Mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist initiation during admission is associated with improved outcomes irrespective of ejection fraction in patients with acute heart failure

AIMS

Heart failure (HF) guidelines recommend initiation and optimization of guideline-directed medical therapy, including mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRAs), before hospital discharge. However, scientific evidence for this recommendation is lacking. Our objective was to determine whether initiation of MRA prior to hospital discharge is associated with improved outcomes.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We performed a secondary analysis of 6197 patients enrolled in the RELAX-AHF-2 study. Patients were divided into four groups according to MRA therapy at baseline and discharge. At baseline 30% of patients received MRA therapy, which increased to 50% of patients at discharge. In-hospital initiation of an MRA was observed in 1690 (27%) patients, 1438 (23%) patients remained on MRA therapy, 418 (7%) patients discontinued MRA treatment, and 2651 (43%) patients did not receive an MRA during hospital stay. Compared with patients who did not receive MRA therapy, in-hospital initiation of an MRA was independently associated with lower risks of mortality (multivariable hazard ratio [HR] 0.76, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.60-0.96; p = 0.02), cardiovascular death (HR 0.77, 95% CI 0.59-1.01; p = 0.06), hospitalization for HF or renal failure (HR 0.72, 95% CI 0.60-0.86; p = 0.0003) and the composite endpoint of cardiovascular death and/or rehospitalization for HF or renal failure (HR 0.71, 95% CI 0.61-0.83; p < 0.0001) at 180 days. These results were independent of baseline left ventricular ejection fraction.

CONCLUSION

In patients hospitalized for acute HF, in-hospital initiation of an MRA was associated with improved post-discharge outcomes, independent of left ventricular ejection fraction and other potential confounders.

Clinical characteristics of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction patients with rare pathogenic variants in dilated cardiomyopathy-associated genes: A subgroup analysis of the PARADIGM-HF trial

AIMS

To evaluate the prevalence of pathogenic variants in genes associated with dilated cardiomyopathy (DCM) in a clinical trial population with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and describe the baseline characteristics by variant carrier status.

METHODS AND RESULTS

This was a post hoc analysis of the Phase 3 PARADIGM-HF trial. Forty-four genes, divided into three tiers, based on definitive, moderate or limited evidence of association with DCM, were assessed for rare predicted loss-of-function (pLoF) variants, which were prioritized using ClinVar annotations, measures of gene transcriptional output and evolutionary constraint, and pLoF confidence predictions. Prevalence was reported for pLoF variant carriers based on DCM-associated gene tiers. Clinical features were compared between carriers and non-carriers. Of the 1412 HFrEF participants with whole-exome sequence data, 68 (4.8%) had at least one pLoF variant in the 8 tier-1 genes (definitive/strong association with DCM), with Titin being most commonly affected. The prevalence increased to 7.5% when considering all 44 genes. Among patients with idiopathic aetiology, 10.0% (23/229) had tier-1 variants only and 12.6% (29/229) had tier-1, -2 or -3 variants. Compared to non-carriers, tier-1 carriers were younger (4 years; adjusted p-value [padj ] = 4 × 10-3 ), leaner (27.8 kg/m2 vs. 29.4 kg/m2 ; padj  = 3.2 × 10-3 ), had lower ejection fraction (27.3% vs. 29.8%; padj  = 5.8 × 10-3 ), and less likely to have ischaemic aetiology (37.3% vs. 67.4%; padj  = 4 × 10-4 ).

CONCLUSION

Deleterious pLoF variants in genes with definitive/strong association with DCM were identified in ∼5% of HFrEF patients from a PARADIGM-HF trial subset, who were younger, had lower ejection fraction and were less likely to have had an ischaemic aetiology.

Impact of mitral regurgitation in patients with acute heart failure: insights from the RELAX-AHF-2 trial

AIMS

The impact of mitral regurgitation (MR) in patients hospitalized for acute heart failure (AHF) is not well established. We assessed the role of MR in patients enrolled in the Relaxin in Acute Heart Failure 2 (RELAX-AHF-2) trial.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Patients enrolled in RELAX-AHF-2 with available data regarding MR status were included in this analysis. Baseline characteristics, in-hospital data, and clinical outcomes through 180-day follow-up were evaluated. The impact of moderate/severe MR was assessed. Among 6420 AHF patients with known MR status, 1810 patients (28.2%) had moderate/severe MR. Compared to patients with no/mild MR, those with moderate/severe MR were more likely to have history of heart failure (HF), prior HF hospitalization, more comorbidities, symptoms/signs of HF, lower left ventricular ejection fraction and higher N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide levels. Moderate/severe MR was associated with longer length of hospital stay, higher rates of residual dyspnoea, increased jugular venous pressure through the index hospitalization and a higher unadjusted risk of the composite of cardiovascular (CV) death or rehospitalization for HF/renal failure (RF) through 180 days (crude hazard ratio [HR] 1.15, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.03-1.27, p = 0.01). The association between moderate/severe MR and poorer outcomes was not maintained in a multivariable model including several covariates of interest (adjusted HR 1.03, 95% CI 0.91-1.17, p = 0.65). Similar findings were observed for HF/RF rehospitalization alone.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with AHF, moderate/severe MR was associated with a worse clinical profile but did not have an independent prognostic impact on clinical outcomes.

Disconnect between the effects of serelaxin on renal function and outcome in acute heart failure

BACKGROUND

We aimed to study whether improvement in renal function by serelaxin in patients who were hospitalized for acute heart failure (HF) might explain any potential effect on clinical outcomes.

METHODS

We included 6318 patients from the RELAXin in AHF-2 (RELAX-AHF2) study. Improvement in renal function was defined as a decrease in serum creatinine of ≥ 0.3 mg/dL and ≥ 25%, or increase in estimated glomerular filtration rate of ≥ 25% between baseline and day 2. Worsening renal function (WRF) was defined as the reverse. We performed causal mediation analyses regarding 180-day all-cause mortality (ACM), cardiovascular death (CVD), and hospitalization for HF/renal failure.

RESULTS

Improvement in renal function was more frequently observed with serelaxin when compared with placebo [OR 1.88 (95% CI 1.64-2.15, p < 0.0001)], but was not associated with subsequent clinical outcomes. WRF occurred less frequent with serelaxin [OR 0.70 (95% CI 0.60-0.83, p < 0.0001)] and was associated with increased risk of ACM, worsening HF and the composite of CVD and HF or renal failure hospitalization. Improvement in renal function did not mediate the treatment effect of serelaxin [CVD HR 1.01 (0.99-1.04), ACM HR 1.01 (0.99-1.03), HF/renal failure hospitalization HR 0.99 (0.97-1.00)].

CONCLUSIONS

Despite the significant improvement in renal function by serelaxin in patients with acute HF, the potential beneficial treatment effect was not mediated by improvement in renal function. These data suggest that improvement in renal function might not be a suitable surrogate marker for potential treatment efficacy in future studies with novel relaxin agents in acute HF. Central illustration. Conceptual model explaining mediation analysis; treatment efficacy of heart failure therapies mediated by renal function.

Characteristics and clinical outcomes of patients with acute heart failure with a supranormal left ventricular ejection fraction

AIM

Recent data suggest that guideline-directed medical therapy of patients with heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) might improve clinical outcomes in patients with HF up to a left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) of 55-65%, whereas patients with higher LVEF do not seem to benefit. Recent data have shown that LVEF may have a U-shaped relation with outcome, with poorer outcome also in patients with supranormal values. This suggests that patients with supranormal LVEF may be a distinctive group of patients.

METHODS AND RESULTS

RELAX-AHF-2 was a multicentre, placebo-controlled trial on the effects of serelaxin on 180-day cardiovascular (CV) mortality and worsening HF at day 5 in patients with acute HF. Echocardiograms were performed at hospital admission in 6128 patients: 155 (2.5%) patients were classified as HF with supranormal ejection fraction (HFsnEF; LVEF >65%), 1440 (23.5%) as HF with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF; LVEF 50-65%), 1353 (22.1%) as HF with mildly reduced ejection fraction (HFmrEF; LVEF 41-49%) and 3180 (51.9%) as HFrEF (LVEF <40%). Patients with HFsnEF compared to HFpEF were more often women, had higher prevalence of non-ischaemic HF, had lower levels of natriuretic peptides, were less likely to be treated with beta-blockers and had higher blood urea nitrogen plasma levels. All-cause mortality was not statistically different between groups, although patients with HFsnEF had the highest numerical rate. A declining trend was seen in the proportion of 180-day deaths due to CV causes from HFrEF (290/359, 80.8%) to HFsnEF (14/24, 58.3%). The reverse was observed with death from non-CV causes. No treatment effect of serelaxin was observed in any of the subgroups.

CONCLUSIONS

In this study, only 2.5% of patients were classified as HFsnEF. HFsnEF was primarily characterized by female sex, lower natriuretic peptides and a higher risk of non-CV death.

Blood Pressure Drops During Hospitalization for Acute Heart Failure Treated With Serelaxin: A Patient-Level Analysis of 4 Randomized Controlled Trials

BACKGROUND

Hypotensive events and drops in systolic blood pressure (SBP-drop) are frequent in patients hospitalized with acute heart failure. We investigated whether SBP-drops are associated with outcomes in patients treated with serelaxin.

METHODS

Patient-level retrospective analyses of 4 prospective trials investigating serelaxin in acute heart failure. Main inclusion criteria were SBP 125 to 180 mm Hg, pulmonary congestion, and elevated NT-proBNP (N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide). SBP-drops were prospectively defined as SBP<100 mm Hg, or, if SBP remained >100 mm Hg, a drop from baseline of 40 mm Hg from baseline. Outcomes were a short-term composite outcome (worsening heart failure, hospital readmission for heart failure or all-cause mortality through 14 days) and 180-day mortality.

RESULTS

Overall, 2559/11 226 (23%) patients had an SBP-drop. SBP-drop, versus no SBP-drop, was associated with a worse outcome: cumulative incidence of 180-day mortality (11% versus 9%, hazard ratio [HR]. 1.21 [95% CI, 1.05-1.39]; P=0.009) and the short-term outcome (11% versus 9%, HR, 1.29 [95% CI, 1.13-1.49]; P<0.001). Of the 2 SBP-drop components, an SBP<100 mm Hg was associated with the worst outcome compared with a 40 mm Hg drop: short-term outcome (11% versus 10%) and HRs of 1.32 (95% CI, 1.13-1.55; P=0.0005) and 1.22 (95% CI, 0.97-1.56; P=0.09), for each component respectively, with a P value for interaction of 0.05. SBP-drops were associated with a worse short-term outcome in the placebo group (HR, 1.46 [95% CI, 1.19-1.79]; P=0.0003), but not in the serelaxin-group (HR, 1.18 [95% CI, 0.97-1.42]; P=0.10); P interaction=0.003.

CONCLUSIONS

SBP-drops in patients with acute heart failure and normal to high SBP at admission is associated with worse short- and long-term outcomes especially for SBP <100 mm Hg. However, in patients treated with the intravenous vasodilator serelaxin, SBP-drops seemed less harmful.

REGISTRATION

URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifiers: NCT02064868, NCT02007720, NCT01870778, NCT00520806.

Worsening renal function in acute heart failure in the context of diuretic response

Background

For patients with acute heart failure (AHF), substantial diuresis after administration of loop diuretics is generally associated with better clinical outcomes but may cause creatinine to rise, suggesting renal function decline. We investigated the interaction between diuretic response and worsening renal function (WRF) on clinical outcomes in patients with AHF.

Methods and results

In two AHF cohorts (PROTECT, n = 1698 and RELAX‐AHF‐2, n = 5586 in current analysis), the prognostic impact of WRF (creatinine ≥0.3 mg/dl increase baseline—day 4; sensitivity analyses incorporated baseline renal function) by diuretic response (kg weight loss/40 mg furosemide equivalent baseline—day 4) was investigated with regard to (cardiovascular) death or cardiovascular/renal hospitalization using subpopulation treatment effect pattern plots (STEPP) and survival analyses. WRF occurred in 286 (16.8%) and 1031 (18.5%) patients in PROTECT and RELAX‐AHF‐2, respectively. Patients with WRF had higher left ventricular ejection fraction and lower estimated glomerular filtration rate at baseline (p < 0.05), and received higher doses of loop diuretics and had a worse diuretic response (p < 0.001). In patients with a poor diuretic response (≤0.35 kg weight loss/40 mg furosemide equivalent as identified by STEPP), WRF was associated with higher risk of (cardiovascular) death or cardiovascular/renal hospitalization (p < 0.001 both cohorts), but this was not the case for patients with a good diuretic response (p = 0.900 both cohorts).

Conclusion

In two large cohorts of patients with AHF, WRF in the first 4 days was not associated with worse outcomes when patients had a good diuretic response. The occurrence of WRF in patients with AHF should therefore be considered in the context of diuretic response.

Association of Early Blood Pressure Decrease and Renal Function With Prognosis in Acute Heart Failure

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to investigate the association between systolic blood pressure (SBP) drop, worsening renal function (WRF), and prognosis in patients with acute heart failure (AHF).

BACKGROUND

A large drop in SBP early after hospital admission for AHF might be associated with increased risk for WRF and prognosis. However, there is a paucity of data regarding the interaction between WRF and a drop in SBP on clinical outcomes.

METHODS

A post hoc analysis among 6,544 patients with AHF enrolled in the RELAX-AHF-2 (Relaxin in Acute Heart Failure-2) trial was performed. Blood pressure was uniformly and repetitively measured. Peak SBP drop was defined as the difference between baseline SBP and lowest SBP documented during the first 48 hours. WRF was defined by an increase in serum creatinine of ≥0.3 mg/dL from baseline to day 5.

RESULTS

Peak SBP drop was independently associated with a higher risk for WRF (HR: 1.11 per 10 mm Hg SBP drop; P < 0.001), 5-day worsening heart failure (HR: 1.12 per 10 mm Hg SBP drop; P = 0.006), and 180-day cardiovascular death (HR: 1.09 per 10 mm Hg SBP drop; P = 0.026) after adjustment for potential confounders including baseline SBP. There was no interaction between the prognostic value of early SBP drop according to the presence or absence of WRF.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients hospitalized for AHF, a greater early drop in SBP was associated with a higher incidence of WRF, worsening heart failure, and an increased risk for 180-day cardiovascular death. However, the association between SBP drop and prognosis was not influenced by WRF. (Efficacy, Safety and Tolerability of Serelaxin When Added to Standard Therapy in AHF [RELAX-AHF-2]; NCT01870778).

Systolic Blood Pressure and Outcome in Patients Admitted With Acute Heart Failure: An Analysis of Individual Patient Data From 4 Randomized Clinical Trials

BACKGROUND

In acute heart failure (AHF), systolic blood pressure (SBP) is an important clinical variable. This study assessed the association between SBP and short‐term and long‐term outcomes in a large cohort of patients with AHF.

METHODS AND RESULTS

This is an analysis of 4 randomized controlled trials investigating serelaxin versus placebo in patients admitted with AHF and SBPs from 125 to 180 mm Hg. Outcomes were 180‐day all‐cause mortality and a composite end point of all‐cause mortality, worsening heart failure, or hospital readmission for heart failure the first 14 days. Left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) was examined as LVEF<40% and LVEF≥40%. Multivariable Cox regression models were adjusted for known confounders of outcomes in AHF. A total of 10 533 patients with a mean age of 73 (±12) years and a mean SBP of 145 (±7) mm Hg were included. LVEF was assessed in 9863 patients (93%); 4737 patients (45%) had LVEF<40%. Increasing SBP was inversely associated with 180‐day mortality (adjusted hazard ratio [HR_adjusted], 0.93; 95% CI, 0.89–0.98; P=0.008 per 10 mm Hg increase) and with the composite end point (HR_adjusted, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.85–0.94; P<0.001 per 10 mm Hg increase). A significant interaction with LVEF was observed, revealing that SBP was not associated with mortality in patients with LVEF≥40% (HR_adjusted, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.91–1.04; per 10 mm Hg increase), but was strongly associated with increased mortality in LVEF<40% (HR_adjusted, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.77–0.92; per 10 mm Hg increase).

CONCLUSIONS

Elevated SBP is associated with favorable short‐term and long‐term outcomes in patients with AHF. In our predefined subgroup analysis, we found that baseline SBP was not associated with mortality in LVEF≥40%, but was strongly associated with mortality in patients with LVEF<40%.

Cause of Death in Patients With Acute Heart Failure: Insights From RELAX-AHF-2

OBJECTIVES

This study sought to better understand the discrepant results of 2 trials of serelaxin on acute heart failure (AHF) and short-term mortality after AHF by analyzing causes of death of patients in the RELAX-AHF-2 (Efficacy, Safety and Tolerability of Serelaxin When Added to Standard Therapy in AHF-2) trial.

BACKGROUND

Patients with AHF continue to suffer significant short-term mortality, but limited systematic analyses of causes of death in this patient population are available.

METHODS

Adjudicated cause of death of patients in RELAX-AHF-2, a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of serelaxin in patients with AHF across the spectrum of ejection fraction (EF), was analyzed.

RESULTS

By 180 days of follow-up, 11.5% of patients in RELAX-AHF-2 died, primarily due to heart failure (HF) (38% of all deaths). Unlike RELAX-AHF, there was no apparent effect of treatment with serelaxin on any category of cause of death. Older patients (≥75 years) had higher rates of mortality (14.2% vs. 8.8%) and noncardiovascular (CV) death (27% vs. 19%) compared to younger patients. Patients with preserved EF (≥50%) had lower rates of HF-related mortality (30% vs. 40%) but higher non-CV mortality (36% vs. 20%) compared to patients with reduced EF.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite previous data suggesting benefit of serelaxin in AHF, treatment with serelaxin was not found to improve overall mortality or have an effect on any category of cause of death in RELAX-AHF-2. Careful adjudication of events in the serelaxin trials showed that older patients and those with preserved EF had fewer deaths from HF or sudden death and more deaths from other CV causes and from noncardiac causes. (Efficacy, Safety and Tolerability of Serelaxin When Added to Standard Therapy in AHF [RELAX-AHF-2]; NCT01870778).

Hepatorenal dysfunction identifies high-risk patients with acute heart failure: insights from the RELAX-AHF trial

AIMS

Episodes of acute heart failure (AHF) may lead to end-organ dysfunction. In this post hoc analysis of the Relaxin in Acute Heart Failure trial, we used the MELD-XI (Model of End-Stage Liver Dysfunction) score to examine hepatorenal dysfunction in patients with AHF.

METHODS AND RESULTS

On admission, the MELD-XI score was elevated (abnormal) in 918 (82%) patients, with 638 (57%) having isolated renal dysfunction (creatinine > 1 mg/dL), 73 (6.5%) isolated liver dysfunction (bilirubin > 1 mg/dL), and 207 (18.5%) coexisting dysfunction of the kidneys and the liver (both creatinine and bilirubin > 1 mg/dL). The percentage of patients with elevated MELD-XI score remained constant through a 60 day follow-up, as we observed a gradual decrease of liver dysfunction prevalence, counterbalanced by an increase in renal dysfunction. Serelaxin treatment was associated with a lower MELD-XI score on Day 2 and Day 5 (both P < 0.05), but this difference vs. placebo disappeared during longer follow-up. In the multivariable model, an elevated MELD-XI score on admission was associated with higher 180 day mortality: hazard ratios (95% confidence interval) for cardiovascular death were 3.10 (1.22-7.87), and for all-cause death 2.47 (1.19-5.15); both P < 0.05. The addition of the MELD-XI score to a prespecified prognostic model increased the discrimination of the model for all-cause death, but the increment in the C-index was only modest: 0.013 (P = 0.02).

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with AHF, hepatorenal dysfunction is prevalent and related to poor outcome. The MELD-XI score is a useful prognosticator in AHF.

Effects of Serelaxin in Patients with Acute Heart Failure

BACKGROUND

Serelaxin is a recombinant form of human relaxin-2, a vasodilator hormone that contributes to cardiovascular and renal adaptations during pregnancy. Previous studies have suggested that treatment with serelaxin may result in relief of symptoms and in better outcomes in patients with acute heart failure.

METHODS

In this multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled, event-driven trial, we enrolled patients who were hospitalized for acute heart failure and had dyspnea, vascular congestion on chest radiography, increased plasma concentrations of natriuretic peptides, mild-to-moderate renal insufficiency, and a systolic blood pressure of at least 125 mm Hg, and we randomly assigned them within 16 hours after presentation to receive either a 48-hour intravenous infusion of serelaxin (30 μg per kilogram of body weight per day) or placebo, in addition to standard care. The two primary end points were death from cardiovascular causes at 180 days and worsening heart failure at 5 days.

RESULTS

A total of 6545 patients were included in the intention-to-treat analysis. At day 180, death from cardiovascular causes had occurred in 285 of the 3274 patients (8.7%) in the serelaxin group and in 290 of the 3271 patients (8.9%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.98; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.83 to 1.15; P = 0.77). At day 5, worsening heart failure had occurred in 227 patients (6.9%) in the serelaxin group and in 252 (7.7%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.75 to 1.07; P = 0.19). There were no significant differences between the groups in the incidence of death from any cause at 180 days, the incidence of death from cardiovascular causes or rehospitalization for heart failure or renal failure at 180 days, or the length of the index hospital stay. The incidence of adverse events was similar in the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

In this trial involving patients who were hospitalized for acute heart failure, an infusion of serelaxin did not result in a lower incidence of death from cardiovascular causes at 180 days or worsening heart failure at 5 days than placebo. (Funded by Novartis Pharma; RELAX-AHF-2 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01870778.).

Effects of serelaxin on the outcome of patients with or without substantial peripheral edema: A subgroup analysis from the RELAX-AHF trial

BACKGROUND

Acute heart failure (AHF) is a heterogeneous disorder, with most of the patients presenting with breathlessness along with varying degrees of peripheral edema. The presence of peripheral edema suggests that volume overload is the cause of decompensation leading to AHF, whereas breathlessness in the absence of edema may reflect a "vascular phenotype." This analysis investigated the characteristics, therapeutic response, and outcome of patients with AHF, with and without overt peripheral edema in the RELAX-AHF trial.

METHODS

Physician-assessed edema scores at baseline were used to categorize the population into those with no/mild edema (score 0 or 1+) and moderate/severe edema (score 2+ or 3+). The effect of serelaxin vs placebo was assessed within each subgroup.

RESULTS

Patients with moderate/severe edema (n = 583; 50.5%) were more likely to have severe dyspnea, orthopnea (>30°), rales (≥1/3), and elevated jugular venous pressure (>6 cm) than the patients with little or no peripheral edema (n=571; 49.5%). The relative benefits of serelaxin in terms of reduction in breathlessness, lower diuretic requirements, decreased length of initial hospital stay and days in intensive care unit/cardiac care unit, and improved prognosis (180-day cardiovascular and all-cause mortality) were generally similar for patients with or without peripheral edema. However, because patients with moderate/severe peripheral edema had worse outcomes, the absolute benefit was generally greater than in patients with no/mild edema.

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, patients with AHF and moderate/severe peripheral edema have a worse prognosis but appear to receive similar relative benefit and perhaps greater absolute benefit from serelaxin administration.

Day vs night: Does time of presentation matter in acute heart failure? A secondary analysis from the RELAX-AHF trial

BACKGROUND

Signs and symptoms of heart failure can occur at any time. Differences between acute heart failure (AHF) patients who present at nighttime vs daytime and their outcomes have not been well studied. Our objective was to determine if there are differences in baseline characteristics and clinical outcomes between AHF patients presenting during daytime vs nighttime hours within an international, clinical trial.

METHODS

This is a post hoc analysis of the RELAX AHF trial, which randomized 1,161 AHF patients to serelaxin vs placebo, both in addition to usual AHF therapy. Prespecified end points of the primary trial were used: dyspnea, 60-day heart failure/renal failure rehospitalization or cardiovascular (CV) death, and 180-day CV death. Both unadjusted and adjusted analyses for outcomes stratified by daytime vs nighttime presentation were performed.

RESULTS

Of the 1,161 RELAX-AHF patients, 775 (66.8%) patients presented during daytime and 386 (33.2%) at nighttime. Baseline characteristics were largely similar, although daytime patients were more likely to be male, have greater baseline body weight, have higher New York Heart Association class, have history of atrial fibrillation, and have more peripheral edema compared with nighttime patients. No differences in dyspnea relief or 60-day outcomes were observed. However, daytime presentation was associated with greater risk for 180-day CV death after adjustment (hazard ratio 2.28, 95% CI 1.34-3.86; c statistic = 0.82, 95% CI 0.78-0.86).

CONCLUSION

In this secondary analysis of the RELAX-AHF trial, baseline characteristics suggest that daytime-presenting patients may have more gradual worsening of chronic HF. Patients with AHF who presented at night had less risk for 180-day CV death, but similar risk for 60-day CV death or rehospitalization and symptom improvement for patients who presented during the daytime.

Serelaxin in addition to standard therapy in acute heart failure: rationale and design of the RELAX-AHF-2 study

Patients admitted for acute heart failure (AHF) experience high rates of in-hospital and post-discharge morbidity and mortality despite current therapies. Serelaxin is recombinant human relaxin-2, a hormone with vasodilatory and end-organ protective effects believed to play a central role in the cardiovascular and renal adaptations of human pregnancy. In the phase 3 RELAX-AHF trial, serelaxin met its primary endpoint of improving dyspnoea through day 5 in patients admitted for AHF. Compared to placebo, serelaxin also reduced worsening heart failure (WHF) by 47% through day 5 and both all-cause and cardiovascular mortality by 37% through day 180. RELAX-AHF-2 ( ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01870778) is designed to confirm serelaxin's effect on these clinical outcomes. RELAX-AHF-2 is a multicentre, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, event-driven, phase 3 trial enrolling ∼6800 patients hospitalized for AHF with dyspnoea, congestion on chest radiograph, increased natriuretic peptide levels, mild-to-moderate renal insufficiency, and systolic blood pressure ≥125 mmHg. Patients are randomized within 16 h of presentation to 48 h intravenous infusions of serelaxin (30 µg/kg/day) or placebo, both in addition to standard of care treatments. The primary objectives are to demonstrate that serelaxin is superior to placebo in reducing: (i) 180 day cardiovascular death, and (ii) occurrence of WHF through day 5. Key secondary endpoints include 180 day all-cause mortality, composite of 180 day combined cardiovascular mortality or heart failure/renal failure rehospitalization, and in-hospital length of stay during index AHF. The results from RELAX-AHF-2 will provide data on the potential beneficial effect of serelaxin on cardiovascular mortality and WHF in selected patients with AHF.

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

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

Interaction between baseline and early worsening of renal function and efficacy of renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system blockade in patients with heart failure: insights from the Val-HeFT study

AIMS

We evaluated the effect of (dual) renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS) blockade with valsartan and an ACE inhibitor [92.7% of patients were treated with an ACE inhibitor in the Valsartan in Heart Failure Trial (Val-HeFT)] in patients with NYHA class II-IV heart failure (HF) and reduced EF on cardiovascular (CV) death and HF hospitalization by subgroups and by presence of early worsening of renal function (EWRF) and according to baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR).

METHODS AND RESULTS

We analysed the data from 5010 patients enrolled in the Val-HeFT study. A total of 2346 (46.8%) patients had baseline renal impairment (i.e. baseline eGFR <60 mL/min/1.73 m(2)). Further, 425 patients (8.6%) had EWRF (i.e. eGFR decrease >20% within 1 month after randomization), whereas 4503 patients (91.4%) had ≤20% decline in eGFR. Overall, the difference between valsartan and placebo on the composite endpoint of CV death and HF hospitalization was significant [P = 0.0005; hazard ratio (HR) 0.83, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.75-0.92)]. In patients with baseline renal impairment, the difference between the treatment groups was also significant (P = 0.0002; HR 0.76, 95% CI 0.66-0.88). Patients with EWRF had higher risk of CV death and HF hospitalization vs. those without ERWF (P < 0.0001; HR 1.44, 95% CI 1.21-1.71), and within the EWRF group a significant difference was also observed between valsartan and placebo (P = 0.0086; HR 0.63, 95% CI 0.45-0.89). However, the interaction between treatment and eGFR at Month 1 was not significant (P = 0.1160).

CONCLUSION

Benefits were maintained in patients with renal dysfunction at baseline and those who experienced EWRF.

The effect of fluvastatin on cardiac outcomes in patients with moderate to severe renal insufficiency: A pooled analysis of double-blind, randomized trials

BACKGROUND

Individuals with chronic kidney disease are at high risk for cardiovascular disease and have a high prevalence of hyperlipidemia. Lipid-lowering therapy may help patients with renal disease reduce their risk for cardiovascular events.

METHODS

A pooled analysis of 30 completed clinical trials compared the efficacy and safety profiles of fluvastatin in subgroups of patients with moderate to severe renal insufficiency (creatinine clearance < 50 ml/min) and patients with normal renal function or mild renal insufficiency (creatinine clearance > or = 50 ml/min).

RESULTS

Changes in lipid parameters with fluvastatin treatment were similar for the compared patient subgroups. Fluvastatin treatment reduced combined cardiac death and myocardial infarction by 41% compared with placebo among patients with moderate to severe renal insufficiency (hazard ratio, 0.59; p=0.007) and by 30% among patients with normal renal function or mild renal insufficiency (hazard ratio, 0.70; p=0.009). The relative reduction in the risk of major adverse cardiac events, a composite endpoint comprising cardiac death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, and coronary intervention procedures, with fluvastatin treatment was not significant for patients with moderate to severe renal insufficiency (hazard ratio, 0.83; p=0.18); in this patient subgroup, the incidence of coronary intervention procedures was similar between treatment groups. The safety profiles were similar for fluvastatin- and placebo-treated patients.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of this pooled analysis indicate that fluvastatin is safe and effective for reducing cardiac death and nonfatal myocardial infarction in patients with moderate to severe renal insufficiency. Fluvastatin did not reduce the rate of coronary intervention procedures.

No detrimental effect on renal function during long-term use of fluvastatin in renal transplant recipients in the Assessment of Lescol in Renal Transplantation (ALERT) study

BACKGROUND

Concerns have recently been raised regarding a potential harmful effect of statins on renal function. This study investigated the effect of fluvastatin treatment on renal function in renal transplant recipients enrolled in the Assessment of Lescol in Renal Transplantation (ALERT) trial.

METHODS

ALERT was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study of the effect of fluvastatin, 40-80 mg daily (n = 1050) or placebo (n = 1052) on cardiac and renal outcomes in renal transplant recipients over a follow-up period of five to six years. The incidence of graft loss, changes in serum creatinine, calculated creatinine clearance and proteinuria, and the incidence of renal adverse events (AEs) were assessed in both treatment groups.

RESULTS

Fluvastatin treatment in ALERT had no significant effect compared with placebo on renal function, assessed by serum creatinine (overall adjusted mean +/- SEM: fluvastatin, 175.4 +/- 2.20 micromol/L; placebo, 172.7 +/- 2.20 micromol/L; p = 0.39), creatinine clearance (fluvastatin, 55.3 +/- 0.30 mL/min; placebo, 55.8 +/- 0.30 mL/min; p = 0.26) or proteinuria (fluvastatin, 0.58 +/- 0.03 g/24 h; placebo, 0.53 +/- 0.03 g/24 h; p = 0.31). There were no significant differences between treatment groups when the 283 patients suffering graft loss were excluded from the analysis. Fluvastatin also had no detrimental effect on creatinine clearance or proteinuria in the subgroup of 340 diabetic patients without graft loss in ALERT. No notable differences in the rate of renal or musculoskeletal AEs were observed between fluvastatin and placebo groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Fluvastatin had no detrimental effect on renal function, or the risk of renal AEs, in renal transplant recipients with or without diabetes enrolled in ALERT. Fluvastatin treatment for the prevention of cardiac events may therefore be used without fear of jeopardizing renal function.

Renal transplant dysfunction--importance quantified in comparison with traditional risk factors for cardiovascular disease and mortality

BACKGROUND

Renal transplant recipients (RTR) mainly die of premature cardiovascular disease. Traditional cardiovascular disease risk factors are prevalent in RTR. Additionally, non-traditional risk factors seem to contribute to the high risk. The impact of renal dysfunction was compared with traditional risk factors for cardiovascular morbidity and mortality in 1052 placebo-treated patients of the ALERT trial.

METHODS

All patients were on cyclosporine-based immunosuppressive therapy, follow-up was 5-6 years and captured endpoints included cardiac death, non-cardiovascular death, all-cause mortality, major adverse cardiac event (MACE), non-fatal myocardial infarction (MI) and stroke.

RESULTS

A calculated 84 micromol/l increase in serum creatinine was needed to double the risk for cardiac death, an increase of 104 micromol/l to double the risk for non-cardiovascular death and an increase of 92 micromol/l to double the risk for all-cause mortality. MACE risk was doubled if serum creatinine was elevated by 141 micromol/l, age was increased by 23 years, or LDL-cholesterol by 2 mmol/l. Diabetes increased the incidences of cardiac death, all-cause mortality, MACE, stroke and non-fatal MI. A serum creatinine increase of approximately 130 micromol/l, or approximately 20 years increase in age was calculated as similar in risk for cardiac death, all-cause mortality and MACE, and comparable to risk of diabetes in RTR.

CONCLUSION

An increase in serum creatinine of 80-100 micromol/l doubles the risk for cardiac death, non-cardiovascular death and all-cause mortality in RTR. An increase of 130 micromol/l in serum creatinine or approximately 20 years increase in age is comparable to risk of diabetes.

The Renal Safety Profile of Fluvastatin: Results of a Pooled Analysis

A pooled analysis was designed to evaluate the effects of fluvastatin on the kidney, in terms of renal adverse events, laboratory abnormalities, and renal function over time. An analysis of adverse events was performed on data from 30 completed clinical trials of fluvastatin in 11,815 patients. An analysis of renal function was also performed on data from patients who participated in long-term studies >6 months in treatment duration. Creatinine clearance was calculated using the Cockcroft-Gault formula. Mean creatinine clearance values were in the normal to near-normal range at baseline. Changes in creatinine clearance and serum creatinine from baseline were similar in fluvastatin-treated patients and placebo-treated patients. In the all-fluvastatin group, mean creatinine clearance (+/-standard deviation) increased from 87.8 (+/-42.8) mL/min at baseline to 89.4 (+/-41.2) mL/min at endpoint. In the placebo group, mean creatinine clearance (+/- standard deviation) increased from 87.7 (+/- 43.9) mL/min at baseline to 88.7 (+/-41.4) mL/min at endpoint. In the all-fluvastatin group, mean serum creatinine (+/- standard deviation) decreased from 1.14 (+/-0.20) mg/dL at baseline to 1.11 (+/-0.20) mg/dL at endpoint. In the placebo group, mean serum creatinine (+/-standard deviation) decreased from 1.15 (+/-0.22) mg/dL at baseline to 1.12 (+/-0.22) mg/dL at endpoint. The incidence of renal adverse events was low and comparable between the fluvastatin and placebo treatment groups. This pooled analysis demonstrates that fluvastatin treatment across the approved daily dose range of 20 mg to 80 mg does not adversely affect creatinine or creatinine clearance over time in dyslipidemic patients.

Renal dysfunction is a strong and independent risk factor for mortality and cardiovascular complications in renal transplantation

Renal transplant recipients (RTR) have shortened life expectancy, primarily due to premature cardiovascular disease (CVD). Traditional CVD risk factors are highly prevalent. In addition, several non-traditional risk factors may contribute to the high risk. The aim of the study was to evaluate the effects of renal dysfunction on mortality and cardiovascular complications in 1052 placebo-treated patients of the Assessment of LEscol in Renal Transplantation (ALERT) trial. Follow-up was 5-6 years and endpoints included cardiac death, non-cardiovascular death, all-cause mortality, major adverse cardiac event (MACE), non-fatal myocardial infarction (MI) and stroke. The effects of serum creatinine at baseline on these endpoints were evaluated. Elevated serum creatinine in RTR was a strong and independent risk factor for MACE, cardiac, non-cardiovascular, and all-cause mortality, but not for stroke or non-fatal MI alone. Serum creatinine was associated with increased mortality and MACE, independent of established CVD risk factors. Graft loss resulted in increased incidences of non-cardiovascular death, all-cause mortality, MACE and non-fatal MI. In conclusion, elevated serum creatinine is a strong risk factor for all-cause, non-cardiovascular and cardiac mortality, and MACE, independent of traditional risk factors, but not for stroke or non-fatal MI alone.

Renal Dysfunction as a Risk Factor for Mortality and Cardiovascular Disease in Renal Transplantation: Experience from the Assessment of Lescol in Renal Transplantation Trial

BACKGROUND

Renal-transplant recipients have shortened life expectancy primarily because of premature cardiovascular disease. Traditional and nontraditional risk factors for cardiovascular disease are prevalent in renal patients. In renal-transplant recipients, immunosuppressive therapy can be nephrotoxic and aggravate cardiovascular disease risk factors. Renal dysfunction has been established as a risk factor for cardiovascular disease and mortality in different populations. We evaluated the effects of baseline renal-transplant function on mortality and cardiovascular and renal endpoints in 1,052 placebo-treated patients of the Assessment of Lescol in Renal Transplantation trial.

METHODS

All renal-transplant recipients were on cyclosporine-based immunosuppressive therapy. Follow-up was 5 to 6 years, and endpoints included cardiac death, noncardiovascular death, all-cause mortality, major adverse cardiac event (MACE), stroke, nonfatal myocardial infarction, and graft loss.

RESULTS

Baseline serum creatinine was strongly and independently associated with increased cardiac, noncardiovascular, and all-cause mortality, as well as MACE and graft loss. Serum creatinine was not a risk factor for stroke or nonfatal myocardial infarction.

CONCLUSIONS

Elevated baseline serum creatinine in renal-transplant recipients is a strong and independent risk factor for all-cause, noncardiovascular and cardiac mortality, MACE, and graft loss.

Beneficial effect of early initiation of lipid-lowering therapy following renal transplantation

BACKGROUND

Renal transplant recipients have a significantly reduced life expectancy, largely due to premature cardiovascular disease. The aim of the current analysis was to investigate the importance of time of initiation of therapy after transplantation, on the benefits of statin therapy.

METHODS

2102 renal transplant recipients with total cholesterol levels of 4.0-9.0 mmol/l were randomly assigned to treatment with fluvastatin (n = 1050) or placebo (n = 1052) and followed for a mean time of 5.1 years. The end-points were major cardiac events. The average median time from transplantation to randomization was 4.5 years (range: 0.5-29 years).

RESULTS

In patients starting treatment with fluvastatin <4.5 years after renal transplantation, the incidence of cardiac events was 4.6% over 5.1 years vs 9.2% in those on placebo (P = 0.007). Fluvastatin significantly reduced the risk of cardiac death and non-fatal myocardial infarction by 56% [risk ratio (RR): 0.44; 95% confidence interval (95% CI): 0.26-0.74; P = 0.002]. In a more detailed analysis patients were grouped into 2-year intervals (since the last transplantation). The frequency of cardiac death and non-fatal myocardial infarction was reduced by 3.2%, 5.1%, 9.6% and 8.2% with fluvastatin treatment as compared to 6%, 10.4%, 13.4% and 9.6% with placebo when treatment was initiated at 0-2, 2-4, 4-6 and >6 years, respectively. The risk reduction for patients initiating therapy with fluvastatin at years 0-2 (compared with >6 years) following transplantation was 59% (RR: 0.41; 95% CI: 0.18-0.92; P = 0.0328). This is also reflected in total time on renal replacement therapy: in patients in the first quartile (<47 months) fluvastatin use was associated with a risk reduction of 64% compared with 19% for patients in the fourth quartile (>120 months) (P = 0.033).

CONCLUSIONS

Our data support an early introduction of fluvastatin therapy in a population of transplant recipients at high risk of premature coronary heart disease.