Alkaline phosphatase and bilirubin combined are a powerful predictor of outcome in patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction: an analysis of the ATMOSPHERE and PARADIGM-HF trials

Introduction

Bilirubin is a recognized predictor of adverse outcomes in patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), possibly because it is a marker of congestion. Alkaline phosphatase (ALP) is an enzyme produced in many tissues including the biliary ducts and elevated levels are also associated with congestion.

Purpose

To examine the prognostic value of ALP alone and in combination with bilirubin in patients with HFrEF.

Methods

The study population was ambulatory patients with HFrEF enrolled in 2 recent clinical trials with similar inclusion and exclusion criteria: ATMOSPHERE (derivation cohort) and PARADIGM-HF (validation). Cut points to define elevated bilirubin and alkaline phosphatase were >17mg/dL and >120 U/L respectively. The composite of cardiovascular death or HF hospitalization, its components, and all-cause death related to elevation of one, other or both of bilirubin and ALP was examined using Cox regression. Univariable and multivariable models with adjustment for other recognized prognostic variables including NT-proBNP were analyzed.

Results

Of 7016 patients with HFrEF enrolled in ATMOSPHERE, 6870 had a measurement of both bilirubin and ALP at baseline: mean age 63 years, 22% women, mean LVEF 28% and proportion NYHA class III/IV 37%. Bilirubin and ALP were both normal in 4810 (70.0%) patients, bilirubin was elevated in 1393 (20.3%), ALP was elevated in 360 (5.2%) and both were elevated in 307 (4.5%) patients. Patients with elevation of both ALP and bilirubin were older, had lower systolic blood pressure, higher heart rate, higher NT-pro BNP, more clinical features of congestion, more atrial fibrillation and a greater proportion were treated with diuretics and digoxin. The primary endpoint rates (per 100 person-years) were 10.4 (95% CI 9.9–11.0) when both markers were normal, 15.1 (13.9–16.4) when bilirubin was elevated, 12.4 (10.4–14.9) when alkaline phosphatase was elevated, and 25.6 (22.0–29.9) when both markers were elevated (Figure 1). The adjusted hazard ratios (95% CI) were (both biomarkers normal = reference): elevated bilirubin 1.19 (1.07–1.31), P=0.001; elevated ALP 1.03 (0.84–1.26), P=0.81; both elevated 1.45 (1.21–1.73), P<0.001. Elevation of both bilirubin and ALP was a significant independent predictor of the components of the primary outcome and all-cause death, the corresponding hazard ratios for all cause death were 1.12 (0.99–1.25), p=0.06; 1.19 (0.96–1.47), p=0.12; and 1.51 (1.25–1.82), p<0.001. These findings were validated in PARADIGM-HF (Table 1).

Conclusions

Elevation of ALP in combination with elevated bilirubin identifies a small group of patients at very high risk of adverse outcomes. This may reflect more significant congestion. ALP and bilirubin, inexpensive and routinely measured biochemical tests, are useful prognostic markers in patients with HFrEF.

Funding Acknowledgement

Type of funding sources: Private grant(s) and/or Sponsorship.

Prevalent and incident anaemia in PARADIGM-HF and effect of sacubitril/valsartan

Background

Anaemia is common in patients with HFrEF and is associated with poor clinical outcomes. Although they reduce rates of mortality and heart failure hospitalization, renin-angiotensin (RAS) blockers lower haemoglobin and may induce anaemia. Concomitant neprilysin inhibition might ameliorate this effect of RAS blockers.

Purpose

We investigated the effect of sacubitril/valsartan compared with enalapril on clinical outcomes, according to anaemia status, and on haemoglobin levels in PARADIGM-HF.

Methods

Patient characteristics and clinical outcomes were compared between patients with and without anaemia (defined as haemoglobin <120 g/L in women and <130 g/L in men) at baseline. We investigated the effect of randomized treatment (sacubitril/valsartan or enalapril) on clinical outcomes according to anaemia status at screening. We also examined the effect of treatment on change in haemoglobin from baseline and on the incidence of anaemia. The primary endpoint in PARADIGM-HF was the composite of heart failure hospitalization or cardiovascular death.

Results

Of 8239 participants with a baseline haemoglobin measurement, 1677 (20.4%) were anaemic. Compared to those without anaemia, patients with anaemia had a more severe heart failure profile, worse kidney function, greater neurohormonal derangement and worse clinical outcomes. Sacubitril/valsartan, compared to enalapril, reduced the risk of the primary endpoint similarly in patients with anaemia (HR 0.84, 95% CI 0.71–1.00) and without anaemia (HR 0.78, 95% CI 0.71–0.87), p-value for interaction=0.478. Between baseline and 12 months, haemoglobin decreased by 1.5 (95% CI 1.7 to 1.2) g/L with sacubitril/valsartan compared with 2.3 (2.6 to 2.0) g/L with enalapril group: mean difference 0.8 (95% CI 0.5 to 1.2) g/L, p<0.001. The between-treatment difference apparent by 12 months, persisted up to 36 months. Patients assigned to sacubitril/valsartan were less likely to develop new anaemia at 12 months [321 of 2806 (11.4%)] compared to patients randomized to enalapril [440 of 2384 (15.6%)], odds ratio 0.70 (95% CI 0.60–0.81), p<0.001.

Conclusions

Compared to enalapril, sacubitril/valsartan reduced mortality and hospitalization in HFrEF patients with and without anaemia. Haemoglobin decreased less with sacubitril/valsartan and the incidence of new anaemia was lower in the sacubitril/valsartan group compared with the enalapril group.

Funding Acknowledgement

Type of funding sources: Private company. Main funding source(s): PARADIGM-HF was funded by Novartis.

Implications of the 2021 CKD-EPI cystatin C/creatinine eGFR equation for eligibility for therapy in HFrEF: insights from PARADIGM-HF

Background

Estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) is a key determinant of eligibility for many life-saving therapies in HFrEF. Recently, the Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration (CKD-EPI) provided new equations based on creatinine (CKD-EPIcr), cystatin C (CKD-EPIcys) or both (CKD-EPIcyscr) that do not include race. These new equations may reclassify individuals, irrespective of race, from one eGFR category to another, with implications for eligibility for HFrEF treatments.

Purpose

To assess the difference between eGFR estimation using the 2021 CKD-EPIcyscr equation and the 2009 CKD-EPIcr and Modification of Diet in Renal Disease Study (MDRD)-4 equations which are still standard in many European laboratories.

Methods

We included patients from PARADIGM-HF with cystatin C and creatinine values available at the time of randomization. For each patient, baseline eGFRs were calculated using the 3 equations described. Our focus was on patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) stages III–V.

Results

Overall, 1910 patients were eligible. Mean age was 67.3 (10.1) year and 385 (18.7%) were female. Using 2009 CKD-EPIcr, 779 patients were in CKD stages 3–5, of which 233 (30%) were reclassified to a better CKD stage (higher eGFR) with the 2021 CKD-EPIcyscr equation (Table 1). Similar reclassification was seen when comparing MDRD-4 with the 2021 CKD-EPIcyscr equation: 277 (33%) of 831 patients in CKD stages 3–5 were reclassified to a better CKD stage (Figure 1).

Conclusions

The 2021 CKD-EPIcyscr equation favourably reclassified CKD stage in a large percentage of patients with HFrEF and a low eGFR, potentially increasing the proportion of these patients considered eligible for guideline-recommended therapies.

Funding Acknowledgement

Type of funding sources: None.

Antihypertensive therapy and quality of life. Influence of blood pressure reduction, adverse events, and prior antihypertensive therapy

Quality of life is an important attribute of antihypertensive therapy. Previous studies have not addressed the importance of a patient's prior pharmacotherapy on quality of life, which may serve as the basis of reference for a new therapy. Nor have previous studies compared commonly used quality of life instruments for consistency, or investigated whether improvement or worsening of quality of life correlates with adverse events or blood pressure reduction. Two hundred eighteen hypertensive patients with diastolic blood pressure (95 to 114 mm Hg) after a 4- to 5-week placebo washout period were enrolled in a randomized double-blind, parallel group dose-escalation trial to compare the effects of amlodipine (2.5 to 10 mg), bisoprolol (2.5 to 10 mg)/hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) 6.25, and enalapril (5 to 20 mg) on blood pressure, adverse events, and quality of life. Three quality of life instruments (General Well-Being Index, Vital Signs Quality of Life, Zung Self-Rating Depression Scale) were administered during original therapy, after placebo washout, and after 12 weeks of optimally titrated clinical trial pharmacotherapy. Our results demonstrated that removal from prior therapy had no detectable influence on subsequent evaluation of quality of life. The three quality of life instruments were consistent with the changes observed with the three therapies: a trend toward better quality of life with amlodipine and bisoprolol/HCTZ. Adverse events, but not systolic or diastolic blood pressure reduction correlated directly with changes in quality of life.

Hypertension in the elderly: 24 h ambulatory blood pressure results from a placebo-controlled trial

Calcium channel blockers are increasingly used to treat hypertension in elderly patients. To assess the effects of low-dose, long-acting verapamil on blood pressure (BP) and quality of life (QOL) in elderly patients, verapamil 120-240 mg of placebo was given once daily for 8 weeks to 76 patients aged > or = 60 years. After a 4-week placebo wash-out period, patients with a sitting DBP of 95-110 mm Hg and a mean daytime (6 am to 6 pm) ambulatory DBP > or = 90 mm Hg were entered into the study. Twenty four-hour BP monitoring as well as QOL self-assessment and digit span testing of cognitive function were performed at the end of the placebo wash-out and double-blind treatment periods. Patients treated with verapamil showed a significant decrease in mean whole-day BP, while those treated with placebo showed a small increase in BP. Treatment differences between the two groups in SBP and DBP were each statistically significant (P < 0.01). Significant differences were also seen when the 24 h period was divided into daytime and night-time readings. Both QOL and digit span testing scores were unchanged from baseline for verapamil-treated patients and were not different from the placebo-treated group. The results of this study demonstrate consistent and significant decreases in BP throughout the 24 h period with no adverse effects on QOL or cognitive function this this formulation of verapamil in elderly hypertensive patients.

Low-dose drug combination therapy: an alternative first-line approach to hypertension treatment

To investigate the concept that the initial treatment of hypertension with low doses of two antihypertensives that have different modes of action and additive effects may achieve control of blood pressure and minimize the dose-dependent adverse effects seen with conventional monotherapy, a randomized, double-blind parallel group dose-escalation study was conducted. After a 4 to 5 week placebo washout period, 218 men and women with diastolic blood pressure between 95 and 114 mm Hg were randomly allocated to take: amlodipine (2.5 to 10 mg), enalapril (5 to 20 mg), and the low-dose combination of bisoprolol (2.5 to 10 mg) with 6.25 mg of hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ). All drugs were administered once daily, titrated to optimal response, and taken for a total of 12 weeks. Blood pressure was measured 24 hours after dose. The response rates (either a diastolic blood pressure < or = 90 mm Hg or a decrease of diastolic pressure > or = 10 mm Hg) were 71% for bisoprolol-6.25 mg HCTZ, 69% for amlodipine, and 45% for enalapril. The mean decreases in systolic/diastolic blood pressure from baseline were 13.4/10.7, 12.8/10.2, and 7.3/6.6 mm Hg for bisoprolol-6.25 mg HCTZ, amlodipine, and enalapril, respectively. The mean change with enalapril was less than the other drugs (p < 0.01), although the once-daily dosing of enalapril and the maximum dose of 20 mg might not have been optimal for this agent.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

Comparison of bisoprolol with atenolol for systemic hypertension in four population groups (young, old, black and nonblack) using ambulatory blood pressure monitoring. Bisoprolol Investigators Group

The antihypertensive effects of drugs are partly determined by characteristics of the patients treated. A randomized, double-blind study used 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure (BP) monitoring to compare the effects of 2 beta blockers, bisoprolol (10 to 20 mg; n = 107) and atenolol (50 to 100 mg; n = 96), administered once daily in 4 population groups. After a 4-week placebo period, patients with an office diastolic BP between 95 and 114 mm Hg were stratified according to race and age, and were randomly assigned to treatment with bisoprolol or atenolol for 8 weeks. BP averages measured by automated monitoring for the 24-hour periods were compared between groups. In elderly patients, the reductions in both average 24-hour systolic and diastolic BP were greater with bisoprolol than with atenolol (13 +/- 3/13 +/- 1 mm Hg [n = 23] vs 4 +/- 2/6 +/- 1 mm Hg [n = 30]; p < 0.01). Similarly, bisoprolol produced greater reductions in average 24-hour diastolic BP than did atenolol in nonblack patients (16 +/- 2/12 +/- 1 mm Hg [n = 85] vs 12 +/- 2/9 +/- 1 mm Hg [n = 83]; p = 0.02). Bisoprolol and atenolol were similar in the black (10 +/- 5/9 +/- 3 mm Hg [n = 22] and 10 +/- 6/6 +/- 3 mm Hg [n = 13], respectively) and young (15 +/- 1/11 +/- 1 mm Hg [n = 84] and 16 +/- 2/10 +/- 1 mm Hg [n = 66], respectively) groups.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

Application of ambulatory blood pressure monitoring in differentiating between antihypertensive agents

PURPOSE

This multicenter, double-blind, parallel group study assessed the usefulness of the ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) technique in differentiating between the once-daily administration of the beta blockers bisoprolol (10 to 20 mg) and atenolol (50 to 100 mg) in terms of efficacy and duration of action.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

The study population consisted of 659 patients with essential hypertension and an average office diastolic blood pressure (BP) between 95 and 115 mm Hg after 4 weeks of placebo treatment. Office BPs were recorded at the end of the 24-hour dosing interval (trough). ABPM was performed in 11 of the 28 institutions participating in this study in a total of 203 patients. These procedures were performed at the end of the placebo phase and again after 8 weeks of active treatment.

RESULTS

With the use of conventionally measured office BPs, the two drugs significantly (p < 0.001) decreased trough systolic and diastolic BPs to a similar extent. By 24-hour monitoring, bisoprolol demonstrated a 33% greater reduction in whole-day average diastolic BP than did atenolol (11.6 +/- 0.7 mm Hg versus 8.7 +/- 0.8 mm Hg, p < 0.01). Significant treatment differences in systolic (p < 0.05) and diastolic (p < 0.01) BPs were also noted for bisoprolol compared with atenolol during the final 4 hours of the dosing interval (-13.2 +/- 1.5/-10.9 +/- 1.0 mm Hg versus -8.9 +/- 1.6/-7.3 +/- 1.1 mm Hg, respectively), and over the time period 6:00 AM to noon (-14.2 +/- 1.3/-11.5 +/- 0.9 mm Hg versus -9.9 +/- 1.4/-7.7 +/- 0.9 mm Hg).

CONCLUSIONS

Whereas conventional BP measurements did not detect differences in the antihypertensive effects of the beta blockers bisoprolol and atenolol, ABPM revealed significant treatment differences in both the efficacy and duration of action of these two agents. These findings indicate the power of this technique to discriminate potentially important differences between apparently similar antihypertensive drugs.