Effects of alirocumab on cardiovascular and metabolic outcomes after acute coronary syndrome in patients with or without diabetes: a prespecified analysis of the ODYSSEY OUTCOMES randomised controlled trial

Background: After acute coronary syndrome, diabetes conveys an excess risk of ischaemic cardiovascular events. A reduction in mean LDL cholesterol to 1·4–1·8 mmol/L with ezetimibe or statins reduces cardiovascular events in patients with an acute coronary syndrome and diabetes. However, the efficacy and safety of further reduction in LDL cholesterol with an inhibitor of proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 (PCSK9) after acute coronary syndrome is unknown. We aimed to explore this issue in a prespecified analysis of the ODYSSEY OUTCOMES trial of the PCSK9 inhibitor alirocumab, assessing its effects on cardiovascular outcomes by baseline glycaemic status, while also assessing its effects on glycaemic measures including risk of new-onset diabetes. Methods: ODYSSEY OUTCOMES was a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, done at 1315 sites in 57 countries, that compared alirocumab with placebo in patients who had been admitted to hospital with an acute coronary syndrome (myocardial infarction or unstable angina) 1–12 months before randomisation and who had raised concentrations of atherogenic lipoproteins despite use of high-intensity statins. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive alirocumab or placebo every 2 weeks; randomisation was stratified by country and was done centrally with an interactive voice-response or web-response system. Alirocumab was titrated to target LDL cholesterol concentrations of 0·65–1·30 mmol/L. In this prespecified analysis, we investigated the effect of alirocumab on cardiovascular events by glycaemic status at baseline (diabetes, prediabetes, or normoglycaemia)—defined on the basis of patient history, review of medical records, or baseline HbA1c or fasting serum glucose—and risk of new-onset diabetes among those without diabetes at baseline. The primary endpoint was a composite of death from coronary heart disease, non-fatal myocardial infarction, fatal or non-fatal ischaemic stroke, or unstable angina requiring hospital admission. ODYSSEY OUTCOMES is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01663402. Findings: At study baseline, 5444 patients (28·8%) had diabetes, 8246 (43·6%) had prediabetes, and 5234 (27·7%) had normoglycaemia. There were no significant differences across glycaemic categories in median LDL cholesterol at baseline (2·20–2·28 mmol/L), after 4 months' treatment with alirocumab (0·80 mmol/L), or after 4 months' treatment with placebo (2·25–2·28 mmol/L). In the placebo group, the incidence of the primary endpoint over a median of 2·8 years was greater in patients with diabetes (16·4%) than in those with prediabetes (9·2%) or normoglycaemia (8·5%); hazard ratio (HR) for diabetes versus normoglycaemia 2·09 (95% CI 1·78–2·46, p<0·0001) and for diabetes versus prediabetes 1·90 (1·65–2·17, p<0·0001). Alirocumab resulted in similar relative reductions in the incidence of the primary endpoint in each glycaemic category, but a greater absolute reduction in the incidence of the primary endpoint in patients with diabetes (2·3%, 95% CI 0·4 to 4·2) than in those with prediabetes (1·2%, 0·0 to 2·4) or normoglycaemia (1·2%, −0·3 to 2·7; absolute risk reduction pinteraction=0·0019). Among patients without diabetes at baseline, 676 (10·1%) developed diabetes in the placebo group, compared with 648 (9·6%) in the alirocumab group; alirocumab did not increase the risk of new-onset diabetes (HR 1·00, 95% CI 0·89–1·11). HRs were 0·97 (95% CI 0·87–1·09) for patients with prediabetes and 1·30 (95% CI 0·93–1·81) for those with normoglycaemia (pinteraction=0·11). Interpretation: After a recent acute coronary syndrome, alirocumab treatment targeting an LDL cholesterol concentration of 0·65–1·30 mmol/L produced about twice the absolute reduction in cardiovascular events among patients with diabetes as in those without diabetes. Alirocumab treatment did not increase the risk of new-onset diabetes. Funding: Sanofi and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals

Are hospitalized or ambulatory patients with heart failure treated in accordance with European Society of Cardiology guidelines? Evidence from 12 440 patients of the ESC Heart Failure Long-Term Registry.

AIMS: To evaluate how recommendations of European guidelines regarding pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatments for heart failure (HF) are adopted in clinical practice. METHODS AND RESULTS: The ESC-HF Long-Term Registry is a prospective, observational study conducted in 211 Cardiology Centres of 21 European and Mediterranean countries, members of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC). From May 2011 to April 2013, a total of 12 440 patients were enrolled, 40.5% with acute HF and 59.5% with chronic HF. Intravenous treatments for acute HF were heterogeneously administered, irrespective of guideline recommendations. In chronic HF, with reduced EF, renin-angiotensin system (RAS) blockers, beta-blockers, and mineralocorticoid antagonists (MRAs) were used in 92.2, 92.7, and 67.0% of patients, respectively. When reasons for non-adherence were considered, the real rate of undertreatment accounted for 3.2, 2.3, and 5.4% of the cases, respectively. About 30% of patients received the target dosage of these drugs, but a documented reason for not achieving the target dosage was reported in almost two-thirds of them. The more relevant reasons for non-implantation of a device, when clinically indicated, were related to doctor uncertainties on the indication, patient refusal, or logistical/cost issues. CONCLUSION: This pan-European registry shows that, while in patients with acute HF, a large heterogeneity of treatments exists, drug treatment of chronic HF can be considered largely adherent to recommendations of current guidelines, when the reasons for non-adherence are taken into account. Observations regarding the real possibility to adhere fully to current guidelines in daily clinical practice should be seriously considered when clinical practice guidelines have to be written

Sacubitril/valsartan eligibility and outcomes in the ESC-EORP-HFA Heart Failure Long-Term Registry: bridging between European Medicines Agency/Food and Drug Administration label, the PARADIGM-HF trial, ESC guidelines, and real world

Aims: To assess the proportion of patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) who are eligible for sacubitril/valsartan (LCZ696) based on the European Medicines Agency/Food and Drug Administration (EMA/FDA) label, the PARADIGM-HF trial and the 2016 ESC guidelines, and the association between eligibility and outcomes. Methods and results: Outpatients with HFrEF in the ESC-EORP-HFA Long-Term Heart Failure (HF-LT) Registry between March 2011 and November 2013 were considered. Criteria for LCZ696 based on EMA/FDA label, PARADIGM-HF and ESC guidelines were applied. Of 5443 patients, 2197 and 2373 had complete information for trial and guideline eligibility assessment, and 84%, 12% and 12% met EMA/FDA label, PARADIGM-HF and guideline criteria, respectively. Absent PARADIGM-HF criteria were low natriuretic peptides (21%), hyperkalemia (4%), hypotension (7%) and sub-optimal pharmacotherapy (74%); absent Guidelines criteria were LVEF>35% (23%), insufficient NP levels (30%). and sub-optimal pharmacotherapy (82%); absent label criteria were absence of symptoms (New York Heart Association class I). When a daily requirement of ACEi/ARB ≥ 10 mg enalapril (instead of ≥ 20 mg) was used, eligibility rose from 12% to 28% based on both PARADIGM-HF and guidelines. One-year heart failure hospitalization was higher (12% and 17% vs. 12%) and all-cause mortality lower (5.3% and 6.5% vs. 7.7%) in registry eligible patients compared to the enalapril arm of PARADIGM-HF. Conclusions: Among outpatients with HFrEF in the ESC-EORP-HFA HF-LT Registry, 84% met label criteria, while only 12% and 28% met PARADIGM-HF and guideline criteria for LCZ696 if requiring ≥ 20 mg and ≥ 10 mg enalapril, respectively. Registry patients eligible for LCZ696 had greater heart failure hospitalization but lower mortality rates than the PARADIGM-HF enalapril group

Performance of Prognostic Risk Scores in Chronic Heart Failure Patients Enrolled in the European Society of Cardiology Heart Failure Long-Term Registry

Objectives: This study compared the performance of major heart failure (HF) risk models in predicting mortality and examined their utilization using data from a contemporary multinational registry. Background: Several prognostic risk scores have been developed for ambulatory HF patients, but their precision is still inadequate and their use limited. Methods: This registry enrolled patients with HF seen in participating European centers between May 2011 and April 2013. The following scores designed to estimate 1- to 2-year all-cause mortality were calculated in each participant: CHARM (Candesartan in Heart Failure-Assessment of Reduction in Mortality), GISSI-HF (Gruppo Italiano per lo Studio della Streptochinasi nell'Infarto Miocardico-Heart Failure), MAGGIC (Meta-analysis Global Group in Chronic Heart Failure), and SHFM (Seattle Heart Failure Model). Patients with hospitalized HF (n = 6,920) and ambulatory HF patients missing any variable needed to estimate each score (n = 3,267) were excluded, leaving a final sample of 6,161 patients. Results: At 1-year follow-up, 5,653 of 6,161 patients (91.8%) were alive. The observed-to-predicted survival ratios (CHARM: 1.10, GISSI-HF: 1.08, MAGGIC: 1.03, and SHFM: 0.98) suggested some overestimation of mortality by all scores except the SHFM. Overprediction occurred steadily across levels of risk using both the CHARM and the GISSI-HF, whereas the SHFM underpredicted mortality in all risk groups except the highest. The MAGGIC showed the best overall accuracy (area under the curve [AUC] = 0.743), similar to the GISSI-HF (AUC = 0.739; p = 0.419) but better than the CHARM (AUC = 0.729; p = 0.068) and particularly better than the SHFM (AUC = 0.714; p = 0.018). Less than 1% of patients received a prognostic estimate from their enrolling physician. Conclusions: Performance of prognostic risk scores is still limited and physicians are reluctant to use them in daily practice. The need for contemporary, more precise prognostic tools should be considered

Hyponatraemia and changes in natraemia during hospitalization for acute heart failure and associations with in-hospital and long-term outcomes - from the ESC HFA EORP Heart Failure Long-Term Registry

Aims: To comprehensively assess hyponatraemia in acute heart failure (AHF) regarding prevalence, associations, hospital course, and post-discharge outcomes. Methods and results: Of 8,298 patients in the ESC-HF Long-Term Registry hospitalized for AHF with any ejection fraction, 20% presented with hyponatraemia (serum sodium <135 mmol/L). Independent predictors included lower systolic blood pressure, estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and haemoglobin, along with diabetes, hepatic disease, use of thiazide diuretics, mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists, digoxin, higher doses of loop diuretics, and non-use of angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibitors/angiotensin receptor blockers and beta-blockers. In-hospital death occurred in 3.3%. The prevalence of hyponatraemia and in-hospital mortality with different combinations were: 9% hyponatraemia both at admission and discharge (hyponatraemia Yes/Yes, in-hospital mortality 6.9%), 11% Yes/No (in-hospital mortality 4.9%), 8% No/Yes (in-hospital mortality 4.7%), and 72% No/No (in-hospital mortality 2.4%). Correction of hyponatraemia was associated with improvement in eGFR. In-hospital development of hyponatraemia was associated with greater diuretic use and worsening eGFR but also more effective decongestion. Among hospital survivors, 12-month mortality was 19% and adjusted hazard ratios were for hyponatraemia Yes/Yes 1.60 (1.35-1.89), Yes/No 1.35 (1.14-1.59), and No/Yes 1.18 (0.96-1.45). For death or HF hospitalization they were 1.38 (1.21-1.58), 1.17 (1.02-1.33), and 1.09 (0.93-1.27), respectively. Conclusion: Among patients with AHF, 20% had hyponatraemia at admission, which was associated with more advanced HF and normalized in half of patients during hospitalization. Admission hyponatraemia (possibly dilutional), especially if it did not resolve, was associated with worse in-hospital and post-discharge outcomes. Hyponatraemia developing during hospitalization (possibly depletional) was associated with lower risk. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved

Performance of Prognostic Risk Scores in Chronic Heart Failure Patients Enrolled in the European Society of Cardiology Heart Failure Long-Term Registry

Objectives: This study compared the performance of major heart failure (HF) risk models in predicting mortality and examined their utilization using data from a contemporary multinational registry. Background: Several prognostic risk scores have been developed for ambulatory HF patients, but their precision is still inadequate and their use limited. Methods: This registry enrolled patients with HF seen in participating European centers between May 2011 and April 2013. The following scores designed to estimate 1- to 2-year all-cause mortality were calculated in each participant: CHARM (Candesartan in Heart Failure-Assessment of Reduction in Mortality), GISSI-HF (Gruppo Italiano per lo Studio della Streptochinasi nell'Infarto Miocardico-Heart Failure), MAGGIC (Meta-analysis Global Group in Chronic Heart Failure), and SHFM (Seattle Heart Failure Model). Patients with hospitalized HF (n = 6,920) and ambulatory HF patients missing any variable needed to estimate each score (n = 3,267) were excluded, leaving a final sample of 6,161 patients. Results: At 1-year follow-up, 5,653 of 6,161 patients (91.8%) were alive. The observed-to-predicted survival ratios (CHARM: 1.10, GISSI-HF: 1.08, MAGGIC: 1.03, and SHFM: 0.98) suggested some overestimation of mortality by all scores except the SHFM. Overprediction occurred steadily across levels of risk using both the CHARM and the GISSI-HF, whereas the SHFM underpredicted mortality in all risk groups except the highest. The MAGGIC showed the best overall accuracy (area under the curve [AUC] = 0.743), similar to the GISSI-HF (AUC = 0.739; p = 0.419) but better than the CHARM (AUC = 0.729; p = 0.068) and particularly better than the SHFM (AUC = 0.714; p = 0.018). Less than 1% of patients received a prognostic estimate from their enrolling physician. Conclusions: Performance of prognostic risk scores is still limited and physicians are reluctant to use them in daily practice. The need for contemporary, more precise prognostic tools should be considered

Alirocumab and Cardiovascular Outcomes after Acute Coronary Syndrome

BACKGROUN

Alirocumab and cardiovascular outcomes after acute coronary syndrome

BACKGROUN