The Importance of Worsening Heart Failure in Ambulatory Patients

Prognostic implication of outpatient loop diuretic dose intensification trajectories in patients with chronic heart failure

Background

The relationship between outpatient oral loop diuretic (OLD) dose intensification trajectories and the prognosis of patients with chronic heart failure (CHF) remains unclear.

Methods

In 832 patients with CHF, OLD dose trajectories for 1 year were consecutively investigated. OLD dose intensification was defined as the first occurrence of OLD dose increase from the baseline within the first year. Patients were classified into three groups of OLD dose intensification trajectories: irreversible, reversible, and no intensification. Irreversible intensification was defined as an OLD dose intensification wherein the dose remained above the baseline during the first year of follow-up. Reversible intensification referred to an OLD dose intensification wherein the dose returned to or dropped below the baseline within the first year of follow-up. No intensification was defined as no OLD dose intensification throughout the first year of follow-up. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality. Secondary outcomes were cardiovascular death (CVD), heart failure hospitalisation (HFH), a composite of CVD or HFH, and a composite of all-cause mortality or HFH after 1 year.

Results

During the median follow-up (57 [range, 13-102] months), 146 patients died. Irreversible intensification was associated with higher risks of all outcomes than no intensification (e.g., all-cause mortality: hazard ratio [HR], 1.63; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.08-2.44; HFH: HR, 2.16; 95% CI, 1.65-2.98; CVD or HFH: HR, 2.17; 95% CI, 1.59-2.96). Conversely, reversible intensification had comparable prognoses for all outcomes to no intensification.

Conclusion

OLD dose intensification trajectories could stratify the prognosis of CHF patients.

Prognostic impact of outpatient loop diuretic reduction patterns in patients with chronic heart failure

Background

The relationship between patterns of outpatient oral loop diuretic (LD) dose reduction and prognosis in patients with heart failure (HF) remains unclear.

Methods

We evaluated 679 patients with HF-prescribed LDs at baseline between September 2015 and August 2019. Dose reduction was defined as a change to a lower LD dose than the previous outpatient dose. Dose intensification was defined as a change to a higher LD dose than the previous outpatient dose. Patients were classified into no-reduction (no LD dose reduction during follow-up) and reduction groups (categorized into successive-reduction [≥2 successive LD dose reductions without intervening LD dose intensification] and single-reduction [LD dose reduction without successive dose reduction] groups). The primary outcomes were all-cause death, HF hospitalization (HFH), and the composite of cardiovascular death (CVD) or HFH.

Results

Within a median follow-up of 53.7 (range, 2.6-99.1) months, 156 deaths were recorded: 121 (29 %), 31 (15 %), and three (4 %) patients in the no-reduction (n = 411), single-reduction (n = 195), and successive-reduction (n = 73) groups, respectively. After adjusting for cofounders, the reduction group had a lower risk of primary outcomes than the no reduction group (all-cause death: hazard ratio (HR) = 0.65, 95 % confidence interval (CI) = 0.44-0.96; CVD or HFH: HR=0.69, 95 %CI=0.52-0.93; HFH: HR=0.69, 95 % CI=0.52-0.93). The successive-reduction group had a lower risk of the composite of CVD or HFH (HR=0.26, 95 % CI: 0.10-0.67) and HFH (HR=0.34, 95 % CI=0.13-0.86) than the single-reduction group.

Conclusions

Outpatient LD dose reduction patterns can be indicators of good prognosis in HF patients.

Vericiguat Use in Patients with Heart Failure in Real-World Settings during the First Year after the Drug Authorization in Japan

Background: Vericiguat was developed to treat patients with heart failure (HF). Currently, limited data are available to characterize vericiguat-treated patients in real-world clinical settings. Methods: This retrospective cohort study was done using a Japanese hospital administrative database to describe the use of vericiguat in patients with HF in real-world settings. Adult patients diagnosed with HF prescribed vericiguat between 1 July 2021 and 30 September 2022 were included. Patient characteristics at the initiation of vericiguat treatment, patterns of HF medication use, and vericiguat dose titrations were assessed within the first 90 days of treatment. Results: The study included 829 patients who were initiated on vericiguat therapy. The mean age was 75.5 years and 69.0% were male. Hypertension, coronary artery disease, and diabetes mellitus were present in 91.7, 71.3, and 60.1% of patients, respectively. Most patients had previously received HF medications, with high percentages using angiotensin-receptor blocker neprilysin inhibitors (ARNI; 43.9%) and sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors (54.4%). During the first 90 days of vericiguat treatment, 65.8% of the patients were uptitrated from their starting dose, and 32.3% had reached the maximal daily dose. The median time to reach the maximal daily dose was 34 days. The multivariable model identified that initiating vericiguat treatment in an outpatient setting and using ARNI before initiating vericiguat treatment were factors significantly associated with reaching the maximal daily dose of vericiguat at any given time, whereas older age, chronic kidney disease, hyperkalemia, and anemia were not associated. Conclusions: These findings provide early insights into the use of vericiguat, which aid in optimizing the combinations and/or sequences of HF treatment incorporating vericiguat therapy.

Worsening heart failure: a concept in evolution

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Worsening heart failure (WHF) has developed as a unique definition within heart failure (HF) in recent years. It captures the disease as a dynamic process. This review describes what is currently known about WHF, why it should be considered a discrete scientific endpoint, and future directions for research.

RECENT FINDINGS

There is no single agreed upon definition for WHF. It can be identified as being due to treatment side-effects, related to concomitant comorbidity, or true disease progression. Risk scores based on criteria like those already developed for HF can be created to stratify risk for WHF.

CONCLUSIONS

WHF is an emerging entity within HF that defines itself as a unique point of interest. Understanding it as a clinical measure of where a patient's HF is evolving allows for identifying patients that require a refreshed approach to their care. Keeping this in mind will help redefine more patient-centric outcome measures in research to come.

The Worsening of Heart Failure with Reduced Ejection Fraction: The Impact of the Number of Hospital Admissions in a Cohort of Patients

BACKGROUND

Worsening heart failure (WFH) includes heart failure (HF) hospitalisation, representing a strong predictor of mortality in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). However, there is little evidence analysing the impact of the number of previous HF admissions. Our main objective was to analyse the clinical profile according to the number of previous admissions for HF and its prognostic impact in the medium and long term.

METHODS

A retrospective study of a cohort of patients with HFrEF, classified according to previous admissions: cohort-1 (0-1 previous admission) and cohort-2 (≥2 previous admissions). Clinical, echocardiographic and therapeutic variables were analysed, and the medium- and long-term impacts in terms of hospital readmissions and cardiovascular mortality were assessed. A total of 406 patients were analysed.

RESULTS

The mean age was 67.3 ± 12.6 years, with male predominance (73.9%). Some 88.9% (361 patients) were included in cohort-1, and 45 patients (11.1%) were included in cohort-2. Cohort-2 had a higher proportion of atrial fibrillation (49.9% vs. 73.3%; p = 0.003), chronic kidney disease (36.3% vs. 82.2%; p < 0.001), and anaemia (28.8% vs. 53.3%; p = 0.001). Despite having similar baseline ventricular structural parameters, cohort-1 showed better reverse remodelling. With a median follow-up of 60 months, cohort-1 had longer survival free of hospital readmissions for HF (37.5% vs. 92%; p < 0.001) and cardiovascular mortality (26.2% vs. 71.9%; p < 0.001), with differences from the first month.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with HFrEF and ≥2 previous admissions for HF have a higher proportion of comorbidities. These patients are associated with worse reverse remodelling and worse medium- and long-term prognoses from the early stages, wherein early identification is essential for close follow-up and optimal intensive treatment.

Dapagliflozin and diuretic utilization in heart failure with mildly reduced or preserved ejection fraction: the DELIVER trial

AIMS

Dapagliflozin reduced the combined risk of worsening heart failure or cardiovascular death among patients with heart failure with mildly reduced or preserved ejection fraction. In this study, the safety and efficacy of dapagliflozin according to background diuretic therapy and the influence of dapagliflozin on longitudinal diuretic use were evaluated.

METHODS AND RESULTS

In this pre-specified analysis of the Dapagliflozin Evaluation to Improve the LIVEs of Patients With Preserved Ejection Fraction Heart Failure (DELIVER) trial, the effects of dapagliflozin vs. placebo were assessed in the following subgroups: no diuretic, non-loop diuretic, and loop diuretic furosemide equivalent doses of <40, 40, and >40 mg, respectively. Of the 6263 randomized patients, 683 (10.9%) were on no diuretic, 769 (12.3%) were on a non-loop diuretic, and 4811 (76.8%) were on a loop diuretic at baseline. Treatment benefits of dapagliflozin on the primary composite outcome were consistent by diuretic use categories (Pinteraction = 0.64) or loop diuretic dose (Pinteraction = 0.57). Serious adverse events were similar between dapagliflozin and placebo arms, irrespective of diuretic use or dosing. Dapagliflozin reduced new initiation of loop diuretics by 32% [hazard ratio (HR) 0.68; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.55-0.84, P < 0.001] but did not influence discontinuations/disruptions (HR 0.98; 95% CI: 0.86-1.13, P = 0.83) in follow-up. First sustained loop diuretic dose increases were less frequent, and sustained dose decreases were more frequent in patients treated with dapagliflozin: net difference of -6.5% (95% CI: -9.4 to -3.6; P < 0.001). The mean dose of loop diuretic increased over time in the placebo arm, a longitudinal increase that was significantly attenuated with treatment with dapagliflozin (placebo-corrected treatment effect of -2.5 mg/year; 95% CI: -1.5, -3.7, P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

In patients with heart failure with mildly reduced or preserved ejection fraction, the clinical benefits of dapagliflozin relative to placebo were consistent across a wide range of diuretic categories and doses with a similar safety profile. Treatment with dapagliflozin significantly reduced new loop diuretic requirement over time.

Impact of Worsening Heart Failure on Long-Term Prognosis in Patients With Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction

Worsening heart failure (HF), defined as hospitalization for worsening signs and symptoms of HF or the need for urgent intravenous diuretics, is often considered a surrogate of poor prognosis in clinical trials. However, data on the prognostic implications of worsening HF in patients with HF and reduced ejection fraction is limited. Patients who had a first echocardiographic diagnosis of left ventricular systolic dysfunction, defined as left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) ≤45%, were identified. Worsening HF was defined as hospitalization for HF or urgent need for intravenous diuretics. All-cause mortality was chosen as the study end point. A total of 1,801 patients (mean age 64 ± 12 years, 74% men) were analyzed. Worsening HF was observed in 275 patients (15%) during a median follow-up of 20 months, while, 435 patients (24%) died during a median follow-up of 60 months (Interquartile range 28 to 60 months). The 5-year survival rate was significantly lower in the worsening HF cohort compared with the non-worsening HF cohort (Log-rank p <0.0001), and it was significantly different between the worsening HF cohort and the nonworsening HF cohort for LVEF ≤25% (log-rank p <0.0001) and LVEF 26% to 34% (log-rank p = 0.038) but not for LVEF 35% to 45% (log-rank p = 0.14). After adjustment for important clinical and echocardiographic predictors, worsening HF was independently associated with a higher risk of all-cause mortality (hazard ratio 1.46, 95% confidence interval 1.09 to 1.96, p = 0.011). In conclusion, worsening HF, defined by HF hospitalization or the urgent need for intravenous diuretics, is independently associated with poor long-term prognosis in patients with HF and reduced ejection fraction.

Prognostic significance of diastolic dysfunction in patients with systolic dysfunction undergoing atrial fibrillation ablation

Background

The relationship between pre-ablation left ventricular diastolic dysfunction (LVDD) and prognosis in patients with left ventricular systolic dysfunction (LVSD) undergoing atrial fibrillation (AF) ablation remains unclear.

Methods

The prognosis of 173 patients with impaired left ventricular ejection fraction (<50%) who underwent AF ablation was examined. The primary outcome was a composite of all-cause mortality, heart failure (HF) hospitalization, and worsening HF symptoms requiring unplanned outpatient intensification of decongestive therapy.

Results

During the follow-up period (median, 3.5 years), the primary outcome after AF ablation occurred in 28 patients (16%). The receiver operating characteristic curve analysis showed that early septal diastolic mitral annular velocity (e′) had a larger area under the curve (0.70) than other LVDD parameters, and optimal cut-off values of LVDD, represented by e′, septal E (early diastolic left ventricular filling velocity)/e′, and peak tricuspid valve regurgitation velocity (TRV), were 5.0 cm/s, 13.2, and 2.5 m/s, respectively. Multivariate analysis revealed that e′ ≤5.0 cm/s (standard hazard ratio [HR], 3.87; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.73–8.69; p = 0.001), septal E/e′ ≥13.2 (HR, 3.62; 95% CI, 1.60–8.21; p = 0.002), and peak TRV ≥ 2.5 m/s (HR, 2.42; 95% CI, 1.13–5.16; p = 0.02) independently predicted the outcome. Patients with New York Heart Association functional status ≥ III had a 3.3–4.5-fold higher risk of the outcome.

Conclusions

LVDD or severe HF symptoms predict poor outcomes in patients with LVSD undergoing AF ablation. Therefore, patients with LVDD or severe HF symptoms should receive more intensive treatment even after AF ablation.

N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide testing patterns in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction

Aims

The N‐terminal pro‐B‐type natriuretic peptide (NT‐proBNP) is a commonly used biomarker in heart failure for diagnosis and prognostication. We aimed to determine the prevalence of NT‐proBNP testing, distribution of NT‐proBNP concentrations, and factors associated with receiving an NT‐proBNP test in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), including the subset with a worsening heart failure event (WHFE).

Methods and results

This was a retrospective cohort study using two US databases: (i) the de‐identified Humana Research Database between January 2015 and December 2018 and (ii) the Veradigm PINNACLE Registry^® between July 2013 and September 2017. We included adult patients with a confirmed diagnosis of HFrEF. In each data source, a subgroup of patients with a WHFE was identified, where a WHFE was defined as a heart failure‐related hospitalization or receipt of intravenous diuretics. Bivariate and multivariate analyses were conducted to assess factors associated with receiving NT‐proBNP testing. In Cohort 1 (n = 249 238), 9.2% of patients with HFrEF and 10.8% of patients with a WHFE received NT‐proBNP testing. When restricted to patients with at least one laboratory claim, 11.3% of patients with HFrEF and 13.2% of those with a WHFE received NT‐proBNP testing. In Cohort 2 (n = 91 444), 2.3% of patients with HFrEF were tested. Median (inter‐quartile range) NT‐proBNP concentrations among patients with HFrEF were 1399 (423–4087) pg/mL in Cohort 1 and 394 (142–688) pg/mL in Cohort 2. Median (inter‐quartile range) NT‐proBNP concentrations in the subset of patients with a WHFE in each cohort were 2209 (740–5894) and 464 (174–783) pg/mL, respectively. In Cohort 1, 13.4% of all HFrEF patients receiving NT‐proBNP testing and 18.9% of patients with a WHFE had NT‐proBNP values >8000 pg/mL; in Cohort 2, these percentages were 1.0% and 2.5%, respectively.

Conclusions

In US clinical practice, NT‐proBNP testing was not frequently performed in patients with HFrEF. NT‐proBNP concentrations varied across data sources and subpopulations within HFrEF.

Effect of Empagliflozin on Worsening Heart Failure Events in Patients With Heart Failure and Preserved Ejection Fraction: EMPEROR-Preserved Trial

BACKGROUND

Empagliflozin reduces the risk of cardiovascular death or hospitalization for heart failure in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction, but additional data are needed about its effect on inpatient and outpatient heart failure events.

METHODS

We randomly assigned 5988 patients with class II through IV heart failure with an ejection fraction of >40% to double-blind treatment with placebo or empagliflozin (10 mg once daily), in addition to usual therapy, for a median of 26 months. We prospectively collected information on inpatient and outpatient events reflecting worsening heart failure and prespecified their analysis in individual and composite end points.

RESULTS

Empagliflozin reduced the combined risk of cardiovascular death, hospitalization for heart failure, or an emergency or urgent heart failure visit requiring intravenous treatment (432 versus 546 patients [empagliflozin versus placebo, respectively]; hazard ratio, 0.77 [95% CI, 0.67-0.87]; P<0.0001). This benefit reached statistical significance at 18 days after randomization. Empagliflozin reduced the total number of heart failure hospitalizations that required intensive care (hazard ratio, 0.71 [95% CI, 0.52-0.96]; P=0.028) and the total number of all hospitalizations that required a vasopressor or positive inotropic drug (hazard ratio, 0.73 [95% CI, 0.55-0.97]; P=0.033). Compared with patients in the placebo group, fewer patients in the empagliflozin group reported outpatient intensification of diuretics (482 versus 610; hazard ratio, 0.76 [95% CI, 0.67-0.86]; P<0.0001), and patients assigned to empagliflozin were 20% to 50% more likely to have a better New York Heart Association functional class, with significant effects at 12 weeks that were maintained for at least 2 years. The benefit on total heart failure hospitalizations was similar in patients with an ejection fraction of >40% to <50% and 50% to <60%, but was attenuated at higher ejection fractions.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction, empagliflozin produced a meaningful, early, and sustained reduction in the risk and severity of a broad range of inpatient and outpatient worsening heart failure events. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT03057977.

Representativeness of the VICTORIA Trial Population in Clinical Practice: Analysis of the PINNACLE Registry

BACKGROUND

In the VerICiguaT Global Study in Subjects with Heart Failure with Reduced Ejection Fraction (VICTORIA) trial, vericiguat reduced the risk of mortality due to cardiovascular problems and of hospitalization due to heart failure (HF) among patients with HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and recent worsening HF events (WHFEs). The representativeness of the VICTORIA population of patients with WHFE in clinical practice is unknown.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Patients with HF and ejection fraction <45% were identified in the Practice Innovation And Clinical Excellence (PINNACLE) registry and were stratified by the occurrence of WHFEs. Characteristics and outcomes of patients in the PINNACLE registry with and without WHFEs were compared to the VICTORIA population. Of the 14,180 PINNACLE patients identified with HFrEF, 26.5% had had a WHFE. The VICTORIA population was similar to PINNACLE patients with WHFEs in mean age (67.3 vs 66.7), ejection fraction (28.9% vs 28.3%), body mass index (26.8 vs 27.6), and comorbidity burden. The rate of hospitalization because of HF at 1 year was 29.6% in the placebo group of VICTORIA, compared to 35.8% in PINNACLE patients with WHFEs and 13.3% in patients without WHFEs.

CONCLUSIONS

The PINNACLE patients with WHFEs meeting the VICTORIA definition resembled the VICTORIA population in characteristics and outcomes, suggesting that VICTORIA's population may be generalizable to patients with WHFEs in clinical practice.

Alternative Echocardiographic Algorithm for Left Ventricular Filling Pressure in Patients With Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction

The American Society of Echocardiography and/or the European Association of Cardiovascular Imaging recommend a conventional algorithm for estimating left ventricular (LV) filling pressure in heart failure. However, several patients are classed as "indeterminate" due to their LV filling pressures being impossible to calculate. We investigated whether our new echocardiographic algorithm can predict clinical outcomes in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). We enrolled 754 consecutive patients from the PURSUIT-HFpEF registry. We used the new algorithm to divide them into 2 groups; a normal LV filling pressure group (N group) and a high LV filling pressure group (H group). The H group consisted of 342 patients. Over a mean follow-up of 342 days, 185 patients reached the primary composite end point (157 readmissions for worsening heart failure and 43 cardiovascular deaths). In a multivariable Cox analysis, being in the H group was significantly associated with an increased rate of cardiac events compared with the N group (hazard ratio: 1.71; 95% confidence interval: 1.17 to 2.50, p = 0.006). There were 56 patients (7%) who were assigned to "indeterminate" with the conventional algorithm. Using the new algorithm, we reclassified 16 patients (29%) into the H group and 40 patients (71%) into the N group. The Kaplan-Meier curves showed the reclassified H group had a significantly higher incidence of cardiac events than those assigned to the N group (p < 0.01). In conclusion, the present study demonstrated LV filling pressure assessed by our algorithm can predict clinical outcomes in patients with HFpEF.

Effect of Empagliflozin on the Clinical Stability of Patients With Heart Failure and a Reduced Ejection Fraction: The EMPEROR-Reduced Trial

BACKGROUND

Empagliflozin reduces the risk of cardiovascular death or hospitalization for heart failure in patients with heart failure and a reduced ejection fraction, with or without diabetes, but additional data are needed about the effect of the drug on inpatient and outpatient events that reflect worsening heart failure.

METHODS

We randomly assigned 3730 patients with class II to IV heart failure with an ejection fraction of ≤40% to double-blind treatment with placebo or empagliflozin (10 mg once daily), in addition to recommended treatments for heart failure, for a median of 16 months. We prospectively collected information on inpatient and outpatient events reflecting worsening heart failure and prespecified their analysis in individual and composite end points.

RESULTS

Empagliflozin reduced the combined risk of death, hospitalization for heart failure or an emergent/urgent heart failure visit requiring intravenous treatment (415 versus 519 patients; empagliflozin versus placebo, respectively; hazard ratio [HR], 0.76; 95% CI, 0.67-0.87; P<0.0001). This benefit reached statistical significance at 12 days after randomization. Empagliflozin reduced the total number of heart failure hospitalizations that required intensive care (HR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.50-0.90; P=0.008) and that required a vasopressor or positive inotropic drug or mechanical or surgical intervention (HR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.47-0.87; P=0.005). As compared with placebo, fewer patients in the empagliflozin group reported intensification of diuretics (297 versus 414 [HR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.56-0.78; P<0.0001]). Additionally, patients assigned to empagliflozin were 20% to 40% more likely to experience an improvement in New York Heart Association functional class and were 20% to 40% less likely to experience worsening of New York Heart Association functional class, with statistically significant effects that were apparent 28 days after randomization and maintained during long-term follow-up. The risk of any inpatient or outpatient worsening heart failure event in the placebo group was high (48.1 per 100 patient-years of follow-up), and it was reduced by empagliflozin (HR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.63-0.78; P<0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with heart failure and a reduced ejection fraction, empagliflozin reduced the risk and total number of inpatient and outpatient worsening heart failure events, with benefits seen early after initiation of treatment and sustained for the duration of double-blind therapy. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT03057977.

1 year follow Up results of "ARTIM HF TRIAL" (angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor effect on TEI index & left ventricular mass in heart failure)

Background

Sacubitril/Valsartan (ARNI) has now class 1 recommendation for treatment of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). It has been shown to reduce cardiovascular morbidity & mortality in Heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and significant improvement in all echocardiographic parameters besides TEI index. Tei index is a marker of inflammation, myocardial cell metabolism and its contractile function has not been evaluated as a distinctive entity so we took up this study to evaluate the effects of ARNI on the LV functions using two dimensional (2D)ECHO parameters in Indian population and to assess TEI index for myocardial function.

Methods

256 patients with class II, III or IV HF and EF<40% were enrolled. 171(66.8%) were males and 85(33.2%) were females. Patients were evaluated at baseline, 6 and 12 months for LVEF, LV mass &,LVMPI. Drug was discontinued in 2 patients due to angioedema, in 5 patients due to acute kidney injury and in 2 patients due to hypotension. LV mass measurement done by linear echocardiographic method and Flow Doppler method used for TEI index calculation.

Results

Baseline parameters in 247 patients were mean EF = 26.33 ± 6.28%, mean LV mass = 270.84 ± 68.94 gm, mean Tei Index = 0.852 ± 0.22. ARNI use was associated with an average gradual increase in EF, from a mean baseline of 26.33 ± 6.28% to 33.88 ± 7.73%(p = 0.000001) after 1 year of treatment. There was a significant progressive reduction of 57.97 g/m2 in mean LV mass index after 1 year of treatment (p = 0.000001).TEI index showed significant reduction from baseline mean 0.85 ± 0.22 to 0.70 ± 0.12(p = 0.000001)after 1 year of treatment.

Conclusion

Use of ARNI as additive adjunct to standard care of treatment resulted in significant progressive decline in LV mass and increase in TEI index.

A Prospective, Multicenter, Post-Marketing Surveillance Study to Evaluate the Safety and Effectiveness of Tolvaptan in Patients with Reduced, Preserved, and Mid-Range Ejection Fraction Heart Failure

Tolvaptan, a vasopressin V₂ receptor antagonist, is approved in Japan for the treatment of fluid retention in patients with heart failure (HF), and in the United States for hyponatremia. The efficacy and safety of tolvaptan in patients with HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) have been demonstrated previously. However, its efficacy in patients with HF having preserved (HFpEF) and mid-range (HFmrEF) ejection fraction (EF) remains uncertain. The present subgroup analysis from the post-marketing surveillance SMILE Study aims to explore the efficacy and safety of tolvaptan across the HF subgroups (HFrEF, HFpEF, and HFmrEF).Patients with HF accompanied by fluid retention who received tolvaptan were enrolled. Primary endpoints were: change in body weight, 24-hour urine volume, congestive symptoms, and safety over 14-day treatment. Of the 3,349 patients enrolled, left ventricular EF data were available for 1,741 patients; 45.7% had HFpEF. Tolvaptan treatment resulted in body weight reduction and increases in 24-hour urine volume across the 3 subgroups. Congestive symptoms significantly improved over the 14-day treatment in all subgroups. The frequency of adverse events (AEs) was comparable across the subgroups; thirst was the most common AE.Tolvaptan provides a safe and effective option for treating fluid retention in patients with HFpEF, as well as HFmrEF and HFrEF.

Rationale and methods of the Prospective Study of Biomarkers, Symptom Improvement, and Ventricular Remodeling During Sacubitril/Valsartan Therapy for Heart Failure (PROVE-HF)

BACKGROUND

Sacubitril/valsartan is an angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor indicated for the treatment of patients with chronic heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction; however, its mechanism of benefit remains unclear. Biomarkers that are linked to ventricular remodeling, myocardial injury, and fibrosis may provide mechanistic insight and important clinical guidance regarding sacubitril/valsartan use.

METHODS

This 52-week, multicenter, open-label, single-arm study is designed to (1) correlate biomarker changes with cardiac remodeling parameters, cardiovascular outcomes, and patient-reported outcome data and (2) determine short- and long-term changes in concentrations of biomarkers related to potential mechanisms of action and effects of sacubitril/valsartan therapy. Approximately 830 patients with HF with reduced ejection fraction will be initiated and titrated on sacubitril/valsartan according to United States prescribing information. Primary efficacy end points include the changes in N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide concentrations and cardiac remodeling from baseline to 1 year. Secondary end points include changes in concentrations of N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide and remodeling to 6 months, and changes in patient-reported outcomes using the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire-23 from baseline to 1 year. In addition, several other relevant biomarkers will be measured. Biomarker changes relative to the number of cardiovascular events in 12 months will also be assessed as exploratory end points.

CONCLUSIONS

Results from the Prospective Study of Biomarkers, Symptom Improvement, and Ventricular Remodeling During Sacubitril/Valsartan Therapy for Heart Failure (PROVE-HF) will help establish a mechanistic understanding of angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor therapeutic benefits and provide clinicians with clarity on how to interpret information on biomarkers during treatment (PROVE-HF ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02887183).

New medicinal products for chronic heart failure: advances in clinical trial design and efficacy assessment

Despite the availability of a number of different classes of therapeutic agents with proven efficacy in heart failure, the clinical course of heart failure patients is characterized by a reduction in life expectancy, a progressive decline in health-related quality of life and functional status, as well as a high risk of hospitalization. New approaches are needed to address the unmet medical needs of this patient population. The European Medicines Agency (EMA) is undertaking a revision of its Guideline on Clinical Investigation of Medicinal Products for the Treatment of Chronic Heart Failure. The draft version of the Guideline was released for public consultation in January 2016. The Cardiovascular Round Table of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC), in partnership with the Heart Failure Association of the ESC, convened a dedicated two-day workshop to discuss three main topic areas of major interest in the field and addressed in this draft EMA guideline: (i) assessment of efficacy (i.e. endpoint selection and statistical analysis); (ii) clinical trial design (i.e. issues pertaining to patient population, optimal medical therapy, run-in period); and (iii) research approaches for testing novel therapeutic principles (i.e. cell therapy). This paper summarizes the key outputs from the workshop, reviews areas of expert consensus, and identifies gaps that require further research or discussion. Collaboration between regulators, industry, clinical trialists, cardiologists, health technology assessment bodies, payers, and patient organizations is critical to address the ongoing challenge of heart failure and to ensure the development and market access of new therapeutics in a scientifically robust, practical and safe way.