Angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibition versus individualized RAAS blockade: design and rationale of the PARALLAX trial

Effects of Semaglutide on Symptoms, Function, and Quality of Life in Patients With Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction and Obesity: A Prespecified Analysis of the STEP-HFpEF Trial

BACKGROUND

Patients with heart failure (HF) with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) and obesity experience a high burden of symptoms and functional impairment, and a poor quality of life. In the STEP-HFpEF trial (Research Study to Investigate How Well Semaglutide Works in People Living With Heart Failure and Obesity), once-weekly semaglutide 2.4 mg improved symptoms, physical limitations, and exercise function, and reduced inflammation and body weight. This prespecified analysis investigated the effects of semaglutide on the primary and confirmatory secondary end points across the range of the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ) scores at baseline and on all key summary and individual KCCQ domains.

METHODS

STEP-HFpEF randomly assigned 529 participants with symptomatic HF, an ejection fraction of ≥45%, and a body mass index of ≥30 kg/m2 to once-weekly semaglutide 2.4 mg or placebo for 52 weeks. Dual primary end points change in KCCQ-Clinical Summary Score (CSS) and body weight. Confirmatory secondary end points included change in 6-minute walk distance, a hierarchical composite end point (death, HF events, and change in KCCQ-CSS and 6-minute walk distance) and change in C-reactive protein. Patients were stratified by KCCQ-CSS tertiles at baseline. Semaglutide effects on the primary, confirmatory secondary, and select exploratory end points (N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide) were examined across these subgroups. Semaglutide effects on additional KCCQ domains (Total Symptom Score [including symptom burden and frequency], Physical Limitations Score, Social Limitations Score, Quality of Life Score, and Overall Summary Score) were also evaluated.

RESULTS

Baseline median KCCQ-CSS across tertiles was 37, 59, and 77 points, respectively. Semaglutide consistently improved primary end points across KCCQ tertiles 1 to 3 (estimated treatment differences [95% CI]: for KCCQ-CSS, 10.7 [5.4 to 16.1], 8.1 [2.7 to 13.4], and 4.6 [-0.6 to 9.9] points; for body weight, -11 [-13.2 to -8.8], -9.4 [-11.5 to -7.2], and -11.8 [-14.0 to -9.6], respectively; Pinteraction=0.28 and 0.29, respectively); the same was observed for confirmatory secondary and exploratory end points (Pinteraction>0.1 for all). Semaglutide-treated patients experienced improvements in all key KCCQ domains (estimated treatment differences, 6.7-9.6 points across domains; P≤0.001 for all). Greater proportion of semaglutide-treated versus placebo-treated patients experienced at least 5-, 10-, 15-, and 20-point improvements in all KCCQ domains (odds ratios, 1.6-2.9 across domains; P<0.05 for all).

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with HFpEF and obesity, semaglutide produced large improvements in HF-related symptoms, physical limitations, exercise function, inflammation, body weight, and N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide, regardless of baseline health status. The benefits of semaglutide extended to all key KCCQ domains.

REGISTRATION

URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT04788511.

Effect on the Quality of Life of Patients with Heart Failure and Reduced/Preserved Ejection Fraction Using Sacubitril/Valsartan

BACKGROUND

Heart failure (HF) management has markedly improved, but a clinically meaningful improvement in functional capacity and quality of life is perhaps more important for patients than living longer.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to review the improvement in quality of life with sacubitril/valsartan in patients with HF and reduced/preserved ejection fraction (EF) from prospective clinical trials.

METHODS

PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and prospective cohort studies published from inception to July 2021. A total of 6 clinical trials and 16854 patients with HF were included. The primary outcome was the change from baseline in KCCQ clinical summary score. The secondary outcomes were scores in other domains of KCCQ, the occurrence of serious adverse events (AEs), and overall mortality. P-values <0.05 were considered statistically significant.

RESULTS

Treatment of sacubitril/valsartan showed significantly higher KCCQ-CSS compared to the control (WMD=0.975, 95% CI: 0.885, 1.064, p<0.001; I2=94.8%, pheterogeneity<0.001). A significant decrease in the mortality rate was observed in the sacubitril/valsartan group compared to the control group (RR=0.895, 95%CI:0.831, 0.965, p=0.004; I2=43.6%, pheterogeneity=0.150). Nevertheless, no significant reduction in the occurrence of serious AEs was found among HF patients treated with sacubitril/valsartan compared to the control group (RR=0.950, 95%CI: 0.879, 1.027, p<0.001; I2=68.1%, pheterogeneity=0.024).

CONCLUSIONS

Our study demonstrated that sacubitril/valsartan might significantly improve the HRQL compared to other treatments according to the results in KCCQ-CSS and some subdomains in the KCCQ index during the follow-up in patients with HF.

The efficacy and safety of sacubitril/valsartan compared with ACEI/ARB in the treatment of heart failure following acute myocardial infarction: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Purpose: To systematically assess the efficacy and safety of sacubitril/valsartan (SV) by comparison with angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) or angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) for the treatment of heart failure caused by acute myocardial infarction (HF-AMI) based on current randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Methods: Several electronic databases were searched up to 27 May 2023. Primary endpoints were the efficacy including the left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), left ventricular end-diastolic diameter (LVEDD), N-terminal pro-B type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) and 6-min walk test (6MWT) and secondary endpoints were the safety including the major adverse cardiovascular event (MACE) and adverse reaction (AE). Results: A total of 14 RCTs were included and all patients were from China. Among included 1,991 patients, 997 patients received SVs and 994 patients received ACEIs/ARBs. The pooled results demonstrated that patients in the SV group showed significantly better efficacy representing as increased LVEF [weighted mean difference (WMD): 4.43%, 95% confidence interval (CI): 2.84%-6.02%, p < 0.001] and 6MWT (WMD: 30.84 m, 95% CI: 25.65 m-36.03 m, p < 0.001) and decreased LVEDD (WMD: -3.24 mm, 95% CI: -4.96 mm ∼ -1.52 mm, p < 0.001) and NT-proBNP (WMD: -188.12 pg/mL, 95% CI: -246.75 pg/mL ∼ 129.49 pg/mL, p < 0.001), which was also verified by subgroup analysis based on the history of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Besides, the SV group showed significantly lower incidence rate of MACE [relative risk (RR): 0.60, 95% CI: 0.47-0.75, p < 0.001] and patients receiving SVs in the non-PCI group also showed lower incidence of AE (RR: 0.38, 95% CI: 0.20-0.71, p = 0.002). Conclusion: For the treatment of HF-AMI, SV is more effective and safer than ACEI/ARB based on current evidence, but more high-quality RCTs are still needed to verify above findings.

Effect of Sacubitril-Valsartan on Quality of Life, Functional and Exercise Capacity in Heart Failure with Preserved Ejection Fraction (HFpEF): A Systematic Review of Randomized Clinical Trials

Background: Sacubitril/Valsartan use in heart failure has shown promising results in early trials. However, the effects on the overall functional capacity, exercise capacity, and quality of life are unknown. Aims: We aimed to understand the results of studies that attempted to measure these outcomes that affect the mobility and day-to-day life of these patients. Methods: MEDLINE, PubMed, PubMed Central (PMC), Google Scholar, ClinicalTrials.gov, and ISRCTN were explored to look for clinical trials relevant to the literature. Results: A total of three high-quality randomized controlled trials were discovered that evaluated the effect of sacubitril-valsartan on functional capacity, exercise capacity, or quality of life. All of them were industry-funded and revealed no statistical difference in the mentioned outcomes. No study measured peak oxygen uptake or ventilation/carbon dioxide ratio slope. Conclusion: Sacubitril-valsartan had minimal to no impact on functional capacity, exercise capacity, or quality of life. However, future prospective studies with more sensitive outcome measures should be conducted to validate the findings.

Effects of sacubitril-valsartan on heart failure patients with mid-range ejection fractions: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Aim: The effect of sacubitril-valsartan (ARNI) in heart failure (HF) patients with mid-range ejection fractions (HFmrEF) remains unclear. This study aimed to investigate the effects of ARNI in HFmrEF patients. Methods: From inception to 15 February 2022, articles were searched via PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Whip, and Wanfang databases. Left ventricular functions, indicators related to HF, quality of life score, 6-Minute Walk Test, total effective rate, mortality, readmission rate, and adverse events were the outcomes. Relative risk (RR), weighted mean difference (WMD), and 95% confidence interval (CI) were used to evaluate the outcomes. The heterogeneity test was conducted for each indicator and measured by I2 statistics. Subgroup analysis was performed regarding the type of study and duration of treatment. Results: Sixteen studies involving 1,937 patients were included in this study. Our results showed ARNI was likely to improve left ventricular function by increasing the left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) (WMD: 2.36, 95%CI: 1.09-3.62), stroke volume (WMD: 16.800, 95%CI: 11.385-22.215), and left ventricular short-axis shortening rate (WMD: 2.05, 95%CI: 0.25-3.86), decreasing left ventricular end-diastolic dimension (WMD: -2.48, 95%CI: -3.83 to -1.13), left atrial diameter (WMD: -2.23, 95%CI: -2.83 to -1.63), C-reactive protein level (WMD: -1.40, 95%CI: -2.62 to -0.18), and N-terminal-pro B-type natriuretic peptide level (WMD: -494.92, 95%CI: -641.34 to -348.50). ARNI has a higher total effective rate (RR: 1.15, 95%CI: 1.08-1.21), Kansas City cardiomyopathy questionnaire (WMD: 4.13, 95%CI: 3.46-4.81), and 6-Minute Walk Test (WMD: 51.35, 95%CI: 26.99-75.71) compared with angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEI) and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARB). In addition, ARNI decreased the readmission rate (RR: 0.54, 95%CI: 0.43-0.68) (all p < 0.05). Nevertheless, there were no significant differences in the adverse outcomes. Conclusion: This meta-analysis suggests ARNI may be an effective strategy with which to improve the left ventricular function, and quality of life, and reduce the readmission rate in HFmrEF patients. However, long-term clinical studies with large samples are still needed to further explore the efficacy and safety of ARNI compared with ACEI or ARB in the HFmrEF population.

Efficacy and safety of sacubitril/valsartan on heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Aims

The efficacy and safety of sacubitril/valsartan for patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) are controversial. Hence, the primary objective of the study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of sacubitril/valsartan treatment for patients with HFpEF.

Methods and results

We used the PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science databases to search for randomized controlled trials of sacubitril–valsartan in patients with HFpEF. Three studies, involving a total of 7,663 patients, were eligible for inclusion. Sacubitril–valsartan reduced the risk of hospitalization for heart failure (HF) [odds ratio (OR): 0.78; 95% CI: 0.70–0.88; p &lt; 0.0001] and the incidence of worsening renal function [risk ratio (RR): 0.79, p = 0.002] among patients with HFpEF in the three trials, but there was no significant reduction in all-cause mortality (0.99, 95% CI: 0.84–1.15; p = 0.86) or cardiovascular mortality (0.95, 95% CI: 0.78–1.15; p = 0.16). Moreover, sacubitril/valsartan was associated with an increased risk of symptomatic hypotension (RR: 1.44; p &lt; 0.00001) and angioedema (RR: 2.66; p &lt; 0.04); there was no difference for decreasing the incidence of hyperkalemia (RR: 0.89; p = 0.11).

Conclusion

Compared with valsartan or individualized medical therapy (IMT), sacubitril/valsartan significantly decreased the risk of hospitalization for HF and reduced the incidence of renal dysfunction.

Prognostic Impact of the HFA-PEFF Score in Patients with Acute Myocardial Infarction and an Intermediate to High HFA-PEFF Score

This study aimed to investigate the efficacy of the HFA-PEFF score in predicting the long-term risks in patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) and an HFA-PEFF score ≥ 2. The subjects were divided according to their HFA-PEFF score into intermediate (2−3 points) and high (4−6 points) score groups. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality. Of 1018 patients with AMI and an HFA-PEFF score of ≥2, 712 (69.9%) and 306 (30.1%) were classified into the intermediate and high score groups, respectively. Over a median follow-up of 4.8 (3.2, 6.5) years, 114 (16.0%) and 87 (28.4%) patients died in each group. Multivariate Cox regression identified a high HFA-PEFF score as an independent predictor of all-cause mortality [hazard ratio (HR): 1.53, 95% CI: 1.15−2.04, p = 0.004]. The predictive accuracies for the discrimination and reclassification were significantly improved (C-index 0.750 [95% CI 0.712−0.789]; p = 0.049 and NRI 0.330 [95% CI 0.180−0.479]; p < 0.001) upon the addition of a high HFA-PEFF score to clinical risk factors. The model was better at predicting combined events of all-cause mortality and heart failure readmission (C-index 0.754 [95% CI 0.716−0.791]; p = 0.033, NRI 0.372 [95% CI 0.227−0.518]; p < 0.001). In the AMI cohort, the HFA-PEFF score can effectively predict the prognosis of patients with an HFA-PEFF score of ≥2.

Effect of Angiotensin-Neprilysin Versus Renin-Angiotensin System Inhibition on Renal Outcomes: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Aims: We aim to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis examining randomized controlled trials assessing the efficacy and safety of sacubitril/valsartan in patients on renal outcomes, in comparison with the renin–angiotensin–aldosterone system inhibitor (RAASi).

Methods: Eligible studies were retrieved on MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane until September 2021. The primary outcome was the incidence of renal impairment, which was defined as the composite of increases in serum creatinine by >0.3 mg/dl and/or a reduction in eGFR ≥25%, development of ESRD, or renal death. We pooled relative risks (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) or the mean difference with 95% CIs for the variables.

Results: Our search yielded 10 randomized controlled trials with a total of 18,362 patients. Compared with RAASi treatment, patients treated with sacubitril/valsartan had lower incidence of composite renal impairment (10 studies, 18,362 patients, RR 0.84; 95% CI 0.72–0.96, p = 0.01; I² = 22%), ESRD development (3 studies, 13,609 patients, RR 0.53; 95% CI 0.30–0.96, p = 0.03; I² = 0%), drug discontinuation due to renal events (4 studies, 9,995 patients, RR 0.58; 95% CI 0.40–0.83, p = 0.003; I² = 47%), severe hyperkalemia (6 studies, 16,653 patients, RR 0.80; 95% CI 0.68–0.93, p = 0.01; I² = 25%) and a slower eGFR decline (4 studies, 13,608 patients, WMD 0.56; 95% CI 0.36–0.76, p < 0.00001; I² = 65%). Subgroup analysis demonstrated that sacubitril/valsartan was associated with a lower incidence of renal impairment in patients with heart failure and preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), but not in those with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). The superior renal function preservation of sacubitril/valsartan treatment was not associated with different baseline eGFR levels and follow-up duration. There was a smaller increase in the change in the urine albumin-to-creatinine ratio (UACR) (3 studies, 9,114 patients, SMD 0.06; 95% CI 0.02–0.10, p = 0.003; I² = 14%) with sacubitril/valsartan treatment. However, patients with heart failure appeared to have increased microalbuminuria, not patients without HF (p = 0.80 for interaction).

Conclusion: Sacubitril/valsartan was associated with a lower incidence of composite renal impairment especially in patients with HFpEF, but higher microalbuminuria in patients with heart failure (both HFrEF and HFpEF) compared with RAASi. The lower incidence of severe hyperkalemia and drug discontinuation due to renal events in patients with sacubitril/valsartan treatment demonstrated its superior safety compared with RAASi.

Do we need a definition of acute heart failure with preserved ejection fraction?

Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) might soon become the most prevalent type of acute heart failure. Still, despite more than 30 years of research on HFpEF, not only do we lack specific treatment, but also a generally accepted definition of HFpEF. Since 2016, several definitions and algorithms have been proposed for diagnosing both diastolic dysfunction and overt HFpEF. However, all of them focus exclusively on chronic (and not acute) HFpEF. Recent studies showed that acute HFpEF may be overdiagnosed in patients presenting with acute dyspnoea. The aim of our article was to address two questions: (1) why there is a need for specific diagnostic criteria for acute HFpEF, and (2) what such definition of acute HFpEF should encompass.KEY MESSAGES:Several scores and algorithms have been proposed for diagnosing chronic heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), however, so far, there is no definition of acute HFpEF.Acute HFpEF seems to be overdiagnosed in patients presenting with acute dyspnoea.Definition of acute HFpEF should comprise both (1) features of chronic HFpEF and (2) markers of increased left ventricular filling pressures and/or of pulmonary congestion.

Predictive Value of HFA-PEFF Score in Patients With Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction

Aims: HFA-PEFF score has been proposed for diagnosing heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). Currently, there are only a limited number of tools for predicting the prognosis. In this study, we evaluated whether the HFA-PEFF score can predict mortality in patients with HFpEF.

Methods: This single-center, retrospective observational study enrolled patients diagnosed with HFpEF at the First Affiliated Hospital of Dalian Medical University between January 1, 2015, and April 30, 2018. The subjects were divided according to their HFA-PEFF score into low (0–2 points), intermediate (3–4 points), and high (5–6 points) score groups. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality.

Results: A total of 358 patients (mean age: 70.21 ± 8.64 years, 58.1% female) were included. Of these, 63 (17.6%), 156 (43.6%), and 139 (38.8%) were classified into the low, intermediate, and high score groups, respectively. Over a mean follow-up of 26.9 months, 46 patients (12.8%) died. The percentage of patients who died in the low, intermediate, and high score groups were 1 (1.6%), 18 (11.5%), and 27 (19.4%), respectively. A multivariate Cox regression identified HFA-PEFF score as an independent predictor of all-cause mortality [hazard ratio (HR):1.314, 95% CI: 1.013–1.705, P = 0.039]. A Cox analysis demonstrated a significantly higher rate of mortality in the intermediate (HR: 4.912, 95% CI 1.154–20.907, P = 0.031) and high score groups (HR: 5.291, 95% CI: 1.239–22.593, P = 0.024) than the low score group. A receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis indicated that the HFA-PEFF score can effectively predict all-cause mortality after adjusting for age and New York Heart Association (NYHA) class [area under the curve (AUC) 0.726, 95% CI 0.651–0.800, P = 0.000]. With an HFA-PEFF score cut-off value of 3.5, the sensitivity and specificity were 78.3 and 54.8%, respectively. The AUC on ROC analysis for the biomarker component of the score was similar to that of the total score.

Conclusions: The HFA-PEFF score can be used both to diagnose HFpEF and predict the prognosis. The higher scores are associated with higher all-cause mortality.

Effect of Sacubitril/Valsartan vs Standard Medical Therapies on Plasma NT-proBNP Concentration and Submaximal Exercise Capacity in Patients With Heart Failure and Preserved Ejection Fraction: The PARALLAX Randomized Clinical Trial

IMPORTANCE

There is limited evidence on the benefits of sacubitril/valsartan vs broader renin angiotensin system inhibitor background therapy on surrogate outcome markers, 6-minute walk distance, and quality of life in patients with heart failure and mildly reduced or preserved left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF >40%).

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the effect of sacubitril/valsartan on N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) levels, 6-minute walk distance, and quality of life vs background medication-based individualized comparators in patients with chronic heart failure and LVEF of more than 40%.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

A 24-week, randomized, double-blind, parallel group clinical trial (August 2017-October 2019). Of 4632 patients screened at 396 centers in 32 countries, 2572 patients with heart failure, LVEF of more than 40%, elevated NT-proBNP levels, structural heart disease, and reduced quality of life were enrolled (last follow-up, October 28, 2019).

INTERVENTIONS

Patients were randomized 1:1 either to sacubitril/valsartan (n = 1286) or to background medication-based individualized comparator (n = 1286), ie, enalapril, valsartan, or placebo stratified by prior use of a renin angiotensin system inhibitor.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Primary end points were change from baseline in plasma NT-proBNP level at week 12 and in the 6-minute walk distance at week 24. Secondary end points were change from baseline in quality of life measures and New York Heart Association (NYHA) class at 24 weeks.

RESULTS

Among 2572 randomized patients (mean age, 72.6 years [SD, 8.5 years]; 1301 women [50.7%]), 2240 (87.1%) completed the trial. At baseline, the median NT-proBNP levels were 786 pg/mL in the sacubitril/valsartan group and 760 pg/mL in the comparator group. After 12 weeks, patients in the sacubitril/valsartan group (adjusted geometric mean ratio to baseline, 0.82 pg/mL) had a significantly greater reduction in NT-proBNP levels than did those in the comparator group (adjusted geometric mean ratio to baseline, 0.98 pg/mL) with an adjusted geometric mean ratio of 0.84 (95% CI, 0.80 to 0.88; P < .001). At week 24, there was no significant between-group difference in median change from baseline in the 6-minute walk distance with an increase of 9.7 m vs 12.2 m (adjusted mean difference, -2.5 m; 95% CI, -8.5 to 3.5; P = .42). There was no significant between-group difference in the mean change in the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire clinical summary score (12.3 vs 11.8; mean difference, 0.52; 95% CI, -0.93 to 1.97) or improvement in NYHA class (23.6% vs 24.0% of patients; adjusted odds ratio, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.81 to 1.18). The most frequent adverse events in the sacubitril/valsartan group vs the comparator group were hypotension (14.1% vs 5.5%), albuminuria (12.3% vs 7.6%), and hyperkalemia (11.6% vs 10.9%).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Among patients with heart failure and left ventricular ejection factor of higher than 40%, sacubitril/valsartan treatment compared with standard renin angiotensin system inhibitor treatment or placebo resulted in a significantly greater decrease in plasma N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide levels at 12 weeks but did not significantly improve 6-minute walk distance at 24 weeks. Further research is warranted to evaluate potential clinical benefits of sacubitril/valsartan in these patients.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03066804.

Efficacy and safety of early initiation of Sacubitril/Valsartan in patients after acute myocardial infarction: A meta-analysis

Some randomized controlled trials have compared the effectiveness and safety outcomes between early initiation of Sacubitril/Valsartan and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) in patients after acute myocardial infarction. Therefore, our current meta-analysis aimed to clarify the confusion. Four Databases and relevant grey literature were searched for studies from inception to July 2, 2021. Two reviewers independently screened literature, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias. Four studies involving 6154 patients were included to perform meta-analysis. The results of meta-analysis showed that the left ventricular ejection fraction in the Sacubitril/Valsartan group was higher than the ACEI group (SMD: 0.37, 95% CI: 0.19-0.55, P = .000), the incidence of major adverse cardiac events in the Sacubitril/Valsartan group was lower than the ACEI group (RR: 0.61, 95% CI: 0.46-0.82, P = .001), while the incidences of cardiac death (RR: 1.00, 95% CI: 0.81-1.24, P = 1.000) and the heart failure hospitalization (RR: 0.62, 95% CI: 0.37-1.03, P = .065) showed no difference. For the incidences of myocardial infarction and the adverse side effects, there was no obvious advantage of the Sacubitril/Valsartan group over the ACEI group, because the meta-analysis was not performed due to the limited trials. This study indicated that early initiation of Sacubitril/Valsartan in patients after acute myocardial infarction was superior to ACEI in reducing the risks of major adverse cardiac events and left ventricular ejection fraction increasing. As for the other outcomes (the incidences of cardiac death, the heart failure hospitalization, the myocardial infarction and the adverse side effects), Sacubitril/Valsartan showed no obvious advantage than ACEI.

Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction in humans and mice: embracing clinical complexity in mouse models

Heart failure (HF) with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) is a multifactorial disease accounting for a large and increasing proportion of all clinical HF presentations. As a clinical syndrome, HFpEF is characterized by typical signs and symptoms of HF, a distinct cardiac phenotype and raised natriuretic peptides. Non-cardiac comorbidities frequently co-exist and contribute to the pathophysiology of HFpEF. To date, no therapy has proven to improve outcomes in HFpEF, with drug development hampered, at least partly, by lack of consensus on appropriate standards for pre-clinical HFpEF models. Recently, two clinical algorithms (HFA-PEFF and H₂FPEF scores) have been developed to improve and standardize the diagnosis of HFpEF. In this review, we evaluate the translational utility of HFpEF mouse models in the context of these HFpEF scores. We systematically recorded evidence of symptoms and signs of HF or clinical HFpEF features and included several cardiac and extra-cardiac parameters as well as age and sex for each HFpEF mouse model. We found that most of the pre-clinical HFpEF models do not meet the HFpEF clinical criteria, although some multifactorial models resemble human HFpEF to a reasonable extent. We therefore conclude that to optimize the translational value of mouse models to human HFpEF, a novel approach for the development of pre-clinical HFpEF models is needed, taking into account the complex HFpEF pathophysiology in humans.

Baseline characteristics of patients in the PARALLAX trial: insights into quality of life and exercise capacity in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction

AIMS

We sought to describe the baseline characteristics of PARALLAX [a randomized controlled trial of sacubitril/valsartan vs. individualized medical therapy in heart failure (HF) with mildly reduced and preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF)]; compare PARALLAX to recent HFpEF trials; and examine the clinical characteristics associated with quality of life (QOL) and 6-min walk test distance (6MWD).

METHODS AND RESULTS

A total of 2566 patients with HF and left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) >40% were randomized, of whom 96% had an LVEF ≥45%. Multivariable linear regression was used to determine characteristics associated with Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire clinical summary score (KCCQ-CSS) and 6MWD. Mean age was 73 ± 8 years, 51% were female, and comorbidities were common. Of the QOL measures tested in PARALLAX, the Short Form Health Survey-36 physical functioning score was most closely correlated with 6MWD (R = 0.41, P < 0.001), and outperformed the KCCQ physical limitation score (R = 0.33) and KCCQ-CSS (R = 0.31) on multivariable analyses. Female sex, higher body mass index, history of coronary artery disease, lower LVEF, and higher N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) were associated with worse (lower) KCCQ-CSS; older age, female sex, higher body mass index, diabetes, coronary artery disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, prior HF hospitalization, lower LVEF, and higher NT-proBNP were associated with shorter 6MWD (P < 0.05 for all associations).

CONCLUSIONS

PARALLAX is the largest HFpEF study to date to examine 6MWD together with QOL. The KCCQ-CSS and 6MWD were modestly correlated, and several factors were associated with worse values of both. These results provide insight into the association between QOL and exercise capacity in HFpEF.

Hypertension and heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: position paper by the European Society of Hypertension

Hypertension constitutes a major risk factor for heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). HFpEF is a prevalent clinical syndrome with increased cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. Specific guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) for HFpEF is not established due to lack of positive outcome data from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and limitations of available studies. Although available evidence is limited, control of blood pressure (BP) is widely regarded as central to the prevention and clinical care in HFpEF. Thus, in current guidelines including the 2018 European Society of Cardiology (ESC) and European Society of Hypertension (ESH) Guidelines, blockade of the renin-angiotensin system (RAS) with either angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers provides the backbone of BP-lowering therapy in hypertensive patients. Although superiority of RAS blockers has not been clearly shown in dedicated RCTs designed for HFpEF, we propose that this core drug treatment strategy is also applicable for hypertensive patients with HFpEF with the addition of some modifications. The latter apply to the use of spironolactone apart from the treatment of resistant hypertension and the use of the angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor. In addition, novel agents such as sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 inhibitors, currently already indicated for high-risk patients with diabetes to reduce heart failure hospitalizations, and finerenone represent promising therapies and results from ongoing RCTs are eagerly awaited. The development of an effective and practical classification of HFpEF phenotypes and GDMT through dedicated high-quality RCTs are major unmet needs in hypertension research and calls for action.

Heart Failure With Mid-range Ejection Fraction: A Distinctive Subtype or a Transitional Stage?

Heart failure with mid-range ejection fraction (HFmrEF) was first proposed by Lam and Solomon in 2014, and was listed as a new subtype of heart failure (HF) in 2016 European Society of Cardiology guidelines. Since then, HFmrEF has attracted an increasing amount of attention, and the number of related studies on this topic has grown rapidly. The diagnostic criteria on the basis of left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) are straightforward; however, LVEF is not a static parameter, and it changes dynamically during the course of HF. Thus, HFmrEF may not be an independent disease with a uniform pathophysiological process, but rather a collection of patients with different characteristics. HFmrEF is often associated with various cardiovascular and non-cardiovascular diseases. Thus, the pathophysiological mechanisms of HFmrEF are particularly complex, and its clinical phenotypes are diverse. The complexity and heterogeneity of HFmrEF may be one reason for inconsistent results between clinical studies. In fact, whether HFmrEF is a distinctive subtype or a transitional stage between HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and HF with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) is controversial. In this review, we discuss the clinical characteristics, treatment and prognosis of patients with HFmrEF, as well as the differences among HFmrEF, HFrEF, and HFpEF.

Beta-blockers and inhibitors of the renin-angiotensin aldosterone system for chronic heart failure with preserved ejection fraction

BACKGROUND

Beta-blockers and inhibitors of the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system improve survival and reduce morbidity in people with heart failure with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF); a review of the evidence is required to determine whether these treatments are beneficial for people with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF).

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of beta-blockers, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, angiotensin receptor blockers, angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitors, and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists in people with HFpEF.

SEARCH METHODS

We updated searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and one clinical trial register on 14 May 2020 to identify eligible studies, with no language or date restrictions. We checked references from trial reports and review articles for additional studies.  SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials with a parallel group design, enrolling adults with HFpEF, defined by LVEF greater than 40%.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 41 randomised controlled trials (231 reports), totalling 23,492 participants across all comparisons. The risk of bias was frequently unclear and only five studies had a low risk of bias in all domains. Beta-blockers (BBs) We included 10 studies (3087 participants) investigating BBs. Five studies used a placebo comparator and in five the comparator was usual care. The mean age of participants ranged from 30 years to 81 years. A possible reduction in cardiovascular mortality was observed (risk ratio (RR) 0.78, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.62 to 0.99; number needed to treat for an additional benefit (NNTB) 25; 1046 participants; three studies), however, the certainty of evidence was low. There may be little to no effect on all-cause mortality (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.00; 1105 participants; four studies; low-certainty evidence). The effects on heart failure hospitalisation, hyperkalaemia, and quality of life remain uncertain. Mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRAs) We included 13 studies (4459 participants) investigating MRA. Eight studies used a placebo comparator and in five the comparator was usual care. The mean age of participants ranged from 54.5 to 80 years. Pooled analysis indicated that MRA treatment probably reduces heart failure hospitalisation (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.69 to 0.98; NNTB = 41; 3714 participants; three studies; moderate-certainty evidence). However, MRA treatment probably has little or no effect on all-cause mortality (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.06; 4207 participants; five studies; moderate-certainty evidence) and cardiovascular mortality (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.11; 4070 participants; three studies; moderate-certainty evidence). MRA treatment may have little or no effect on quality of life measures (mean difference (MD) 0.84, 95% CI -2.30 to 3.98; 511 participants; three studies; low-certainty evidence). MRA treatment was associated with a higher risk of hyperkalaemia (RR 2.11, 95% CI 1.77 to 2.51; number needed to treat for an additional harmful outcome (NNTH) = 11; 4291 participants; six studies; high-certainty evidence). Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) We included eight studies (2061 participants) investigating ACEIs. Three studies used a placebo comparator and in five the comparator was usual care. The mean age of participants ranged from 70 to 82 years. Pooled analyses with moderate-certainty evidence suggest that ACEI treatment likely has little or no effect on cardiovascular mortality (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.42; 945 participants; two studies), all-cause mortality (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.45; 1187 participants; five studies) and heart failure hospitalisation (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.15; 1019 participants; three studies), and may result in little or no effect on the quality of life (MD -0.09, 95% CI -3.66 to 3.48; 154 participants; two studies; low-certainty evidence). The effects on hyperkalaemia remain uncertain. Angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) Eight studies (8755 participants) investigating ARBs were included. Five studies used a placebo comparator and in three the comparator was usual care. The mean age of participants ranged from 61 to 75 years. Pooled analyses with high certainty of evidence suggest that ARB treatment has little or no effect on cardiovascular mortality (RR 1.02, 95% 0.90 to 1.14; 7254 participants; three studies), all-cause mortality (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.11; 7964 participants; four studies), heart failure hospitalisation (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.02; 7254 participants; three studies), and quality of life (MD 0.41, 95% CI -0.86 to 1.67; 3117 participants; three studies). ARB was associated with a higher risk of hyperkalaemia (RR 1.88, 95% CI 1.07 to 3.33; 7148 participants; two studies; high-certainty evidence). Angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitors (ARNIs) Three studies (7702 participants) investigating ARNIs were included. Two studies used ARBs as the comparator and one used standardised medical therapy, based on participants' established treatments at enrolment. The mean age of participants ranged from 71 to 73 years. Results suggest that ARNIs may have little or no effect on cardiovascular mortality (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.15; 4796 participants; one study; moderate-certainty evidence), all-cause mortality (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.11; 7663 participants; three studies; high-certainty evidence), or quality of life (high-certainty evidence). However, ARNI treatment may result in a slight reduction in heart failure hospitalisation, compared to usual care (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.00; 7362 participants; two studies; moderate-certainty evidence). ARNI treatment was associated with a reduced risk of hyperkalaemia compared with valsartan (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.01; 5054 participants; two studies; moderate-certainty evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is evidence that MRA and ARNI treatment in HFpEF probably reduces heart failure hospitalisation but probably has little or no effect on cardiovascular mortality and quality of life. BB treatment may reduce the risk of cardiovascular mortality, however, further trials are needed. The current evidence for BBs, ACEIs, and ARBs is limited and does not support their use in HFpEF in the absence of an alternative indication. Although MRAs and ARNIs are probably effective at reducing the risk of heart failure hospitalisation, the treatment effect sizes are modest. There is a need for improved approaches to patient stratification to identify the subgroup of patients who are most likely to benefit from MRAs and ARNIs, as well as for an improved understanding of disease biology, and for new therapeutic approaches.

Treatment of Heart Failure With Mid-Range Ejection Fraction: A Summary of Current Evidence

Heart failure (HF) is a complex syndrome causing heavy burden in public health, and the modern objective assessment of it is based on the left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). In 2016, the European Society of Cardiology classified the “gray area” in HF with LVEF of 40–49% as a new HF phenotype (HFmrEF) in an attempt to uncover the specific characteristics and treatment of these patients, which might recover or worsen to HFpEF or HFrEF, respectively, or conversely from these two subtypes. Up to now, many studies have demonstrated that patients with HFmrEF would possibly gain more benefits from some targeted therapies with HFrEF than those with HFpEF. This review summarizes what is known about the findings in the treatment of HFmrEF and discusses what should be done to better define the peculiar HF phenotype in the future.

Rationale for the Use of Pirfenidone in Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction

Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) is a major public health problem with growing prevalence and poor outcomes, mainly due to the lack of an effective treatment. HFpEF pathophysiology is heterogeneous and complex. Recently a “new paradigm” has been proposed, suggesting that cardiovascular and non-cardiovascular coexisting comorbidities lead to a systemic inflammatory state, perturbing the physiology of the endothelium and the perivascular environment and engaging molecular pathways that ultimately converge to myocardial fibrosis. If inflammation and fibrosis are the “fil rouge” in the heterogeneous spectrum of HFpEF, anti-fibrotic and anti-inflammatory drugs may have a role in its treatment. Pirfenidone is an orally bioavailable drug with antifibrotic and anti-inflammatory properties already approved for the treatment of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis. Pirfenidone has been recently tested in animal models of myocardial fibrosis with promising results. Here we will review the rationale underlying the potential therapeutic effect of Pirfenidone in HFpEF.

Early Passive Leg Movement Prevents Against the Development of Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction in Rats

Exercising was reported by several studies to bring great benefits to heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), which reduced the hospitalization and the mortality of heart failure. However, the underlying mechanism of exercising on HFpEF remains unclear. In the present study, we designed and constructed a device that can perform early passive leg movement (ePLM) in rats and further observed whether treatment of ePLM exerts protective effects on HFpEF of rats. Rats were fed with high salt feed to establish an animal model of pre-clinical diastolic dysfunction (PDD), which would eventually develop into HFpEF, and then treated rats with ePLM. We conducted several experiments to evaluate the conditions of heart and blood vessel. The results show that diastolic functions of heart and blood vessel in rats were significantly improved by treatment of ePLM. We also found that pathological injuries of heart and blood vessel were ameliorated after treatment of ePLM. Moreover, treatment of ePLM decreased the protein levels of Collagen type I, Collagen type III, MMP2, and MMP9 in heart and blood vessel, indicating that cardiac and vascular fibrosis were reduced apparently by treatment of ePLM. Further investigation suggested that treatment of ePLM probably inhibit the activation of TGF-β1/Smad3 signaling pathway as well as promote the activation of Akt/eNOS signaling pathway in high salt diet induced HFpEF. In conclusion, treatment of ePLM alleviated high salt diet induced HFpEF by inhibiting fibrosis via suppressing TGF-β1/Smad3 signaling pathway as well as activating Akt/eNOS signaling pathway, implicating treatment of ePLM as a promising novel non-pharmacological approach for HFpEF.

Sacubitril/Valsartan Improves Diastolic Function But Not Skeletal Muscle Function in a Rat Model of HFpEF

The angiotensin receptor/neprilysin inhibitor Sacubitril/Valsartan (Sac/Val) has been shown to be beneficial in patients suffering from heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). However, the impact of Sac/Val in patients presenting with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) is not yet clearly resolved. The present study aimed to reveal the influence of the drug on the functionality of the myocardium, the skeletal muscle, and the vasculature in a rat model of HFpEF. Female obese ZSF-1 rats received Sac/Val as a daily oral gavage for 12 weeks. Left ventricle (LV) function was assessed every four weeks using echocardiography. Prior to organ removal, invasive hemodynamic measurements were performed in both ventricles. Vascular function of the carotid artery and skeletal muscle function were monitored. Sac/Val treatment reduced E/é ratios, left ventricular end diastolic pressure (LVEDP) and myocardial stiffness as well as myocardial fibrosis and heart weight compared to the obese control group. Sac/Val slightly improved endothelial function in the carotid artery but had no impact on skeletal muscle function. Our results demonstrate striking effects of Sac/Val on the myocardial structure and function in a rat model of HFpEF. While vasodilation was slightly improved, functionality of the skeletal muscle remained unaffected.

Narrative review in the current role of angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitors

Heart failure (HF) accounts for a tremendous burden on health care systems and the society. Since the landmark PARADIGM-HF trial, sacubitril/valsartan, the first in the class of angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI) showed superiority to enalapril in patients with HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). We performed a narrative literature review, hand-searched the reference lists of included articles and relevant reviews. Inhibition of neprilysin increases bradykinin, natriuretic peptides and adrenomedullin levels counteract the neurohormal activation that leads to sodium retention, vasoconstriction, and cardiac remodeling. In PARADIGM-HF the primary outcome of CV death or HF hospitalization was reduced 20% in the ARNI group (HR 0.80, P<0.001) similar to mortality due to cardiovascular cause (HR 0.80, P<0.001) in patients with HFrEF, rendering a number needed to treat of 21 patients. This effect was consistent across subgroups. The safety of starting ARNI inpatient once the acute decompensation of HF is stabilized was demonstrated in PIONEER-HF trial. With willingness-to-pay thresholds commonly acceptable in the United States, sacubitril/valsartan is likely to be cost effective, which might not be in other health systems. Although its safety has been reassured in some clinical trials, common side effects are hypotension, worsening kidney function, hyperkalemia and angioedema. In HFpEF (PARAGON-HF), sacubitril/valsartan showed decrease in the level of the cardiac biomarkers, with improve functional NYHA and decrease in hospitalizations, predominately in women and patients with borderline ejection fraction. Some ongoing studies aim to demonstrate the effects of ARNI in acute coronary syndrome, stable ischemic heart disease, advanced HF, mitral regurgitation, aortic impedance and pulmonary hypertension. In conclusion, sacubitril/valsartan has proven to be an effective addition to the HFrEF arsenal, with safety comparable to current standard of care. In HFpEF, it improves quality of life, particularly in women and in patients with borderline ejection fraction, with no effect on mortality.

Novelties in Therapy of Chronic Heart Failure

In recent decades, considerable advances have been made in the treatment of heart failure. The main target of heart failure therapy is the inhibition of the sympathetic nervous system and renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system. The angiotensin receptor blockers represent a breakthrough in the treatment of heart failure with a demonstrated effect on reduction of cardiovascular events. However, new perspectives derive from latest drugs developed for diabetes, iron deficiency, and hyperkalemia. New frontiers are also opened to the development of neurohormonal therapies, antagonists of inflammatory mediators, inotropic agents, and cell-based treatments.

Sacubitril/valsartan for the management of heart failure: A perspective viewpoint on current evidence

Current international guidelines recommend switching angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors (ACE-i) or angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) to sacubitril/valsartan (S/V) in stable outpatients affected by heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) who remain symptomatic despite being on optimal medical therapy. Since these guidelines were published, new data may support further clinical applications and benefits of S/V beyond ambulatory HFrEF patients. The efficacy of S/V seems to be consistent across a wider array of subgroups including age, sex, etiology of HF, comorbidities, EF and estimated cardiovascular risk, with safety and tolerability profiles similar to ACE-I and ARBs. Additional clinical trial data are required to confirm the potential benefits of S/V in patients with mid-range or preserved EF, as suggested by analysis of PARAGON-HF, or in combination with sodium-glucose co-transporter 2 inhibitors or in post-myocardial infarction HF. In this article we summarize the new evidence on the effects and safety profile of S/V in HF and discuss current perspectives and persisting gaps. Currently, available evidence may support S/V as a first-line therapy in outpatient or in-hospital HFrEF patients, and possibly also in HFmrEF patients.

Angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibition versus individualized RAAS blockade: design and rationale of the PARALLAX trial

Aims

Although the effect of the angiotensin receptor blocker neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI) sacubitril/valsartan on heart failure (HF) hospitalizations and cardiovascular death has been evaluated, its effects on functional capacity in patients with HF and ejection fraction (EF) >40% has yet to be determined. In addition, no prior studies have compared sacubitril/valsartan with angiotensin‐converting enzyme inhibitor therapy. We sought to compare the effect of ARNI to background‐medication‐based individualized comparators (BMICs) on N‐terminal pro‐B‐type natriuretic peptide (NT‐proBNP), functional capacity [6 min walk distance (6MWD)], symptoms, and quality of life [Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ)] in patients with HF and EF >40% in a randomized clinical trial.

Methods

PARALLAX is a prospective, randomized, controlled, double‐blind multicentre clinical trial in patients with chronic symptomatic HF with EF >40%, New York Heart Association (NYHA) class II–IV symptoms, elevated natriuretic peptides, and evidence of structural heart disease. Eligible patients are randomized to sacubitril/valsartan vs. BMIC for cardiovascular and related co‐morbidities. BMIC includes (i) enalapril, (ii) valsartan, and (iii) placebo depending on the type of medical therapy prior to enrolment. The primary endpoints are the change in plasma NT‐proBNP concentration from baseline to 12 weeks and the change from baseline in 6MWD distance at 24 weeks. The secondary endpoints assess quality of life and symptom burden.

Conclusions

PARALLAX will determine if sacubitril/valsartan compared with standard medical therapy for co‐morbidities improves NT‐proBNP levels, exercise capacity, quality of life, and symptom burden in HF patients with EF >40%.