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

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

Mineralocorticoid Receptor Antagonists in Patients With Heart Failure and Impaired Renal Function.

BACKGROUND: Kidney dysfunction often leads to reluctance to start or continue life-saving heart failure (HF) therapy. OBJECTIVES: This study sought to examine the efficacy and safety of mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRAs) in patients with HF with reduced ejection fraction experiencing significant kidney dysfunction. METHODS: We pooled individual patient data from the RALES (Randomized Aldactone Evaluation Study) and EMPHASIS-HF (Eplerenone in Mild Patients Hospitalization and Survival Study in Heart Failure) trials. The association between MRA treatment and outcomes was assessed according to whether the estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) declined to <30 mL/min/1.73 m2 or not. The primary outcome was cardiovascular death or HF hospitalization. RESULTS: Among 4,355 patients included, 295 (6.8%) experienced a deterioration of eGFR after randomization to <30 mL/min/1.73 m2. These patients had more impaired baseline cardiac and kidney function (eGFR 47.3 ± 13.4 mL/min/1.73 m2 vs 70.5 ± 21.8 mL/min/1.73 m2) and had a higher risk of the primary outcome than patients without eGFR deterioration (HR: 2.49; 95% CI: 2.01-3.08; P < 0.001). However, the risk reduction in the primary outcome with MRA therapy was similar in those who experienced a decrease in eGFR to <30 mL/min/1.73 m2 (HR: 0.65; 95% CI: 0.43-0.99) compared with those who did not (HR: 0.63; 95% CI: 0.56-0.71) (Pinteraction = 0.87). In patients with a decrease in eGFR to <30 mL/min/1.73 m2, 21 fewer individuals (per 100 person-years) experienced the primary outcome with MRA treatment, vs placebo, compared with an excess of 3 more patients with severe hyperkalemia (>6.0 mmol/L). CONCLUSIONS: Because patients experiencing a decrease in eGFR to <30 mL/min/1.73 m2 are at very high risk, the absolute risk reduction with an MRA in these patients is large and this decline in eGFR should not automatically lead to treatment discontinuation.

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

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

Possible Role of Gut Microbiota Alterations in Myocardial Fibrosis and Burden of Heart Failure in Hypertensive Heart Disease.

Epidemiological studies have revealed that hypertensive heart disease is a major risk factor for heart failure, and its heart failure burden is growing rapidly. The need to act in the face of this threat requires first an understanding of the multifactorial origin of hypertensive heart disease and second an exploration of new mechanistic pathways involved in myocardial alterations critically involved in cardiac dysfunction and failure (eg, myocardial interstitial fibrosis). Increasing evidence shows that alterations of gut microbiota composition and function (ie, dysbiosis) leading to changes in microbiota-derived metabolites and impairment of the gut barrier and immune functions may be involved in blood pressure elevation and hypertensive organ damage. In this review, we highlight recent advances in the potential contribution of gut microbiota alterations to myocardial interstitial fibrosis in hypertensive heart disease through blood pressure-dependent and blood pressure-independent mechanisms. Achievements in this field should open a new path for more comprehensive treatment of myocardial interstitial fibrosis in hypertensive heart disease and, thus, for the prevention of heart failure.

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.

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.

Validation of the Klinrisk chronic kidney disease progression model in the FIDELITY population.

Background: Chronic kidney disease (CKD) affects >800 million individuals worldwide and is often underrecognized. Early detection, identification and treatment can delay disease progression. Klinrisk is a proprietary CKD progression risk prediction model based on common laboratory data to predict CKD progression. We aimed to externally validate the Klinrisk model for prediction of CKD progression in FIDELITY (a prespecified pooled analysis of two finerenone phase III trials in patients with CKD and type 2 diabetes). In addition, we sought to identify evidence of an interaction between treatment and risk. Methods: The validation cohort included all participants in FIDELITY up to 4 years. The primary and secondary composite outcomes included a ≥40% decrease in estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) or kidney failure, and a ≥57% decrease in eGFR or kidney failure. Prediction discrimination was calculated using area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC). Calibration plots were calculated by decile comparing observed with predicted risk. Results: At time horizons of 2 and 4 years, 993 and 1795 patients experienced a primary outcome event, respectively. The model predicted the primary outcome accurately with an AUC of 0.81 for 2 years and 0.86 for 4 years. Calibration was appropriate at both 2 and 4 years, with Brier scores of 0.067 and 0.115, respectively. No evidence of interaction between treatment and risk was identified for the primary composite outcome (P = .31). Conclusions: Our findings demonstrate the accuracy and utility of a laboratory-based prediction model for early identification of patients at the highest risk of CKD progression.

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.

Finerenone cardiovascular and kidney outcomes by age and sex: FIDELITY post hoc analysis of two phase 3, multicentre, double-blind trials.

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of finerenone, a selective, non-steroidal mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist, on cardiovascular and kidney outcomes by age and/or sex. DESIGN: FIDELITY post hoc analysis; median follow-up of 3 years. SETTING: FIDELITY: a prespecified analysis of the FIDELIO-DKD and FIGARO-DKD trials. PARTICIPANTS: Adults with type 2 diabetes and chronic kidney disease receiving optimised renin-angiotensin system inhibitors (N=13 026). INTERVENTIONS: Randomised 1:1; finerenone or placebo. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Cardiovascular (cardiovascular death, non-fatal myocardial infarction, non-fatal stroke or hospitalisation for heart failure (HHF)) and kidney (kidney failure, sustained ≥57% estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) decline or renal death) composite outcomes. RESULTS: Mean age was 64.8 years; 45.2%, 40.1% and 14.7% were aged <65, 65-74 and ≥75 years, respectively; 69.8% were male. Cardiovascular benefits of finerenone versus placebo were consistent across age (HR 0.94 (95% CI 0.81 to 1.10) (<65 years), HR 0.84 (95% CI 0.73 to 0.98) (65-74 years), HR 0.80 (95% CI 0.65 to 0.99) (≥75 years); Pinteraction=0.42) and sex categories (HR 0.86 (95% CI 0.77 to 0.96) (male), HR 0.89 (95% CI 0.35 to 2.27) (premenopausal female), HR 0.87 (95% CI 0.73 to 1.05) (postmenopausal female); Pinteraction=0.99). Effects on HHF reduction were not modified by age (Pinteraction=0.70) but appeared more pronounced in males (Pinteraction=0.02). Kidney events were reduced with finerenone versus placebo in age groups <65 and 65-74 but not ≥75; no heterogeneity in treatment effect was observed (Pinteraction=0.51). In sex subgroups, finerenone consistently reduced kidney events (Pinteraction=0.85). Finerenone reduced albuminuria and eGFR decline regardless of age and sex. Hyperkalaemia increased with finerenone, but discontinuation rates were <3% across subgroups. Gynaecomastia in males was uncommon across age subgroups and identical between treatment groups. CONCLUSIONS: Finerenone improved cardiovascular and kidney composite outcomes with no significant heterogeneity between age and sex subgroups; however, the effect on HHF appeared more pronounced in males. Finerenone demonstrated a similar safety profile across age and sex subgroups. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBERS: NCT02540993, NCT02545049.

High-sensitivity C-reactive protein in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: Findings from TOPCAT.

BACKGROUND: Inflammation plays a central role in the genesis and progression of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). C-reactive protein (CRP) is widely used as means to assess systemic inflammation, and elevated levels of CRP have been associated with poor HF prognosis. Identification of chronic low-grade inflammation in outpatients can be performed measuring high-sensitivity CRP (hsCRP). The clinical characteristics and outcome associations of a pro-inflammatory state among outpatients with HFpEF requires further study. AIMS: Using a biomarker subset of TOPCAT-Americas (NCT00094302), we aim to characterize HFpEF patients according to hsCRP levels and study the prognostic associations of hsCRP. METHODS: hsCRP was available in a subset of 232 participants. Comparisons were performed between patients with hsCRP <2 mg/L and ≥ 2 mg/L. Cox regression models were used to study the association between hsCRP and the study outcomes. RESULTS: Compared to patients with hsCRP <2 mg/L (n = 89, 38%), those with hsCRP ≥2 mg/L (n = 143, 62%) had more frequent HF hospitalizations prior to randomization, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, orthopnea, higher body mass index, and worse health-related quality-of-life. A hsCRP level ≥ 2 mg/L was associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular death and HF hospitalizations: hsCRP ≥2 mg/L vs <2 mg/L adjusted HR 2.36, 95%CI 1.27-4.38, P = 0.006. Spironolactone did not influence hsCRP levels from baseline to month 12: gMean ratio = 1.11, 95%CI 0.87-1.42, P = 0.39. CONCLUSIONS: A hsCRP ≥2 mg/L identified HFpEF patients with a high risk of HF events and cardiovascular mortality. Spironolactone did not influence hsCRP levels at 12 months.

Previous heart failure hospitalization, spironolactone, and outcomes in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction - a secondary analysis of TOPCAT.

BACKGROUND: Hospitalization for heart failure (HHF) is associated with poor postdischarge outcomes but the role of time since most recent HHF and potential treatment interactions are unknown. We aimed to assess history of and time since previous HHF, associations with composite of cardiovascular (CV) death and total HHF, first HHF and interactions with randomization to spironolactone, in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction. METHODS AND RESULTS: We assessed these objectives using uni- and multivariable regressions and spline analyses in TOPCAT-Americas. Among 1,765 patients, 66% had a previous HHF. Over a median of 2.9 years, 1,064 composite events of CV death or total HHFs occurred. Previous HHF was associated with more severe HF, and was independently associated with the composite outcome (HR 1.26, 95%CI 1.05-1.52, P = .014), and all secondary outcomes. A shorter time since most recent HHF appeared to be associated with subsequent first HHF, but not the composite of CV death or total HHF. Spironolactone had a significant interaction with previous HHF (interaction-P .046). Patients without a previous HHF had a larger effect of spironolactone on the composite outcome (HR 0.63, 95%CI 0.46-0.87, P = .005) than patients with a previous HHF (HR 0.91, 95%CI 0.78-1.06, P = .224). CONCLUSION: In TOPCAT-Americas, previous HHF was associated with CV death and first and total HHF. Duration since most recent HHF seemed to be associated with time to first HHF only. Spironolactone was associated with better outcomes in patients without a previous HHF. This interaction is hypothesis-generating and requires validation in future trials.

Sotagliflozin and Kidney Outcomes, Kidney Function, and Albuminuria in Type 2 Diabetes and CKD: A Secondary Analysis of the SCORED Trial.

BACKGROUND: In the initial analysis of the Effect of Sotagliflozin on Cardiovascular and Renal Events in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes and Moderate Renal Impairment Who Are at Cardiovascular Risk (SCORED) trial, because of early trial termination and suspension of adjudication, reconciliation of eGFR laboratory data and case report forms had not been completed. This resulted in a small number of kidney composite events and a nominal effect of sotagliflozin versus placebo on this outcome. This exploratory analysis uses laboratory eGFR data, regardless of case report form completion, to assess the effects of sotagliflozin on the predefined kidney composite end point in the SCORED trial and additional cardiorenal composite end points. METHODS: SCORED was a multicenter, randomized trial evaluating cardiorenal outcomes with sotagliflozin versus placebo in 10,584 patients with type 2 diabetes and CKD. This exploratory analysis used laboratory data to derive the eGFR components and case report form data for the non-laboratory-defined components that together made up the kidney and cardiorenal composites. AKI was also assessed in this dataset. RESULTS: Using laboratory data, 223 events were identified, and sotagliflozin reduced the risk of the composite of first event of sustained ≥50% decline in eGFR, eGFR <15 ml/min per 1.73 m 2 , dialysis, or kidney transplant with 87 events (1.6%) in the sotagliflozin group and 136 events (2.6%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio [95% confidence interval], 0.62 [0.48 to 0.82]), P < 0.001). Sotagliflozin reduced the risk of a cardiorenal composite end point defined as the abovementioned composite plus cardiovascular or kidney death with 239 events (4.5%) in the sotagliflozin group and 306 events (5.7%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio [95% confidence interval], 0.77 [0.65 to 0.91], P = 0.0023). The results were consistent when using different eGFR decline thresholds and when only including kidney death in composites (all P < 0.01). The incidence of AKI was similar between treatment groups. CONCLUSIONS: In this exploratory analysis using the complete laboratory dataset, sotagliflozin reduced the risk of kidney and cardiorenal composite end points in patients with type 2 diabetes and CKD. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRY NAME AND REGISTRATION NUMBER: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03315143 .