Highlights • The validity of using changes in serum creatinine as surrogate endpoints for outcomes in heart failure was examined in 301 patients in the DOSE trial. • Decreases in serum creatinine, ...when incorrectly assumed to be linearly related to outcomes, were paradoxically associated with a substantially increased risk for adverse events. • Worsening in serum creatinine during the randomized intervention was not associated with an increase in adverse outcomes. • Improvement in renal function during the randomized intervention was strongly associated with poor outcomes. • The practice of using mild to moderate-sized changes in serum creatinine as an endpoint in heart failure clinical trials may be inappropriate.
Heart failure (HF) with preserved ejection fraction (EF; HFpEF) accounts for 50% of HF cases, and its prevalence relative to HF with reduced EF continues to rise. In contrast to HF with reduced EF, ...large trials testing neurohumoral inhibition in HFpEF failed to reach a positive outcome. This failure was recently attributed to distinct systemic and myocardial signaling in HFpEF and to diversity of HFpEF phenotypes. In this review, an HFpEF treatment strategy is proposed that addresses HFpEF-specific signaling and phenotypic diversity. In HFpEF, extracardiac comorbidities such as metabolic risk, arterial hypertension, and renal insufficiency drive left ventricular remodeling and dysfunction through systemic inflammation and coronary microvascular endothelial dysfunction. The latter affects left ventricular diastolic dysfunction through macrophage infiltration, resulting in interstitial fibrosis, and through altered paracrine signaling to cardiomyocytes, which become hypertrophied and stiff because of low nitric oxide and cyclic guanosine monophosphate. Systemic inflammation also affects other organs such as lungs, skeletal muscle, and kidneys, leading, respectively, to pulmonary hypertension, muscle weakness, and sodium retention. Individual steps of these signaling cascades can be targeted by specific interventionsmetabolic risk by caloric restriction, systemic inflammation by statins, pulmonary hypertension by phosphodiesterase 5 inhibitors, muscle weakness by exercise training, sodium retention by diuretics and monitoring devices, myocardial nitric oxide bioavailability by inorganic nitrate-nitrite, myocardial cyclic guanosine monophosphate content by neprilysin or phosphodiesterase 9 inhibition, and myocardial fibrosis by spironolactone. Because of phenotypic diversity in HFpEF, personalized therapeutic strategies are proposed, which are configured in a matrix with HFpEF presentations in the abscissa and HFpEF predispositions in the ordinate.
The extracellular matrix (ECM) is a complex entity containing a large portfolio of structural proteins, signaling molecules, and proteases. Changes in the overall integrity and activational state of ...these ECM constituents can contribute to tissue structure and function, which is certainly true of the myocardium. Changes in the expression patterns and activational states of a family of ECM proteolytic enzymes, the matrix metalloproteinases (MMPs), have been identified in all forms of left ventricle remodeling and can be a contributory factor in the progression to heart failure. However, new clinical and basic research has identified some surprising and unpredicted changes in MMP profiles in left ventricle remodeling processes, such as with pressure or volume overload, as well as with myocardial infarction. From these studies, it has become recognized that proteolytic processing of signaling molecules by certain MMP types, particularly the transmembrane MMPs, actually may facilitate ECM accumulation and modulate fibroblast transdifferentiation; both are critical events in adverse left ventricle remodeling. Based on the ever-increasing substrates and diversity of biological actions of MMPs, it is likely that continued research about the relationship of left ventricle remodeling in this family of proteases will yield new insights into the ECM remodeling process and new therapeutic targets.
Abstract The Expedited Access for Premarket Approval and De Novo Medical Devices Intended for Unmet Medical Need for Life Threatening or Irreversibly Debilitating Diseases or Conditions document was ...issued as a guidance for industry and for the Food and Drug Administration. The Expedited Access Pathway was designed as a new program for medical devices that demonstrated the potential to address unmet medical needs for life threatening or irreversibly debilitating conditions. The Food and Drug Administration would consider assessments of a device’s effect on intermediate endpoints that, when improving in a congruent fashion, are reasonably likely to predict clinical benefit. The purpose of this review is to provide evidence to support the use of 3 such intermediate endpoints: natriuretic peptides, such as N-terminal pro–B-type natriuretic peptide/B-type natriuretic peptide, the 6-min walk test distance, and health-related quality of life in heart failure.
Myocardial fibrosis is an important pathophysiological mechanism underlying the development of heart failure (HF). Given the biochemical targets of sacubitril/valsartan, we hypothesized that ...circulating biomarkers reflecting the mechanisms that determine extracellular matrix (ECM) homeostasis, including collagen synthesis, processing, and degradation, are altered by sacubitril/valsartan in comparison to enalapril.
The purpose of this study was to examine the effects of sacubitril/valsartan on biomarkers of ECM homeostasis and the association between the rate of primary composite outcome (cardiovascular death or HF hospitalization) and these biomarkers.
Biomarkers at baseline (n = 2,067) and both baseline and 8 months after randomization (n = 1,776) included aldosterone, soluble ST2 (sST2), tissue inhibitor of matrix metalloproteinase (TIMP)-1, matrix metalloproteinase (MMP)-2, MMP-9, Galectin-3 (Gal-3), N-terminal propeptide of collagen I (PINP), and N-terminal propeptide of collagen III (PIIINP). The effects of sacubitril/valsartan on biomarkers were compared with enalapril. Baseline biomarker values and changes from baseline to 8 months were related to primary outcome.
At baseline, the profibrotic biomarkers aldosterone, sST2, TIMP-1, Gal-3, PINP, and PIIINP were higher, and biomarkers associated with collagen degradation, MMP-2 and -9, were lower than published referent control values. Eight months after randomization, aldosterone, sST2, TIMP-1, MMP-9, PINP, and PIIINP had decreased more in the sacubitril/valsartan than enalapril group. At baseline, higher values of sST-2, TIMP-1, and PIIINP were associated with higher primary outcome rates. Changes from baseline to 8 months in sST-2 and TIMP-1 were associated with change in outcomes.
Biomarkers associated with profibrotic signaling are altered in HF with reduced ejection fraction, sacubitril/valsartan significantly decreased many of these biomarkers, and these biomarkers have important prognostic value. These findings suggest that sacubitril/valsartan may reduce profibrotic signaling, which may contribute to the improved outcomes. (This Study Will Evaluate the Efficacy and Safety of LCZ696 Compared to Enalapril on Morbidity and Mortality of Patients With Chronic Heart Failure PARADIGM-HF; NCT01035255)
Display omitted
This hemodynamic study provides convincing evidence that heart failure in patients with a normal left ventricular ejection fraction is due to abnormal diastolic function.
Convincing evidence that ...heart failure in patients with a normal left ventricular ejection fraction is due to abnormal diastolic function.
Heart failure is a common cause of cardiovascular disease and death and may occur in the presence of either a normal or an abnormal left ventricular ejection fraction.
1
–
3
Patients with heart failure who have a normal ejection fraction differ substantially from those with heart failure and a decreased ejection fraction in several ways, including demographic characteristics, ventricular remodeling, ventricular function, the mortality rate, underlying causal mechanisms, and pathophysiological mechanisms.
4
–
14
It is widely accepted that the pathophysiology of heart failure in patients with a decreased ejection fraction involves a predominant (though not isolated) decrease in systolic function; this association . . .
Diabetes is an independent risk factor for heart failure progression. Sacubitril/valsartan, a combination angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor, improves morbidity and mortality in patients with ...heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), compared with the angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor enalapril, and improves peripheral insulin sensitivity in obese hypertensive patients. We aimed to investigate the effect of sacubitril/valsartan versus enalapril on HbA
and time to first-time initiation of insulin or oral antihyperglycaemic drugs in patients with diabetes and HFrEF.
In a post-hoc analysis of the PARADIGM-HF trial, we included 3778 patients with known diabetes or an HbA
≥6·5% at screening out of 8399 patients with HFrEF who were randomly assigned to treatment with sacubitril/valsartan or enalapril. Of these patients, most (98%) had type 2 diabetes. We assessed changes in HbA
, triglycerides, HDL cholesterol and BMI in a mixed effects longitudinal analysis model. Time to initiation of oral antihyperglycaemic drugs or insulin in subjects previously not treated with these agents were compared between treatment groups.
There were no significant differences in HbA
concentrations between randomised groups at screening. During the first year of follow-up, HbA
concentrations decreased by 0·16% (SD 1·40) in the enalapril group and 0·26% (SD 1·25) in the sacubitril/valsartan group (between-group reduction 0·13%, 95% CI 0·05-0·22, p=0·0023). HbA
concentrations were persistently lower in the sacubitril/valsartan group than in the enalapril group over the 3-year follow-up (between-group reduction 0·14%, 95% CI 0·06-0·23, p=0·0055). New use of insulin was 29% lower in patients receiving sacubitril/valsartan (114 7% patients) compared with patients receiving enalapril (153 10%; hazard ratio 0·71, 95% CI 0·56-0·90, p=0·0052). Similarly, fewer patients were started on oral antihyperglycaemic therapy (0·77, 0·58-1·02, p=0·073) in the sacubitril/valsartan group.
Patients with diabetes and HFrEF enrolled in PARADIGM-HF who received sacubitril/valsartan had a greater long-term reduction in HbA
than those receiving enalapril. These data suggest that sacubitril/valsartan might enhance glycaemic control in patients with diabetes and HFrEF.
Novartis.
Previous studies have suggested that haemodynamic-guided management using an implantable pulmonary artery pressure monitor reduces heart failure hospitalisations in patients with moderately ...symptomatic (New York Heart Association NYHA functional class III) chronic heart failure and a hospitalisation in the past year, irrespective of ejection fraction. It is unclear if these benefits extend to patients with mild (NYHA functional class II) or severe (NYHA functional class IV) symptoms of heart failure or to patients with elevated natriuretic peptides without a recent heart failure hospitalisation. This trial was designed to evaluate whether haemodynamic-guided management using remote pulmonary artery pressure monitoring could reduce heart failure events and mortality in patients with heart failure across the spectrum of symptom severity (NYHA funational class II–IV), including those with elevated natriuretic peptides but without a recent heart failure hospitalisation.
The randomised arm of the haemodynamic-GUIDEed management of Heart Failure (GUIDE-HF) trial was a multicentre, single-blind study at 118 centres in the USA and Canada. Following successful implantation of a pulmonary artery pressure monitor, patients with all ejection fractions, NYHA functional class II–IV chronic heart failure, and either a recent heart failure hospitalisation or elevated natriuretic peptides (based on a-priori thresholds) were randomly assigned (1:1) to either haemodynamic-guided heart failure management based on pulmonary artery pressure or a usual care control group. Patients were masked to their study group assignment. Investigators were aware of treatment assignment but did not have access to pulmonary artery pressure data for control patients. The primary endpoint was a composite of all-cause mortality and total heart failure events (heart failure hospitalisations and urgent heart failure hospital visits) at 12 months assessed in all randomly assigned patients. Safety was assessed in all patients. A pre-COVID-19 impact analysis for the primary and secondary outcomes was prespecified. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03387813.
Between March 15, 2018, and Dec 20, 2019, 1022 patients were enrolled, with 1000 patients implanted successfully, and follow-up was completed on Jan 8, 2021. There were 253 primary endpoint events (0·563 per patient-year) among 497 patients in the haemodynamic-guided management group (treatment group) and 289 (0·640 per patient-year) in 503 patients in the control group (hazard ratio HR 0·88, 95% CI 0·74–1·05; p=0·16). A prespecified COVID-19 sensitivity analysis using a time-dependent variable to compare events before COVID-19 and during the pandemic suggested a treatment interaction (pinteraction=0·11) due to a change in the primary endpoint event rate during the pandemic phase of the trial, warranting a pre-COVID-19 impact analysis. In the pre-COVID-19 impact analysis, there were 177 primary events (0·553 per patient-year) in the intervention group and 224 events (0·682 per patient-year) in the control group (HR 0·81, 95% CI 0·66–1·00; p=0·049). This difference in primary events almost disappeared during COVID-19, with a 21% decrease in the control group (0·536 per patient-year) relative to pre-COVID-19, virtually no change in the treatment group (0·597 per patient-year), and no difference between groups (HR 1·11, 95% CI 0·80–1·55; p=0·53). The cumulative incidence of heart failure events was not reduced by haemodynamic-guided management (0·85, 0·70–1·03; p=0·096) in the overall study analysis but was significantly decreased in the pre-COVID-19 impact analysis (0·76, 0·61–0·95; p=0·014). 1014 (99%) of 1022 patients had freedom from device or system-related complications.
Haemodynamic-guided management of heart failure did not result in a lower composite endpoint rate of mortality and total heart failure events compared with the control group in the overall study analysis. However, a pre-COVID-19 impact analysis indicated a possible benefit of haemodynamic-guided management on the primary outcome in the pre-COVID-19 period, primarily driven by a lower heart failure hospitalisation rate compared with the control group.
Abbott.
Objectives This study sought to determine the frequency and magnitude of impaired systolic deformation in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). Background Although diastolic ...dysfunction is widely considered a key pathophysiologic mediator of HFpEF, the prevalence of concomitant systolic dysfunction has not been clearly defined. Methods We assessed myocardial systolic and diastolic function in 219 HFpEF patients from a contemporary HFpEF clinical trial. Myocardial deformation was assessed using a vendor-independent 2-dimensional speckle-tracking software. The frequency and severity of impaired deformation was assessed in HFpEF, and compared to 50 normal controls free of cardiovascular disease and to 44 age- and sex-matched hypertensive patients with diastolic dysfunction (hypertensive heart disease) but no HF. Among HFpEF patients, clinical, echocardiographic, and biomarker correlates of left ventricular strain were determined. Results The HFpEF patients had preserved left ventricular ejection fraction and evidence of diastolic dysfunction. Compared to both normal controls and hypertensive heart disease patients, the HFpEF patients demonstrated significantly lower longitudinal strain (LS) (−20.0 ± 2.1 and −17.07 ± 2.04 vs. −14.6 ± 3.3, respectively, p < 0.0001 for both) and circumferential strain (CS) (−27.1 ± 3.1 and −30.1 ± 3.5 vs. −22.9 ± 5.9, respectively; p < 0.0001 for both). In HFpEF, both LS and CS were related to LVEF (LS, R = −0.46; p < 0.0001; CS, R = −0.51; p < 0.0001) but not to standard echocardiographic measures of diastolic function (E' or E/E'). Lower LS was modestly associated with higher NT-proBNP, even after adjustment for 10 baseline covariates including LVEF, measures of diastolic function, and LV filling pressure (multivariable adjusted p = 0.001). Conclusions Strain imaging detects impaired systolic function despite preserved global LVEF in HFpEF that may contribute to the pathophysiology of the HFpEF syndrome. (LCZ696 Compared to Valsartan in Patients With Chronic Heart Failure and Preserved Left-ventricular Ejection Fraction; NCT00887588 )
Compared to heart failure patients with higher systolic blood pressure (SBP), those with lower SBP have a worse prognosis. To make matters worse, the latter patients often do not receive treatment ...with life-saving therapies that might lower blood pressure further. We examined the association between SBP and outcomes in the Prospective Comparison of angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI) with an angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor to Determine Impact on Global Mortality and Morbidity in Heart Failure trial (PARADIGM-HF), as well as the effect of sacubitril/valsartan, compared with enalapril, according to baseline SBP.
We analysed the effect of treatment on SBP and on the primary composite outcome (cardiovascular death or heart failure hospitalization), its components and all-cause death. We examined baseline SBP as a categorical (<110, 110 to < 120, 120 to < 130, 130 to < 140 and ≥140 mmHg) and continuous variable, as well as average in-trial SBP and time-updated SBP.
All-cause and cardiovascular mortality rates were highest in patients with the lowest SBP whereas there was a U-shaped relationship between SBP and the rate of heart failure hospitalization. The benefit of sacubitril/valsartan over enalapril was consistent across all baseline SBP categories for all outcomes. For example, the sacubitril/valsartan versus enalapril hazard ratio for the primary endpoint was 0.88 (95%CI 0.74-1.06) in patients with a baseline SBP <110 mmHg and 0.81 (0.65-1.02) for those with a SBP ≥140 mmHg (P for interaction = 0.55). Symptomatic hypotension, study drug dose-reduction and discontinuation were more frequent in patients with a lower SBP.
In PARADIGM-HF, patients with lower SBP at randomization, notably after tolerating full doses of both study drugs during a run-in period, were at higher risk but generally tolerated sacubitril/valsartan and had the same relative benefit over enalapril as patients with higher baseline SBP.
PDF
