The Wellesley News (06-10-1957)

https://repository.wellesley.edu/wcnews/1157/thumbnail.jp

Treatments targeting inotropy

Acute heart failure (HF) and in particular, cardiogenic shock are associated with high morbidity and mortality. A therapeutic dilemma is that the use of positive inotropic agents, such as catecholamines or phosphodiesterase-inhibitors, is associated with increased mortality. Newer drugs, such as levosimendan or omecamtiv mecarbil, target sarcomeres to improve systolic function putatively without elevating intracellular Ca2+. Although meta-analyses of smaller trials suggested that levosimendan is associated with a better outcome than dobutamine, larger comparative trials failed to confirm this observation. For omecamtiv mecarbil, Phase II clinical trials suggest a favourable haemodynamic profile in patients with acute and chronic HF, and a Phase III morbidity/mortality trial in patients with chronic HF has recently begun. Here, we review the pathophysiological basis of systolic dysfunction in patients with HF and the mechanisms through which different inotropic agents improve cardiac function. Since adenosine triphosphate and reactive oxygen species production in mitochondria are intimately linked to the processes of excitation-contraction coupling, we also discuss the impact of inotropic agents on mitochondrial bioenergetics and redox regulation. Therefore, this position paper should help identify novel targets for treatments that could not only safely improve systolic and diastolic function acutely, but potentially also myocardial structure and function over a longer-term.Peer reviewe

Sex differences in circulating proteins in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction

Background Many patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) are women. Exploring mechanisms underlying the sex differences may improve our understanding of the pathophysiology of HFpEF. Studies focusing on sex differences in circulating proteins in HFpEF patients are scarce. Methods A total of 415 proteins were analyzed in 392 HFpEF patients included in The Metabolic Road to Diastolic Heart Failure: Diastolic Heart Failure study (MEDIA-DHF). Sex differences in these proteins were assessed using adjusted logistic regression analyses. The associations between candidate proteins and cardiovascular (CV) death or CV hospitalization (with sex interaction) were assessed using Cox regression models. Results We found 9 proteins to be differentially expressed between female and male patients. Women expressed more LPL and PLIN1, which are markers of lipid metabolism; more LHB, IGFBP3, and IL1RL2 as markers of transcriptional regulation; and more Ep-CAM as marker of hemostasis. Women expressed less MMP-3, which is a marker associated with extracellular matrix organization; less NRP1, which is associated with developmental processes; and less ACE2, which is related to metabolism. Sex was not associated with the study outcomes (adj. HR 1.48, 95% CI 0.83–2.63), p = 0.18. Conclusion In chronic HFpEF, assessing sex differences in a wide range of circulating proteins led to the identification of 9 proteins that were differentially expressed between female and male patients. These findings may help further investigations into potential pathophysiological processes contributing to HFpEF

Effect of aliskiren on post-discharge outcomes among diabetic and non-diabetic patients hospitalized for heart failure: insights from the ASTRONAUT trial

Aims The objective of the Aliskiren Trial on Acute Heart Failure Outcomes (ASTRONAUT) was to determine whether aliskiren, a direct renin inhibitor, would improve post-discharge outcomes in patients with hospitalization for heart failure (HHF) with reduced ejection fraction. Pre-specified subgroup analyses suggested potential heterogeneity in post-discharge outcomes with aliskiren in patients with and without baseline diabetes mellitus (DM). Methods and results ASTRONAUT included 953 patients without DM (aliskiren 489; placebo 464) and 662 patients with DM (aliskiren 319; placebo 343) (as reported by study investigators). Study endpoints included the first occurrence of cardiovascular death or HHF within 6 and 12 months, all-cause death within 6 and 12 months, and change from baseline in N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) at 1, 6, and 12 months. Data regarding risk of hyperkalaemia, renal impairment, and hypotension, and changes in additional serum biomarkers were collected. The effect of aliskiren on cardiovascular death or HHF within 6 months (primary endpoint) did not significantly differ by baseline DM status (P = 0.08 for interaction), but reached statistical significance at 12 months (non-DM: HR: 0.80, 95% CI: 0.64-0.99; DM: HR: 1.16, 95% CI: 0.91-1.47; P = 0.03 for interaction). Risk of 12-month all-cause death with aliskiren significantly differed by the presence of baseline DM (non-DM: HR: 0.69, 95% CI: 0.50-0.94; DM: HR: 1.64, 95% CI: 1.15-2.33; P < 0.01 for interaction). Among non-diabetics, aliskiren significantly reduced NT-proBNP through 6 months and plasma troponin I and aldosterone through 12 months, as compared to placebo. Among diabetic patients, aliskiren reduced plasma troponin I and aldosterone relative to placebo through 1 month only. There was a trend towards differing risk of post-baseline potassium ≥6 mmol/L with aliskiren by underlying DM status (non-DM: HR: 1.17, 95% CI: 0.71-1.93; DM: HR: 2.39, 95% CI: 1.30-4.42; P = 0.07 for interaction). Conclusion This pre-specified subgroup analysis from the ASTRONAUT trial generates the hypothesis that the addition of aliskiren to standard HHF therapy in non-diabetic patients is generally well-tolerated and improves post-discharge outcomes and biomarker profiles. In contrast, diabetic patients receiving aliskiren appear to have worse post-discharge outcomes. Future prospective investigations are needed to confirm potential benefits of renin inhibition in a large cohort of HHF patients without D

Effect of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor and angiotensin receptor blocker initiation on organ support-free days in patients hospitalized with COVID-19

IMPORTANCE Overactivation of the renin-angiotensin system (RAS) may contribute to poor clinical outcomes in patients with COVID-19. Objective To determine whether angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) initiation improves outcomes in patients hospitalized for COVID-19. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS In an ongoing, adaptive platform randomized clinical trial, 721 critically ill and 58 non–critically ill hospitalized adults were randomized to receive an RAS inhibitor or control between March 16, 2021, and February 25, 2022, at 69 sites in 7 countries (final follow-up on June 1, 2022). INTERVENTIONS Patients were randomized to receive open-label initiation of an ACE inhibitor (n = 257), ARB (n = 248), ARB in combination with DMX-200 (a chemokine receptor-2 inhibitor; n = 10), or no RAS inhibitor (control; n = 264) for up to 10 days. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES The primary outcome was organ support–free days, a composite of hospital survival and days alive without cardiovascular or respiratory organ support through 21 days. The primary analysis was a bayesian cumulative logistic model. Odds ratios (ORs) greater than 1 represent improved outcomes. RESULTS On February 25, 2022, enrollment was discontinued due to safety concerns. Among 679 critically ill patients with available primary outcome data, the median age was 56 years and 239 participants (35.2%) were women. Median (IQR) organ support–free days among critically ill patients was 10 (–1 to 16) in the ACE inhibitor group (n = 231), 8 (–1 to 17) in the ARB group (n = 217), and 12 (0 to 17) in the control group (n = 231) (median adjusted odds ratios of 0.77 [95% bayesian credible interval, 0.58-1.06] for improvement for ACE inhibitor and 0.76 [95% credible interval, 0.56-1.05] for ARB compared with control). The posterior probabilities that ACE inhibitors and ARBs worsened organ support–free days compared with control were 94.9% and 95.4%, respectively. Hospital survival occurred in 166 of 231 critically ill participants (71.9%) in the ACE inhibitor group, 152 of 217 (70.0%) in the ARB group, and 182 of 231 (78.8%) in the control group (posterior probabilities that ACE inhibitor and ARB worsened hospital survival compared with control were 95.3% and 98.1%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE In this trial, among critically ill adults with COVID-19, initiation of an ACE inhibitor or ARB did not improve, and likely worsened, clinical outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT0273570

Healthcare Bulletin | www.healthcare-bulletin.com

ABSTRACT Diagnosing and managing heart failure according to the left ventricle&apos;s ejection fraction (LVEF) has become part of evidence-based medicine. Not surprisingly, LVEF -a powerful prognostic factor in heart failure -has caused a marked heterogeneity in the clinical benefit of various therapeutic interventions. From a pathophysiological point of view, however, many disease characteristics are shared among the entire heart failure spectrum (from low to high LVEF). The many functional and anatomical differences within the spectrum are merely quantitative, with an extensive overlap between the extremes of the spectrum and belonging to the same linear relation when plotted against LVEF. Therefore, although counter-intuitive from a clinical point of view, from a pathophysiological point of view heart failure seems to progress along a common disease trajectory independently of LVEF. In this review, we will scrutinise this apparent paradox, estimate how it relates to the recent biomarker-oriented (as opposed to a classic LVEF-oriented) approach to heart failure and discuss to what extent it may affect conceptual progress in chronic heart failure