Sex differences in efficacy of pharmacological therapies in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction:a meta-analysis

Aims: Recent studies have suggested potential sex differences in treatment response to pharmacological therapies in heart failure (HF). We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies comparing treatment effects between men and women with HF and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) using established guideline-directed medical therapy and other emerging pharmacological treatments. Methods and results: Systematic search was performed on PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library for randomized controlled trials published in 1990–2021. Outcomes were all-cause mortality and combined outcome of all-cause mortality and/or hospitalization for HF. Of 618 articles identified, 25 articles and 100 213 patients (mean age 62 ± 1.7 years, women 23.1%, mean left ventricular ejection fraction 26.6 ± 1.3%) were included in the systematic review and meta-analysis. For the outcome of all-cause mortality, there was no evidence of treatment heterogeneity by sex for renin-angiotensin system inhibitors (RASi) [hazard ratio (HR) 0.86 (95% confidence interval 0.75–0.99) in men; HR 0.97 (0.77–1.23) in women; Pinteraction = 0.288], or for beta-blockers (BB) [HR 0.71 (0.59–0.86) in men; HR 0.87 (0.73–1.03) in women; Pinteraction = 0.345]. Similarly, for the composite outcome of death or HF hospitalization, there was no evidence of treatment heterogeneity by sex for RASi [HR 0.84 (0.77–0.93) in men; HR 0.94 (0.81–1.08) in women; Pinteraction = 0.210] or BB [HR 0.76 (0.64–0.90) in men; HR 0.72 (0.60–0.86) in women; Pinteraction = 0.650]. Results for mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRA) and sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors (SGLT2i) from previously published meta-analyses were included in the review. For the combined outcome of cardiovascular death or HF hospitalization, no significant interaction for sex was observed for MRA (Pinteraction = 0.78) or SGLT2i (Pinteraction = 0.37). Results for emerging pharmacological treatments, such as soluble guanylate cyclase stimulators and cardiac myosin activators, were included in the review and showed consistent treatment effects between men and women. Conclusions: Our meta-analysis showed no differences between sex in treatment effect for BB and RASi. Review on previously published trials for MRA, SGLT2i, and emerging therapies presented consistent treatment effects between men and women

Left atrial structure and function in heart failure with reduced (HFrEF) versus preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF):systematic review and meta-analysis

Left atrial (LA) structure and function in heart failure with reduced (HFrEF) versus preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) is only established in small studies. Therefore, we conducted a systematic review of LA structure and function in order to find differences between patients with HFrEF and HFpEF. English literature on LA structure and function using echocardiography was reviewed to calculate pooled prevalence and weighted mean differences (WMD). A total of 61 studies, comprising 8806 patients with HFrEF and 9928 patients with HFpEF, were included. The pooled prevalence of atrial fibrillation (AF) was 34.4% versus 42.8% in the acute inpatient setting, and 20.1% versus 33.1% in the chronic outpatient setting when comparing between HFrEF and HFpEF. LA volume index (LAVi), LA reservoir global longitudinal strain (LAGLS(R)), and E/e' was 59.7 versus 52.7 ml/m(2), 9.0% versus 18.9%, and 18.5 versus 14.0 in the acute inpatient setting, and 48.3 versus 38.2 ml/m(2), 12.8% versus 23.4%, and 16.9 versus 13.5 in the chronic outpatient setting when comparing HFrEF versus HFpEF, respectively. The relationship between LAVi and LAGLS(R) was significant in HFpEF, but not in HFrEF. Also, in those studies that directly compared patients with HFrEF versus HFpEF, those with HFrEF had worse LAGLS(R) [WMD = 16.3% (22.05,8.61); p < 0.001], and higher E/e' [WMD = -0.40 (-0.56, -0.24); p < 0.05], while LAVi was comparable. When focusing on acute hospitalized patients, E/e' was comparable between patients with HFrEF and HFpEF. Despite the higher burden of AF in HFpEF, patients with HFrEF had worse LA global function. Left atrial myopathy is not specifically related to HFpEF

A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis of Pharmacological Treatment of Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction

Objectives: This study sought to estimate and compare the aggregate treatment benefit of pharmacological therapy for heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction. Background: The estimated treatment effects of various combinations of contemporary HF medical therapies are not well characterized. Methods: We performed a systematic network meta-analysis, using MEDLINE/EMBASE and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials for randomized controlled trials published between January 1987 and January 2020. We included angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, angiotensin receptor blockers, beta-blockers (BB), mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRAs), digoxin, hydralazine-isosorbide dinitrate, ivabradine, angiotensin receptor–neprilysin inhibitors (ARNi), sodium glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors (SGLT2i), vericiguat, and omecamtiv-mecarbil. The primary outcome was all-cause death. We estimated the life-years gained in 2 HF populations (BIOSTAT-CHF [BIOlogy Study to TAilored Treatment in Chronic Heart Failure] and ASIAN-HF [Asian Sudden Cardiac Death in Heart Failure Registry]). Results: We identified 75 relevant trials representing 95,444 participants. A combination of ARNi, BB, MRA, and SGLT2i was most effective in reducing all-cause death (HR: 0.39; 95% CI: 0.31-0.49); followed by ARNi, BB, MRA, and vericiguat (HR: 0.41; 95% CI: 0.32-0.53); and ARNi, BB, and MRA (HR: 0.44; 95% CI: 0.36-0.54). Results were similar for the composite outcome of cardiovascular death or first hospitalization for HF (HR: 0.36; 95% CI: 0.29-0.46 for ARNi, BB, MRA, and SGLT2i; HR: 0.44; 95% CI: 0.35-0.56 for ARNi, BB, MRA, and omecamtiv-mecarbil; and HR: 0.43; 95% CI: 0.34-0.55 for ARNi, BB, MRA, and vericiguat). The estimated additional number of life-years gained for a 70-year-old patient on ARNi, BB, MRA, and SGLT2i was 5.0 years (2.5-7.5 years) compared with no treatment in secondary analyses. Conclusions: In patients with HF with reduced ejection fraction, the estimated aggregate benefit is greatest for a combination of ARNi, BB, MRA, and SGLT2i

Cardiovascular and non-cardiovascular death distinction:the utility of troponin beyond N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide. Findings from the BIOSTAT-CHF study

Aims Heart failure (HF) patients are at high‐risk of cardiovascular (CV) events, including CV death. Nonetheless, a substantial proportion of these patients die from non‐CV causes. Identifying patients at higher risk for each individual event may help selecting patients for clinical trials and tailoring cardiovascular therapies. The aims of the present study are to: (i) characterize patients according to CV vs. non‐CV death; (ii) develop models for the prediction of the respective events; (iii) assess the models' performance to differentiate CV from non‐CV death. Methods and results This study included 2309 patients with HF from the BIOSTAT‐CHF (a systems BIOlogy Study to TAilored Treatment in Chronic Heart Failure) study. Competing‐risk models were used to assess the best combination of variables associated with each cause‐specific death. Results were validated in an independent cohort of 1738 HF patients. The best model to predict CV death included low blood pressure, estimated glomerular filtration rate ≤ 60 mL/min, peripheral oedema, previous HF hospitalization, ischaemic HF, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, elevated N‐terminal pro‐B‐type natriuretic peptide (NT‐proBNP), and troponin (c‐index = 0.73). The non‐CV death model incorporated age &gt; 75 years, anaemia and elevated NT‐proBNP (c‐index = 0.71). Both CV and non‐CV death rose by quintiles of the risk scores; yet these models allowed the identification of patients in whom absolute CV death rates clearly outweigh non‐CV death ones. These findings were externally replicated, but performed worse in a less severely diseased population. Conclusions Risk models for predicting CV and non‐CV death allowed the identification of patients at higher absolute risk of dying from CV causes (vs. non‐CV ones). Troponin helped in predicting CV death only, whereas NT‐proBNP helped in the prediction of both CV and non‐CV death. These findings can be useful both for tailoring therapies and for patient selection in HF trials in order to attain CV event enrichment

Implications of serial measurements of natriuretic peptides in heart failure:insights from BIOSTAT-CHF

Natriuretic peptides [NP, including B-typenatriuretic peptide (BNP) and amino-terminalprohormone of BNP (NT-proBNP)] arethe gold-standard biomarkers in heart failure (HF) management,1 with NP levels atpresentation/admission routinely used fordiagnostic and prognostic purposes. NPlevels at discharge/follow-up also showassociation with outcomes, and NP levelsfollowing HF treatment add further value totailoring risk. However, the usefulness of NPserial measurements beyond conventionalHF treatment in clinical practice still remainsa matter of controversy. A cohort withcurrent HF guideline-based treatment wouldprovide an ideal setting to revisit usefulnessof NP serial measurements in risk stratification of HF patients, including the role ofrecently identified BNP molecular forms.The European multi-national BIOlogy Studyto TAilored Treatment in Chronic HeartFailure (BIOSTAT-CHF) provides an opportunity for the aforementioned analysis, beinga European cohort in which serial sampling ofNPs was done before and after titration of HFmedications according to current Europeanguidelines in a multi-centre, observational,real-world setting.</div

Readmissions, death and its associated predictors in heart failure with preserved versus reduced ejection fraction

BACKGROUND: Data on rehospitalizations for heart failure (HF) in Asia are scarce. We sought to determine the burden and predictors of HF (first and recurrent) rehospitalizations and all‐cause mortality in patients with HF and preserved versus reduced ejection fraction (preserved EF, ≥50%; reduced EF, <40%), in the multinational ASIAN‐HF (Asian Sudden Cardiac Death in Heart Failure) registry. METHODS AND RESULTS: Patients with symptomatic (stage C) chronic HF were followed up for death and recurrent HF hospitalizations for 1 year. Predictors of HF hospitalizations or all‐cause mortality were examined with Cox regression for time to first event and other methods for recurrent events analyses. Among 1666 patients with HF with preserved EF (mean age, 68±12 years; 50% women), and 4479 with HF with reduced EF (mean age, 61±13 years; 22% women), there were 642 and 2302 readmissions, with 28% and 45% attributed to HF, respectively. The 1‐year composite event rate for first HF hospitalization or all‐cause death was 11% and 21%, and for total HF hospitalization and all‐cause death was 17.7 and 38.7 per 100 patient‐years in HF with preserved EF and HF with reduced EF, respectively. In HF with preserved EF, consistent independent predictors of these clinical end points included enrollment as an inpatient, Southeast Asian location, and comorbid chronic kidney disease or atrial fibrillation. The same variables were predictive of outcomes in HF with reduced EF except atrial fibrillation, and also included Northeast Asian location, older age, elevated heart rate, decreased systolic blood pressure, diabetes, smoking, and non‐usage of beta blockers. CONCLUSIONS: One‐year HF rehospitalization and mortality rates were high among Asian patients with HF. Predictors of outcomes identified in this study could aid in risk stratification and timely interventions. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT01633398

Perceived risk profile and treatment optimization in heart failure:an analysis from BIOlogy Study to TAilored Treatment in chronic heart failure

Background Achieving target doses of angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibitor/angiotensin-receptor blockers (ACEi/ARB) and beta-blockers in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) is often underperformed. In BIOlogy Study to TAilored Treatment in chronic heart failure (BIOSTAT-CHF) study, many patients were not up-titrated for which no clear reason was reported. Therefore, we hypothesized that perceived-risk profile might influence treatment optimization.Methods We studied 2100 patients with HFrEF (LVEFResults For ACEi/ARB, (a), (b) and (c) was observed in 51.3%, 25.9% and 22.7% of patients, respectively. For beta-blockers, (a), (b) and (c) was observed in 67.5%, 20.2% and 12.3% of patients, respectively. By multinomial logistic regression analysis for ACEi/ARB, patients in group (a) and (b) had lower blood pressure and poorer renal function, and patients in group (a) were older and had lower ejection fraction. For beta-blockers, patients in group (a) and (b) had more severe congestion and lower heart rate. At 9 months, adverse events (i.e., hypotension, bradycardia, renal impairment, and hyperkalemia) occurred similarly among the three groups.Conclusions Patients in whom clinicians did not give a reason why up-titration was missed were older and had more co-morbidities. Patients in whom up-titration was achieved did not have excess adverse events. However, from these observational findings, the pattern of subsequent adverse events among patients in whom up-titration was missed cannot be determined.</p

Association Between Diabetes, Chronic Kidney Disease, and Outcomes in People With Heart Failure From Asia

Background: Diabetes mellitus (DM), chronic kidney disease (CKD), and heart failure (HF) are pathophysiologically linked and increasing in prevalence in Asian populations, but little is known about the interplay of DM and CKD on outcomes in HF. Objectives: This study sought to investigate outcomes in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) vs heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) in relation to the presence of DM and CKD. Methods: Using the multinational ASIAN-HF registry, we investigated associations between DM only, CKD only, and DM+CKD with: 1) composite of 1-year mortality or HF hospitalization; and 2) Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire scores, according to HF subtype. Results: In 5,239 patients with HF (74.6% HFrEF, 25.4% HFpEF; mean age 63 years; 29.1% female), 1,107 (21.1%) had DM only, 1,087 (20.7%) had CKD only, and 1,400 (26.7%) had DM+CKD. Compared with patients without DM nor CKD, DM+CKD was associated with 1-year all-cause mortality or HF hospitalization in HFrEF (adjusted HR: 2.07; 95% CI: 1.68-2.55) and HFpEF (HR: 2.37; 95% CI: 1.40-4.02). In HFrEF, DM only and CKD only were associated with 1-year all-cause mortality or HF hospitalization (both HRs: 1.43; 95% CI: 1.14-1.80), while in HFpEF, CKD only (HR: 2.54; 95% CI: 1.46-4.41) but not DM only (HR: 1.01; 95% CI: 0.52-1.95) was associated with increased risk (interaction P &lt; 0.01). Adjusted Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire scores were lower in patients with DM+CKD (HFrEF: mean 60.50, SEM 0.77, HFpEF: mean 70.10, SEM 1.06; P &lt; 0.001) than with no DM or CKD (HFrEF: mean 66.00, SEM 0.65; and HFpEF: mean 75.80, SEM 0.99). Conclusions: Combined DM and CKD adversely effected outcomes independently of HF subtype, with CKD a consistent predictor of worse outcomes. Strategies to prevent and treat DM and CKD in HF are urgently required.</p