Identification of three mechanistic pathways for iron-deficient heart failure.

Current understanding of iron-deficient heart failure is based on blood tests that are thought to reflect systemic iron stores, but the available evidence suggests greater complexity. The entry and egress of circulating iron is controlled by erythroblasts, which (in severe iron deficiency) will sacrifice erythropoiesis to supply iron to other organs, e.g. the heart. Marked hypoferraemia (typically with anaemia) can drive the depletion of cardiomyocyte iron, impairing contractile performance and explaining why a transferrin saturation < ≈15%-16% predicts the ability of intravenous iron to reduce the risk of major heart failure events in long-term trials (Type 1 iron-deficient heart failure). However, heart failure may be accompanied by intracellular iron depletion within skeletal muscle and cardiomyocytes, which is disproportionate to the findings of systemic iron biomarkers. Inflammation- and deconditioning-mediated skeletal muscle dysfunction-a primary cause of dyspnoea and exercise intolerance in patients with heart failure-is accompanied by intracellular skeletal myocyte iron depletion, which can be exacerbated by even mild hypoferraemia, explaining why symptoms and functional capacity improve following intravenous iron, regardless of baseline haemoglobin or changes in haemoglobin (Type 2 iron-deficient heart failure). Additionally, patients with advanced heart failure show myocardial iron depletion due to both diminished entry into and enhanced egress of iron from the myocardium; the changes in iron proteins in the cardiomyocytes of these patients are opposite to those expected from systemic iron deficiency. Nevertheless, iron supplementation can prevent ventricular remodelling and cardiomyopathy produced by experimental injury in the absence of systemic iron deficiency (Type 3 iron-deficient heart failure). These observations, taken collectively, support the possibility of three different mechanistic pathways for the development of iron-deficient heart failure: one that is driven through systemic iron depletion and impaired erythropoiesis and two that are characterized by disproportionate depletion of intracellular iron in skeletal and cardiac muscle. These mechanisms are not mutually exclusive, and all pathways may be operative at the same time or may occur sequentially in the same patients.

On-treatment analysis of torsemide versus furosemide for patients hospitalized for heart failure: A post-hoc analysis of TRANSFORM-HF.

AIM: The TRANSFORM-HF trial demonstrated no significant outcome differences between torsemide and furosemide following hospitalization for heart failure (HF), but may have been impacted by non-adherence to the randomized diuretic. The current study sought to determine the treatment effect of torsemide versus furosemide using an on-treatment analysis inclusive of all randomized patients except those confirmed non-adherent to study diuretic. METHODS AND RESULTS: TRANSFORM-HF was an open-label, pragmatic randomized trial of 2859 patients hospitalized for HF from June 2018 through March 2022. Patients were randomized to a loop diuretic strategy of torsemide versus furosemide with investigator-selected dosage. This post-hoc on-treatment analysis included all patients alive with either known or unknown diuretic status, and excluded patients confirmed to be non-adherent to study diuretic. This modified on-treatment definition was applied separately at time of hospital discharge and 30-day follow-up. All-cause mortality and hospitalization outcomes were assessed over 12 months. Overall, 2570 (89.9%) and 2374 (83.0%) patients were included in on-treatment analyses at discharge and 30-day follow-up, respectively. There was no significant difference in all-cause mortality between torsemide and furosemide in patients on-treatment at discharge (17.5% vs. 17.8%; hazard ratio [HR] 1.01 [95% confidence interval [CI] 0.83-1.22], p = 0.96) and at 30-day follow-up (14.5% vs. 15.0%; HR 1.02 [95% CI 0.81-1.27], p = 0.90). All-cause mortality or all-cause hospitalization was similar between torsemide and furosemide in patients who were on-treatment at discharge (58.3% vs. 61.3%; HR 0.92 [95% CI 0.82-1.03]) and 30-day follow-up (60.9% vs. 64.4%; HR 0.93 [95% CI 0.82-1.05]). In patients who were on-treatment at 30-day follow-up, there were 677 total hospitalizations in the torsemide group and 686 total hospitalizations in the furosemide group (rate ratio 0.99 [95% CI 0.86-1.14], p = 0.87). CONCLUSIONS: In TRANSFORM-HF, a post-hoc on-treatment analysis did not meaningfully differ from the original trial results. Among those deemed compliant with the assigned diuretic, there remained no significant difference in mortality or hospitalization after HF hospitalization with a strategy of torsemide versus furosemide. CLINICAL TRAIL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03296813.

Cardiovascular Burden of the V142I Transthyretin Variant.

Importance: Individual cohort studies concur that the amyloidogenic V142I variant of the transthyretin (TTR) gene, present in 3% to 4% of US Black individuals, increases heart failure (HF) and mortality risk. Precisely defining carrier risk across relevant clinical outcomes and estimating population burden of disease are important given established and emerging targeted treatments. Objectives: To better define the natural history of disease in carriers across mid to late life, assess variant modifiers, and estimate cardiovascular burden to the US population. Design, Setting, and Participants: A total of 23 338 self-reported Black participants initially free from HF were included in 4 large observational studies across the US (mean [SD], 15.5 [8.2] years of follow-up). Data analysis was performed between May 2023 and February 2024. Exposure: V142I carrier status (n = 754, 3.2%). Main Outcomes and Measures: Hospitalizations for HF (including subtypes of reduced and preserved ejection fraction) and all-cause mortality. Outcomes were analyzed by generating 10-year hazard ratios for each age between 50 and 90 years. Using actuarial methods, mean survival by carrier status was estimated and applied to the 2022 US population using US Census data. Results: Among the 23 338 participants, the mean (SD) age at baseline was 62 (9) years and 76.7% were women. Ten-year carrier risk increased for HF hospitalization by age 63 years, predominantly driven by HF with reduced ejection fraction, and 10-year all-cause mortality risk increased by age 72 years. Only age (but not sex or other select variables) modified risk with the variant, with estimated reductions in longevity ranging from 1.9 years (95% CI, 0.6-3.1) at age 50 to 2.8 years (95% CI, 2.0-3.6) at age 81. Based on these data, 435 851 estimated US Black carriers between ages 50 and 95 years are projected to cumulatively lose 957 505 years of life (95% CI, 534 475-1 380 535) due to the variant. Conclusions and Relevance: Among self-reported Black individuals, male and female V142I carriers faced similar and substantial risk for HF hospitalization, predominantly with reduced ejection fraction, and death, with steep age-dependent penetrance. Delineating the individual contributions of, and complex interplay among, the V142I variant, ancestry, the social construct of race, and biological or social determinants of health to cardiovascular disease merits further investigation.

Critical re-evaluation of the identification of iron deficiency states and effective iron repletion strategies in patients with chronic heart failure.

According to current guidelines, iron deficiency is defined by a serum ferritin level <100 ng/ml or a transferrin saturation (TSAT) <20% if the serum ferritin level is 100-299 µg/L. These criteria were developed to encourage the use of intravenous iron as an adjunct to erythropoiesis-stimulating agents in the treatment of renal anaemia. However, in patients with heart failure, these criteria are not supported by any pathophysiological or clinical evidence that they identify an absolute or functional iron deficiency state. A low baseline TSAT-but not serum ferritin level-appears to be a reliable indicator of the effect of intravenous iron to reduce major heart failure events. In randomized controlled trials, intravenous iron decreased the risk of cardiovascular death or total heart failure hospitalization in patients with a TSAT <20% (risk ratio 0.67 [0.49-0.92]) but not in patients with a TSAT ≥20% (risk ratio 0.99 [0.74-1.30]), with the magnitude of the risk reduction being proportional to the severity of hypoferraemia. Patients who were enrolled in clinical trials solely because they had a serum ferritin level <100 µg/L showed no significant benefit on heart failure outcomes, and it is noteworthy that serum ferritin levels of 20-300 µg/L lie entirely within the range of normal values for healthy adults. Current guidelines reflect the eligibility criteria of clinical trials, which inadvertently adopted unvalidated criteria to define iron deficiency. Reliance on these guidelines would lead to the treatment of many patients who are not iron deficient (serum ferritin level <100 µg/L but normal TSAT) and ignores the possibility of iron deficiency in patients with a low TSAT but with serum ferritin level of >300 µg/L. Importantly, analyses of benefit based on trial eligibility-driven guidelines substantially underestimate the magnitude of heart-failure-event risk reduction with intravenous iron in patients who are truly iron deficient. Based on all available data, we recommend a new mechanism-based and trial-tested approach that reflects the totality of evidence more faithfully than the historical process adopted by clinical investigators and by the guidelines. Until additional evidence is forthcoming, an iron deficiency state in patients with heart failure should be defined by a TSAT <20% (as long as the serum ferritin level is <400 µg/L), and furthermore, the use of a serum ferritin level <100 µg/L alone as a diagnostic criterion should be discarded.

Depressive symptoms are associated with clinical outcomes in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction.

AIMS: The objective of this study was to examine associations between elevated depressive symptoms and increased risk of adverse clinical events patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), as well as the potential contribution of health behaviours. METHODS AND RESULTS: One hundred forty-two men and women with HFrEF were enrolled through heart failure (HF) clinics and followed over time. At baseline and 6 months, depressive symptoms were assessed by the Beck Depression Inventory-II (BDI-II) and HFrEF disease activity by B-type natriuretic peptide (BNP). The Self-Care of Heart Failure Index (SCHFI) was used to assess HF self-care behaviours. Proportional hazards regression models assessed the contribution of depressive symptoms and HFrEF disease biomarkers on death or cardiovascular hospitalization. Over a median follow-up period of 4 years, 42 patients (30%) died, and 84 (60%) had cardiovascular hospitalizations. A 10-point higher baseline BDI-II score was associated with a 35% greater risk of death or cardiovascular hospitalization. Higher baseline BDI-II scores were associated with poorer HF self-care maintenance behaviours (R = -0.30, P < 0.001) and fewer daily steps (R = -0.19, P = 0.04), suggesting that elevated depressive symptoms may diminish important health behaviours. Increases in plasma BNP over 6 months were associated with worse outcomes. Changes in BDI-II and plasma BNP over 6 months were positively related (R = 0.25, P = 0.004). CONCLUSIONS: This study confirms that elevated depressive symptoms are associated with an increased likelihood of adverse clinical outcomes in patients with HFrEF. Poor health behaviours may contribute to the adverse association of elevated depressive symptoms with the increased hazard of adverse clinical outcomes.

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.

Impact of baseline kidney dysfunction on oral diuretic efficacy following hospitalization for heart failure - insights from TRANSFORM-HF.

AIM: Among patients discharged after hospitalization for heart failure (HF), a strategy of torsemide versus furosemide showed no difference in all-cause mortality or hospitalization. Clinicians have traditionally favoured torsemide in the setting of kidney dysfunction due to better oral bioavailability and longer half-life, but direct supportive evidence is lacking. METHODS AND RESULTS: The TRANSFORM-HF trial randomized patients hospitalized for HF to a long-term strategy of torsemide versus furosemide, and enrolled patients across the spectrum of renal function (without dialysis). In this post-hoc analysis, baseline renal function during the index hospitalization was assessed as categories of estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR; <30, 30-<60, ≥60 ml/min/1.73 m2). The interaction between baseline renal function and treatment effect of torsemide versus furosemide was assessed with respect to mortality and hospitalization outcomes, and the change in Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire clinical summary score (KCCQ-CSS). Of 2859 patients randomized, 336 (11.8%) had eGFR <30 ml/min/1.73 m2, 1138 (39.8%) had eGFR 30-<60 ml/min/1.73 m2, and 1385 (48.4%) had eGFR ≥60 ml/min/1.73 m2. Baseline eGFR did not modify treatment effects of torsemide versus furosemide on all adverse clinical outcomes including individual components or composites of all-cause mortality and all-cause (re)-hospitalizations, both when assessing eGFR categorically or continuously (p-value for interaction all >0.108). Similarly, no treatment effect modification by eGFR was found for the change in KCCQ-CSS (p-value for interaction all >0.052) when assessing eGFR categorically or continuously. CONCLUSION: Among patients discharged after hospitalization for HF, there was no significant difference in clinical and patient-reported outcomes between torsemide and furosemide, irrespective of renal function.

Dietary sodium and fluid intake in heart failure. A clinical consensus statement of the Heart Failure Association of the ESC.

Sodium and fluid restriction has traditionally been advocated in patients with heart failure (HF) due to their sodium and water avid state. However, most evidence regarding the altered sodium handling, fluid homeostasis and congestion-related signs and symptoms in patients with HF originates from untreated patient cohorts and physiological investigations. Recent data challenge the beneficial role of dietary sodium and fluid restriction in HF. Consequently, the European Society of Cardiology HF guidelines have gradually downgraded these recommendations over time, now advising for the limitation of salt intake to no more than 5 g/day in patients with HF, while contemplating fluid restriction of 1.5-2 L/day only in selected patients. Therefore, the objective of this clinical consensus statement is to provide advice on fluid and sodium intake in patients with acute and chronic HF, based on contemporary evidence and expert opinion.

Sacubitril/Valsartan in Patients Hospitalized With Decompensated Heart Failure.

BACKGROUND: The efficacy and safety of sacubitril/valsartan in patients hospitalized with heart failure (HF) across the spectrum of left ventricular ejection fraction (EF) has not been described. OBJECTIVES: Data from randomized trials of sacubitril/valsartan in HF patients with EF ≤40% (PIONEER-HF [Comparison of Sacubitril/Valsartan Versus Enalapril on Effect of NT-proBNP in Patients Stabilized From an Acute Heart Failure Episode] trial) and >40% (PARAGLIDE-HF [Prospective comparison of ARNI with ARB Given following stabiLization In DEcompensated HFpEF] trial) following recent worsening heart failure (WHF) were pooled to examine treatment effect across the EF spectrum. METHODS: The PIONEER-HF and PARAGLIDE-HF trials were double-blind, randomized trials of sacubitril/valsartan vs control therapy (enalapril or valsartan, respectively). All participants in the PIONEER-HF trial and 69.5% in the PARAGLIDE-HF trial were enrolled during hospitalization for HF after stabilization. The remainder in the PARAGLIDE-HF trial were enrolled ≤30 days after a WHF event. The primary endpoint of both trials was time-averaged proportional change in N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) from baseline through weeks 4 and 8. Adjudicated clinical endpoints were analyzed through the end of follow-up, adjusting for trial. RESULTS: The pooled analysis included 1,347 patients (881 from PIONEER-HF, 466 from PARAGLIDE-HF). Baseline characteristics included median age 66 years, 36% women, 31% Black, 34% de novo HF, and median EF 30%. The reduction in NT-proBNP was 24% greater with sacubitril/valsartan vs control therapy (n = 1,130; ratio of change = 0.76; 95% CI: 0.69-0.83; P < 0.0001). Cardiovascular death or hospitalization for HF was reduced by 30% with sacubitril/valsartan vs control therapy (HR: 0.70; 95% CI: 0.54-0.91; P = 0.0077). This effect was consistent across the spectrum of EF ≤60%. Sacubitril/valsartan increased symptomatic hypotension (risk ratio: 1.35; 95% CI: 1.05-1.72). CONCLUSIONS: In patients stabilized after WHF, sacubitril/valsartan led to a greater reduction in plasma NT-proBNP and improved clinical outcome compared with control therapy, in particular across the spectrum of EF ≤60%. (Comparison of Sacubitril/Valsartan Versus Enalapril on Effect of NT-proBNP in Patients Stabilized From an Acute Heart Failure Episode [PIONEER-HF]; NCT02554890; Changes in NT-proBNP, Safety, and Tolerability in HFpEF Patients With a WHF Event [HFpEF Decompensation] Who Have Been Stabilized and Initiated at the Time of or Within 30 Days Post-decompensation [PARAGLIDE-HF]; NCT03988634).

Patient Risk-Benefit Preferences for Transcatheter Versus Surgical Mitral Valve Repair.

BACKGROUND: Transcatheter edge-to-edge repair (TEER) of mitral regurgitation is less invasive than surgery but has greater 5-year mortality and reintervention risks, and leads to smaller improvements in physical functioning. The study objective was to quantify patient preferences for risk-benefit trade-offs associated with TEER and surgery. METHODS AND RESULTS: A discrete choice experiment survey was administered to patients with mitral regurgitation. Attributes included procedure type; 30-day mortality risk; 5-year mortality risk and physical functioning for 5 years; number of hospitalizations in the next 5 years; and risk of additional surgery in the next 5 years. A mixed-logit regression model was fit to estimate preference weights. Two hundred one individuals completed the survey: 63% were female and mean age was 74 years. On average, respondents preferred TEER over surgery. To undergo a less invasive procedure (ie, TEER), respondents would accept up to a 13.3% (95% CI, 8.7%-18.5%) increase in reintervention risk above a baseline of 10%, 4.6 (95% CI, 3.1-6.2) more hospitalizations above a baseline of 1, a 10.7% (95% CI, 6.5%-14.5%) increase in 5-year mortality risk above a baseline of 20%, or more limited physical functioning representing nearly 1 New York Heart Association class (0.7 [95% CI, 0.4-1.1]) over 5 years. CONCLUSIONS: Patients in general preferred TEER over surgery. When holding constant all other factors, a functional improvement from New York Heart Association class III to class I maintained over 5 years would be needed, on average, for patients to prefer surgery over TEER.

Torsemide Versus Furosemide After Discharge in Patients Hospitalized With Heart Failure Across the Spectrum of Ejection Fraction: Findings From TRANSFORM-HF.

BACKGROUND: The TRANSFORM-HF trial (Torsemide Comparison With Furosemide for Management of Heart Failure) found no significant difference in all-cause mortality or hospitalization among patients randomized to a strategy of torsemide versus furosemide following a heart failure (HF) hospitalization. However, outcomes and responses to some therapies differ by left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). Thus, we sought to explore the effect of torsemide versus furosemide by baseline LVEF and to assess outcomes across LVEF groups. METHODS: We compared baseline patient characteristics and randomized treatment effects for various end points in TRANSFORM-HF stratified by LVEF: HF with reduced LVEF, ≤40% versus HF with mildly reduced LVEF, 41% to 49% versus HF with preserved LVEF, ≥50%. We also evaluated associations between LVEF and clinical outcomes. Study end points were all-cause mortality or hospitalization at 30 days and 12 months, total hospitalizations at 12 months, and change from baseline in Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire clinical summary score. RESULTS: Overall, 2635 patients (median 64 years, 36% female, 34% Black) had LVEF data. Compared with HF with reduced LVEF, patients with HF with mildly reduced LVEF and HF with preserved LVEF had a higher prevalence of comorbidities. After adjusting for covariates, there was no significant difference in risk of clinical outcomes across the LVEF groups (adjusted hazard ratio for 12-month all-cause mortality, 0.91 [95% CI, 0.59-1.39] for HF with mildly reduced LVEF versus HF with reduced LVEF and 0.91 [95% CI, 0.70-1.17] for HF with preserved LVEF versus HF with reduced LVEF; P=0.73). In addition, there was no significant difference between torsemide and furosemide (1) for mortality and hospitalization outcomes, irrespective of LVEF group and (2) in changes in Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire clinical summary score in any LVEF subgroup. CONCLUSIONS: Despite baseline demographic and clinical differences between LVEF cohorts in TRANSFORM-HF, there were no significant differences in the clinical end points with torsemide versus furosemide across the LVEF spectrum. There was a substantial risk for all-cause mortality and subsequent hospitalization independent of baseline LVEF. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT03296813.

Diuretic use and outcomes in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction: Insights from the VICTORIA trial.

AIMS: In VICTORIA, vericiguat compared with placebo reduced the risk of cardiovascular death (CVD) and heart failure hospitalization (HFH) in patients enrolled after a worsening heart failure (WHF) event. We examined clinical outcomes and efficacy of vericiguat as it relates to background use of loop diuretics in patients with WHF. METHODS AND RESULTS: We calculated the total daily loop diuretic dose equivalent to furosemide dosing at randomization and categorized these as: no loop diuretic, 1-39, 41-80, 40, and >80 mg total daily dose (TDD). The primary composite outcome of CVD/HFH and its components were evaluated based on TDD loop diuretic and expressed as adjusted hazard ratios with 95% confidence intervals. Post-randomization rates of change in TDD were also examined. Of 4974 patients (98% of the trial) with diuretic dose information available at randomization, 540 (10.8%) were on no loop diuretic, 647 (13.0%) were on 1-39, 1633 (32.8%) were on 40, 1185 (23.8%) were on 41-80, and 969 (19.4%) were on >80 mg TDD. Patients with higher TDD had a higher rate of primary and secondary clinical outcomes. There were no significant interactions with TDD at randomization and efficacy of vericiguat versus placebo for any outcome (all pinteraction > 0.5). Post-randomization diuretic dose changes for vericiguat and placebo showed similar rates of up-titration (19.6 and 20.2/100 person-years), down-titration (16.8 and 18.1/100 person-years), and stopping diuretics (22.9 and 24.2/100 person-years). CONCLUSIONS: Loop diuretic TDD at randomization was independently associated with worse outcomes in this high-risk population. The efficacy of vericiguat was consistent across the range of diuretic doses.

Sacubitril/Valsartan-Related Hypotension in Patients With Heart Failure and Preserved or Mildly Reduced Ejection Fraction.

BACKGROUND: Hypotension is a potential adverse effect of sacubitril/valsartan, but there are limited data regarding the predictors and implications of treatment-related hypotension in heart failure (HF) with mildly reduced and preserved ejection fraction. OBJECTIVES: We investigated predictors of treatment-associated hypotension, clinical outcomes after hypotension, and the relationship between left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and incidence of hypotension in the PARAGON-HF (Prospective Comparison of ARNI with ARB Global Outcomes in HF with Preserved Ejection Fraction) trial. METHODS: PARAGON-HF randomized patients with chronic HF (≥45%) to sacubitril/valsartan or valsartan. Following randomization, hypotension was defined as investigator-reported hypotension with a systolic blood pressure <100 mm Hg. Predictors of hypotension were assessed using multivariable Cox models. Associations between hypotension and clinical outcomes were evaluated in time-updated Cox models. The relationship among treatment, LVEF, and incident rates of hypotension and clinical outcomes was estimated using Poisson regression models. RESULTS: Of 4,796 patients in PARAGON-HF, 637 (13%) experienced hypotension, more frequently in the sacubitril/valsartan arm (P < 0.001). Following documented hypotension, patients had higher risk of cardiovascular death and total HF hospitalizations (adjusted RR: 1.63; 95% CI: 1.27-2.09; P < 0.001) and all-cause death (adjusted HR: 1.62; 95% CI: 1.28-2.05; P < 0.001). LVEF modified the association between sacubitril/valsartan and risk of hypotension (Pinteraction = 0.019) such that patients with LVEF ≥60% experienced substantially higher treatment-related risks of hypotension. CONCLUSIONS: In PARAGON-HF, a higher LVEF was associated with an increased risk of hypotension in patients treated with sacubitril/valsartan compared with valsartan. Because these subjects are also less likely to derive clinical benefit from sacubitril/valsartan, our data reinforce that the benefit/risk ratio favors the use of sacubitril/valsartan in patients with LVEF below normal, but not at higher LVEF. (Efficacy and Safety of LCZ696 Compared to Valsartan, on Morbidity and Mortality in Heart Failure Patients With Preserved Ejection Fraction [PARAGON-HF]; NCT01920711).

Recurrent Hospitalizations and Response to Vericiguat in Heart Failure and Reduced Ejection Fraction.

BACKGROUND: In VICTORIA (Vericiguat Global Study in Subjects With Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction), vericiguat compared with placebo reduced cardiovascular death or heart failure (HF) hospitalization in patients with HF with reduced ejection fraction. OBJECTIVES: This study explored the association between vericiguat and recurrent hospitalizations and subsequent mortality after HF hospitalization. METHODS: The treatment effect of vericiguat on the burden of HF hospitalizations was evaluated by assessing total HF hospitalization and cardiovascular death in the overall trial and based on baseline N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide levels with and without adjustment for VICTORIA model covariates (ie, baseline variables associated with the primary endpoint) assessed via the Andersen-Gill method. Associations between vericiguat and recurrent hospitalization and mortality adjusted for VICTORIA model covariates are reported. RESULTS: There were 1,222 total HF hospitalizations and cardiovascular deaths among 2,526 patients in the vericiguat group and 1,336 total events among 2,524 patients in the placebo group (unadjusted HR: 0.89 [95% CI: 0.81-0.97] and adjusted HR: 0.92 [95% CI: 0.84-1.01]). In the subgroup with N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide levels ≤2,816 pg/mL (ie, Q1 and Q2; median or below), there was a suggestion of a benefit with vericiguat (adjusted HRs of 0.80 [95% CI: 0.64-1.01] and 0.77 [95% CI: 0.62-0.94], respectively) compared with those above this value (adjusted HRs of 1.12 [95% CI: 0.93-1.34] and 0.87 [95% CI: 0.74-1.04] for Q3 and Q4). There was no significant difference in treatment effect between patients with vs without an HF hospitalization. After HF hospitalization, the all-cause mortality rate (events per 100 patient-years) was 48.6 for vericiguat and 44.1 for placebo. CONCLUSIONS: Additional investigation of the association between vericiguat and cardiovascular death and total HF hospitalizations by recurrent event analysis did not show a statistically significant reduction in events. Mortality was high after HF hospitalization, emphasizing the need for further therapies to reduce morbidity and mortality. (Vericiguat Global Study in Subjects With Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction [VICTORIA]; NCT02861534).

Regional variation in cause of death in patients with type 2 diabetes: Insights from EXSCEL.

AIMS: Type 2 diabetes (T2D) is a risk factor for cardiovascular and non-cardiovascular mortality. However, global distribution of cause-specific deaths in T2D is poorly understood. We characterized cause-specific deaths by geographic region among individuals with T2D at risk for cardiovascular disease (CVD). METHODS AND RESULTS: The international EXSCEL trial included 14,752 participants with T2D (73% with established CVD). We identified the proportion of deaths over 5-year follow-up attributed to cardiovascular and non-cardiovascular causes, and associated risk factors. During median 3.2-year follow-up, 1,091 (7.4%) participants died. Adjudicated causes of death were 723 cardiovascular (66.3% of deaths), including 252 unknown, and 368 non-cardiovascular (33.7%). Most deaths occurred in North America (N = 356/9.6% across region) and Eastern Europe (N = 326/8.1%), with fewest in Asia/Pacific (N = 68/4.4%). The highest proportional cause-specific deaths by region were sudden cardiac in Asia/Pacific (23/34% of regional deaths) and North America (86/24%); unknown in Eastern Europe (90/28%) and Western Europe (39/21%); and non-malignant non-cardiovascular in Latin America (48/31%). Cox proportional hazards model for adjudicated causes of death showed prognostic risk factors (hazard ratio [95% CI]) for cardiovascular and non-cardiovascular deaths, respectively: heart failure 2.04 (1.72-2.42) and 1.86 (1.46-2.39); peripheral artery disease 1.83 (1.54-2.18) and 1.78 (1.40-2.26); and current smoking status 1.61 (1.29-2.01) and 1.77 (1.31-2.40). CONCLUSIONS: In a contemporary T2D trial population, with and without established CVD, leading causes of death varied by geographic region. Underlying mechanisms leading to variability in cause of death across geographic regions and its impact on clinical trial endpoints warrant future research.

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

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

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.