Nutrition and Heart Failure: Impact of Drug Therapies and Management Strategies

Peer Reviewedhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/142156/1/ncp0060.pd

Renin–Angiotensin–Aldosterone System inhibitors in patients with Covid-19

No abstract available

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

Flu Vaccine and Mortality in Hypertension:A Nationwide Cohort Study

BACKGROUND: Influenza infection may increase the risk of stroke and acute myocardial infarction (AMI). Whether influenza vaccination may reduce mortality in patients with hypertension is currently unknown. METHODS AND RESULTS: We performed a nationwide cohort study including all patients with hypertension in Denmark during 9 consecutive influenza seasons in the period 2007 to 2016 who were prescribed at least 2 different classes of antihypertensive medication (renin‐angiotensin system inhibitors, diuretics, calcium antagonists, or beta‐blockers). We excluded patients who were aged 100 years, had ischemic heart disease, heart failure, chronic obstructive lung disease, cancer, or cerebrovascular disease. The exposure to influenza vaccination was assessed before each influenza season. The end points were defined as death from all‐causes, from cardiovascular causes, or from stroke or AMI. For each influenza season, patients were followed from December 1 until April 1 the next year. We included a total of 608 452 patients. The median follow‐up was 5 seasons (interquartile range, 2–8 seasons) resulting in a total follow‐up time of 975 902 person‐years. Vaccine coverage ranged from 26% to 36% during the study seasons. During follow‐up 21 571 patients died of all‐causes (3.5%), 12 270 patients died of cardiovascular causes (2.0%), and 3846 patients died of AMI/stroke (0.6%). After adjusting for confounders, vaccination was significantly associated with reduced risks of all‐cause death (HR, 0.82; P<0.001), cardiovascular death (HR, 0.84; P<0.001), and death from AMI/stroke (HR, 0.90; P=0.017). CONCLUSIONS: Influenza vaccination was significantly associated with reduced risks of death from all‐causes, cardiovascular causes, and AMI/stroke in patients with hypertension. Influenza vaccination might improve outcome in hypertension

COVID-19 Clinical Guidance For the Cardiovascular Care Team

COVID-19 is a quickly evolving public health emergency. The guidance provided in this document is based on the best available published information and expert evaluation. This document is intended to supplement, not supersede, relevant guidance from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, state and local health authorities, and your institution’s infectious disease containment, mitigation, and response plan

Mortality, outcomes, costs, and use of medicines following a first heart failure hospitalization: EVOLUTION HF

Background: There are few contemporary data on outcomes, costs, and treatment following a hospitalization for heart failure (hHF) in epidemiologically representative cohorts. Objectives: The study sought to describe rehospitalizations, hospitalization costs, use of guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) (renin-angiotensin system inhibitors, sacubitril/valsartan, beta-blockers, mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists, and sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors), and mortality after hHF. Methods: EVOLUTION HF (Utilization of Dapagliflozin and Other Guideline Directed Medical Therapies in Heart Failure Patients: A Multinational Observational Study Based on Secondary Data) is an observational, longitudinal cohort study using data from electronic health records or claims data sources in Japan, Sweden, the United Kingdom, and the United States. Adults with a first hHF discharge between 2018 and 2022 were included. One-year event rates per 100 patient-years (ERs) for death and rehospitalizations (with a primary diagnosis of heart failure (HF), chronic kidney disease [CKD], myocardial infarction, stroke, or peripheral artery disease) were calculated. Hospital health care costs were cumulatively summarized. Cumulative GDMT use was assessed using Kaplan-Meier estimates. Results: Of 263,525 patients, 28% died within the first year post-hHF (ER: 28.4 [95% CI: 27.0-29.9]). Rehospitalizations were mainly driven by HF (ER: 13.6 [95% CI: 9.8-17.4]) and CKD (ER: 4.5 [95% CI: 3.6-5.3]), whereas the ERs for myocardial infarction, stroke, and peripheral artery disease were lower. Health care costs were predominantly driven by HF and CKD. Between 2020 and 2022, use of renin-angiotensin system inhibitors, sacubitril/valsartan, beta-blockers, and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists changed little, whereas uptake of sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors increased 2- to 7-fold. Conclusions: Incident post-hHF rehospitalization risks and costs were high, and GDMT use changed little in the year following discharge, highlighting the need to consider earlier and greater implementation of GDMT to manage risks and reduce costs

Insulin Resistance and Incident Heart Failure. The ARIC Study (Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities).

This study was designed to assess the relationship between insulin resistance and incident heart failure (HF) in a community-based cohort

Spironolactone in Patients With Heart Failure, Preserved Ejection Fraction, and Worsening Renal Function

BACKGROUND Treatment of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) with spironolactone is associated with lower risk of heart failure hospitalization (HFH) but increased risk of worsening renal function (WRF). The prognostic implications of spironolactone-associated WRF in HFpEF patients are not well understood. OBJECTIVES The purpose of this study was to investigate the association between WRF, spironolactone treatment, and clinical outcomes in patients with HFpEF. METHODS In 1,767 patients randomized to spironolactone or placebo in the TOPCAT (Treatment of Preserved Cardiac Function Heart Failure With an Aldosterone Antagonist Trial)-Americas study, we examined the incidence of WRF (doubling of serum creatinine) by treatment assignment. Associations between incident WRF and subsequent risk for the primary study endpoint of cardiovascular (CV) death, HFH, or aborted cardiac arrest and key secondary outcomes, including CV death, HFH, and all-cause mortality according to treatment assignment, were examined in time-updated Cox proportional hazards models with an interaction term. RESULTS WRF developed in 260 (14.7%) patients with higher rates in those assigned to spironolactone compared to placebo (17.8% vs. 11.6%; odds ratio: 1.66; 95% confidence interval: 1.27 to 2.17; p < 0.001). Regardless of treatment, incident WRF was associated with increased risk for the primary endpoint (hazard ratio: 2.04; 95% confidence interval: 1.52 to 2.72; p < 0.001) after multivariable adjustment. Although there was no statistical interaction between treatment assignment and WRF regarding the primary endpoint (interaction p = 0.11), spironolactone-associated WRF was associated with lower risk of CV death (interaction p = 0.003) and all-cause mortality (interaction p = 0.001) compared with placebo-associated WRF. CONCLUSIONS Among HFpEF patients enrolled in TOPCAT-Americas, spironolactone increased risk of WRF compared with placebo. Rates of CV death were lower with spironolactone in both patients with and without WRF. (c) 2021 the American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier. All rights reserved

Dapagliflozin and mode of death in heart failure with improved ejection fraction: A post hoc analysis of the DELIVER trial

Importance: Heart failure with improved ejection fraction (HFimpEF), defined as prior left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) 40% or lower that has increased to greater than 40%, is understudied. Objective: To examine mode of death and the association of dapagliflozin with reductions in cause-specific death in patients with HFimpEF. Design, Setting, and Participants: This was a post hoc analysis from the Dapagliflozin Evaluation to Improve the Lives of Patients With Preserved Ejection Fraction Heart Failure (DELIVER) randomized clinical trial, conducted from August 2018 to December 2020. The trial randomly assigned patients with HF with LVEF greater than 40%, New York Heart Association class II to IV symptoms, and elevated natriuretic peptides to treatment with dapagliflozin (10 mg, once daily) or placebo. The presence of HFimpEF was captured through study case report forms. The primary outcome was a composite of worsening HF events (hospitalization or urgent HF visits) or cardiovascular death. Clinical outcomes were adjudicated by a blinded clinical end points committee. Data were analyzed from May 2022 to August 2023. Intervention: Dapagliflozin vs placebo. Main Outcomes and Measures: The mode of death in relation to HFimpEF status was examined, as well as the association of randomized treatment with cause-specific death in Cox regression models. Results: Of 1151 patients with HFimpEF in DELIVER, 190 (16.5%) died, compared with 833 patients (16.3%) of 5112 with LVEF consistently greater than 40%. The overall distribution of mode of death was similar in those with HFimpEF compared with those with LVEF consistently greater than 40% (noncardiovascular death: 103 of 190 [54%] vs 428 of 833 [51%]; cardiovascular death: 87 of 190 [46%] vs 405 of 833 [49%], respectively). Most deaths in individuals with HFimpEF were noncardiovascular (103 of 180 [54%]). For cardiovascular deaths, sudden deaths were most common (36 of 190 events [19%]), followed by HF-related (29 of 190 events [15%]). Among patients with HFimpEF, treatment with dapagliflozin was associated with lower rates of cardiovascular death relative to placebo, a difference primarily due to lower rates of sudden death (hazard ratio, 0.38; 95% CI, 0.18-0.79; P for interaction = .01). Conclusions and Relevance: The findings in this study support current guideline recommendations for use of sodium-glucose transport protein 2 inhibitor therapy, and further suggest that the addition of a sodium-glucose transport protein 2 inhibitor therapy to other guideline-directed medical therapies may help reduce cardiovascular mortality in patients with HFimpEF

Optimal background pharmacological therapy for heart failure patients in clinical trials: JACC review topic of the week

With the current landscape of approved therapies for heart failure (HF), there is a need to determine the role of a standard background therapy against which novel therapies are studied. The Heart Failure Collaboratory convened a multistakeholder group of clinical investigators, clinicians, patients, government representatives including U.S. Food and Drug Administration and National Institutes of Health participants, payers, and industry in March 2021 to discuss whether standardization of background drug therapy is necessary in clinical trials in patients with HF. The current paper summarizes the discussion and provides potential conceptual approaches, with a focus on therapies indicated for HF with reduced ejection fraction