Providers' assignment of NYHA functional class in patients with heart failure: A vignette study

Finerenone for Heart Failure and Risk Estimated by the PREDICT-HFpEF Model: A Secondary Analysis of FINEARTS-HF

Importance

Patients with heart failure (HF) and mildly reduced ejection fraction (HFmrEF) or preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) have a spectrum of risk, and the effect of therapies may vary by risk.

Objectives

To validate the Prognostic Models for Mortality and Morbidity in HFpEF (PREDICT-HFpEF) in the phase 3 randomized clinical trial Finerenone Trial to Investigate Efficacy and Safety Superior to Placebo in Patients With Heart Failure (FINEARTS-HF) and to evaluate the effect of finerenone, compared with placebo, across the spectrum of risk in these patients.

Design, Setting, and Participants

The FINEARTS-HF trial was conducted across 653 sites in 37 countries. Participants were adults 40 years and older with symptomatic HF and left ventricular EF of 40% or greater randomized between September 2020 and January 2023.

Intervention

Finerenone (titrated to 20 mg or 40 mg) or placebo.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The 3 PREDICT-HFpEF risk scores for the composite outcome of cardiovascular death or HF hospitalization, cardiovascular death, and all-cause death, respectively, were calculated. Predicted risk was compared with observed outcomes. Model performance was assessed using the Harrell C statistic. The rates of the predicted outcomes (plus the composite of cardiovascular death and worsening HF events, which was the primary end point in the trial) were examined according to quintiles of risk score, as was the effect of finerenone according to risk quintiles.

Results

A total of 6001 patients (mean [SD] age, 72 [9.6] years; 3269 male [54.5%]) were randomized in the FINEARTS-HF trial. The C statistics for cardiovascular death or HF hospitalization, cardiovascular death, and all-cause death at 2 years were 0.71 (95% CI, 0.69-0.72), 0.68 (95% CI, 0.66-0.71), and 0.69 (95% CI, 0.67-0.71), respectively. The risk of the composite outcomes was approximately 8- to 10-fold higher in those in the highest compared with the lowest risk quintile. The relative risk reduction with finerenone compared with placebo was consistent across the spectrum of risk for all outcomes examined (eg, interaction P value for primary outcome = .24).

Conclusions and Relevance

Results of the FINEARTS-HF randomized clinical trial demonstrate that the PREDICT-HFpEF models performed well in terms of calibration and discrimination. Baseline risk did not modify the benefit of finerenone.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04435626.

Associations Between New York Heart Association Classification, Objective Measures, and Long-term Prognosis in Mild Heart Failure: A Secondary Analysis of the PARADIGM-HF Trial

Importance

Heart failure (HF) treatment recommendations are centered on New York Heart Association (NYHA) classification, such that most apparently asymptomatic patients are not eligible for disease-modifying therapies.

Objectives

To assess within-patient variation in NYHA classification over time, the association between NYHA class and an objective measure of HF severity (N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide [NT-proBNP] level), and their association with long-term prognosis in the PARADIGM-HF trial.

Design, Setting, and Participants

All patients in PARADIGM-HF were in NYHA class II or higher at baseline and were treated with sacubitril-valsartan during a 6- to 10-week run-in period before randomization. Patients classified as NYHA class I, II, and III in PARADIGM-HF were compared at randomization.

Exposures

NYHA class at randomization after 6 to 10 weeks of the run-in period.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Primary outcome was cardiovascular death or first HF hospitalization. Logistic regression models, areas under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), kernel density estimation overlaps, and Cox proportional hazards models were used.

Results

The analysis included 8326 patients with known NYHA classification at randomization. Of 389 patients in NYHA class I, 228 (58%) changed functional class during the first year after randomization. Level of NT-proBNP was a poor discriminator of NYHA classification: for NYHA class I vs II, the AUC was 0.51 (95% CI, 0.48-0.54). For NT-proBNP level, estimated kernel density overlap was 93% between NYHA class I vs II, 79% between NYHA I vs III, and 83% between NYHA II vs III. Patients classified as NYHA III displayed a distinctively higher rate of cardiovascular events (NYHA III vs I, hazard ratio [HR], 1.84; 95% CI, 1.44-2.37; NYHA III vs II, HR, 1.49; 95% CI, 1.35-1.64). Patients in NYHA class I and II revealed lower event rates (NYHA II vs I, HR, 1.24; 95% CI, 0.97-1.58). Stratification by NT-proBNP level (<1600 pg/mL or ≥1600 pg/mL) identified subgroups with distinctive risk, such that NYHA class I patients with high NT-proBNP levels (n = 175) had a numerically higher event rate than patients with low NT-proBNP levels from any NYHA class (vs I, HR, 3.43; 95% CI, 2.03-5.87; vs II, HR, 2.12; 95% CI, 1.58-2.86; vs III, HR, 1.37; 95% CI, 1.00-1.88).

Conclusions and Relevance

In this study, patients in NYHA class I and II overlapped substantially in objective measures and long-term prognosis. Physician-defined "asymptomatic" functional class concealed patients who were at substantial risk for adverse outcomes. NYHA classification might be limited to differentiate mild forms of HF.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01035255.

Use of Sacubitril/Valsartan Prior to Primary Prevention Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator Implantation

Background

Implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) are an adjunct to guideline-directed medical therapy for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction. The uptake of sacubitril/valsartan in this population is not well described. We report the uptake and factors associated with sacubitril/valsartan use in patients with left ventricular dysfunction undergoing ICD implantation.

Methods

A retrospective chart review was performed on all patients with left ventricular dysfunction who underwent de novo primary prevention ICD implantation between October 2015 and December 2021 (n = 422) at Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. Pre-procedure sacubitril/valsartan use was determined. Logistic regression analysis was performed to examine factors associated with sacubitril/valsartan use. A Bayesian estimator of abrupt change was employed to determine a time period in which a change in the rate of sacubitril/valsartan use occurred.

Results

Loop diuretic use (odds ratio [OR] = 2.20) and higher severity of New York Heart Association class symptoms (OR = 1.62) were associated with sacubitril/valsartan use. Sacubitril/valsartan use increased during the study period, to 59% in December 2021. This increase was larger among those aged ≥ 65 years (OR = 1.09). A change in the rate of sacubitril/valsartan use occurred 3 years after drug approval, 1 year after provincial drug coverage became available, and 6 months after being strongly recommended in clinical guidelines.

Conclusions

In a contemporary cohort of ICD patients, sacubitril/valsartan use increased between 2015 and 2021, notably in those aged ≥ 65 years and after government drug coverage became available. Understanding barriers to sacubitril/valsartan use in ICD patients is recommended to improve clinical outcomes and survival in this population.