Effects of Sacubitril-Valsartan, versus Valsartan, in Women Compared to Men with Heart Failure and Preserved Ejection Fraction: Insights from PARAGON-HF

Unlike heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, there is no approved treatment for heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), the predominant phenotype in women. Therefore, there is a greater heart failure therapeutic deficit in women, compared with men. In a pre-specified subgroup analysis, we examined outcomes according to sex in the PARAGON-HF trial which compared sacubitril-valsartan and valsartan in patients with HFpEF. The primary outcome was a composite of first and recurrent hospitalizations for heart failure and death from cardiovascular causes. We also report secondary efficacy and safety outcomes. Overall, 2479 women (51.7%) and 2317 men (48.3%) were randomized. Women were older, had more obesity, less coronary disease, and lower estimated glomerular filtration rate and NT-proBNP levels than men. For the primary outcome, the rate ratio for sacubitril-valsartan versus valsartan was 0.73 (95% CI 0.59-0.90) in women and 1.03 (0.84-1.25) in men; P interaction=0.017. The benefit from sacubitril-valsartan was due to reduction in heart failure hospitalization. The improvement in NYHA class and renal function with sacubitril-valsartan was similar in women and men, whereas the improvement in KCCQ-CSS was less in women than in men. The difference in adverse events, between sacubitril-valsartan and valsartan, was similar in women and men. As compared with valsartan, sacubitril-valsartan seemed to reduce the risk of heart failure hospitalization more in women than in men. While the possible sex-related modification of the effect of treatment has several potential explanations, the present study does not provide a definite mechanistic basis for this finding. URL: https://clinicaltrials.gov Unique Identifier: NCT01920711

Angiotensin-Neprilysin inhibition in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction

Background: the angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor sacubitril-valsartan led to a reduced risk of hospitalization for heart failure or death from cardiovascular causes among patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction. The effect of angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibition in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction is unclear. Methods: we randomly assigned 4822 patients with New York Heart Association (NYHA) class II to IV heart failure, ejection fraction of 45% or higher, elevated level of natriuretic peptides, and structural heart disease to receive sacubitril-valsartan (target dose, 97 mg of sacubitril with 103 mg of valsartan twice daily) or valsartan (target dose, 160 mg twice daily). The primary outcome was a composite of total hospitalizations for heart failure and death from cardiovascular causes. Primary outcome components, secondary outcomes (including NYHA class change, worsening renal function, and change in Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire [KCCQ] clinical summary score [scale, 0 to 100, with higher scores indicating fewer symptoms and physical limitations]), and safety were also assessed. Results: there were 894 primary events in 526 patients in the sacubitril-valsartan group and 1009 primary events in 557 patients in the valsartan group (rate ratio, 0.87; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.75 to 1.01; P = 0.06). The incidence of death from cardiovascular causes was 8.5% in the sacubitril-valsartan group and 8.9% in the valsartan group (hazard ratio, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.79 to 1.16); there were 690 and 797 total hospitalizations for heart failure, respectively (rate ratio, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.72 to 1.00). NYHA class improved in 15.0% of the patients in the sacubitril-valsartan group and in 12.6% of those in the valsartan group (odds ratio, 1.45; 95% CI, 1.13 to 1.86); renal function worsened in 1.4% and 2.7%, respectively (hazard ratio, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.33 to 0.77). The mean change in the KCCQ clinical summary score at 8 months was 1.0 point (95% CI, 0.0 to 2.1) higher in the sacubitril-valsartan group. Patients in the sacubitril-valsartan group had a higher incidence of hypotension and angioedema and a lower incidence of hyperkalemia. Among 12 prespecified subgroups, there was suggestion of heterogeneity with possible benefit with sacubitril-valsartan in patients with lower ejection fraction and in women. Conclusions: sacubitril-valsartan did not result in a significantly lower rate of total hospitalizations for heart failure and death from cardiovascular causes among patients with heart failure and an ejection fraction of 45% or higher. (Funded by Novartis; PARAGON-HF ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01920711.)

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

Effect of aliskiren on post-discharge outcomes among diabetic and non-diabetic patients hospitalized for heart failure: insights from the ASTRONAUT trial

Aims The objective of the Aliskiren Trial on Acute Heart Failure Outcomes (ASTRONAUT) was to determine whether aliskiren, a direct renin inhibitor, would improve post-discharge outcomes in patients with hospitalization for heart failure (HHF) with reduced ejection fraction. Pre-specified subgroup analyses suggested potential heterogeneity in post-discharge outcomes with aliskiren in patients with and without baseline diabetes mellitus (DM). Methods and results ASTRONAUT included 953 patients without DM (aliskiren 489; placebo 464) and 662 patients with DM (aliskiren 319; placebo 343) (as reported by study investigators). Study endpoints included the first occurrence of cardiovascular death or HHF within 6 and 12 months, all-cause death within 6 and 12 months, and change from baseline in N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) at 1, 6, and 12 months. Data regarding risk of hyperkalaemia, renal impairment, and hypotension, and changes in additional serum biomarkers were collected. The effect of aliskiren on cardiovascular death or HHF within 6 months (primary endpoint) did not significantly differ by baseline DM status (P = 0.08 for interaction), but reached statistical significance at 12 months (non-DM: HR: 0.80, 95% CI: 0.64-0.99; DM: HR: 1.16, 95% CI: 0.91-1.47; P = 0.03 for interaction). Risk of 12-month all-cause death with aliskiren significantly differed by the presence of baseline DM (non-DM: HR: 0.69, 95% CI: 0.50-0.94; DM: HR: 1.64, 95% CI: 1.15-2.33; P < 0.01 for interaction). Among non-diabetics, aliskiren significantly reduced NT-proBNP through 6 months and plasma troponin I and aldosterone through 12 months, as compared to placebo. Among diabetic patients, aliskiren reduced plasma troponin I and aldosterone relative to placebo through 1 month only. There was a trend towards differing risk of post-baseline potassium ≥6 mmol/L with aliskiren by underlying DM status (non-DM: HR: 1.17, 95% CI: 0.71-1.93; DM: HR: 2.39, 95% CI: 1.30-4.42; P = 0.07 for interaction). Conclusion This pre-specified subgroup analysis from the ASTRONAUT trial generates the hypothesis that the addition of aliskiren to standard HHF therapy in non-diabetic patients is generally well-tolerated and improves post-discharge outcomes and biomarker profiles. In contrast, diabetic patients receiving aliskiren appear to have worse post-discharge outcomes. Future prospective investigations are needed to confirm potential benefits of renin inhibition in a large cohort of HHF patients without D

Cardiac myosin activation with omecamtiv mecarbil in systolic heart failure

Background: The selective cardiac myosin activator omecamtiv mecarbil has been shown to improve cardiac function in patients with heart failure with a reduced ejection fraction. Its effect on cardiovascular outcomes is unknown. Methods: We randomly assigned 8256 patients (inpatients and outpatients) with symptomatic chronic heart failure and an ejection fraction of 35% or less to receive omecamtiv mecarbil (using pharmacokinetic-guided doses of 25 mg, 37.5 mg, or 50 mg twice daily) or placebo, in addition to standard heart-failure therapy. The primary outcome was a composite of a first heart-failure event (hospitalization or urgent visit for heart failure) or death from cardiovascular causes. Results: During a median of 21.8 months, a primary-outcome event occurred in 1523 of 4120 patients (37.0%) in the omecamtiv mecarbil group and in 1607 of 4112 patients (39.1%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.92; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.86 to 0.99; P=0.03). A total of 808 patients (19.6%) and 798 patients (19.4%), respectively, died from cardiovascular causes (hazard ratio, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.92 to 1.11). There was no significant difference between groups in the change from baseline on the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire total symptom score. At week 24, the change from baseline for the median N-terminal pro–B-type natriuretic peptide level was 10% lower in the omecamtiv mecarbil group than in the placebo group; the median cardiac troponin I level was 4 ng per liter higher. The frequency of cardiac ischemic and ventricular arrhythmia events was similar in the two groups. Conclusions: Among patients with heart failure and a reduced ejection, those who received omecamtiv mecarbil had a lower incidence of a composite of a heart-failure event or death from cardiovascular causes than those who received placebo. (Funded by Amgen and others; GALACTIC-HF ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02929329. opens in new tab; EudraCT number, 2016-002299-28. opens in new tab.

Omecamtiv mecarbil in chronic heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, GALACTIC‐HF: baseline characteristics and comparison with contemporary clinical trials

Aims: The safety and efficacy of the novel selective cardiac myosin activator, omecamtiv mecarbil, in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) is tested in the Global Approach to Lowering Adverse Cardiac outcomes Through Improving Contractility in Heart Failure (GALACTIC‐HF) trial. Here we describe the baseline characteristics of participants in GALACTIC‐HF and how these compare with other contemporary trials. Methods and Results: Adults with established HFrEF, New York Heart Association functional class (NYHA) ≥ II, EF ≤35%, elevated natriuretic peptides and either current hospitalization for HF or history of hospitalization/ emergency department visit for HF within a year were randomized to either placebo or omecamtiv mecarbil (pharmacokinetic‐guided dosing: 25, 37.5 or 50 mg bid). 8256 patients [male (79%), non‐white (22%), mean age 65 years] were enrolled with a mean EF 27%, ischemic etiology in 54%, NYHA II 53% and III/IV 47%, and median NT‐proBNP 1971 pg/mL. HF therapies at baseline were among the most effectively employed in contemporary HF trials. GALACTIC‐HF randomized patients representative of recent HF registries and trials with substantial numbers of patients also having characteristics understudied in previous trials including more from North America (n = 1386), enrolled as inpatients (n = 2084), systolic blood pressure &lt; 100 mmHg (n = 1127), estimated glomerular filtration rate &lt; 30 mL/min/1.73 m2 (n = 528), and treated with sacubitril‐valsartan at baseline (n = 1594). Conclusions: GALACTIC‐HF enrolled a well‐treated, high‐risk population from both inpatient and outpatient settings, which will provide a definitive evaluation of the efficacy and safety of this novel therapy, as well as informing its potential future implementation

Alternative RAS in Various Hypoxic Conditions: From Myocardial Infarction to COVID-19

Alternative branches of the classical renin–angiotensin–aldosterone system (RAS) represent an important cascade in which angiotensin 2 (AngII) undergoes cleavage via the action of the angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) with subsequent production of Ang(1-7) and other related metabolites eliciting its effects via Mas receptor activation. Generally, this branch of the RAS system is described as its non-canonical alternative arm with counterbalancing actions to the classical RAS, conveying vasodilation, anti-inflammatory, anti-remodeling and anti-proliferative effects. The implication of this branch was proposed for many different diseases, ranging from acute cardiovascular conditions, through chronic respiratory diseases to cancer, nonetheless, hypoxia is one of the most prominent common factors discussed in conjugation with the changes in the activity of alternative RAS branches. The aim of this review is to bring complex insights into the mechanisms behind the various forms of hypoxic insults on the activity of alternative RAS branches based on the different duration of stimuli and causes (acute vs. intermittent vs. chronic), localization and tissue (heart vs. vessels vs. lungs) and clinical relevance of studied phenomenon (experimental vs. clinical condition). Moreover, we provide novel insights into the future strategies utilizing the alternative RAS as a diagnostic tool as well as a promising pharmacological target in serious hypoxia-associated cardiovascular and cardiopulmonary diseases

Explaining the decline in coronary heart disease mortality rates in the Slovak Republic between 1993-2008

<div><p>Objective</p><p>Between the years 1993 and 2008, mortality rates from coronary heart disease (CHD) in the Slovak Republic have decreased by almost one quarter. However, this was a smaller decline than in neighbouring countries. The aim of this modelling study was therefore to quantify the contributions of risk factor changes and the use of evidence-based medical therapies to the CHD mortality decline between 1993 and 2008.</p><p>Methods</p><p>We identified, obtained and scrutinised the data required for the model. These data detailed trends in the major population cardiovascular risk factors (smoking, blood pressure, total cholesterol, diabetes prevalence, body mass index (BMI) and physical activity levels), and also the uptake of all standard CHD treatments. The main data sources were official statistics (National Health Information Centre and Statistical Office of the Slovak Republic) and national representative studies (AUDIT, SLOVAKS, SLOVASeZ, CINDI, EHES, EHIS). The previously validated IMPACT policy model was then used to combine and integrate these data with effect sizes from published meta-analyses quantifying the effectiveness of specific evidence-based treatments, and population-wide changes in cardiovascular risk factors. Results were expressed as deaths prevented or postponed (DPPs) attributable to risk factor changes or treatments. Uncertainties were explored using sensitivity analyses.</p><p>Results</p><p>Between 1993 and 2008 age-adjusted CHD mortality rates in the Slovak Republic (SR) decreased by 23% in men and 26% in women aged 25–74 years. This represented some 1820 fewer CHD deaths in 2008 than expected if mortality rates had not fallen. The IMPACT model explained 91% of this mortality decline. Approximately 50% of the decline was attributable to changes in acute phase and secondary prevention treatments, particularly acute and chronic treatments for heart failure (≈12%), acute coronary syndrome treatments (≈9%) and secondary prevention following AMI and revascularisation (≈8%). Changes in CHD risk factors explained approximately 41% of the total mortality decrease, mainly reflecting reductions in total serum cholesterol. However, other risk factors demonstrated adverse trends and thus generated approximately 740 additional deaths.</p><p>Conclusion</p><p>Our analysis suggests that approximately half the CHD mortality fall recently observed in the SR may be attributable to the increased use of evidence-based treatments. However, the adverse trends observed in all the major cardiovascular risk factors (apart from total cholesterol) are deeply worrying. They highlight the need for more energetic population-wide prevention policies such as tobacco control, reducing salt and industrial trans fats content in processed food, clearer food labelling and regulated marketing of processed foods and sugary drinks.</p></div

HFA of the ESC Position paper on the management of LVAD supported patients for the non LVAD specialist healthcare provider Part 1: Introduction and at the non-hospital settings in the community

The accepted use of left ventricular assist device (LVAD) technology as a good alternative for the treatment of patients with advanced heart failure together with the improved survival of the LVAD-supported patients on the device and the scarcity of donor hearts has significantly increased the population of LVAD-supported patients. The expected and non-expected device-related and patient-device interaction complications impose a significant burden on the medical system exceeding the capacity of the LVAD implanting centres. The ageing of the LVAD-supported patients, mainly those supported with the 'destination therapy' indication, increases the risk for those patients to experience comorbidities common in the older population. The probability of an LVAD-supported patient presenting with medical emergency to a local emergency department, internal, or surgical ward of a non-LVAD implanting centre is increasing. The purpose of this trilogy is to supply the immediate tools needed by the non-LVAD specialized physician: ambulance clinicians, emergency ward physicians, general cardiologists, internists, anaesthesiologists, and surgeons, to comply with the medical needs of this fast-growing population of LVAD-supported patients. The different issues discussed will follow the patient's pathway from the ambulance to the emergency department and from the emergency department to the internal or surgical wards and eventually to the discharge home from the hospital back to the general practitioner. In this first part of the trilogy on the management of LVAD-supported patients for the non-LVAD specialist healthcare provider, after the introduction on the assist devices technology in general, definitions and structured approach to the assessment of the LVAD-supported patient in the ambulance and emergency department is presented including cardiopulmonary resuscitation for LVAD-supported patients

Unrecognised cardiovascular disease in type 2 diabetes: is it time to act earlier?

Abstract Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is the most significant prognostic factor in individuals with type 2 diabetes (T2D). However, a significant number of individuals may develop CVD that does not present with the classic angina-related or heart failure symptoms. In these cases, CVD may seem to be ‘silent’ or ‘asymptomatic’, but may be more accurately characterised as unrecognised diabetic cardiac impairment. An initial step to raise awareness of unrecognised CVD in individuals with T2D would be to reach a consensus regarding the terminology used to describe this phenomenon. By standardising the terminologies, and agreeing on the implementation of an efficient screening program, it is anticipated that patients will receive an earlier diagnosis and appropriate and timely treatment. Given the availability of anti-diabetic medications that have been shown to concomitantly reduce CV risk and mortality, it is imperative to improve early identification and initiate treatment as soon as possible in order to enable as many patients with T2D as possible to benefit