"Real world" eligibility for sacubitril/valsartan in unselected heart failure patients: data from the Swedish Heart Failure Registry

Purpose: PARADIGM-HF demonstrated the superiority of sacubitril/valsartan over enalapril in patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction (HF-REF). How widely applicable sacubitril/valsartan treatment is in unselected patients with HF-REF is not known. We examined eligibility of patients with HF-REF for treatment with sacubitril/valsartan, according to the criteria used in PARADIGM-HF, in the Swedish Heart Failure Registry (SwedeHF). Methods: Patients were considered potentially eligible if they were not hospitalized, had symptoms (NYHA class II–IV) and a reduced LVEF (≤ 40%), and were prescribed an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor (ACEI) or angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) at a dose equivalent to enalapril ≥ 10 mg daily. In these patients, we evaluated further eligibility according to the main additional PARADIGM-HF inclusion criteria. Results: Of 12,866 outpatients in NYHA functional class II–IV with an LVEF ≤ 40%, 9577 were prescribed at least 10 mg of enalapril (or equivalent) daily. Complete additional data were available for 3099 of these patients (32.4%) and of them 75.5% were potentially eligible for treatment with sacubitril/valsartan. The most common reason for ineligibility was a low natriuretic peptide level (n = 462, 14.9%). Only a small proportion of patients were ineligible due to low eGFR or serum potassium level. Because only 78% of patients were taking ≥ 10 mg enalapril or equivalent daily, only 58.9% of all patients (75.5% of 78%) were eligible for sacubitril/valsartan. Conclusions: Between 34 and 76% of symptomatic patients with HF-REF in a ‘real world’ population are eligible for treatment with sacubitril/valsartan, depending on background ACEI/ARB dose. The most common reason for ineligibility is a low natriuretic peptide level

Association between dosing and combination use of medications and outcomes in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction: data from the Swedish Heart Failure Registry.

AIMS: To assess the association between combination, dose and use of current guideline-recommended target doses (TD) of renin-angiotensin system inhibitors (RASi), angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitors (ARNi) and β-blockers, and outcomes in a large and unselected contemporary cohort of patients with heart failure (HF) and reduced ejection fraction. METHODS AND RESULTS: Overall, 17 809 outpatients registered in the Swedish Heart Failure Registry (SwedeHF) from May 2000 to December 2018, with ejection fraction <40% and duration of HF ≥90 days were selected. Primary outcome was a composite of time to cardiovascular death and first HF hospitalization. Compared with no use of RASi or ARNi, the adjusted hazard ratio (HR) (95% confidence interval [CI]) was 0.83 (0.76-0.91) with <50% of TD, 0.78 (0.71-0.86) with 50%-99%, and 0.73 (0.67-0.80) with ≥100% of TD. Compared with no use of β-blockers, the adjusted HR (95% CI) was 0.86 (0.76-0.91), 0.81 (0.74-0.89) and 0.74 (0.68-0.82) with <50%, 50%-99% and ≥100% of TD, respectively. Patients receiving both an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor (ACEi)/angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB)/ARNi and a β-blocker at 50%-99% of TD had a lower adjusted risk of the primary outcome compared with patients only receiving one drug, i.e. ACEi/ARB/ARNi or β-blocker, even if this was at ≥100% of TD. CONCLUSION: Heart failure with reduced ejection fraction patients using higher doses of RASi or ARNi and β-blockers had lower risk of cardiovascular death or HF hospitalization. Use of two drug classes at 50%-99% of TD dose was associated with lower risk than one drug class at 100% of TD

Digoxin use in contemporary heart failure with reduced ejection fraction: an analysis from the Swedish Heart Failure Registry.

AIMS: Digoxin is included in some heart failure (HF) guidelines but controversy persists about the true role for and impact of treatment with this drug, particularly in the absence of atrial fibrillation (AF). The aim of this study was to assess the association between clinical characteristics and digoxin use and between digoxin use and mortality/morbidity in a large, contemporary cohort of patients with HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) stratified by history of AF. METHODS AND RESULTS: Patients with HFrEF (EF < 40%) enrolled in the Swedish HF registry between 2005 and 2018 were analysed. The independent association between digoxin use and patient characteristics was assessed by logistic regression, and between digoxin use and outcomes [composite of all-cause mortality or HF hospitalization (HFH), all-cause mortality, and HFH] by Cox regressions in a 1:1 propensity score matched population. Digoxin use was analysed at baseline and as a time-dependent variable. Of 42 456 patients with HFrEF, 16% received digoxin, 29% in the AF group and 2.8% in the non-AF group. The main independent predictors of use were advanced HF, higher heart rate, history of AF, preserved renal function, and concomitant use of beta blockers. Digoxin use was associated with lower risk of all-cause death/HFH [hazard ratio (HR): 0.95; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.91-0.99] in AF, but with higher risk in non-AF (HR: 1.24; 95% CI: 1.09-1.43). Consistent results were observed when digoxin use was analysed as a time-dependent variable. CONCLUSION: The great majority of digoxin users had a history of AF. Digoxin use was associated with lower mortality/morbidity in patients with AF, but with higher mortality/morbidity in patients without AF

Trajectories in New York Heart Association functional class in heart failure across the ejection fraction spectrum: data from the Swedish Heart Failure Registry.

AIMS: To investigate incidence, predictors and prognostic implications of longitudinal New York Heart Association (NYHA) class changes (i.e. improving or worsening vs. stable NYHA class) in heart failure (HF) across the ejection fraction (EF) spectrum. METHODS AND RESULTS: From the Swedish HF Registry, 13 535 patients with EF and ≥2 NYHA class assessments were considered. Multivariable multinomial regressions were fitted to identify the independent predictors of NYHA change. Over a 1-year follow-up, 69% of patients had stable, 17% improved, and 14% worsened NYHA class. Follow-up in specialty care predicted improving NYHA class, whereas an in-hospital patient registration, lower EF, renal disease, lower mean arterial pressure, older age, and longer HF duration predicted worsening. The association between NYHA change and subsequent outcomes was assessed with multivariable Cox models. When adjusting for the NYHA class at baseline, improving NYHA class was independently associated with lower while worsening with higher risk of all-cause and cardiovascular mortality, and first HF hospitalization. After adjustment for the NYHA class at follow-up, NYHA class change did not predict morbidity/mortality. NYHA class assessment at baseline and follow-up predicted morbidity/mortality on top of the changes. Results were consistent across the EF spectrum. CONCLUSION: In a large real-world HF population, NYHA class trajectories predicted morbidity/mortality after extensive adjustments. However, the prognostic role was entirely explained by the resulting NYHA class, i.e. the follow-up value. Our results highlight that considering one-time NYHA class assessment, rather than trajectories, might be the preferable approach in clinical practice and for clinical trial design

Patient profile and outcomes associated with follow-up in specialty vs. primary care in heart failure.

AIMS: Factors influencing follow-up referral decisions and their prognostic implications are poorly investigated in patients with heart failure (HF) with reduced (HFrEF), mildly reduced (HFmrEF), and preserved (HFpEF) ejection fraction (EF). We assessed (i) the proportion of, (ii) independent predictors of, and (iii) outcomes associated with follow-up in specialty vs. primary care across the EF spectrum. METHODS AND RESULTS: We analysed 75 518 patients from the large and nationwide Swedish HF registry between 2000-2018. Multivariable logistic regression models were fitted to identify the independent predictors of planned follow-up in specialty vs. primary care, and multivariable Cox models to assess the association between follow-up type and outcomes. In this nationwide registry, 48 115 (64%) patients were planned for follow-up in specialty and 27 403 (36%) in primary care. The median age was 76 [interquartile range (IQR) 67-83] years and 27 546 (36.5%) patients were female. Key independent predictors of planned follow-up in specialty care included optimized HF care, that is follow-up in a nurse-led HF clinic [odds ratio (OR) 4.60, 95% confidence interval (95% CI) 4.41-4.79], use of HF devices (OR 3.99, 95% CI 3.62-4.40), beta-blockers (OR 1.39, 95% CI 1.32-1.47), renin-angiotensin system/angiotensin-receptor-neprilysin inhibitors (OR 1.21, 95% CI 1.15-1.27), and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (OR 1.31, 95% CI 1.26-1.37); and more severe HF, that is higher NT-proBNP (OR 1.13, 95% CI 1.06-1.20) and NYHA class (OR 1.13, 95% CI 1.08-1.19). Factors associated with lower likelihood of follow-up in specialty care included older age (OR 0.29, 95% CI 0.28-0.30), female sex (OR 0.89, 95% CI 0.86-0.93), lower income (OR 0.79, 95% CI 0.76-0.82) and educational level (OR 0.77, 95% CI 0.73-0.81), higher EF [HFmrEF (OR 0.65, 95% CI 0.62-0.68) and HFpEF (OR 0.56, 95% CI 0.53-0.58) vs. HFrEF], and higher comorbidity burden, such as presence of kidney disease (OR 0.91, 95% CI 0.87-0.95), atrial fibrillation (OR 0.85, 95% CI 0.81-0.89), and diabetes mellitus (OR 0.92, 95% CI 0.88-0.96). A planned follow-up in specialty care was independently associated with lower risk of all-cause [hazard ratio (HR) 0.78, 95% CI 0.76-0.80] and cardiovascular death (HR 0.76, 95% CI 0.73-0.78) across the EF spectrum, but not of HF hospitalization (HR 1.06, 95% CI 1.03-1.10). CONCLUSIONS: In a large nationwide HF population, referral to specialty care was linked with male sex, younger age, lower EF, lower comorbidity burden, better socioeconomic environment and optimized HF care, and associated with better survival across the EF spectrum. Our findings highlight the need for greater and more equal access to HF specialty care and improved quality of primary care

Use of and association between heart failure pharmacological treatments and outcomes in obese versus non-obese patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction: data from the Swedish Heart Failure Registry.

AIMS: To investigate the use of guideline-directed medical therapies (GDMT) and associated outcomes in obese (body mass index ≥30 kg/m2 ) versus non-obese patients with heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). METHODS AND RESULTS: Patients with HFrEF from the Swedish HF Registry were included. Of 16 116 patients, 24% were obese. In obese versus non-obese patients, use of treatments was 91% versus 86% for renin-angiotensin system inhibitors (RASi)/angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitors (ARNi), 94% versus 91% for beta-blockers, 53% versus 43% for mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists. Obesity was shown to be independently associated with more likely use of each treatment, triple combination therapy, and the achievement of target dose by multivariable logistic regressions. Multivariable Cox regressions showed use of RASi/ARNi and beta-blockers being independently associated with lower risk of all-cause/cardiovascular death regardless of obesity, although, when considering competing risks, a lower risk of cardiovascular death with RASi/ARNi in obese versus non-obese patients was observed. RASi/ARNi were associated with lower risk of HF hospitalization in obese but not in non-obese patients, whereas beta-blockers were not associated with the risk of HF hospitalization regardless of obesity. At the competing risk analysis, RASi/ARNi use was associated with higher risk of HF hospitalization regardless of obesity. CONCLUSION: Obese patients were more likely to receive optimal treatments after adjustment for factors affecting tolerability, suggesting that perceived beyond actual tolerance issues limit GDMT implementation. RASi/ARNi and beta-blockers were associated with lower mortality regardless of obesity, with a greater association between RASi/ARNi and lower cardiovascular death in obese versus non-obese patients when considering competing risk

Eligibility for sacubitril/valsartan in heart failure across the ejection fraction spectrum: real-world data from the Swedish Heart Failure Registry.

BACKGROUND: Randomized controlled trials (RCT) generalizability may be limited due to strict patient selection. OBJECTIVE: In a real-world heart failure (HF) population, we assessed eligibility for sacubitril/valsartan based on PARADIGM-HF (sacubitril/valsartan effective)/PARAGON-HF [sacubitril/valsartan effective in mildly reduced ejection fraction (EF)]. METHODS: Outpatients from the Swedish HF Registry (SwedeHF) were analysed. In SwedeHF, EF is recorded as  median as EF ≥ 50%. We assessed 2 scenarios: (i) criteria likely to influence treatment decisions (pragmatic scenario); (ii) all criteria (literal scenario). RESULTS: Of 37 790 outpatients, 57% had EF < 40%, 24% EF 40-49% and 19% EF ≥ 50%. In the pragmatic scenario, 63% were eligible in EF < 50% (67% for EF < 40% and 52% for 40-49%) and 52% in EF ≥ 40% (52% for EF ≥ 50%). For the literal scenario, 32% were eligible in EF < 50% (38% of EF < 40%, 20% of EF 40-49%) and 22% in EF ≥ 40% (25% for EF ≥ 50%). Eligible vs. noneligible patients had more severe HF, more comorbidities and overall worse outcomes. CONCLUSION: In a real-world HF outpatient cohort, 81% of patients had EF < 50%, with 63% eligible for sacubitril/valsartan based on pragmatic criteria and 32% eligible based on literal trial criteria. Similar eligibility was observed for EF 40-49% and ≥50%, suggesting that our estimates for EF < 50% may be reproduced whether or not a higher cut-off for EF is considered

The role of multimorbidity in patients with heart failure across the left ventricular ejection fraction spectrum: Data from the Swedish Heart Failure Registry.

AIMS: The aim of this analysis was to provide data on the overall comorbidity burden, both cardiovascular (CV) and non-CV, in a large real-world heart failure (HF) population across the ejection fraction (EF). METHODS AND RESULTS: Patients with HF from the Swedish HF Registry between 2000 and 2021 were included. Of 91 463 patients (median age 76 years [interquartile range 67-82]), 98% had at least one among the 17 explored comorbidities (94% at least one CV and 85% at least one non-CV comorbidity). All comorbidities, except for coronary artery disease (CAD), were more frequent in HF with preserved EF (HFpEF). Patients with multiple comorbidities were older, more likely female, inpatients, with HFpEF, worse New York Heart Association class and higher N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide levels. In a multivariable Cox model, 12 comorbidities were independently associated with a higher risk of death from any cause. The highest risk was associated with dementia (hazard ratio [HR] 1.55, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.45-1.65), chronic kidney disease (HR 1.37, 95% CI 1.34-1.41), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (HR 1.32, 95% CI 1.28-1.35). Obesity was associated with a lower risk of all-cause death (HR 0.81, 95% CI 0.79-0.84). CAD and valvular heart disease were associated with a higher risk of all-cause and CV mortality, but not non-CV mortality, whereas cancer and musculo-skeletal disease increased the risk of non-CV mortality. A significant interaction with EF was observed for several comorbidities. Occurrence of CV and non-CV outcomes was related to the number of CV and non-CV comorbidities, respectively. CONCLUSION: The burden of both CV and non-CV comorbidities was high in HF regardless of EF, but overall higher in HFpEF. Multimorbidity was associated with a high risk of death with a different burden on CV or non-CV outcomes

Phenotyping heart failure patients for iron deficiency and use of intravenous iron therapy: data from the Swedish Heart Failure Registry.

AIMS: Iron deficiency (ID) is associated with poor prognosis regardless of anaemia. Intravenous iron improves quality of life and outcomes in patients with ID and heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). In the Swedish HF registry, we assessed (i) frequency and predictors of ID testing; (ii) prevalence and outcomes of ID with/without anaemia; (iii) use of ferric carboxymaltose (FCM) and its predictors in patients with ID. METHODS AND RESULTS: We used multivariable logistic regressions to assess patient characteristics independently associated with ID testing/FCM use, and Cox regressions to assess risk of outcomes associated with ID. Of 21 496 patients with HF and any ejection fraction enrolled in 2017-2018, ID testing was performed in 27%. Of these, 49% had ID and more specifically 36% had ID-/anaemia-, 15% ID-/anaemia+, 29% ID+/anaemia-, and 20% ID+/anaemia+ (48%, 39%, 13%, 30% and 18% in HFrEF, respectively). Risk of recurrent all-cause hospitalizations was higher in patients with ID regardless of anaemia. Of 1959 patients with ID, 19% received FCM (24% in HFrEF). Important independent predictors of ID testing and FCM use were anaemia, higher New York Heart Association class, having HFrEF, and referral to HF specialty care. CONCLUSION: In this nationwide HF registry, ID testing occurred in only about a quarter of the patients. Among tested patients, ID was present in one half, but only one in five patients received FCM indicating low adherence to current guidelines on screening and treatment