretic peptides: role in the diagnosis and management of heart failure: a scientific statement from the Heart Failure Association of the European Society of Cardiology, Heart Failure Society of America and Japanese Heart Failure Society.

Natriuretic peptides, brain (B-type) natriuretic peptide (BNP) and N-terminal prohormone of brain natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) are globally and most often used for the diagnosis of heart failure (HF). In addition, they can have an important complementary role in the risk stratification of its prognosis. Since the development of angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitors (ARNIs), the use of natriuretic peptides as therapeutic agents has grown in importance. The present document is the result of the Trilateral Cooperation Project among the Heart Failure Association of the European Society of Cardiology, the Heart Failure Society of America and the Japanese Heart Failure Society. It represents an expert consensus that aims to provide a comprehensive, up-to-date perspective on natriuretic peptides in the diagnosis and management of HF, with a focus on the following main issues: (1) history and basic research: discovery, production and cardiovascular protection; (2) diagnostic and prognostic biomarkers: acute HF, chronic HF, inclusion/endpoint in clinical trials, and natriuretic peptide-guided therapy; (3) therapeutic use: nesiritide (BNP), carperitide (ANP) and ARNIs; and (4) gaps in knowledge and future directions.

Natriuretic Peptides: Role in the Diagnosis and Management of Heart Failure: A Scientific Statement From the Heart Failure Association of the European Society of Cardiology, Heart Failure Society of America and Japanese Heart Failure Society.

Natriuretic peptides, brain (B-type) natriuretic peptide (BNP) and N-terminal prohormone of brain natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) are globally and most often used for the diagnosis of heart failure (HF). In addition, they can have an important complementary role in the risk stratification of its prognosis. Since the development of angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitors (ARNIs), the use of natriuretic peptides as therapeutic agents has grown in importance. The present document is the result of the Trilateral Cooperation Project among the Heart Failure Association of the European Society of Cardiology, the Heart Failure Society of America and the Japanese Heart Failure Society. It represents an expert consensus that aims to provide a comprehensive, up-to-date perspective on natriuretic peptides in the diagnosis and management of HF, with a focus on the following main issues: (1) history and basic research: discovery, production and cardiovascular protection; (2) diagnostic and prognostic biomarkers: acute HF, chronic HF, inclusion/endpoint in clinical trials, and natriuretic peptides-guided therapy; (3) therapeutic use: nesiritide (BNP), carperitide (ANP) and ARNIs; and (4) gaps in knowledge and future directions.

Polypharmacy and Optimization of Guideline-Directed Medical Therapy in Heart Failure: The GUIDE-IT Trial.

BACKGROUND: Polypharmacy is common among patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). However, its impact on the use of optimal guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) is not well established. OBJECTIVES: This study sought to evaluate the association between polypharmacy and odds of receiving optimal GDMT over time among patients with HFrEF. METHODS: The authors conducted a post hoc analysis of the GUIDE-IT (Guiding Evidence-Based Therapy Using Biomarker Intensified Treatment) trial. Polypharmacy was defined as receiving ≥5 medications (excluding HFrEF GDMT) at baseline. The outcome of interest was optimal triple therapy GDMT (concurrent administration of a renin-angiotensin-aldosterone blocker and beta-blocker at 50% of the target dose and a mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist at any dose) achieved over the 12-month follow-up. Multivariable adjusted mixed-effect logistic regression models with multiplicative interaction terms (time × polypharmacy) were constructed to evaluate how polypharmacy at baseline modified the odds of achieving optimal GDMT on follow-up. RESULTS: The study included 891 participants with HFrEF. The median number of non-GDMT medications at baseline was 4 (IQR: 3-6), with 414 (46.5%) prescribed ≥5 and identified as being on polypharmacy. The proportion of participants who achieved optimal GDMT at the end of the 12-month follow-up was lower with vs without polypharmacy at baseline (15% vs 19%, respectively). In adjusted mixed models, the odds of achieving optimal GDMT over time were modified by baseline polypharmacy status (P for interaction < 0.001). Patients without polypharmacy at baseline had increased odds of achieving GDMT (OR: 1.16 [95% CI: 1.12-1.21] per 1-month increase; P < 0.001) but not patients with polypharmacy (OR: 1.01 [95% CI: 0.96-1.06)] per 1-month increase). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with HFrEF who are on non-GDMT polypharmacy have lower odds of achieving optimal GDMT on follow-up.

A Composite Score Summarizing Use and Dosing of Evidence-Based Medical Therapies in Heart Failure: A Nationwide Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: As heart failure therapeutic care becomes increasingly complex, a composite medical therapy score could be useful to conveniently summarize background medical therapy. We applied the composite medical therapy score developed by the Heart Failure Collaboratory (HFC) to the Danish heart failure with reduced ejection fraction population to evaluate its external validation including assessing the distribution of the score and its association with survival. METHODS: In a retrospective nationwide cohort study, we identified all Danish heart failure with reduced ejection fraction patients alive on July 1, 2018, and assessed their treatment doses. Patients were excluded if they did not have at least 365 days for up-titration of medical therapy prior to identification. The HFC score (range 0-8) accounts for use and dosing of multiple therapies prescribed to each patient. Risk-adjusted association between the composite score and all-cause mortality was examined. RESULTS: In total, 26 779 patients (mean age 71.9 years; 32% women) were identified. At baseline, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor/angiotensin receptor blocker was used in 77%, ß-blocker in 81%, mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist in 30%, angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor in 2%, and ivabradine in 2%. The median HFC score was 4. After multivariable adjustment, higher HFC scores were independently associated with lower mortality (≥median versus

Circulating Angiokines Are Associated With Reverse Remodeling and Outcomes in Chronic Heart Failure.

BACKGROUND: We sought to determine whether circulating modifiers of endothelial function are associated with cardiac structure and clinical outcomes in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). METHODS: We measured 25 proteins related to endothelial function in 99 patients from the GUIDE-IT study. Protein levels were evaluated for association with echocardiographic parameters and the incidence of all-cause death and hospitalization for heart failure (HHF). RESULTS: Higher concentrations of angiopoietin 2 (ANGPT2), vascular endothelial growth factor receptor 1 (VEGFR1) and hepatocyte growth factor (HGF) were significantly associated with worse function and larger ventricular volumes. Over time, decreases in ANGPT2 and, to a lesser extent, VEGFR1 and HGF, were associated with improvements in cardiac size and function. Individuals with higher concentrations of ANGPT2, VEGFR1 or HGF had increased risks for a composite of death and HHF in the following year (HR 2.76 (95% CI 1.73-4.40) per 2-fold change in ANGPT2; HR 1.76 (95% CI 1.11-2.79) for VEGFR1; and HR 4.04 (95% CI 2.19-7.44) for HGF). CONCLUSIONS: Proteins related to endothelial function associate with cardiac size, cardiac function and clinical outcomes in patients with HFrEF. These results support the concept that endothelial function may be an important contributor to the progression to and the recovery from HFrEF.

Managing Heart Failure in Patients on Dialysis: State-of-the-Art Review.

Heart failure (HF) and end-stage kidney disease (ESKD) frequently coexist; 1 comorbidity worsens the prognosis of the other. HF is responsible for almost half the deaths of patients on dialysis. Despite patients' with ESKD composing an extremely high-risk population, they have been largely excluded from landmark clinical trials of HF, and there is, thus, a paucity of data regarding the management of HF in patients on dialysis, and most of the available evidence is observational. Likewise, in clinical practice, guideline-directed medical therapy for HF is often down-titrated or discontinued in patients with ESKD who are undergoing dialysis; this is due to concerns about safety and tolerability. In this state-of-the-art review, we discuss the available evidence for each of the foundational HF therapies in ESKD, review current challenges and barriers to managing patients with HF on dialysis, and outline future directions to optimize the management of HF in these high-risk patients.

Functional and Symptomatic Clinical Trial Endpoints: The HFC-ARC Scientific Expert Panel.

The Heart Failure Academic Research Consortium is a partnership between the Heart Failure Collaboratory (HFC) and the Academic Research Consortium (ARC) composed of patients, academic investigators from the United States and Europe, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, the National Institutes of Health, payers, and industry. Members discussed the measure, remote capture, and clinical utility of functional and quality-of-life endpoints for use in clinical trials of heart failure and cardiovascular therapeutics, with the goal of improving the efficiency of heart failure and cardiovascular clinical research, evidence generation, and thereby patient quality of life, functional status, and survival. Assessments of patient-reported outcomes and maximal and submaximal exercise tolerance are standardized and validated, but actigraphy remains inconsistent as a potential endpoint. This paper details those discussions and consensus recommendations.

Effects of Dapagliflozin According to the Heart Failure Collaboratory Medical Therapy Score: Insights From DAPA-HF.

BACKGROUND: The Heart Failure Collaboratory (HFC) has developed a score integrating classes and doses of guideline-directed medical therapies prescribed for patients with heart failure (HF) and reduced ejection fraction. One potential use of this score is to test whether new treatments demonstrate incremental benefits, even in patients receiving comprehensive guideline-directed medical therapy. OBJECTIVES: The authors investigated the efficacy of dapagliflozin according to a modified HFC score in the DAPA-HF (Dapagliflozin And Prevention of Adverse outcomes in Heart Failure) trial. METHODS: In DAPA-HF, 4,744 patients with HF and reduced ejection fraction were randomized to dapagliflozin or placebo. The modified HFC score accounted for race and electrocardiogram rhythm and rate, with a maximum possible score of 100%. The primary outcome was the composite of worsening HF or cardiovascular death. RESULTS: The median modified HFC score was 50% (IQR: 27.5%-62.5%; range 0%-100%). Compared with the lowest tertile, the highest tertile of the treatment score was associated with a lower risk of worsening HF or cardiovascular death (tertile 1, reference; tertile 2, HR: 0.97 [95% CI: 0.82-1.14]; tertile 3, HR: 0.83 [95% CI: 0.70-0.99]). Dapagliflozin reduced the risk of worsening HF or cardiovascular death, irrespective of treatment score (the HRs for dapagliflozin vs placebo from tertile 1 to 3 were: 0.76 [95% CI: 0.61-0.94], 0.76 [95% CI: 0.60-0.97], and 0.71 [95% CI: 0.55-0.90]), respectively; Pinteraction = 0.89). Consistent benefits were observed for HF hospitalization, cardiovascular death, all-cause mortality, and improvement in the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire total symptom score (KCCQ-TTS). CONCLUSIONS: Dapagliflozin, compared with placebo, improved all outcomes examined, regardless of the modified HFC score. This score can be easily calculated in clinical trials and used to evaluate the incremental effects of new treatments. (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).

Titration of medical therapy and clinical outcomes among patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction: Findings from the HF-ACTION trial.

BACKGROUND: Clinical guidelines recommend titration of angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEi) and beta-blockers among patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) to maximally tolerated doses. Patient characteristics associated with dose titration and clinical outcomes subsequent to dose titration remain poorly characterized. METHODS: Among 1999 ambulatory patients with chronic HFrEF in the HF-ACTION trial, use and dosing of ACEi and evidence-based beta-blockers were examined at baseline and 6-month follow-up. Multivariable logistic regression models were used to assess factors associated with dose escalation (medication initation or dosing increase) or dose de-escalation (medication discontinuation or dosing decrease). Cox proportional hazard regression models were used to examine associations between dose trajectory group (stable target, stable sub-target, dose escalation, and dose de-escalation) and subsequent mortality and hospitalization outcomes. RESULTS: For both ACEi and beta-blockers, hospitalization for heart failure in the 6 months prior to enrollment (odds ratio [OR] 2.32 [95% confidence interval 1.58-3.42]) for ACEi; 1.42 [1.05-1.9] for beta-blockers) and higher systolic blood pressure (OR 1.01 [1.00-1.03] per 1 mmHg increase for ACEi; 1.01 [1.00-1.02] for beta-blockers) were associated with dose escalation. Hospitalization 6 months prior to enrollment for any cause (including HF or non-HF causes) was associated with dose de-escalation (OR 1.60 [1.14-2.25] for ACEi; 1.67 [1.20-2.33] for beta-blockers). After adjustment for patient characteristics, compared with stable target dosing, dose de-escalation of either medication was associated with greater all-cause mortality (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 1.64 [1.11-2.42] for ACEi; 1.62 [1.04-2.53] for beta-blockers). Compared with stable target dosing, both dose de-escalation (aHR 1.98 [1.36-2.87]) and stable sub-target dosing (aHR 1.49 [1.18-1.87]) of beta-blockers were associated with greater cardiovascular mortality or hospitalization for heart failure. CONCLUSIONS: Among outpatients with chronic HFrEF, patient characteristics including recent hospitalization status and blood pressure were associated with odds of subsequent escalation and de-escalation of ACEi and beta-blocker therapy. Compared with patients receiving guildeline-recommended target doses, dose de-escalation of either medication and sub-target dosing of beta-blockers were associated with greater morbidity and mortality over long-term follow-up.