Future large‐scale clinical trials in cardiovascular medicine: challenges and uncertainties

Peer Reviewedhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/146871/1/ejhf1360_am.pdfhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/146871/2/ejhf1360.pd

Link Between Synovial and Myocardial Inflammation: Conceptual Framework to Explain the Pathogenesis of Heart Failure with Preserved Ejection Fraction in Patients with Systemic Rheumatic Diseases

Patients with a broad range of systemic rheumatic diseases are at increased risk of heart failure (HF), an event that is not related to traditional cardiovascular risk factors or underlying ischaemic heart disease. The magnitude of risk is linked to the severity of arthritic activity, and HF is typically accompanied by a preserved ejection fraction. Subclinical evidence for myocardial fibrosis, microcirculatory dysfunction and elevated cardiac filling pressures is present in a large proportion of patients with rheumatic diseases, particularly those with meaningful systemic inflammation. Drugs that act to attenuate pro-inflammatory pathways (methotrexate and antagonists of tumour necrosis factor and interleukin-1) may ameliorate myocardial inflammation and cardiac structural abnormalities and reduce the risk of HF events

Combining iron supplements with SGLT2 inhibitor-stimulated erythropoiesis in heart failure: should we be worried about thromboembolic events?

No abstract available

Rapid evidence-based sequencing of foundational drugs for heart failure and a reduced ejection fraction

Foundational therapy for heart failure and a reduced ejection fraction consists of a combination of an angiotensin receptor–neprilysin inhibitor, a beta-blocker, a mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist and a sodium–glucose co-transporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor. However, the conventional approach to the implementation is based on a historically-driven sequence that is not strongly evidence-based, typically requires ≥6 months, and frequently leads to major gaps in treatment. We propose a rapid sequencing strategy that is based on four principles. First, since drugs act rapidly to reduce morbidity and mortality, patients should be started on all four foundational treatments within 2–4 weeks. Second, since the efficacy of each foundational therapy is independent of treatment with the other drugs, priority can be determined by considerations of relative efficacy, safety and ease-of-use. Third, low starting doses of foundational drugs have substantial therapeutic benefits, and achievement of low doses of all four classes of drugs should take precedence over up-titration to target doses. Fourth, since drugs can influence the tolerability of other foundational agents, sequencing can be based on whether agents started earlier can enhance the safety of agents started simultaneously or later in the sequence. We propose an accelerated three-step approach, which consists of the simultaneous initiation of a beta-blocker and an SGLT2 inhibitor, followed 1–2 weeks later by the initiation of sacubitril/valsartan, and 1–2 weeks later by a mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist. The latter two steps can be re-ordered or compressed depending on patient circumstances. Rapid sequencing is a novel evidence-based strategy that has the potential to dramatically improve the implementation of treatments that reduce the morbidity and mortality of patients with heart failure and a reduced ejection fraction

Efficacy of sacubitril/valsartan relative to a prior decompensation: the PARADIGM-HF trial

Objectives: This study assessed whether the benefit of sacubtril/valsartan therapy varied with clinical stability. Background: Despite the benefit of sacubitril/valsartan therapy shown in the PARADIGM-HF (Prospective Comparison of ARNI with ACEI to Determine Impact on Global Mortality and Morbidity in Heart Failure) trial, it has been suggested that switching from an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor or an angiotensin receptor blocker should be delayed until occurrence of clinical decompensation. Methods: Outcomes were compared among patients who had prior hospitalization within 3 months of screening (n = 1,611 [19%]), between 3 and 6 months (n = 1,009 [12%]), between 6 and 12 months (n = 886 [11%]), >12 months (n = 1,746 [21%]), or who had never been hospitalized (n = 3,125 [37%]). Results: Twenty percent of patients without prior HF hospitalization experienced a primary endpoint of cardiovascular death or heart failure (HF) hospitalization during the course of the trial. Despite the increased risk associated with more recent hospitalization, the efficacy of sacubitril/valsartan therapy did not differ from that of enalapril according to the occurrence of or time from hospitalization for HF before screening, with respect to the primary endpoint or with respect to cardiovascular or all-cause mortality. Conclusions: Patients with recent HF decompensation requiring hospitalization were more likely to experience cardiovascular death or HF hospitalization than those who had never been hospitalized. Patients who were clinically stable, as shown by a remote HF hospitalization (>3 months prior to screening) or by lack of any prior HF hospitalization, were as likely to benefit from sacubitril/valsartan therapy as more recently hospitalized patients. (Prospective Comparison of ARNI with ACEI to Determine Impact on Global Mortality and Morbidity in Heart Failure [PARADIGM-HF]; NCT01035255)

Patients With Mild Heart Failure Worsen During Withdrawal From Digoxin Therapy

OBJECTIVES: We investigated whether patients with mild heart failure due to left ventricular systolic dysfunction were at risk of worsening during digoxin withdrawal. BACKGROUND: Deterioration during digoxin withdrawal is often believed to be restricted to patients with moderate to severe clinical evidence of heart failure. To test this hypothesis, we studied the outcome of patients categorized by treatment assignment and a clinical signs and symptoms heart failure score in two rigorously designed clinical heart failure trials: the Prospective Randomized Study of Ventricular Function and Efficacy of Digoxin (PROVED) and the Randomized Assessment of Digoxin and Inhibitors of Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme (RADIANCE) trial. METHODS: Potential differences in treatment failure, left ventricular ejection fraction and exercise capacity were evaluated in three groups of patients: those with mild heart failure (score 2) who were withdrawn from digoxin (Dig WD Moderate); and patients who continued receiving digoxin regardless of heart failure score (Dig Cont). RESULTS: Heart failure score at randomization did not predict outcome during follow-up in Dig Cont-group patients. Dig WD Mild-group patients were at increased risk of treatment failure and had deterioration of exercise capacity and left ventricular ejection fraction compared with that in Dig Cont-group patients (all p < 0.01). Patients in the Dig WD Moderate group were significantly more likely to experience treatment failure than patients in either the Dig WD Mild or Dig Cont group (both p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with systolic left ventricular dysfunction were at risk of clinical deterioration after digoxin withdrawal despite mild clinical evidence of congestive heart failure

Influence of Sacubitril/Valsartan (LCZ696) on 30-day readmission after heart failure hospitalization

Background: Patients with heart failure (HF) are at high risk for hospital readmission in the first 30 days following HF hospitalization. Objectives: This study sought to determine if treatment with sacubitril/valsartan (LCZ696) reduces rates of hospital readmission at 30-days following HF hospitalization compared with enalapril. Methods: We assessed the risk of 30-day readmission for any cause following investigator-reported hospitalizations for HF in the PARADIGM-HF trial, which randomized 8,399 participants with HF and reduced ejection fraction to treatment with LCZ696 or enalapril. Results: Accounting for multiple hospitalizations per patient, there were 2,383 investigator-reported HF hospitalizations, of which 1,076 (45.2%) occurred in subjects assigned to LCZ696 and 1,307 (54.8%) occurred in subjects assigned to enalapril. Rates of readmission for any cause at 30 days were 17.8% in LCZ696-assigned subjects and 21.0% in enalapril-assigned subjects (odds ratio: 0.74; 95% confidence interval: 0.56 to 0.97; p = 0.031). Rates of readmission for HF at 30-days were also lower in subjects assigned to LCZ696 (9.7% vs. 13.4%; odds ratio: 0.62; 95% confidence interval: 0.45 to 0.87; p = 0.006). The reduction in both all-cause and HF readmissions with LCZ696 was maintained when the time window from discharge was extended to 60 days and in sensitivity analyses restricted to adjudicated HF hospitalizations. Conclusions: Compared with enalapril, treatment with LCZ696 reduces 30-day readmissions for any cause following discharge from HF hospitalization