Determinants and clinical outcome of uptitration of ACE-inhibitor and beta-blocker in patients with heart failure:a prospective European study

Introduction: Despite clear guidelines recommendations, most patients with heart failure and reduced ejection–fraction (HFrEF) do not attain guideline-recommended target doses. We aimed to investigate characteristics and for treatment-indication-bias corrected clinical outcome of patients with HFrEF that did not reach recommended treatment doses of ACE-inhibitors/Angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) and/or beta-blockers. Methods and results: BIOSTAT-CHF was specifically designed to study uptitration of ACE-inhibitors/ARBs and/or beta-blockers in 2516 heart failure patients from 69 centres in 11 European countries who were selected if they were suboptimally treated while initiation or uptitration was anticipated and encouraged. Patients who died during the uptitration period (n = 151) and patients with a LVEF > 40% (n = 242) were excluded. Median follow up was 21 months. We studied 2100 HFrEF patients (76% male; mean age 68 ±12), of which 22% achieved the recommended treatment dose for ACE-inhibitor/ARB and 12% of beta-blocker. There were marked differences between European countries. Reaching <50% of the recommended ACE-inhibitor/ARB and beta-blocker dose was associated with an increased risk of death and/or heart failure hospitalization. Patients reaching 50–99% of the recommended ACE-inhibitor/ARB and/or beta-blocker dose had comparable risk of death and/or heart failure hospitalization to those reaching ≥100%. Patients not reaching recommended dose because of symptoms, side effects and non-cardiac organ dysfunction had the highest mortality rate (for ACE-inhibitor/ARB: HR 1.72; 95% CI 1.43–2.01; for beta-blocker: HR 1.70; 95% CI 1.36–2.05). Conclusion: Patients with HFrEF who were treated with less than 50% of recommended dose of ACE-inhibitors/ARBs and beta-blockers seemed to have a greater risk of death and/or heart failure hospitalization compared with patients reaching ≥100%

Development and validation of multivariable models to predict mortality and hospitalization in patients with heart failure

Introduction: From a prospective multicentre multicountry clinical trial, we developed and validated risk models to predict prospective all-cause mortality and hospitalizations because of heart failure (HF) in patients with HF. Methods and results: BIOSTAT-CHF is a research programme designed to develop and externally validate risk models to predict all-cause mortality and HF hospitalizations. The index cohort consisted of 2516 patients with HF from 69 centres in 11 European countries. The external validation cohort consisted of 1738 comparable patients from six centres in Scotland, UK. Patients from the index cohort had a mean age of 69 years, 27% were female, 83% were in New York Heart Association (NYHA) class II–III and the mean left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) was 31%. The full prediction models for mortality, hospitalization owing to HF, and the combined outcome, yielded c-statistic values of 0.73, 0.69, and 0.71, respectively. Predictors of mortality and hospitalization owing to HF were remarkably different. The five strongest predictors of mortality were more advanced age, higher blood urea nitrogen and N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide, lower haemoglobin, and failure to prescribe a beta-blocker. The five strongest predictors of hospitalization owing to HF were more advanced age, previous hospitalization owing to HF, presence of oedema, lower systolic blood pressure and lower estimated glomerular filtration rate. Patients from the validation cohort were aged 74 years, 34% were female, 85% were in NYHA class II–III, and mean LVEF was 41%; c-statistic values for the full and compact model were comparable to the index cohort. Conclusion: A small number of variables, which are usually readily available in the routine clinical setting, provide useful prognostic information for patients with HF. Predictors of mortality were remarkably different from predictors of hospitalization owing to HF

Concentric vs. eccentric remodelling in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction:clinical characteristics, pathophysiology and response to treatment

Aims: Heart failure is traditionally classified by left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), rather than by left ventricular (LV) geometry, with guideline-recommended therapies in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) but not heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). Most patients with HFrEF have eccentric LV hypertrophy, but some have concentric LV hypertrophy. We aimed to compare clinical characteristics, biomarker patterns, and response to treatment of patients with HFrEF and eccentric vs. concentric LV hypertrophy. Methods and results: We performed a retrospective post-hoc analysis including 1015 patients with HFrEF (LVEF <40%) from the multinational observational BIOSTAT-CHF study. LV geometry was classified using two-dimensional echocardiography. Network analysis of 92 biomarkers was used to investigate pathophysiologic pathways. Concentric LV hypertrophy was present in 142 (14%) patients, who were on average older and more likely hypertensive compared to those with eccentric LV hypertrophy. Network analysis revealed that N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide was an important hub in eccentric hypertrophy, whereas in concentric hypertrophy, tumour necrosis factor receptor 1, urokinase plasminogen activator surface receptor, paraoxonase and P-selectin were central hubs. Up-titration of beta-blockers was associated with a mortality benefit in HFrEF with eccentric but not concentric LV hypertrophy (P-value for interaction ≤0.001). For angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors/angiotensin receptor blockers, the hazard ratio for mortality was higher in concentric hypertrophy, but the interaction was not significant. Conclusion: Patients with HFrEF with concentric hypertrophy have a clinical and biomarker phenotype that is distinctly different from those with eccentric hypertrophy. Patients with concentric hypertrophy may not experience similar benefit from up.-titration of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors/angiotensin receptor blockers and beta-blockers compared to patients with eccentric hypertrophy

Biomarker-Guided Versus Guideline-Based Treatment of Patients With Heart Failure:Results From BIOSTAT-CHF

BACKGROUND: Heart failure guidelines recommend up-titration of angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor/angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs), beta-blockers, and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRAs) to doses used in randomized clinical trials, but these recommended doses are often not reached. Up-titration may, however, not be necessary in all patients. OBJECTIVES: This study sought to establish the role of blood biomarkers to determine which patients should or should not be up-titrated. METHODS: Clinical outcomes of 2,516 patients with worsening heart failure from the BIOSTAT-CHF (BIOlogy Study to Tailored Treatment in Chronic Heart Failure) were compared between 3 theoretical treatment scenarios: scenario A, in which all patients are up-titrated to >50% of recommended doses; scenario B, in which patients are up-titrated according to a biomarker-based treatment selection model; and scenario C, in which no patient is up-titrated to >50% of recommended doses. The study conducted multivariable Cox regression using 161 biomarkers and their interaction with treatment, weighted for treatment-indication bias to estimate the expected number of deaths or heart failure hospitalizations at 24 months for all 3 scenarios. RESULTS: Estimated death or hospitalization rates in 1,802 patients with available (bio)markers were 16%, 16%, and 26%, respectively, in the ACE inhibitor/ARB up-titration scenarios A, B, and C. Similar rates for beta-blocker and MRA up-titration scenarios A, B, and C were 23%, 19%, and 24%, and 12%, 11%, and 24%, respectively. If up-titration was successful in all patients, an estimated 9.8, 1.3, and 12.3 events per 100 treated patients could be prevented at 24 months by ACE inhibitor/ARB, beta-blocker, and MRA therapy, respectively.Similar numbers were 9.9, 4.7, and 13.1 if up-titration treatment decision was based on a biomarker-based treatment selection model. CONCLUSIONS: Up-titrating patients with heart failure based on biomarker values might have resulted in fewer deaths or hospitalizations compared with a hypothetical scenario in which all patients were successfully up-titrated

Prognostic Significance of Changes in Heart Rate Following Uptitration of Beta-Blockers in Patients with Sub-Optimally Treated Heart Failure with Reduced Ejection Fraction in Sinus Rhythm versus Atrial Fibrillation

Background: In patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) on sub-optimal doses of beta-blockers, it is conceivable that changes in heart rate following treatment intensification might be important regardless of underlying heart rhythm. We aimed to compare the prognostic significance of both achieved heart rate and change in heart rate following beta-blocker uptitration in patients with HFrEF either in sinus rhythm (SR) or atrial fibrillation (AF). Methods: We performed a post hoc analysis of the BIOSTAT-CHF study. We evaluated 1548 patients with HFrEF (mean age 67 years, 35% AF). Median follow-up was 21 months. Patients were evaluated at baseline and at 9 months. The combined primary outcome was all-cause mortality and heart failure hospitalisation stratified by heart rhythm and heart rate at baseline. Results: Despite similar changes in heart rate and beta-blocker dose, a decrease in heart rate at 9 months was associated with reduced incidence of the primary outcome in both SR and AF patients [HR per 10 bpm decrease—SR: 0.83 (0.75–0.91), p &lt; 0.001; AF: 0.89 (0.81–0.98), p = 0.018], whereas the relationship was less strong for achieved heart rate in AF [HR per 10 bpm higher—SR: 1.26 (1.10–1.46), p = 0.001; AF: 1.08 (0.94–1.23), p = 0.18]. Achieved heart rate at 9 months was only prognostically significant in AF patients with high baseline heart rates (p for interaction 0.017 vs. low). Conclusions: Following beta-blocker uptitration, both achieved and change in heart rate were prognostically significant regardless of starting heart rate in SR, however, they were only significant in AF patients with high baseline heart rate

Machine learning based on biomarker profiles identifies distinct subgroups of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction

International audienceAims: The lack of effective therapies for patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) is often ascribed to the heterogeneity of patients with HFpEF. We aimed to identify distinct pathophysiologic clusters of HFpEF based on circulating biomarkers.Methods and results: We performed an unsupervised cluster analysis using 363 biomarkers from 429 patient with HFpEF. Relative differences in expression profiles of the biomarkers between clusters were assessed and used for pathway over-representation analyses. We identified four distinct patients subgroups based on their biomarker profiles : cluster 1 with the highest prevalence of diabetes mellitus and renal disease; cluster 2 with oldest age and frequent age-related comorbidities; cluster 3 with youngest age, largest body size, least symptoms and lowest NT-proBNP levels; and cluster 4 with highest prevalence of ischemic aetiology, smoking and chronic lung disease, most symptoms, as well as highest NT-proBNP and troponin levels. Over a median follow-up of 21 months, the occurrence of death or HF hospitalization was highest in clusters 1 and 4 (62.1% and 62.8% respectively) and lowest in cluster 3 (25.6%). Pathway over-representation analyses revealed that the biomarker profile of patients in cluster 1 was associated with activation of inflammatory pathways while the biomarker profile of patients in cluster 4 was specifically associated with pathways implicated in cell proliferation regulation and cell survival.Conclusion: Unsupervised cluster analysis based on biomarker profiles identified mutually exclusive subgroups of patients with HFpEF with distinct biomarker profiles, clinical characteristics and outcomes, suggesting different underlying pathophysiological pathway

Identifying Pathophysiological Mechanisms in Heart Failure With Reduced Versus Preserved Ejection Fraction

Background: Information on the pathophysiological differences between heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) versus heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) is needed Objectives: The purpose of this study was to establish biological pathways specifically related to HFrEF and HFpEF. Methods: The authors performed a network analysis to identify unique biomarker correlations in HFrEF and HFpEF using 92 biomarkers from different pathophysiological domains in a cohort of 1,544 heart failure (HF) patients. Data were independently validated in 804 patients with HF. Networks were enriched with existing knowledge on protein–protein interactions and translated into biological pathways uniquely related to HFrEF, HF with a midrange ejection fraction, and HFpEF. Results: In the index cohort (mean age 74 years; 34% female), 718 (47%) patients had HFrEF (left ventricular ejection fraction [LVEF] <40%) and 431 (27%) patients had HFpEF (LVEF ≥50%). A total of 8 (12%) correlations were unique for HFrEF and 6 (9%) were unique to HFpEF. Central proteins in HFrEF were N-terminal B-type natriuretic peptide, growth differentiation factor-15, interleukin-1 receptor type 1, and activating transcription factor 2, while central proteins in HFpEF were integrin subunit beta-2 and catenin beta-1. Biological pathways in HFrEF were related to DNA binding transcription factor activity, cellular protein metabolism, and regulation of nitric oxide biosynthesis. Unique pathways in patients with HFpEF were related to cytokine response, extracellular matrix organization, and inflammation. Biological pathways of patients with HF with a midrange ejection fraction were in between HFrEF and HFpEF. Conclusions: Network analysis showed that biomarker profiles specific for HFrEF are related to cellular proliferation and metabolism, whereas biomarker profiles specific for HFpEF are related to inflammation and extracellular matrix reorganization. (The BIOlogy Study to TAilored Treatment in Chronic Heart Failure [BIOSTAT-CHF]; EudraCT 2010-020808-29

Fibroblast growth factor 23 is related to profiles indicating volume overload, poor therapy optimization and prognosis in patients with new-onset and worsening heart failure

Background: Fibroblast growth factor (FGF) 23 is a hormone that increases urinary phosphate excretion and regulates renal sodium reabsorption and plasma volume. We studied the role of plasma FGF23 in therapy optimization and outcomes in patients with new-onset and worsening heart failure (HF). Methods: We measured plasma C-terminal FGF23 levels at baseline in 2399 of the 2516 patients included in the BIOlogy Study to Tailored Treatment in Chronic HF (BIOSTAT-CHF) trial. The association between FGF23 and outcome was evaluated by Cox regression analysis adjusted for potential confounders. Results: Median FGF23 was 218.0 [IQR: 117.1–579.3] RU/ml; patients with higher FGF23 levels had a worse NYHA class, more signs of congestion, and were less likely to use an ACE-inhibitor (ACEi) or angiotensin receptor blocker (ARBs) at baseline (all P &lt; 0.01). Higher FGF23 levels were independently associated with higher BNP, lower eGFR, the presence of oedema and atrial fibrillation (all P &lt; 0.001). In addition, higher FGF23 was independently associated with impaired uptitration of ACEi/ARBs after 3 months, but not of beta-blockers. In multivariable Cox regression analysis, FGF23 was independently associated with all-cause mortality (hazard ratio: 1.17 (1.09–1.26) per log increase, P &lt; 0.001), and the combined endpoint of all-cause mortality and HF hospitalization (1.15 (1.08–1.22) per log increase, P &lt; 0.001). Conclusions: In patients with new-onset and worsening HF, higher plasma FGF23 levels were independently associated with volume overload, less successful uptitration of ACEi/ARBs and an increased risk of all-cause mortality and HF hospitalization

Novel Endotypes in Heart Failure:Effects on Guideline-Directed Medical Therapy

Aims: We sought to determine subtypes of patients with heart failure (HF) with a distinct clinical profile and treatment response, using a wide range of biomarkers from various pathophysiological domains. Methods and results: We performed unsupervised cluster analysis using 92 established cardiovascular biomarkers to identify mutually exclusive subgroups (endotypes) of 1802 patients with HF and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) from the BIOSTAT-CHF project. We validated our findings in an independent cohort of 813 patients. Based on their biomarker profile, six endotypes were identified. Patients with endotype 1 were youngest, less symptomatic, had the lowest N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) levels and lowest risk for all-cause mortality or hospitalization for HF. Patients with endotype 4 had more severe symptoms and signs of HF, higher NT-proBNP levels and were at highest risk for all-cause mortality or hospitalization for HF [hazard ratio (HR) 1.4; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.1–1.8]. Patients with endotypes 2, 3, and 5 were better uptitrated to target doses of beta-blockers (P &lt; 0.02 for all). In contrast to other endotypes, patients with endotype 5 derived no potential survival benefit from uptitration of angiotensin-converting enzyme-inhibitor/angiotensin-II receptor blocker and beta-blockers (Pinteraction &lt;0.001). Patients with endotype 2 (HR 1.29; 95% CI 1.10–1.42) experienced possible harm from uptitration of beta-blockers in contrast to patients with endotype 4 and 6 that experienced benefit (Pinteraction for all &lt;0.001). Results were strikingly similar in the independent validation cohort. Conclusion: Using unsupervised cluster analysis, solely based on biomarker profiles, six distinct endotypes were identified with remarkable differences in characteristics, clinical outcome, and response to uptitration of guideline directed medical therapy

Biomarker changes as surrogate endpoints in early-phase trials in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction

Aims: No biomarker has achieved widespread acceptance as a surrogate endpoint for early‐phase heart failure (HF) trials. We assessed whether changes over time in a panel of plasma biomarkers were associated with subsequent morbidity/mortality in HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). Methods and results: In 1040 patients with HFrEF from the BIOSTAT‐CHF cohort, we investigated the associations between changes in the plasma concentrations of 30 biomarkers, before (baseline) and after (9 months) attempted optimization of guideline‐recommended therapy, on top of the BIOSTAT risk score and the subsequent risk of HF hospitalization/all‐cause mortality using Cox regression models. C‐statistics were calculated to assess discriminatory power of biomarker changes/month‐nine assessment. Changes in N‐terminal pro‐B‐type natriuretic peptide (NT‐proBNP) and WAP four‐disulphide core domain protein HE4 (WAP‐4C) were the only independent predictors of the outcome after adjusting for their baseline plasma concentration, 28 other biomarkers (both baseline and changes), and BIOSTAT risk score at baseline. When adjusting for month‐nine rather than baseline biomarkers concentrations, only changes in NT‐proBNP were independently associated with the outcome. The C‐statistic of the model including the BIOSTAT risk score and NT‐proBNP increased by 4% when changes were considered on top of baseline concentrations and by 1% when changes in NT‐proBNP were considered on top of its month‐nine concentrations and the BIOSTAT risk score. Conclusions: Among 30 relevant biomarkers, a change over time was significantly and independently associated with HF hospitalization/all‐cause death only for NT‐proBNP. Changes over time were modestly more prognostic than baseline or end‐values alone. Changes in biomarkers should be further explored as potential surrogate endpoints in early phase HF trials