Digitalis for treatment of heart failure in patients in sinus rhythm

<b>Background</b><p></p> Digitalis glycosides have been in clinical use for the treatment of heart failure (HF) for longer than 200 years. In recent years, several trials have been conducted to address concerns about their efficacy and toxicity.<p></p> <b>Objectives</b><p></p> To examine the effectiveness of digitalis glycosides in treating HF in patients with normal sinus rhythm. To examine the effects of digitalis in patients taking diuretics and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors; in patients with varying severity and duration of disease; in patients with prior exposure to digitalis versus no prior exposure; and in patients with "HF due to systolic dysfunction" versus "HF with preserved ejection fraction."<p></p> <b>Search methods</b><p></p> Searches on the following databases were updated in May 2013: The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Dissertation Abstracts. Annual meeting abstracts of the American Heart Association, the American College of Cardiology, and the European Society of Cardiology were searched from 1996 to March 2013. In addition, reference lists provided by the pharmaceutical industry (GlaxoSmithKline and Covis Pharma) were searched.<p></p> <b>Selection criteria</b><p></p> Included were randomized placebo-controlled trials of 20 or more adult participants of either sex with symptomatic HF who were studied for seven weeks or longer. Excluded were trials in which the prevalence of atrial fibrillation was 2% or greater, or in which any arrhythmia that might compromise cardiac function or any potentially reversible cause of HF such as acute ischemic heart disease or myocarditis was present.<p></p> <b>Data collection and analysis</b><p></p> Articles selected from the searches described above were evaluated in a joint effort of the review authors. The staff of the Cochrane Heart Group ran searches on the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, and EMBASE.<p></p> <b>Main results</b><p></p> No new studies were identified in the updated searches. Thirteen studies (7896 participants) are included, and major endpoints of mortality, hospitalization, and clinical status, based respectively on 8, 4, and 12 of these selected studies, were recorded and analyzed. The data show no evidence of a difference in mortality between treatment and control groups, whereas digitalis therapy is associated with lower rates of both hospitalization and clinical deterioration. The largest study, in which most participants were taking angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, showed a significant rise in “other cardiac” deaths, possibly due to arrhythmias. However collectively, these findings were based on studies done before beta-blockers, as well as angiotensin receptor blockers and aldosterone antagonists, became widely used to treat HF.<p></p> <b>Authors' conclusions</b><p></p> The literature indicates that digitalis may have a useful role in the treatment of patients with HF who are in normal sinus rhythm. New trials are needed to elucidate the importance of the dosage of digitalis and its usefulness in the era of beta-blockers and other agents shown to be effective in treating HF.<p></p&gt

Renal function stratified dose comparisons of eplerenone versus placebo in the EMPHASIS-HF trial.

BACKGROUND: Current heart failure guidelines recommend target eplerenone dose of 50 mg/day. We have examined the effect of different eplerenone doses based on pre-specified renal function stratification in the Eplerenone in Mild Patients Hospitalization and Survival Study in Heart Failure (EMPHASIS-HF). METHODS AND RESULTS: In EMPHASIS-HF, the target dose of eplerenone/placebo was stratified at randomization according to estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR): 50 mg/day if eGFR ≥ 50 mL/min/1.73 m2 and ≤ 25 mg/day if eGFR 30-49 mL/min/1.73 m2 . Patients remained within these dose ranges during the trial (as per stratification). The primary outcome was a composite of heart failure hospitalization or cardiovascular mortality. Eplerenone was superior to placebo within each respective eGFR stratum [eplerenone vs. placebo in the eGFR ≥ 50 mL/min/1.73 m2 stratum: hazard ratio (HR) 0.58, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.45-0.74; and eplerenone vs. placebo in the eGFR 30-49 mL/min/1.73 m2 stratum: HR 0.62, 95% CI 0.49-0.78; Pinteraction  = 0.89]. Despite receiving lower eplerenone doses, patients in the eGFR 30-49 mL/min/1.73 m2 stratum more often had hyperkalaemia, renal failure events, and drug discontinuation. CONCLUSION: In EMPHASIS-HF the eplerenone dose was stratified according to renal function and the treatment effect was not influenced by renal function: 25 mg/day in patients with eGFR 30-49 mL/min/1.73 m2 was as effective as 50 mg/day in patients with eGFR > =50 mL/min/1.73 m2 . However, patients with impaired renal function experienced more adverse events, despite reveiving lower eplerenone doses. Current guidelines do not recommend tailoring the dose of eplereone according to renal function but the current data suggest they should

Efficacy of sacubitril/valsartan vs. enalapril at lower than target doses in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction: the PARADIGM-HF trial.

AimsIn this analysis, we utilized data from PARADIGM-HF to test the hypothesis that participants who exhibited any dose reduction during the trial would have similar benefits from lower doses of sacubitril/valsartan relative to lower doses of enalapril.Methods and resultsIn a post-hoc analysis from PARADIGM-HF, we characterized patients by whether they received the maximal dose (200 mg sacubitril/valsartan or 10 mg enalapril twice daily) throughout the trial or had any dose reduction to lower doses (100/50/0 mg sacubitril/valsartan or 5/2.5/0 mg enalapril twice daily). The treatment effect for the primary outcome was estimated, stratified by dose level using time-updated Cox regression models. In the two treatment arms, participants with a dose reduction (43% of those randomized to enalapril and 42% of those randomized to sacubitril/valsartan) had similar baseline characteristics and similar baseline predictors of the need for dose reduction. In a time-updated analysis, any dose reduction was associated with a higher subsequent risk of the primary event [hazard ratio (HR) 2.5, 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.2-2.7]. However, the treatment benefit of sacubitril/valsartan over enalapril following a dose reduction was similar (HR 0.80, 95% CI 0.70-0.93, P < 0.001) to that observed in patients who had not experienced any dose reduction (HR 0.79, 95% CI 0.71-0.88, P < 0.001).ConclusionsIn PARADIGM-HF, study medication dose reduction identified patients at higher risk of a major cardiovascular event. The magnitude of benefit for patients on lower doses of sacubitril/valsartan relative to those on lower doses of enalapril was similar to that of patients who remained on target doses of both drugs

Impact of eplerenone on major cardiovascular outcomes in patients with systolic heart failure according to baseline heart rate.

BACKGROUND: Increased resting heart rate is a risk factor for cardiovascular mortality and morbidity. Mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRAs) have been shown to improve cardiac sympathetic nerve activity, reduce heart rate and attenuate left ventricular remodelling. Whether or not the beneficial effects of MRA are affected by heart rate in heart failure patients with reduced ejection fraction (HFREF) is unclear. METHODS: We undertook a secondary analysis of data from the Eplerenone in Mild Patients Hospitalization and Survival Study in Heart Failure study to assess if clinical outcomes, as well as the efficacy of eplerenone, varied according to heart rate at baseline. RESULTS: High resting heart rate of 80 bpm and above predisposed patients to greater risk of all outcomes in the trial, regardless of treatment allocation. The beneficial effects of eplerenone were observed across all categories of heart rate. Eplerenone reduced the risk of primary endpoint, the composite of cardiovascular death and hospitalisation for heart failure, by 30% (aHR 0.70; 95% CI 0.54-0.91) in subjects with heart rate ≥ 80 bpm, and by 48% (aHR 0.52; 95% CI 0.33-0.81) in subjects with heart rate ≤ 60 bpm. Eplerenone also reduced the risks of hospitalisation for heart failure, cardiovascular deaths and all-cause deaths independently of baseline heart rate. CONCLUSIONS: Baseline heart rate appears to be an important predictor of major clinical outcome events in patients with HFREF, as has been previously reported. The benefits of eplerenone were preserved across all categories of baseline heart rate, without observed heterogeneity in the responses

Efficacy and Safety of Dapagliflozin in Patients with Chronic Kidney Disease across the Spectrum of Frailty

BACKGROUND: A sizeable proportion of patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) are reported to be frail. Here we examined the safety and efficacy of dapagliflozin in patients with CKD by frailty level. METHODS: Adults with CKD, with/without type 2 diabetes, with estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) 25-75 mL/min/1.73m 2 and urinary albumin-to-creatinine ratio 200-5000 mg/g were randomized to dapagliflozin (10 mg/day) or placebo. The primary endpoint was composite of sustained ≥50% eGFR decline, end-stage kidney disease (ESKD) or death from kidney or cardiovascular (CV) causes. RESULTS: Frailty index (FI), assessed by Rockwood cumulative deficit approach, was calculable in 4303/4304 (99.9%) patients: 1162 (27.0%) in not-to-mildly frail(FI≤0.210), 1642 (38.2%) in moderately frail(FI 0.211-0.310), and 1499 (34.8%) in severely frail categories (FI>0.311). Dapagliflozin reduced the risk of the primary composite endpoint across all FI categories (hazard ratios [95% CI]: 0.50 [0.33-0.76], 0.62 [0.45-0.85], and 0.64 [0.49-0.83], respectively (P-interaction =0.67). Results were similar for secondary outcomes including kidney composite outcome (sustained ≥50% eGFR decline, ESKD or death from kidney cause; P-interaction=0.44), CV endpoint (heart failure hospitalization or CV death; P-interaction=0.63), and all-cause mortality (P-interaction p=0.42). Results were consistent when using FI as a continuous variable. Occurrence of serious adverse events was numerically lower in patients receiving dapagliflozin vs. placebo in all FI categories (16.9% vs. 20.1%, 26.3% vs. 30.7%, and 42.9% vs 47.8%, in not-to-mildly, moderately and severely frail categories, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: The relative benefit of dapagliflozin for all outcomes was consistent across all frailty categories, with no difference in associated safety

Effects of Dapagliflozin in Chronic Kidney Disease, With and Without Other Cardiovascular Medications: DAPA-CKD Trial

Background The DAPA-CKD (Dapagliflozin and Prevention of Adverse Outcomes in Chronic Kidney Disease) trial (NCT03036150) demonstrated that dapagliflozin reduced the risk of kidney and cardiovascular events in patients with chronic kidney disease and albuminuria with and without type 2 diabetes. We aimed to determine whether baseline cardiovascular medication use modified the dapagliflozin treatment effect. Methods and Results We randomized 4304 adults with baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate 25 to 75 mL/min per 1.73 m2 and urinary albumin:creatinine ratio 200 to 5000 mg/g to dapagliflozin 10 mg or placebo once daily. The primary end point was a composite of ≥50% estimated glomerular filtration rate decline, end-stage kidney disease, and kidney or cardiovascular death. Secondary end points included a kidney composite end point (primary composite end point without cardiovascular death), a cardiovascular composite end point (hospitalized heart failure or cardiovascular death), and all-cause mortality. We categorized patients according to baseline cardiovascular medication use/nonuse. Patients were required by protocol to receive a stable (and maximally tolerated) dose of a renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system inhibitor. We observed consistent benefits of dapagliflozin relative to placebo, irrespective of baseline use/nonuse of renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system inhibitors (98.1%), calcium channel blockers (50.7%), β-adrenergic antagonists (39.0%), diuretics (43.7%), and antithrombotic (47.4%), and lipid-lowering (15.0%) agents. Use of these drugs in combination with dapagliflozin did not increase the number of serious adverse events. Conclusions The safety profile and efficacy of dapagliflozin on kidney and cardiovascular end points in patients with chronic kidney disease were consistent among patients treated and not treated at baseline with a range of cardiovascular medications. Registration Information clinicaltrials.gov. Identifier: NCT03036150

Prevalence and incidence of intraventricular conduction delays and outcomes in patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction: Insights from PARADIGM-HF and ATMOSPHERE

Aims: The importance of intraventricular conduction delay (IVCD), incidence of new IVCD and its relationship to outcomes in heart failure and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) is not well studied. We addressed these questions in the PARADIGM-HF and ATMOSPHERE trials. Methods and results: Risk of the primary composite outcome of cardiovascular death or HF hospitalization and all-cause mortality were estimated by use of Cox regression according to baseline QRS duration and morphology in 11,861 patients without an intracardiac device. At baseline, 1,789 (15.1%) patients had left bundle branch block (LBBB), 524 (4.4%) RBBB, 454 (3.8%) non-specific IVCD, 2588 (21.8%) "mildly abnormal" QRS (110-129 milliseconds [ms]) and 6506 (54.9%) QRS <110 ms. During a median follow-up of 2.5 years, the risk of the primary composite endpoint was higher among those with a wide QRS, irrespective of morphology: hazard ratios (95% CI) LBBB 1.36 (1.23, 1.50), RBBB 1.54 (1.31, 1.79), nonspecific IVCD 1.65 (1.40, 1.94) and QRS 110-129 ms 1.35 (95% CI 1.23, 1.47), compared with QRS duration <110 ms. A total of 1,234 (15.6%) patients developed new-onset QRS-widening ≥130 ms (6.1 per 100 py). Incident LBBB occurred in 495 (6.3%) patients (2.4 per 100 py) and was associated with a higher risk of the primary composite outcome; HR 1.42 (1.12, 1.82). Conclusion: In patients with HFrEF, a wide QRS was associated with worse clinical outcomes irrespective of morphology. The annual incidence of new-onset LBBB was around 2.5%, and associated with a higher risk of adverse outcomes, highlighting the importance of repeat ECG review

Contribution of cardiac and extra-cardiac disease burden to risk of cardiovascular outcomes varies by ejection fraction in heart failure.

AIMS: Patients with heart failure (HF) often have multiple co-morbidities that contribute to the risk of adverse cardiovascular (CV) and non-CV outcomes. We assessed the relative contribution of cardiac and extra-cardiac disease burden and demographic factors to CV outcomes in HF patients with reduced (HFrEF) or preserved (HFpEF) left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). METHODS AND RESULTS: We utilized data from the CHARM trial, which enrolled HF patients across the ejection fraction spectrum. We decomposed the previously validated MAGGIC risk score into cardiac (LVEF, New York Heart Association class, systolic blood pressure, time since HF diagnosis, HF medication use), extra-cardiac (body mass index, creatinine, diabetes mellitus, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, smoker), and demographic (age, gender) categories, and calculated subscores for each patient representing the burden of each component. Cox proportional hazards models were used to estimate the population attributable risk (PAR) associated with each component to the outcomes of death, CV death, HF, myocardial infarction, and stroke relative to patients with the lowest risk score. PARs for each component were depicted across the spectrum of LVEF. in 2675 chronic HF patients from North America [HFrEF (LVEF ≤40%): n = 1589, HFpEF (LVEF >40%): n = 1086] with data available for calculation of the MAGGIC score, the highest risk of death and CV death was attributed to cardiac burden. This was especially evident in HFrEF patients (PAR: 76% cardiac disease vs. 58% extra-cardiac disease, P < 0.05). Conversely, in HFpEF patients, extra-cardiac burden accounted for a greater proportion of risk for death than cardiac burden (PAR: 15% cardiac disease vs. 49% extra-cardiac disease, P < 0.05). For HF hospitalization, the contribution of both cardiac and extra-cardiac burden was comparable in HFpEF patients (PAR: 42% cardiac disease vs. 53% extra-cardiac disease, P = NS). In addition, demographic burden was especially high in HFpEF patients, with 62% of deaths attributable to demographic characteristics. CONCLUSION: In North American HF patients enrolled in the CHARM trials, the relative contribution of cardiac and extra-cardiac disease burden to CV outcomes and death differed depending on LVEF. The high risk of events attributable to non-cardiac disease burden may help explain why cardiac disease-modifying medication proven to be efficacious in HFrEF patients has not proven beneficial in HFpEF

Cost-effectiveness of sacubitril/valsartan in the treatment of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction.

OBJECTIVE: Chronic heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HF-REF) represents a major public health issue and is associated with considerable morbidity and mortality. We evaluated the cost-effectiveness of sacubitril/valsartan (formerly LCZ696) compared with an ACE inhibitor (ACEI) (enalapril) in the treatment of HF-REF from the perspective of healthcare providers in the UK, Denmark and Colombia. METHODS: A cost-utility analysis was performed based on data from a multinational, Phase III randomised controlled trial. A decision-analytic model was developed based on a series of regression models, which extrapolated health-related quality of life, hospitalisation rates and survival over a lifetime horizon. The primary outcome was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). RESULTS: In the UK, the cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained for sacubitril/valsartan (using cardiovascular mortality) was £17 100 (€20 400) versus enalapril. In Denmark, the ICER for sacubitril/valsartan was Kr 174 000 (€22 600). In Colombia, the ICER was COP$39.5 million (€11 200) per QALY gained. Deterministic sensitivity analysis showed that results were most sensitive to the extrapolation of mortality, duration of treatment effect and time horizon, but were robust to other structural changes, with most scenarios associated with ICERs below the willingness-to-pay threshold for all three country settings. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis suggested the probability that sacubitril/valsartan was cost-effective at conventional willingness-to-pay thresholds was 68%-94% in the UK, 84% in Denmark and 95% in Colombia. CONCLUSIONS: Our analysis suggests that, in all three countries, sacubitril/valsartan is likely to be cost-effective compared with an ACEI (the current standard of care) in patients with HF-REF

The Kidney Protective Effects of the Sodium–Glucose Cotransporter-2 Inhibitor, Dapagliflozin, Are Present in Patients With CKD Treated With Mineralocorticoid Receptor Antagonists

Introduction: Mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRAs) and sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitors reduce the risk of kidney failure in chronic kidney disease (CKD). We performed an analysis of the Dapagliflozin and Prevention of Adverse Outcomes in Chronic Kidney Disease (DAPA-CKD) trial by baseline conventional MRA (spironolactone and eplerenone) prescription. Methods: Participants with CKD (estimated glomerular filtration rate [eGFR] 25-75 ml/min per 1.73 m2; urinary albumin-to-creatinine ratio 200-500 mg/g), with or without type 2 diabetes, were randomized 1:1 to dapagliflozin 10 mg or placebo, once daily. The primary outcome was a composite of sustained ≥50% eGFR decline, end-stage kidney disease, or kidney or cardiovascular (CV) death. A prespecified kidney-specific secondary outcome was as the primary outcome but without CV death. Hyperkalemia (serum potassium ≥6.0 mmol/l) was an exploratory end point. Time-to-event analyses (proportional hazards [Cox] regression) assessed dapagliflozin versus placebo in patient subgroups defined by baseline conventional MRA use. Results: A total of 229 of 4304 DAPA-CKD participants (5.3%) were receiving conventional MRAs at baseline (dapagliflozin n = 109, placebo n = 120). The effect of dapagliflozin on the primary outcome was consistent in participants prescribed (hazard ratio [HR] 0.76, 95% CI 0.40-1.47) and not prescribed (HR 0.60, 95% CI 0.50-0.72, P-interaction = 0.59) MRAs. This consistency was maintained for the kidney-specific outcome. The effect of dapagliflozin on hyperkalemia (HR 0.87, 95% CI 0.70-1.09) was consistent among those prescribed (HR 0.94, 95% CI 0.41-2.20) and not prescribed (HR 0.87, 95% CI 0.69-1.10, P-interaction = 0.96) MRAs. Adverse events (AEs) leading to discontinuation and serious AEs were similar between treatment groups, regardless of baseline MRA prescription. Conclusion: Dapagliflozin was similarly safe and efficacious in reducing major adverse kidney outcomes in participants with CKD who were or were not prescribed MRAs at baseline