High-sensitivity C-reactive protein in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: Findings from TOPCAT

BACKGROUND

Inflammation plays a central role in the genesis and progression of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). C-reactive protein (CRP) is widely used as means to assess systemic inflammation, and elevated levels of CRP have been associated with poor HF prognosis. Identification of chronic low-grade inflammation in outpatients can be performed measuring high-sensitivity CRP (hsCRP). The clinical characteristics and outcome associations of a pro-inflammatory state among outpatients with HFpEF requires further study.

AIMS

Using a biomarker subset of TOPCAT-Americas (NCT00094302), we aim to characterize HFpEF patients according to hsCRP levels and study the prognostic associations of hsCRP.

METHODS

hsCRP was available in a subset of 232 participants. Comparisons were performed between patients with hsCRP <2 mg/L and ≥ 2 mg/L. Cox regression models were used to study the association between hsCRP and the study outcomes.

RESULTS

Compared to patients with hsCRP <2 mg/L (n = 89, 38%), those with hsCRP ≥2 mg/L (n = 143, 62%) had more frequent HF hospitalizations prior to randomization, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, orthopnea, higher body mass index, and worse health-related quality-of-life. A hsCRP level ≥ 2 mg/L was associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular death and HF hospitalizations: hsCRP ≥2 mg/L vs <2 mg/L adjusted HR 2.36, 95%CI 1.27-4.38, P = 0.006. Spironolactone did not influence hsCRP levels from baseline to month 12: gMean ratio = 1.11, 95%CI 0.87-1.42, P = 0.39.

CONCLUSIONS

A hsCRP ≥2 mg/L identified HFpEF patients with a high risk of HF events and cardiovascular mortality. Spironolactone did not influence hsCRP levels at 12 months.

Previous heart failure hospitalization, spironolactone, and outcomes in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction - a secondary analysis of TOPCAT

BACKGROUND

Hospitalization for heart failure (HHF) is associated with poor postdischarge outcomes but the role of time since most recent HHF and potential treatment interactions are unknown. We aimed to assess history of and time since previous HHF, associations with composite of cardiovascular (CV) death and total HHF, first HHF and interactions with randomization to spironolactone, in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We assessed these objectives using uni- and multivariable regressions and spline analyses in TOPCAT-Americas. Among 1,765 patients, 66% had a previous HHF. Over a median of 2.9 years, 1,064 composite events of CV death or total HHFs occurred. Previous HHF was associated with more severe HF, and was independently associated with the composite outcome (HR 1.26, 95%CI 1.05-1.52, P = .014), and all secondary outcomes. A shorter time since most recent HHF appeared to be associated with subsequent first HHF, but not the composite of CV death or total HHF. Spironolactone had a significant interaction with previous HHF (interaction-P .046). Patients without a previous HHF had a larger effect of spironolactone on the composite outcome (HR 0.63, 95%CI 0.46-0.87, P = .005) than patients with a previous HHF (HR 0.91, 95%CI 0.78-1.06, P = .224).

CONCLUSION

In TOPCAT-Americas, previous HHF was associated with CV death and first and total HHF. Duration since most recent HHF seemed to be associated with time to first HHF only. Spironolactone was associated with better outcomes in patients without a previous HHF. This interaction is hypothesis-generating and requires validation in future trials.

Impact of baseline kidney dysfunction on oral diuretic efficacy following hospitalization for heart failure - insights from TRANSFORM-HF

AIM

Among patients discharged after hospitalization for heart failure (HF), a strategy of torsemide versus furosemide showed no difference in all-cause mortality or hospitalization. Clinicians have traditionally favoured torsemide in the setting of kidney dysfunction due to better oral bioavailability and longer half-life, but direct supportive evidence is lacking.

METHODS AND RESULTS

The TRANSFORM-HF trial randomized patients hospitalized for HF to a long-term strategy of torsemide versus furosemide, and enrolled patients across the spectrum of renal function (without dialysis). In this post-hoc analysis, baseline renal function during the index hospitalization was assessed as categories of estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR; <30, 30-<60, ≥60 ml/min/1.73 m2). The interaction between baseline renal function and treatment effect of torsemide versus furosemide was assessed with respect to mortality and hospitalization outcomes, and the change in Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire clinical summary score (KCCQ-CSS). Of 2859 patients randomized, 336 (11.8%) had eGFR <30 ml/min/1.73 m2, 1138 (39.8%) had eGFR 30-<60 ml/min/1.73 m2, and 1385 (48.4%) had eGFR ≥60 ml/min/1.73 m2. Baseline eGFR did not modify treatment effects of torsemide versus furosemide on all adverse clinical outcomes including individual components or composites of all-cause mortality and all-cause (re)-hospitalizations, both when assessing eGFR categorically or continuously (p-value for interaction all >0.108). Similarly, no treatment effect modification by eGFR was found for the change in KCCQ-CSS (p-value for interaction all >0.052) when assessing eGFR categorically or continuously.

CONCLUSION

Among patients discharged after hospitalization for HF, there was no significant difference in clinical and patient-reported outcomes between torsemide and furosemide, irrespective of renal function.

Validation of the Klinrisk chronic kidney disease progression model in the FIDELITY population

Background

Chronic kidney disease (CKD) affects >800 million individuals worldwide and is often underrecognized. Early detection, identification and treatment can delay disease progression. Klinrisk is a proprietary CKD progression risk prediction model based on common laboratory data to predict CKD progression. We aimed to externally validate the Klinrisk model for prediction of CKD progression in FIDELITY (a prespecified pooled analysis of two finerenone phase III trials in patients with CKD and type 2 diabetes). In addition, we sought to identify evidence of an interaction between treatment and risk.

Methods

The validation cohort included all participants in FIDELITY up to 4 years. The primary and secondary composite outcomes included a ≥40% decrease in estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) or kidney failure, and a ≥57% decrease in eGFR or kidney failure. Prediction discrimination was calculated using area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC). Calibration plots were calculated by decile comparing observed with predicted risk.

Results

At time horizons of 2 and 4 years, 993 and 1795 patients experienced a primary outcome event, respectively. The model predicted the primary outcome accurately with an AUC of 0.81 for 2 years and 0.86 for 4 years. Calibration was appropriate at both 2 and 4 years, with Brier scores of 0.067 and 0.115, respectively. No evidence of interaction between treatment and risk was identified for the primary composite outcome (P = .31).

Conclusions

Our findings demonstrate the accuracy and utility of a laboratory-based prediction model for early identification of patients at the highest risk of CKD progression.

Finerenone cardiovascular and kidney outcomes by age and sex: FIDELITY post hoc analysis of two phase 3, multicentre, double-blind trials

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of finerenone, a selective, non-steroidal mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist, on cardiovascular and kidney outcomes by age and/or sex.

DESIGN

FIDELITY post hoc analysis; median follow-up of 3 years.

SETTING

FIDELITY: a prespecified analysis of the FIDELIO-DKD and FIGARO-DKD trials.

PARTICIPANTS

Adults with type 2 diabetes and chronic kidney disease receiving optimised renin-angiotensin system inhibitors (N=13 026).

INTERVENTIONS

Randomised 1:1; finerenone or placebo.

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES

Cardiovascular (cardiovascular death, non-fatal myocardial infarction, non-fatal stroke or hospitalisation for heart failure (HHF)) and kidney (kidney failure, sustained ≥57% estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) decline or renal death) composite outcomes.

RESULTS

Mean age was 64.8 years; 45.2%, 40.1% and 14.7% were aged <65, 65-74 and ≥75 years, respectively; 69.8% were male. Cardiovascular benefits of finerenone versus placebo were consistent across age (HR 0.94 (95% CI 0.81 to 1.10) (<65 years), HR 0.84 (95% CI 0.73 to 0.98) (65-74 years), HR 0.80 (95% CI 0.65 to 0.99) (≥75 years); Pinteraction=0.42) and sex categories (HR 0.86 (95% CI 0.77 to 0.96) (male), HR 0.89 (95% CI 0.35 to 2.27) (premenopausal female), HR 0.87 (95% CI 0.73 to 1.05) (postmenopausal female); Pinteraction=0.99). Effects on HHF reduction were not modified by age (Pinteraction=0.70) but appeared more pronounced in males (Pinteraction=0.02). Kidney events were reduced with finerenone versus placebo in age groups <65 and 65-74 but not ≥75; no heterogeneity in treatment effect was observed (Pinteraction=0.51). In sex subgroups, finerenone consistently reduced kidney events (Pinteraction=0.85). Finerenone reduced albuminuria and eGFR decline regardless of age and sex. Hyperkalaemia increased with finerenone, but discontinuation rates were <3% across subgroups. Gynaecomastia in males was uncommon across age subgroups and identical between treatment groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Finerenone improved cardiovascular and kidney composite outcomes with no significant heterogeneity between age and sex subgroups; however, the effect on HHF appeared more pronounced in males. Finerenone demonstrated a similar safety profile across age and sex subgroups.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBERS

NCT02540993, NCT02545049.

Torsemide Versus Furosemide After Discharge in Patients Hospitalized With Heart Failure Across the Spectrum of Ejection Fraction: Findings From TRANSFORM-HF

BACKGROUND

The TRANSFORM-HF trial (Torsemide Comparison With Furosemide for Management of Heart Failure) found no significant difference in all-cause mortality or hospitalization among patients randomized to a strategy of torsemide versus furosemide following a heart failure (HF) hospitalization. However, outcomes and responses to some therapies differ by left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). Thus, we sought to explore the effect of torsemide versus furosemide by baseline LVEF and to assess outcomes across LVEF groups.

METHODS

We compared baseline patient characteristics and randomized treatment effects for various end points in TRANSFORM-HF stratified by LVEF: HF with reduced LVEF, ≤40% versus HF with mildly reduced LVEF, 41% to 49% versus HF with preserved LVEF, ≥50%. We also evaluated associations between LVEF and clinical outcomes. Study end points were all-cause mortality or hospitalization at 30 days and 12 months, total hospitalizations at 12 months, and change from baseline in Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire clinical summary score.

RESULTS

Overall, 2635 patients (median 64 years, 36% female, 34% Black) had LVEF data. Compared with HF with reduced LVEF, patients with HF with mildly reduced LVEF and HF with preserved LVEF had a higher prevalence of comorbidities. After adjusting for covariates, there was no significant difference in risk of clinical outcomes across the LVEF groups (adjusted hazard ratio for 12-month all-cause mortality, 0.91 [95% CI, 0.59-1.39] for HF with mildly reduced LVEF versus HF with reduced LVEF and 0.91 [95% CI, 0.70-1.17] for HF with preserved LVEF versus HF with reduced LVEF; P=0.73). In addition, there was no significant difference between torsemide and furosemide (1) for mortality and hospitalization outcomes, irrespective of LVEF group and (2) in changes in Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire clinical summary score in any LVEF subgroup.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite baseline demographic and clinical differences between LVEF cohorts in TRANSFORM-HF, there were no significant differences in the clinical end points with torsemide versus furosemide across the LVEF spectrum. There was a substantial risk for all-cause mortality and subsequent hospitalization independent of baseline LVEF.

REGISTRATION

URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT03296813.

Torsemide vs Furosemide Among Patients With New-Onset vs Worsening Chronic Heart Failure: A Substudy of the TRANSFORM-HF Randomized Clinical Trial

Importance

Differences in clinical profiles, outcomes, and diuretic treatment effects may exist between patients with de novo heart failure (HF) and worsening chronic HF (WHF).

Objectives

To compare clinical characteristics and treatment outcomes of torsemide vs furosemide in patients hospitalized with de novo HF vs WHF.

Design, Setting, and Participants

All patients with a documented ejection fraction who were randomized in the Torsemide Comparison With Furosemide for Management of Heart Failure (TRANSFORM-HF) trial, conducted from June 18 through March 2022, were included in this post hoc analysis. Study data were analyzed March to May 2023.

Exposure

Patients were categorized by HF type and further divided by loop diuretic strategy.

Main Outcomes and Measures

End points included all-cause mortality and hospitalization outcomes over 12 months, as well as change from baseline in the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire Clinical Summary Score (KCCQ-CSS).

Results

Among 2858 patients (mean [SD] age, 64.5 [14.0] years; 1803 male [63.1%]), 838 patients (29.3%) had de novo HF, and 2020 patients (70.7%) had WHF. Patients with de novo HF were younger (mean [SD] age, 60.6 [14.5] years vs 66.1 [13.5] years), had a higher glomerular filtration rate (mean [SD], 68.6 [24.9] vs 57.0 [24.0]), lower levels of natriuretic peptides (median [IQR], brain-type natriuretic peptide, 855.0 [423.0-1555.0] pg/mL vs 1022.0 [500.0-1927.0] pg/mL), and tended to be discharged on lower doses of loop diuretic (mean [SD], 50.3 [46.2] mg vs 63.8 [52.4] mg). De novo HF was associated with lower all-cause mortality at 12 months (de novo, 65 of 838 [9.1%] vs WHF, 408 of 2020 [25.4%]; adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 0.50; 95% CI, 0.38-0.66; P < .001). Similarly, lower all-cause first rehospitalization at 12 months and greater improvement from baseline in KCCQ-CSS at 12 months were noted among patients with de novo HF (median [IQR]: de novo, 29.94 [27.35-32.54] vs WHF, 23.68 [21.62-25.74]; adjusted estimated difference in means: 6.26; 95% CI, 3.72-8.81; P < .001). There was no significant difference in mortality with torsemide vs furosemide in either de novo (No. of events [rate per 100 patient-years]: torsemide, 27 [7.4%] vs furosemide, 38 [10.9%]; aHR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.40-1.14; P = .15) or WHF (torsemide 212 [26.8%] vs furosemide, 196 [24.0%]; aHR, 1.08; 95% CI, 0.89-1.32; P = .42; P for interaction = .10), In addition, no significant differences in hospitalizations, first all-cause hospitalization, or total hospitalizations at 12 months were noted with a strategy of torsemide vs furosemide in either de novo HF or WHF.

Conclusions and Relevance

Among patients discharged after hospitalization for HF, de novo HF was associated with better clinical and patient-reported outcomes when compared with WHF. Regardless of HF type, there was no significant difference between torsemide and furosemide with respect to 12-month clinical or patient-reported outcomes.

The current best drug treatment for hypertensive heart failure with preserved ejection fraction

More than 90 % of patients developing heart failure (HF) have hypertension. The most frequent concomitant conditions are type-2 diabetes mellitus, obesity, atrial fibrillation, and coronary disease. HF outcome research focuses on decreasing mortality and preventing hospitalization for worsening HF syndrome. All drugs that decrease these HF endpoints lower blood pressure. Current drug treatments for HF are (i) angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, angiotensin receptor blockers or angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitors, (ii) selected beta-blockers, (iii) steroidal and non-steroidal mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists, and (iv) sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors. For various reasons, these drug treatments were first studied in HF patients with a reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). Subsequently, they have been investigated in HF patients with a preserved left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF, HFpEF) of mostly hypertensive etiology, and with modest benefits largely assessed on top of background treatment with the drugs already proven effective in HFrEF. Additionally, diuretics are given on symptomatic indications. Patients with HFpEF may have diastolic dysfunction but also systolic dysfunction visualized by lack of longitudinal shortening. Considering the totality of evidence and the overall need for antihypertensive treatment and/or treatment of hypertensive complications in almost all HF patients, the principal drug treatment of HF appears to be the same regardless of LVEF. Rather than LVEF-guided treatment of HF, treatment of HF should be directed by symptoms (related to the level of fluid retention), signs (tachycardia), severity (NYHA functional class), and concomitant diseases and conditions. All HF patients should be given all the drug classes mentioned above if well tolerated.

Sotagliflozin and Kidney Outcomes, Kidney Function, and Albuminuria in T2DM and CKD: A Secondary Analysis of the SCORED Trial

INTRODUCTION

In the initial analysis of SCORED, due to early trial termination and suspension of adjudication, reconciliation of eGFR laboratory data and case report forms had not been completed. This resulted in a small number of kidney composite events and a nominal effect of sotagliflozin versus placebo on this outcome. This exploratory analysis uses laboratory eGFR data, regardless of case report form completion, to assess the effects of sotagliflozin on the predefined kidney composite endpoint in SCORED and additional cardiorenal composite endpoints.

METHODS

SCORED was a multicenter, randomized trial evaluating cardiorenal outcomes with sotagliflozin versus placebo in 10,584 patients with type 2 diabetes and chronic kidney disease (CKD). The present exploratory analyses used laboratory data to derive the eGFR components and case report form data for the non-laboratory defined components that together made up the kidney and cardiorenal composites. Acute kidney injury (AKI) was also assessed in this dataset.

RESULTS

Using laboratory data, 223 events were identified and sotagliflozin reduced the risk of the composite of first event of sustained ≥50% decline in eGFR, eGFR<15 mL/min/1.73m2, dialysis, or kidney transplant with 87 events (1.6%) in the sotagliflozin group and 136 events (2.6%) in the placebo group (HR [95% CI] = 0.62 [0.48, 0.82]), p<0.001). Sotagliflozin reduced the risk of a cardiorenal composite endpoint defined as the above composite plus cardiovascular or kidney death with 239 events (4.5%) in the sotagliflozin group and 306 events (5.7%) in the placebo group (HR [95% CI] = 0.77 [0.65, 0.91], p=0.0023). Results were consistent when using different eGFR decline thresholds and when only including kidney death in composites (all p<0.01). The incidence of AKI was similar between treatment groups.

CONCLUSIONS

In this exploratory analysis using the complete laboratory dataset, sotagliflozin reduced the risk of kidney and cardiorenal composite endpoints in patients with type 2 diabetes and CKD.

What Is the Current Best Drug Treatment for Hypertensive Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction? Review of the Totality of Evidence

BACKGROUND

More than 90% of patients developing heart failure (HF) have an epidemiological background of hypertension. The most frequent concomitant conditions are type 2 diabetes mellitus, obesity, atrial fibrillation, and coronary disease, all disorders/diseases closely related to hypertension.

METHODS

HF outcome research focuses on decreasing mortality and preventing hospitalization for worsening HF syndrome. All drugs that decrease these HF endpoints lower blood pressure. Current drug treatments for HF are (i) angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, angiotensin receptor blockers, or angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitors, (ii) selected beta-blockers, (iii) steroidal and nonsteroidal mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists, and (iv) sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors.

RESULTS

For various reasons, these drug treatments were first studied in HF patients with a reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). However, subsequently, they have been investigated and, as we see it, documented as beneficial in HF patients with a preserved left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF, HFpEF) and mostly hypertensive etiology, with effect estimates assessed partly on top of background treatment with the drugs already proven effective in HFrEF. Additionally, diuretics are given on symptomatic indications.

CONCLUSIONS

Considering the totality of evidence and the overall need for antihypertensive treatment and/or treatment of hypertensive complications in almost all HF patients, the principal drug treatment of HF appears to be the same regardless of LVEF. Rather than LVEF-guided treatment of HF, treatment of HF should be directed by symptoms (related to the level of fluid retention), signs (tachycardia), severity (NYHA functional class), and concomitant diseases and conditions. All HF patients should be given all the drug classes mentioned above if well tolerated.

Efficacy of finerenone in patients with type 2 diabetes, chronic kidney disease and altered markers of liver steatosis and fibrosis: A FIDELITY subgroup analysis

AIM

Investigating the effect of finerenone on liver function, cardiovascular and kidney composite outcomes in patients with chronic kidney disease and type 2 diabetes, stratified by their risk of liver steatosis, inflammation and fibrosis.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Post hoc analysis stratified patients (N = 13 026) by liver fibrosis and enzymes: high risk of steatosis (hepatic steatosis index >36); elevated transaminases [alanine transaminase (ALT) >33 (males) and >25 IU/L (females)]; and fibrosis-4 (FIB-4) index scores >3.25, >2.67 and >1.30. Liver enzymes were assessed by changes in ALT, aspartate aminotransferase and gamma-glutamyl transferase. Composite kidney outcome was defined as onset of kidney failure, sustained estimated glomerular filtration rate decline ≥57% from baseline over ≥4 weeks or kidney death. Composite cardiovascular outcome was defined as cardiovascular death, non-fatal myocardial infarction, non-fatal stroke or hospitalization for heart failure.

RESULTS

ALT, aspartate aminotransferase and gamma-glutamyl transferase levels were consistent between treatment groups and remained stable throughout. Finerenone consistently reduced the risk of composite kidney outcome, irrespective of altered liver tests. Higher FIB-4 score was associated with higher incidence rates of composite cardiovascular outcome. Finerenone reduced the risk of composite cardiovascular outcome versus placebo in FIB-4 subgroups by 52% (>3.25), 39% (>2.67) and 24% (>1.30) (p values for interaction = .01, .13 and .03, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

Finerenone has neutral effects on liver parameters in patients with chronic kidney disease and type 2 diabetes. Finerenone showed robust and consistent kidney benefits in patients with altered liver tests, and profound cardiovascular benefits even in patients with higher FIB-4 scores who were at high risk of developing cardiovascular complications.

Calcium channel blocker use and outcomes in patients with heart failure and mildly reduced and preserved ejection fraction

AIMS

Patients with heart failure (HF) and mildly reduced ejection fraction (HFmrEF) and preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) are often treated with calcium channel blockers (CCBs), although the safety of CCBs in these patients is uncertain. We aimed to investigate the association between CCB use and clinical outcomes in patients with HFmrEF/HFpEF; CCBs were examined overall, as well as by subtype (dihydropyridine and non-dihydropyridine).

METHODS AND RESULTS

We pooled individual patient data from four large HFpEF/HFmrEF trials. The association between CCB use and outcomes was assessed. Among the 16 954 patients included, the mean left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) was 56.8%, and 13 402 (79.0%) had HFpEF (LVEF ≥50%). Altogether, 5874 patients (34.6%) received a CCB (87.6% dihydropyridines). Overall, the risks of death and HF hospitalization were not higher in patients treated with a CCB, particularly dihydropyridines. The risk of pump failure death was significantly lower (hazard ratio [HR] 0.76, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.60-0.96), while the risk of stroke was higher (HR 1.26, 95% CI 1.06-1.50) in patients treated with a CCB compared to those not. These risks remained different in patients treated and not treated with a CCB after adjustment for other prognostic variables. Although the majority of patients were treated with dihydropyridine CCBs, the pattern of outcomes was broadly similar for both dihydropyridine and non-dihydropyridine CCBs.

CONCLUSION

Although this is an observational analysis of non-randomized treatment, there was no suggestion that CCBs were associated with worse HF outcomes. Indeed, CCB use was associated with a lower incidence of pump failure death.

Impact of Finerenone-Induced Albuminuria Reduction on Chronic Kidney Disease Outcomes in Type 2 Diabetes : A Mediation Analysis

BACKGROUND

In patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) and type 2 diabetes (T2D), finerenone, a nonsteroidal mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist, reduces cardiovascular and kidney failure outcomes. Finerenone also lowers the urine albumin-to-creatinine ratio (UACR). Whether finerenone-induced change in UACR mediates cardiovascular and kidney failure outcomes is unknown.

OBJECTIVE

To quantify the proportion of kidney and cardiovascular risk reductions seen over a 4-year period mediated by a change in kidney injury, as measured by the change in log UACR between baseline and month 4.

DESIGN

Post hoc mediation analysis using pooled data from 2 phase 3, double-blind trials of finerenone. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02540993 and NCT02545049).

SETTING

Several clinical sites in 48 countries.

PATIENTS

12 512 patients with CKD and T2D.

INTERVENTION

Finerenone and placebo (1:1).

MEASUREMENTS

Separate mediation analyses were done for the composite kidney (kidney failure, sustained ≥57% decrease in estimated glomerular filtration rate from baseline [approximately a doubling of serum creatinine], or kidney disease death) and cardiovascular (cardiovascular death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, nonfatal stroke, or hospitalization for heart failure) outcomes.

RESULTS

At baseline, median UACR was 514 mg/g. A 30% or greater reduction in UACR was seen in 3338 (53.2%) patients in the finerenone group and 1684 (27.0%) patients in the placebo group. Reduction in UACR (analyzed as a continuous variable) mediated 84% and 37% of the treatment effect on the kidney and cardiovascular outcomes, respectively. When change in UACR was analyzed as a binary variable (that is, whether the guideline-recommended 30% reduction threshold was met), the proportions mediated for each outcome were 64% and 26%, respectively.

LIMITATION

The current findings are not readily extendable to other drugs.

CONCLUSION

In patients with CKD and T2D, early albuminuria reduction accounted for a large proportion of the treatment effect against CKD progression and a modest proportion of the effect against cardiovascular outcomes.

PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE

Bayer AG.

Finerenone in Black Patients With Type 2 Diabetes and CKD: A Post hoc Analysis of the Pooled FIDELIO-DKD and FIGARO-DKD Trials

Rationale & Objective

In FIDELITY, finerenone improved cardiorenal outcomes in patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) and type 2 diabetes (T2D). This analysis explored the efficacy and safety of finerenone in Black patients.

Study Design

Subanalysis of randomized controlled trials.

Setting & Participants

Patients with T2D and CKD.

Intervention

Finerenone or placebo.

Outcomes

Composite of cardiovascular death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, nonfatal stroke, or hospitalization for heart failure; composite of kidney failure, sustained ≥57% estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) decline from baseline maintained for ≥4 weeks, or renal death.

Results

Of the 13,026 patients, 522 (4.0%) self-identified as Black. Finerenone demonstrated similar effects on the cardiovascular composite outcome in Black (HR, 0.79 [95% CI, 0.51-1.24]) and non-Black patients (HR, 0.87 [95% CI, 0.79-0.96; P = 0.5 for interaction]). Kidney composite outcomes were consistent in Black (HR, 0.71 [95% CI, 0.43-1.16]) and non-Black patients (HR, 0.76 [95% CI, 0.66-0.88; P = 0.9 for interaction]). Finerenone reduced urine albumin-to-creatinine ratio by 40% at month 4 (least-squares mean treatment ratio, 0.60 [95% CI, 0.52-0.69; P < 0.001]) in Black patients and 32% at month 4 (least-squares mean treatment ratio, 0.68 [95% CI, 0.66-0.70; P < 0.001]) in non-Black patients, versus placebo. Chronic eGFR decline (month 4 to end-of-study) was slowed in Black and non-Black patients treated with finerenone versus placebo (between-group difference, 1.4 mL/min/1.73 m2 per year [95% CI, 0.33-2.44; P = 0.01] and 1.1 mL/min/1.73 m2 per year [95% CI, 0.89-1.28; P < 0.001], respectively). Safety outcomes were similar between subgroups.

Limitations

Small number of Black patients; analysis was not originally powered to determine an interaction effect based on Black race.

Conclusions

The efficacy and safety of finerenone appears consistent in Black and non-Black patients with CKD and T2D.

Funding

Bayer AG.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02540993, NCT02545049.

Plain-Language Summary

Diabetes is a major cause of chronic kidney disease (CKD), affecting more Black adults than White adults. Most adults with CKD ultimately die from heart and vascular complications (eg, heart attack and stroke) rather than kidney failure. This analysis of 2 recent trials shows that the drug finerenone was beneficial for patients with diabetes and CKD. Along with reducing kidney function decline and protein in the urine, it also decreased heart and vascular issues and lowered blood pressure in both Black and non-Black adults with diabetes and CKD. These findings have promising implications for slowing the progression of CKD and protecting against cardiovascular problems in diverse populations.

Efficacy of Sotagliflozin in Adults With Type 2 Diabetes in Relation to Baseline Hemoglobin A1c

BACKGROUND

The SCORED (Effect of Sotagliflozin on Cardiovascular and Renal Events in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes and Moderate Renal Impairment Who Are at Cardiovascular Risk) and SOLOIST-WHF (Effect of Sotagliflozin on Cardiovascular Events in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Post Worsening Heart Failure) trials demonstrated that sotagliflozin, an SGLT1 and SGLT2 inhibitor, improves outcomes in individuals with type 2 diabetes who have heart failure (HF) or kidney disease.

OBJECTIVES

We assessed the efficacy of sotagliflozin on HF clinical outcomes in individuals with differing baseline glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c) levels.

METHODS

We included all adults from SCORED and SOLOIST-WHF. The primary outcome was a composite of cardiovascular death, hospitalizations for HF, and urgent visits for HF. The efficacy of sotagliflozin compared with placebo was evaluated by baseline HbA1c using competing-risk marginal proportional hazards models.

RESULTS

We identified 11,744 adults. Individuals with HbA1c ≤7.5% experienced the primary outcome at a lower rate in the sotagliflozin group (11.2 per 100 person-years) than the placebo group (15.5 per 100 person-years) (HR: 0.73; 95% CI: 0.57-0.93). Similarly, individuals with HbA1c of 7.6% to 9.0% experienced the primary outcome at a lower rate in the sotagliflozin group (7.3 per 100 person-years) than the placebo group (9.4 per 100 person-years) (HR: 0.77; 95% CI: 0.63-0.96). These findings were also consistent among individuals with HbA1c >9.0%, with a primary outcome rate in the sotagliflozin group (7.8 per 100 person-years) that was lower than the placebo group (11.6 per 100 person-years) (HR: 0.65; 95% CI: 0.50-0.84). The efficacy of sotagliflozin was consistent by baseline HbA1c level (P for interaction = 0.58).

CONCLUSIONS

In individuals with type 2 diabetes and either HF or kidney disease, sotagliflozin reduced HF outcomes irrespective of baseline HbA1c.

Efficacy and Safety of Ocedurenone: Subgroup Analysis of the BLOCK-CKD Study

BACKGROUND

Ocedurenone (KBP-5074), a nonsteroidal mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist, is documented to lower blood pressure in patients with stage 3b/4 chronic kidney disease (CKD) with uncontrolled or resistant hypertension (BLOCK-CKD study). However, the efficacy and safety of Ocedurenone in subgroups such as Hispanic patients or those with stage 4 CKD, diabetes, or very high albuminuria have not been reported.

METHODS

A total of 162 patients were enrolled in the BLOCK-CKD study. The primary endpoint of these analyses was change in systolic blood pressure (SBP) from baseline to day 84. Prespecified subgroup analysis of SBP focused on demographic (e.g., ethnicity, age) and medical (e.g., CKD stage, diabetes, albuminuria, baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate [eGFR]). The safety analysis focused on changes in serum potassium levels from baseline.

RESULTS

SBP reductions were consistent across subgroups compared with the overall study cohort. Placebo-adjusted SBP reductions were observed in Hispanic patients (-8.1 and -9.9 mm Hg for 0.25 and 0.5 mg, respectively, total n = 35) and patients with CKD stage 4 (-9.3 and -10.4 mm Hg for 0.25 and 0.5 mg, respectively, total n = 64), diabetes (-6.9 and -11.6 mm Hg for 0.25 and 0.5 mg, respectively, total n = 51), and very high albuminuria (-13.1 and -12.3 mm Hg for 0.25 and 0.5 mg, respectively, total n = 85). Changes in serum potassium were similar across all patient subgroups regardless of baseline eGFR, diabetes status, or degree of proteinuria. No cases of hyperkalemia required intervention or resulted in study discontinuation.

CONCLUSIONS

Ocedurenone consistently reduced in SBP in all patient subgroups. Moreover, while small elevations in serum potassium occurred, they were not associated with Ocedurenone or study discontinuation.

Finerenone in Hispanic Patients With CKD and Type 2 Diabetes: A Post Hoc FIDELITY Analysis

Rationale & Objective

In FIDELITY, finerenone improved cardiorenal outcomes in patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) and type 2 diabetes. This analysis explores the efficacy and safety of finerenone in Hispanic patients.

Study Design

Post hoc analysis of the FIDELITY prespecified pooled analysis of the FIDELIO-DKD and FIGARO-DKD randomized control trials.

Setting & Participants

Patients with type 2 diabetes and CKD (urinary albumin-to-creatinine ratio [UACR] of ≥30 to <300 mg/g and estimated glomerular filtration rate [eGFR] of ≥25-≤90 mL/min/1.73 m2, or UACR of ≥300 to ≤5,000 and eGFR of ≥25 mL/min/1.73 m2) on optimized renin-angiotensin system blockade.

Intervention

Finerenone or placebo.

Outcomes

Cardiovascular composite (cardiovascular death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, nonfatal stroke, or hospitalization for heart failure); kidney composite (kidney failure, sustained ≥57% eGFR decline, or renal death); change in UACR.

Results

Of 13,026 patients, 2,099 (16.1%) self-identified as Hispanic. Median follow-up was 3.0 years. The cardiovascular composite outcome occurred in 10.0% of Hispanic patients receiving Finerenone and in 12.3% of Hispanic patients receiving placebo (HR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.62-1.04). This was consistent with non-Hispanic patients (HR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.79-0.97; Pinteraction= 0.59). The kidney composite outcome occurred in 6.5% and 6.6% of Hispanic patients with finerenone and placebo, respectively (HR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.67-1.33). The risk reduction was consistent with that observed in non-Hispanic patients (HR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.64-0.87; Pinteraction= 0.22). Finerenone reduced UACR by 32% at month 4 in both Hispanic and non-Hispanic patients versus placebo (P < 0.001 for both patient groups). The safety profile of finerenone and incidence of hyperkalemia was similar between Hispanic and non-Hispanic patient groups.

Limitations

Small sample size, short follow-up time, and lower treatment adherence in the Hispanic population.

Conclusions

Overall, the efficacy and safety of finerenone were similar in Hispanic and non-Hispanic patients with CKD and type 2 diabetes.

Funding

Bayer AG.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02540993, NCT02545049.

Plain-Language Summary

Chronic kidney disease (CKD) in patients with type 2 diabetes occurs more frequently in Hispanic patients than in non-Hispanic patients, with a more rapid progression to kidney failure. Treatment with finerenone reduces the risk of having a kidney or heart event (such as starting dialysis or having a heart attack) in patients with CKD and type 2 diabetes. Because clinical trials that investigate treatments for CKD and type 2 diabetes have not included enough Hispanic patients, the benefits of treatments particularly for Hispanic patients are frequently unknown. This study explores the benefits of finerenone in Hispanic patients. Overall, the study shows that finerenone can provide kidney and heart benefits in Hispanic patients with CKD and type 2 diabetes, as it does in non-Hispanic patients.

The impact of obesity on cardiovascular and kidney outcomes in patients with chronic kidney disease and type 2 diabetes treated with finerenone: Post hoc analysis of the FIDELITY study

AIM

To assess the effect of finerenone on the risk of cardiovascular and kidney outcomes in patients with chronic kidney disease and type 2 diabetes, with and without obesity.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A post hoc analysis of the prespecified pooled FIDELITY dataset assessed the association between waist circumference (WC), composite cardiovascular and kidney outcomes, and the effects of finerenone. Participants were stratified by WC risk groups (representing visceral obesity) as low-risk or high-very high-risk (H-/VH-risk).

RESULTS

Of 12 986 patients analysed, 90.8% occupied the H-/VH-risk WC group. Incidence of the composite cardiovascular outcome was similar between finerenone and placebo in the low-risk WC group (hazard ratio [HR] 1.03; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.72-1.47); finerenone reduced the risk in the H-/VH-risk WC group (HR 0.85; 95% CI, 0.77-0.93). For the kidney outcome, the risk was similar in the low-risk WC group (HR 0.98; 95% CI, 0.66-1.46) and reduced within the H-/VH-risk WC group (HR 0.75; 95% CI, 0.65-0.87) with finerenone versus placebo. There was no significant heterogeneity between the low-risk and H-/VH-risk WC groups for cardiovascular and kidney composite outcomes (P interaction = .26 and .34, respectively). The apparent greater benefit of finerenone on cardiorenal outcomes but lack of significant heterogeneity observed in H-/VH-risk WC patients may be because of the small size of the low-risk group. Adverse events were consistent across WC groups.

CONCLUSION

In FIDELITY, benefits of finerenone in lowering the risk of cardiovascular and kidney outcomes were not significantly modified by patient obesity.

Cardiorenal Outcomes with Finerenone in Asian Patients with Chronic Kidney Disease and Type 2 Diabetes: A FIDELIO-DKD post hoc Analysis

INTRODUCTION

In FIDELIO-DKD, finerenone significantly improved cardiorenal outcomes in patients with chronic kidney disease and type 2 diabetes (T2D). This post hoc analysis explores finerenone in patients from the Asian region.

METHODS

In FIDELIO-DKD, 5,674 patients with T2D and urine albumin-to-creatinine ratio (UACR) ≥30-<300 mg/g and estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) ≥25-<60 mL/min/1.73 m2 or UACR ≥300-≤5,000 mg/g and eGFR ≥25-<75 mL/min/1.73 m2, treated with optimized renin-angiotensin system blockade, were randomized 1:1 to finerenone or placebo. Efficacy outcomes included a primary kidney composite (time to kidney failure, sustained decrease of ≥40% in eGFR from baseline, and death from renal causes) and secondary cardiovascular (CV) (time to CV death, non-fatal myocardial infarction, non-fatal stroke, or hospitalization for heart failure) and kidney (time to kidney failure, sustained decrease of ≥57% in eGFR from baseline, and death from renal causes) composites.

RESULTS

Of 1,327 patients in the Asian subgroup, 665 received finerenone. Finerenone reduced the ≥40% and ≥57% eGFR kidney and CV composite outcomes versus placebo in the Asian subgroup (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.70; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.56-0.87, HR: 0.73; 95% CI: 0.55-0.97, and HR: 0.85; 95% CI: 0.59-1.21, respectively), with no apparent differences versus patients from the rest of the world (HR: 0.88; 95% CI: 0.77-1.02; p interaction 0.09, HR: 0.78; 95% CI: 0.64-0.95; p interaction 0.71, and HR: 0.86; 95% CI: 0.74-1.00; p interaction 0.95, respectively). The safety profile of finerenone was similar across subgroups.

CONCLUSION

Finerenone produces similar cardiorenal benefits in Asian and non-Asian patients.

Underutilization of Mineralocorticoid Antagonists in Patients With Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction

BACKGROUND

It is unknown how the efficacy and safety of mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists vary according to duration of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF).

OBJECTIVES

In this study, we sought to evaluate the safety and efficacy of eplerenone according to duration of HFrEF.

METHODS

In the EMPHASIS-HF trial, 3 patient groups were created according to HFrEF duration: <1 year, 1 to <5 years, and ≥5 years. The primary outcome was the composite of heart failure (HF) hospitalization or cardiovascular death. Outcomes were adjusted for prespecified prognostic variables and examined with the use of Cox regression models.

RESULTS

The numbers of patients in each group were: 975, <1 year; 769, 1 to <5 years; and 988, ≥5 years. Patients with longer-standing HF were older and more frequently had cardiovascular and noncardiovascular comorbidities. The rate of the primary outcome (per 100 person-years) increased with HFrEF duration: 9.8 (95% CI: 8.4-11.4) for <1 year, 13.5 (95% CI: 11.6-15.7) for 1 to <5 years, and 17.6 (95% CI: 15.6-19.8) for ≥5 years. The benefits of eplerenone were consistent across HF duration: HRs for the primary outcome were 0.57 (95% CI: 0.42-0.79) for <1 year, 0.81 (95% CI: 0.60-1.10) for 1 to <5 years, and 0.61 (95% CI: 0.48-0.78) for ≥5 years; Pinteraction = 0.24. The absolute benefit was greatest in the longest-duration group: the number needed to treat for the primary outcome was 14 for <1 year, 13 for 1 to <5 years, and 10 for ≥5 years duration.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with longer-standing HFrEF had worse clinical status and a higher rate of events, but the benefit of eplerenone was consistent regardless of HFrEF duration. (A Comparison of Outcomes in Patients in NYHA Class II Heart Failure When Treated With Eplerenone or Placebo in Addition to Standard Heart Failure Medicines [EMPHASIS-HF]; NCT00232180).

Sodium polystyrene is unsafe and should not be prescribed for the treatment of hyperkalaemia: primum non nocere!

'Old-generation' potassium (K) binders [i.e. sodium (SPS) and calcium polystyrene sulfonate] are widely used, but with substantial heterogeneity across countries to treat hyperkalaemia (HK). However, there are no randomized data to support their chronic use to manage HK, nor have they been shown to have a renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system inhibitor (RAASi)-enabling effect. These compounds have poor tolerability and an unpredictable onset of action and magnitude of K lowering. Furthermore, SPS may induce fluid overload, owing to the fact that it exchanges K for sodium. Its use has also been associated with colonic necrosis, as emphasized by a black box warning from the US Food and Drug Administration. In contrast, two new K binders, patiromer and sodium zirconium cyclosilicate, have been shown to be safe and well tolerated for chronic management of HK, thereby enabling RAASi optimization, as acknowledged by the latest international cardiorenal guidelines. In view of the lack of reliable evidence regarding the efficacy and safety of the old-generation K binders compared with the placebo-controlled randomized and real-word evidence demonstrating the safety, efficacy and RAASi-enabling effect of the new K binders, clinicians should now use these new K binders to treat HK (primum non nocere!).

Time to clinical benefit of eplerenone among patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction: A subgroups analysis from the EMPHASIS-HF trial

AIM

Eplerenone reduces the risk of cardiovascular death or first hospitalization for heart failure (HF) in patients with HF and a reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), but it is still frequently underused in routine practice. We evaluated the time course of benefits of eplerenone after its initiation in HFrEF patients from the EMPHASIS-HF trial.

METHODS AND RESULTS

The EMPHASIS-HF trial was a double-blind randomized clinical trial assessing the effect of eplerenone in patients (n = 2737, mean age 68.6 ± 7.6 years, 22.3% women) with HFrEF and mild symptoms. The time trajectories for the effect of eplerenone versus placebo on the primary composite endpoint (cardiovascular death or first hospitalization for HF) were investigated using Cox proportional hazards models with truncated data at each day post-randomization. A significant reduction in the primary composite endpoint was observed 26 days after randomization (hazard ratio 0.58; 95% confidence interval, 0.34-1.00, p = 0.049). Eplerenone was first associated with a significant reduction in the primary endpoint in 35 days or less in most subgroups, including patients with HF history ≥18 months (day 24), estimated glomerular filtration rate <60 ml/min (day 12), ischaemic HF aetiology (day 28), age ≥65 years (day 28), narrow QRS (day 30), higher MAGGIC score (day 35), lower potassium (day 30), left ventricular ejection fraction ≥30% (day 28) or already treated with beta-blockers (day 25).

CONCLUSIONS

Eplerenone provides statistically significant and clinically meaningful benefits shortly after treatment initiation in most patients, irrespective of clinical profile. This result reinforces the need for an early initiation of eplerenone in HFrEF, as part of rapidly instituting guideline-directed medical therapy.

Closing the Digitalis Divide: Back to the Basics of Randomized Controlled Trials

PURPOSE

Publishe d decades after several randomized controlled trials (RCT) demonstrating decreased hospitalizations and no effect on all-cause mortality with digoxin use, a series of meta-analyses linking digoxin treatment and mortality have contributed to a narrower application of this medication for the management of heart failure (HF) and atrial fibrillation (AF). Given the conflicting data from the earlier RCTs and more recent meta-analyses, there is a growing polarization among providers for and against the use of digoxin in managing these conditions.

METHODS

To help close this divide, we provide a perspective on the literature with special attention to the quality of both older and more recent studies on this subject.

RESULTS

The data from the highest quality studies we have, RCTs, suggest that digoxin use in patients with HF and/or AF is associated with improvement in several areas of outcomes including functional capacity, symptom management, reduced hospitalizations, fewer deaths due to HF, and treatment of refractory chronic heart failure with rEF, and may even have overall mortality benefit when serum digoxin concentrations are within therapeutic range. These effects are more pronounced in patients with EF < 25% and NYHA Class II-IV and at highest risk for hospitalization.

CONCLUSION

As the risk of confounding factors was minimized by the study design, the likelihood that positive outcomes were identified with digoxin use increased. Clinicians and researchers need further adequately designed and powered RCTs exploring the connection between digoxin therapy and mortality, hospitalizations, and symptom management.

Modifiability of Composite Cardiovascular Risk Associated With Chronic Kidney Disease in Type 2 Diabetes With Finerenone

IMPORTANCE

It is currently unclear whether chronic kidney disease (CKD)-associated cardiovascular risk in type 2 diabetes (T2D) is modifiable.

OBJECTIVE

To examine whether cardiovascular risk can be modified with finerenone in patients with T2D and CKD.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

Incidence rates from Finerenone in Chronic Kidney Disease and Type 2 Diabetes: Combined FIDELIO-DKD and FIGARO-DKD Trial Programme Analysis (FIDELITY), a pooled analysis of 2 phase 3 trials (including patients with CKD and T2D randomly assigned to receive finerenone or placebo) were combined with National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey data to simulate the number of composite cardiovascular events that may be prevented per year with finerenone at a population level. Data were analyzed over 4 years of consecutive National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey data cycles (2015-2016 and 2017-2018).

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Incidence rates of cardiovascular events (composite of cardiovascular death, nonfatal stroke, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or hospitalization for heart failure) were estimated over a median of 3.0 years by estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and albuminuria categories. The outcome was analyzed using Cox proportional hazards models stratified by study, region, eGFR and albuminuria categories at screening, and cardiovascular disease history.

RESULTS

This subanalysis included a total of 13 026 participants (mean [SD] age, 64.8 [9.5] years; 9088 male [69.8%]). Lower eGFR and higher albuminuria were associated with higher incidences of cardiovascular events. For recipients in the placebo group with an eGFR of 90 or greater, incidence rates per 100 patient-years were 2.38 (95% CI, 1.03-4.29) in those with a urine albumin to creatinine ratio (UACR) less than 300 mg/g and 3.78 (95% CI, 2.91-4.75) in those with UACR of 300 mg/g or greater. In those with eGFR less than 30, incidence rates increased to 6.54 (95% CI, 4.19-9.40) vs 8.74 (95% CI, 6.78-10.93), respectively. In both continuous and categorical models, finerenone was associated with a reduction in composite cardiovascular risk (hazard ratio, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.78-0.95; P = .002) irrespective of eGFR and UACR (P value for interaction = .66). In 6.4 million treatment-eligible individuals (95% CI, 5.4-7.4 million), 1 year of finerenone treatment was simulated to prevent 38 359 cardiovascular events (95% CI, 31 741-44 852), including approximately 14 000 hospitalizations for heart failure, with 66% (25 357 of 38 360) prevented in patients with eGFR of 60 or greater.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Results of this subanalysis of the FIDELITY analysis suggest that CKD-associated composite cardiovascular risk may be modifiable with finerenone treatment in patients with T2D, those with eGFR of 25 or higher, and those with UACR of 30 mg/g or greater. UACR screening to identify patients with T2D and albuminuria with eGFR of 60 or greater may provide significant opportunities for population benefits.

Effect of Sotagliflozin on Early Mortality and Heart Failure-Related Events: A Post Hoc Analysis of SOLOIST-WHF

BACKGROUND

Approximately 25% of patients admitted to hospitals for worsening heart failure (WHF) are readmitted within 30 days.

OBJECTIVES

The authors conducted a post hoc analysis of the SOLOIST-WHF (Effect of Sotagliflozin on Cardiovascular Events in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes Post-WHF) trial to evaluate the efficacy of sotagliflozin versus placebo to decrease mortality and HF-related events among patients who began study treatment on or before discharge from their index hospitalization.

METHODS

The main endpoint of interest was cardiovascular death or HF-related event (HF hospitalization or urgent care visit) occurring within 90 and 30 days after discharge for the index WHF hospitalization. Treatment comparisons were by proportional hazards models, generating HRs, 95% CIs, and P values.

RESULTS

Of 1,222 randomized patients, 596 received study drug on or before their date of discharge. Sotagliflozin reduced the main endpoint at 90 days after discharge (HR: 0.54 [95% CI: 0.35-0.82]; P = 0.004) and at 30 days (HR: 0.49 [95% CI: 0.27-0.91]; P = 0.023) and all-cause mortality at 90 days (HR: 0.39 [95% CI: 0.17-0.88]; P = 0.024). In subgroup analyses, sotagliflozin reduced the 90-day main endpoint regardless of sex, age, estimated glomerular filtration rate, N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide, left ventricular ejection fraction, or mineralocorticoid receptor agonist use. Sotagliflozin was well-tolerated but with slightly higher rates of diarrhea and volume-related events than placebo.

CONCLUSIONS

Starting sotagliflozin before discharge in patients with type 2 diabetes hospitalized for WHF significantly decreased cardiovascular deaths and HF events through 30 and 90 days after discharge, emphasizing the importance of beginning sodium glucose cotransporter treatment before discharge.

Racial Differences in Quality of Life in Patients With Heart Failure Treated With Sodium-Glucose Cotransporter 2 Inhibitors: A Patient-Level Meta-Analysis of the CHIEF-HF, DEFINE-HF, and PRESERVED-HF Trials

BACKGROUND

Health status outcomes, including symptoms, function, and quality of life, are worse for Black compared with White patients with heart failure. Sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors (SGLT2is) reduce cardiovascular mortality and improve health status in patients with heart failure, but whether the health status benefit of SGLT2is is similar across races is not established. The objective of this study was to compare the treatment effect of SGLT2is (versus placebo) on health status for Black compared with White patients with heart failure.

METHODS

We combined patient-level data from 3 randomized clinical trials of SGLT2is: DEFINE-HF (Dapagliflozin Effect on Symptoms and Biomarkers in Patients With Heart Failure; n=263), PRESERVED-HF (Dapagliflozin in Preserved Ejection Fraction Heart Failure; n=324), and CHIEF-HF (A Study on Impact of Canagliflozin on Health Status, Quality of Life, and Functional Status in Heart Failure; n=448). These 3 United States-based trials enrolled a substantial proportion of Black patients, and each used the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ) to measure health status at baseline and after 12 weeks of treatment. Among 1035 total participants, selecting self-identified Black and White patients with complete information yielded a final analytic cohort of 935 patients. The primary endpoint was KCCQ Clinical Summary score. Twelve-week change in KCCQ with SGLT2is versus placebo was compared between Black and White patients by testing the interaction between race and treatment using multivariable linear regression models adjusted for trial, baseline KCCQ (as a restricted cubic spline), race, and treatment. The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

RESULTS

Among 935 participants, 236 (25%) self-identified as Black, and 469 (50.2%) were treated with an SGLT2i. Treatment with an SGLT2i, compared with placebo, resulted in KCCQ Clinical Summary score improvements at 12 weeks of +4.0 points (95% CI, 1.7-6.3; P=0.0007) in White patients and +4.7 points (95% CI, 0.7-8.7; P=0.02) in Black patients, with no significant interaction by race and treatment (P=0.76). Other KCCQ scales showed similar results.

CONCLUSIONS

Treatment with an SGLT2i resulted in consistent and significant improvements in health status for both Black and White patients with heart failure.

Effect of Torsemide Versus Furosemide on Symptoms and Quality of Life Among Patients Hospitalized for Heart Failure: The TRANSFORM-HF Randomized Clinical Trial

BACKGROUND

Loop diuretics are a primary therapy for the symptomatic treatment of heart failure (HF), but whether torsemide improves patient symptoms and quality of life better than furosemide remains unknown. As prespecified secondary end points, the TRANSFORM-HF trial (Torsemide Comparison With Furosemide for Management of Heart Failure) compared the effect of torsemide versus furosemide on patient-reported outcomes among patients with HF.

METHODS

TRANSFORM-HF was an open-label, pragmatic, randomized trial of 2859 patients hospitalized for HF (regardless of ejection fraction) across 60 hospitals in the United States. Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to a loop diuretic strategy of torsemide or furosemide with investigator-selected dosage. This report examined effects on prespecified secondary end points, which included Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire Clinical Summary Score (KCCQ-CSS; assessed as adjusted mean difference in change from baseline; range, 0-100 with 100 indicating best health status; clinically important difference, ≥5 points) and Patient Health Questionnaire-2 (range, 0-6; score ≥3 supporting evaluation for depression) over 12 months.

RESULTS

Baseline data were available for 2787 (97.5%) patients for KCCQ-CSS and 2624 (91.8%) patients for Patient Health Questionnaire-2. Median (interquartile range) baseline KCCQ-CSS was 42 (27-60) in the torsemide group and 40 (24-59) in the furosemide group. At 12 months, there was no significant difference between torsemide and furosemide in change from baseline in KCCQ-CSS (adjusted mean difference, 0.06 [95% CI, -2.26 to 2.37]; P=0.96) or the proportion of patients with Patient Health Questionnaire-2 score ≥3 (15.1% versus 13.2%: P=0.34). Results for KCCQ-CSS were similar at 1 month (adjusted mean difference, 1.36 [95% CI, -0.64 to 3.36]; P=0.18) and 6-month follow-up (adjusted mean difference, -0.37 [95% CI, -2.52 to 1.78]; P=0.73), and across subgroups by ejection fraction phenotype, New York Heart Association class at randomization, and loop diuretic agent before hospitalization. Irrespective of baseline KCCQ-CSS tertile, there was no significant difference between torsemide and furosemide on change in KCCQ-CSS, all-cause mortality, or all-cause hospitalization.

CONCLUSIONS

Among patients discharged after hospitalization for HF, a strategy of torsemide compared with furosemide did not improve symptoms or quality of life over 12 months. The effects of torsemide and furosemide on patient-reported outcomes were similar regardless of ejection fraction, previous loop diuretic use, and baseline health status.

REGISTRATION

URL: https://www.

CLINICALTRIALS

gov; Unique identifier: NCT03296813.

Renin-Angiotensin Inhibition and Outcomes in HFrEF and Advanced Kidney Disease

BACKGROUND

Renin-angiotensin system inhibitors improve outcomes in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). However, less is known about their effectiveness in patients with HFrEF and advanced kidney disease.

METHODS

In the Medicare-linked Organized Program to Initiate Lifesaving Treatment in Hospitalized Patients with Heart Failure (OPTIMIZE-HF), 1582 patients with HFrEF (ejection fraction ≤40%) had advanced kidney disease (estimated glomerular filtration rate <30 mL/min/1.73 m2). Of these, 829 were not receiving angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) prior to admission, of whom 214 were initiated on these drugs prior to discharge. We calculated propensity scores for receipt of these drugs for each of the 829 patients and assembled a matched cohort of 388 patients, balanced on 47 baseline characteristics (mean age 78 years; 52% women; 10% African American; 73% receiving beta-blockers). Hazard ratios (HR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were estimated comparing 2-year outcomes in 194 patients initiated on ACE inhibitors or ARBs to 194 patients not initiated on those drugs.

RESULTS

The combined endpoint of heart failure readmission or all-cause mortality occurred in 79% and 84% of patients initiated and not initiated on ACE inhibitors or ARBs, respectively (HR associated with initiation, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.63-0.98). Respective HRs (95% CI) for the individual endpoints of - Respective HRs (95% CI) for the individual endpoints of all-cause mortality and heart failure readmission were 0.81 (0.63-1.03) and 0.63 (0.47-0.85).

CONCLUSIONS

The findings from our study add new information to the body of cumulative evidence that suggest that renin-angiotensin system inhibitors may improve clinical outcomes in patients with HFrEF and advanced kidney disease. These hypothesis-generating findings need to be replicated in contemporary patients.

Dapagliflozin Improves Heart Failure Symptoms and Physical Limitations Across the Full Range of Ejection Fraction: Pooled Patient-Level Analysis From DEFINE-HF and PRESERVED-HF Trials

BACKGROUND

Patients with heart failure (HF) have a high burden of symptoms and physical limitations, regardless of ejection fraction (EF). Whether the benefits of SGLT2 (sodium-glucose cotransporter-2) inhibitors on these outcomes vary across the full range of EF remains unclear.

METHODS

Patient-level data were pooled from the DEFINE-HF trial (Dapagliflozin Effects on Biomarkers, Symptoms, and Functional Status in Patients With Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction) of 263 participants with reduced EF (≤40%), and PRESERVED-HF trial (Effects of Dapagliflozin on Biomarkers, Symptoms and Functional Status in Patients With Preserved Ejection Fraction Heart Failure) of 324 participants with preserved EF (≥45%). Both were randomized, double-blind 12-week trials of dapagliflozin versus placebo, recruiting participants with New York Heart Association class II or higher and elevated natriuretic peptides. The effect of dapagliflozin on the change in the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ) Clinical Summary Score (CSS) at 12 weeks was tested with ANCOVA adjusted for sex, baseline KCCQ, EF, atrial fibrillation, estimated glomerular filtration rate, and type 2 diabetes. Interaction of dapagliflozin effects on KCCQ-CSS by EF was assessed using EF both categorically and continuously with restricted cubic spline. Responder analyses, examining proportions of patients with deterioration, and clinically meaningful improvements in KCCQ-CSS were conducted using logistic regression.

RESULTS

Of 587 patients randomized (293 dapagliflozin, 294 placebo), EF was ≤40, >40-≤60, and >60% in 262 (45%), 199 (34%), and 126 (21%), respectively. Dapagliflozin improved KCCQ-CSS at 12 weeks (placebo-adjusted difference 5.0 points [95% CI, 2.6-7.5]; P<0.001). This was consistent in participants with EF≤40 (4.6 points [95% CI, 1.0-8.1]; P=0.01), >40 to ≤60 (4.9 points [95% CI, 0.8-9.0]; P=0.02) and >60% (6.8 points [95% CI, 1.5-12.1]; P=0.01; Pinteraction=0.79). Benefits of dapagliflozin on KCCQ-CSS were also consistent when analyzing EF continuously (Pinteraction=0.94). In responder analyses, fewer dapagliflozin-treated patients had deterioration and more had small, moderate, and large KCCQ-CSS improvements versus placebo; these results were also consistent regardless of EF (all Pinteractionvalues nonsignificant).

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with HF, dapagliflozin significantly improves symptoms and physical limitations after 12 weeks of treatment, with consistent and clinically meaningful benefits across the full range of EF.

REGISTRATION

URL: https://www.

CLINICALTRIALS

gov; Unique identifiers: NCT02653482 and NCT03030235.

Effects of finerenone in people with chronic kidney disease and type 2 diabetes are independent of HbA1c at baseline, HbA1c variability, diabetes duration and insulin use at baseline

AIM

To evaluate the effect of finerenone by baseline HbA1c, HbA1c variability, diabetes duration and baseline insulin use on cardiorenal outcomes and diabetes progression.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Composite efficacy outcomes included cardiovascular (cardiovascular death, non-fatal myocardial infarction, non-fatal stroke or hospitalization for heart failure), kidney (kidney failure, sustained ≥ 57% estimated glomerular filtration rate decline or renal death) and diabetes progression (new insulin initiation, increase in antidiabetic medication, 1.0% increase in HbA1c from baseline, new diabetic ketoacidosis diagnosis or uncontrolled diabetes).

RESULTS

In 13 026 participants, risk reductions in the cardiovascular and kidney composite outcomes with finerenone versus placebo were consistent across HbA1c quartiles (P interaction .52 and .09, respectively), HbA1c variability (P interaction .48 and .10), diabetes duration (P interaction .12 and .75) and insulin use (P interaction .16 and .52). HbA1c variability in the first year of treatment was associated with a higher risk of cardiovascular and kidney events (hazard ratio [HR] 1.20; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.07-1.35; P = .0016 and HR 1.36; 95% CI 1.21-1.52; P < .0001, respectively). There was no effect on diabetes progression with finerenone or placebo (HR 1.00; 95% CI 0.95-1.04). Finerenone was well-tolerated across subgroups; discontinuation and hospitalization because of hyperkalaemia were low.

CONCLUSIONS

Finerenone efficacy was not modified by baseline HbA1c, HbA1c variability, diabetes duration or baseline insulin use. Greater HbA1c variability appeared to be associated with an increased risk of cardiorenal outcomes.

Spironolactone effect on circulating procollagen type I carboxy-terminal propeptide: Pooled analysis of three randomized trials

BACKGROUND

Spironolactone might improve the prognosis of patients with heart failure with preserved left ventricular ejection fraction (HFpEF), but the mechanisms by which it acts are uncertain. Serum concentrations of procollagen type I carboxy-terminal propeptide (PICP) reflect the synthesis of type I collagen and correlate well with histologically proven cardiac fibrosis.

AIMS

To investigate the effect of spironolactone on serum PICP concentration in patients with stage B and C HFpEF across three trials (HOMAGE, ALDO-DHF, and TOPCAT) for which measurements of serum PICP were available.

METHODS

Random-effects meta-analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 1038 patients with PICP measurements available both at baseline and 9-12 months were included in this analysis: 488 (47.0%) from HOMAGE, 386 (37.2%) from ALDO-DHF, and 164 (15.8%) from TOPCAT. The median (percentile_25-75) serum PICP was 98 (76-128) ng/mL. Compared to placebo or usual care, administration of spironolactone for 9 to 12 months reduced serum PICP by -7.4 ng/mL, 95%CI -13.9 to -0.9, P-value =0.02. The effect was moderately heterogeneous (I² = 64%) with the most pronounced effect seen in TOPCAT where PICP was reduced by -27.0 ng/mL, followed by HOMAGE where PICP was reduced by -8.1 ng/mL, and was least marked in ALDO-DHF where PICP changed by -2.9 ng/mL. The association between spironolactone and serum PICP was not mediated substantially by blood pressure.

CONCLUSIONS

Spironolactone reduced serum concentrations of PICP in patients with HFpEF with different severity and stages of disease. These findings are consistent with spironolactone having an anti-fibrotic effect.

Outcomes with Finerenone in Participants with Stage 4 CKD and Type 2 Diabetes: A FIDELITY Subgroup Analysis

Background Patients with stage 4 chronic kidney disease (CKD) and type 2 diabetes have limited treatment options to reduce their persistent cardiovascular and kidney risk. In FIDELITY, a prespecified pooled analysis of FIDELIO-DKD and FIGARO-DKD, finerenone improved heart-kidney outcomes in participants with CKD and type 2 diabetes. Methods This FIDELITY subgroup analysis investigated the effects of finerenone in participants with stage 4 CKD (estimated glomerular filtration rate [eGFR] <30 ml/min/1.73 m2). Efficacy outcomes included a cardiovascular composite (cardiovascular death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, nonfatal stroke, or hospitalization for heart failure) and a kidney composite (kidney failure, sustained ≥57% decrease in eGFR from baseline, or kidney disease death). Results Of 13,023 participants, 890 (7%) had stage 4 CKD. The hazard ratio for risk of cardiovascular composite outcome with finerenone versus placebo was 0.78 (95% confidence interval 0.57-1.07). The kidney composite outcome proportional hazards assumption was not met for the overall study period, with a protective effect only shown up to 2 years, after which the direction of association was inconsistent and an observed loss of precision over time incurred on finerenone versus placebo risk differences. Nonetheless, albuminuria and rate of eGFR decline were consistently reduced with finerenone versus placebo. Adverse events were balanced between treatment arms. Hyperkalemia was the most common AE reported (stage 4 CKD: 26% and 13% for finerenone versus placebo, respectively) however, the incidence of hyperkalemia leading to permanent discontinuation was low (stage 4 CKD: 3% and 2% for finerenone versus placebo, respectively). Conclusions The cardiovascular benefits and safety profile of finerenone in participants with stage 4 CKD were consistent with the overall FIDELITY population; this was also the case for albuminuria and the rate of eGFR decline. The effects on the composite kidney outcome were not consistent over time.