Baseline characteristics of patients with heart failure and preserved ejection fraction in the PARAGON-HF trial

Background: To describe the baseline characteristics of patients with heart failure and preserved left ventricular ejection fraction enrolled in the PARAGON-HF trial (Prospective Comparison of Angiotensin Receptor Neprilysin Inhibitor With Angiotensin Receptor Blocker Global Outcomes in HFpEF) comparing sacubitril/valsartan to valsartan in reducing morbidity and mortality. Methods and Results: We report key demographic, clinical, and laboratory findings, and baseline therapies, of 4822 patients randomized in PARAGON-HF, grouped by factors that influence criteria for study inclusion. We further compared baseline characteristics of patients enrolled in PARAGON-HF with those patients enrolled in other recent trials of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). Among patients enrolled from various regions (16% Asia-Pacific, 37% Central Europe, 7% Latin America, 12% North America, 28% Western Europe), the mean age of patients enrolled in PARAGON-HF was 72.7±8.4 years, 52% of patients were female, and mean left ventricular ejection fraction was 57.5%, similar to other trials of HFpEF. Most patients were in New York Heart Association class II, and 38% had ≥1 hospitalizations for heart failure within the previous 9 months. Diabetes mellitus (43%) and chronic kidney disease (47%) were more prevalent than in previous trials of HFpEF. Many patients were prescribed angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers (85%), β-blockers (80%), calcium channel blockers (36%), and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (24%). As specified in the protocol, virtually all patients were on diuretics, had elevated plasma concentrations of N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (median, 911 pg/mL; interquartile range, 464–1610), and structural heart disease. Conclusions: PARAGON-HF represents a contemporary group of patients with HFpEF with similar age and sex distribution compared with prior HFpEF trials but higher prevalence of comorbidities. These findings provide insights into the impact of inclusion criteria on, and regional variation in, HFpEF patient characteristics. Clinical Trial Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01920711

Effects of Once-Weekly Exenatide on Cardiovascular Outcomes in Type 2 Diabetes.

Abstract BACKGROUND: The cardiovascular effects of adding once-weekly treatment with exenatide to usual care in patients with type 2 diabetes are unknown. METHODS: We randomly assigned patients with type 2 diabetes, with or without previous cardiovascular disease, to receive subcutaneous injections of extended-release exenatide at a dose of 2 mg or matching placebo once weekly. The primary composite outcome was the first occurrence of death from cardiovascular causes, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or nonfatal stroke. The coprimary hypotheses were that exenatide, administered once weekly, would be noninferior to placebo with respect to safety and superior to placebo with respect to efficacy. RESULTS: In all, 14,752 patients (of whom 10,782 [73.1%] had previous cardiovascular disease) were followed for a median of 3.2 years (interquartile range, 2.2 to 4.4). A primary composite outcome event occurred in 839 of 7356 patients (11.4%; 3.7 events per 100 person-years) in the exenatide group and in 905 of 7396 patients (12.2%; 4.0 events per 100 person-years) in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.91; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.83 to 1.00), with the intention-to-treat analysis indicating that exenatide, administered once weekly, was noninferior to placebo with respect to safety (P<0.001 for noninferiority) but was not superior to placebo with respect to efficacy (P=0.06 for superiority). The rates of death from cardiovascular causes, fatal or nonfatal myocardial infarction, fatal or nonfatal stroke, hospitalization for heart failure, and hospitalization for acute coronary syndrome, and the incidence of acute pancreatitis, pancreatic cancer, medullary thyroid carcinoma, and serious adverse events did not differ significantly between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with type 2 diabetes with or without previous cardiovascular disease, the incidence of major adverse cardiovascular events did not differ significantly between patients who received exenatide and those who received placebo. (Funded by Amylin Pharmaceuticals; EXSCEL ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01144338 .)

Effects of beta-blocker therapy on hs-CRP levels in elderly patients with ischemic and non-ischemic heart failure: results from the CIBIS-ELD trail

Congress of the European-Society-of-Cardiology (ESC), Aug 29-Sep 02, 2015, London, Englan

Effects of beta-blocker therapy on hs-CRP levels in elderly patients with ischemic and non-ischemic heart failure: Results from the CIBIS-ELD trail

C reactive protein (CRP) is a biomarker indicating systemic inflammation. Elevated levels of this biomarker are associated with increased rates of cardiovascular disease, including chronic heart failure (HF). High‐sensitivity CRP assays were developed in order to measure lower levels of CRP, down to 0.3mg/l (hs‐CRP). Up to now, very little is known about the effects of beta‐blocker titration on hs‐CRP levels in ischemic and non‐ischemic HF patients. Also, little is known if this effect differs between selective and unselective blockers. Purpose: This research explored the trajectories of hs‐CRP before and after beta‐blocker (carvedilol vs bisoprolol) titration in elderly HF patients depending on the type of beta‐blocker used and the etiology of the disease (ischemic vs non‐ischemic). Methods: We measured plasma levels of hs‐CRP and NT‐proBNP in 520 HF patients ≥ 65 years (72.06±5.24 years, 38%f, LVEF 41.8±13.8%; ischemic n=243; nonischemic n=277) of the Cardiac Insufficiency Bisoprolol Study in ELDerly (CIBIS‐ELD). In this trial, patients were randomized to bisoprolol vs. carvedilol and doses were uptitrated to the target or maximally tolerated dose. hs‐CRP and NT‐proBNP levels were assessed at baseline (BL) and at follow‐up (FU), after 12 weeks. Results: In patients with ischemic HF, hs‐CRP levels decreased in the bisoprolol group (BL=0.60±0.94 mg/ dl, n=166; FU=0.43±0.694mg/dl, n=131; p=0.010), and were without a change in the carvedilol group (BL=0.60±1.69mg/dl, n=181; FU=0.57±0.982mg/ dl, n=136; p=0.731). There was also no change of hs‐CRP levels in non‐ischemic HF patients in both groups (bisoprolol: BL=0.64±1.175 mg/dl, n=197; FU=0.470±0.81mg/dl, n=152, p=0.069; carvedilol: BL=0.45±0.78mg/dl, n=198; FU=0.41±0.701 mg/ dl, n=152, p=0.420). Plasma levels of NT‐proBNP decreased in ischemic patients treated with bisoprolol, (BL=1594±2146 pg/ml, n=169; FU=1468±2110pg/ ml, n=133, p=0.04), while changes in the carvedilol group were not significant (BL=1648±1991 pg/ml, n=188; FU=1567±2119pg/ml, n=135, p=0.556). In the non‐ischemic group NT‐pro levels did not change significantly in the carvedilol group, while there was an increase in non‐ischemic patients in the bisoprolol group (BL=1427±3113 pg/ml, n=208; FU=1533±5385 pg/ml, n=166, p=0.017). Conclusion: Results indicate that bisoprolol might be associated with a decrease of hs‐CRP and NT‐proBNP levels only in ischemic HF patients, while in nonischemic HF patients there was no change of hs‐CRP and an increase of NT‐proBNP levels. In carvedilol treated patients no significant changes were shown in neither group

Assessment of subjective physical well-being in heart failure. Validation of the FEW16 questionnaire

Lashki DJ, Zelenak C, Tahirovic E, et al. Erfassung des subjektiven körperlichen Wohlbefindens bei Herzinsuffizienz. HERZ. 2017;42(2):200-208.Improvement in the quality of life (QoL) is a major goal of therapy for heart failure (HF) patients. Physical well-being as an important component of QoL has not yet been sufficiently covered by disease-specific assessment instruments. The aim of the study was to validate the questionnaire for assessing subjective physical well-being (FEW16) in HF patients with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) from the exercise training in diastolic heart failure (Ex-DHFaEuroP) trial. A total of 64 HFpEF patients (65 years, 56 % female) were randomized to usual routine treatment with (n = 44) or without training (n = 20). At baseline and 3 months, patients were clinically evaluated and assessed using appropriate questionnaires on the QoL (SF36), physical well-being (FEW16) and depression (PHQ-D). The FEW16 showed good values for Cronbachs' alpha coefficients (0.85-0.93). The cross-validity with SF36 and PHQ-D was highly significant but more so for psychological aspects. At baseline, the FEW16 score correlated with age, the subscale resilience with age and the 6 min walking distance test. At follow-up, the total and resilience scores had improved in the training group. In contrast to the SF36, the FEW16 did not detect differences between the groups in Ex-DHFaEuroP. The FEW16 questionnaire showed good internal consistency and correlation with SF36, its total score and resilience had improved after training; however, it did not reflect different changes between the study groups. The FEW16 is therefore more suited to assess general/mental well-being than the subjective physical well-being

Safety, Tolerability and efficacy of Rapid Optimization, helped by NT-proBNP and GDF-15, of Heart Failure therapies (STRONG-HF): rationale and design for a multicentre, randomized, parallel-group study

Aims: Patients admitted for acute heart failure (HF) are at high risk of readmission and death, especially in the 90 days following discharge. We aimed to assess the safety and efficacy of early optimization of oral HF therapy with beta-blockers (BB), angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEi) or angiotensin receptor blockers (ARB) or angiotensin receptor–neprilysin inhibitors (ARNi), and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRA) on 90-day clinical outcomes in patients admitted for acute HF. Methods: In a multicentre, randomized, open-label, parallel-group study, a total of 900 patients will be randomized in a 1:1 ratio to either ‘usual care’ or ‘high-intensity care’. Patients enrolled in the usual care arm will be discharged and managed according to usual clinical practice at the site. In the high-intensity care arm, doses of oral HF medications – including a BB, ACEi or ARB, and MRA – will be up-titrated to 50% of recommended doses before discharge and to 100% of recommended doses within 2 weeks of discharge. Up-titration will be delayed if the patients develop worsening. symptoms and signs of congestion, hyperkalaemia, hypotension, bradycardia, worsening of renal function or significant increase in N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide between visits. The primary endpoint is 90-day all-cause mortality or HF readmission. Conclusions: STRONG-HF is the first study to assess whether rapid up-titration of evidence-based guideline-recommended therapies with close follow-up in a large cohort of patients discharged from an acute HF admission is safe and can affect adverse outcomes during the first 90 days after discharge. Clinical Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier NCT03412201. © 2019 The Authors. European Journal of Heart Failure © 2019 European Society of Cardiolog

Baseline characteristics of patients with heart failure and preserved ejection fraction in the PARAGON-HF trial

Background: To describe the baseline characteristics of patients with heart failure and preserved left ventricular ejection fraction enrolled in the PARAGON-HF trial (Prospective Comparison of Angiotensin Receptor Neprilysin Inhibitor With Angiotensin Receptor Blocker Global Outcomes in HFpEF) comparing sacubitril/valsartan to valsartan in reducing morbidity and mortality. Methods and Results: We report key demographic, clinical, and laboratory findings, and baseline therapies, of 4822 patients randomized in PARAGON-HF, grouped by factors that influence criteria for study inclusion. We further compared baseline characteristics of patients enrolled in PARAGON-HF with those patients enrolled in other recent trials of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). Among patients enrolled from various regions (16% Asia-Pacific, 37% Central Europe, 7% Latin America, 12% North America, 28% Western Europe), the mean age of patients enrolled in PARAGON-HF was 72.7±8.4 years, 52% of patients were female, and mean left ventricular ejection fraction was 57.5%, similar to other trials of HFpEF. Most patients were in New York Heart Association class II, and 38% had ≥1 hospitalizations for heart failure within the previous 9 months. Diabetes mellitus (43%) and chronic kidney disease (47%) were more prevalent than in previous trials of HFpEF. Many patients were prescribed angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers (85%), β-blockers (80%), calcium channel blockers (36%), and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (24%). As specified in the protocol, virtually all patients were on diuretics, had elevated plasma concentrations of N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (median, 911 pg/mL; interquartile range, 464-1610), and structural heart disease. Conclusions: PARAGON-HF represents a contemporary group of patients with HFpEF with similar age and sex distribution compared with prior HFpEF trials but higher prevalence of comorbidities. These findings provide insights into the impact of inclusion criteria on, and regional variation in, HFpEF patient characteristics. Clinical Trial Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01920711. © 2018 American Heart Association, Inc

Sacubitril-valsartan as a treatment for apparent resistant hypertension in patients with heart failure and preserved ejection fraction

Aims: Patients with heart failure and preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) frequently have difficult-to-control hypertension. We examined the effect of neprilysin inhibition on apparent resistant hypertension in patients with HFpEF in the PARAGON-HF trial, which compared the effect of sacubitril-valsartan with valsartan. Methods and results: In this post hoc analysis, patients were categorized according to systolic blood pressure at the end of the valsartan run-in (n=4795). Apparent resistant hypertension was defined as systolic blood pressure &amp;gt;= 14 0mmHg (&amp;gt;= 135 mmHg if diabetes) despite treatment with valsartan, a calcium channel blocker, and a diuretic. Apparent mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist (MRA)-resistant hypertension was defined as systolic blood pressure &amp;gt;= 140 mmHg (&amp;gt;= 135 mmHg if diabetes) despite the above treatments and an MRA. The primary outcome in the PARAGON-HF trial was a composite of total hospitalizations for heart failure and death from cardiovascular causes. We examined clinical endpoints and the safety of sacubitril-valsartan according to the hypertension category. We also examined reductions in blood pressure from the end of valsartan run-in to Weeks 4 and 16 after randomization. Overall, 731 patients (15.2%) had apparent resistant hypertension and 135 (2.8%) had apparent MRA-resistant hypertension. The rate of the primary outcome was higher in patients with apparent resistant hypertension [17.3; 95% confidence interval (CI) 15.6-19.1 per 100 person-years] compared to those with a controlled systolic blood pressure (13.4; 12.7-14.3 per 100 person-years), with an adjusted rate ratio of 1.28 (95% CI 1.05-1.57). The reduction in systolic blood pressure at Weeks 4 and 16, respectively, was greater with sacubitril-valsartan vs. valsartan in patients with apparent resistant hypertension [-4.8 (-7.0 to -2.5) and 3.9 (-6.6 to -1.3) mmHg] and apparent MRA-resistant hypertension [-8.8 (-14.0 to -3.5) and -6.3 (-12.5 to -0.1) mmHg]. The proportion of patients with apparent resistant hypertension achieving a controlled systolic blood pressure by Week 16 was 47.9% in the sacubitril-valsartan group and 34.3% in the valsartan group [adjusted odds ratio (OR) 1.78, 95% CI 1.30-2.43]. In patients with apparent MRA-resistant hypertension, the respective proportions were 43.6% vs. 28.4% (adjusted OR 2.63, 95% CI 1.18-5.89). Conclusion: Sacubitril-valsartan may be useful in treating apparent resistant hypertension in patients with HFpEF, even in those who continue to have an elevated blood pressure despite treatment with at least four antihypertensive drug classes, including an MRA.Funding Agencies: A.M.J. is supported by a British Heart Foundation Clinical Research Training Fellowship (FS/18/14/33330) and J.J.V.M. is supported by a British Heart Foundation Centre of Research Excellence Grant (RE/18/6/34217).</p