Search

Patients with chronic cardiovascular or metabolic diseases, including diabetes, hypertension, obesity, and heart failure, often have comorbid kidney disease. Long-term outcomes are worse in the setting of both cardiac and kidney disease compared with either disease in isolation. In addition, the clinical presentations of certain acute cardiovascular events (such as heart failure) and worsening kidney function overlap and may be challenging to distinguish. Recently, certain novel treatments have demonstrated beneficial effects on both cardiac and kidney outcomes. Sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors have exhibited concordant risk reduction and clinically important benefits in chronic kidney disease with and without diabetes, diabetes and established cardiovascular disease or multiple atherosclerotic vascular disease risk factors, and heart failure with reduced ejection fraction with and without diabetes. Primary trial results have revealed that sacubitril-valsartan therapy improves cardiovascular outcomes in patients with chronic heart failure with reduced ejection fraction and post hoc analyses suggest favorable kidney effects. A concordant pattern of kidney benefit with sacubitril-valsartan has also been observed in chronic heart failure with preserved ejection fraction. Given the complex interplay between cardiac and kidney disease and the possibility that treatments may show concordant cardio-kidney benefits, there has been recent interest in formally acknowledging, defining, and using composite cardio-kidney outcomes in future cardiovascular trials. This review describes potential challenges in use of such outcomes that should be considered and addressed before their incorporation into such trials.

Aims: The current pandemic coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 infects a wide age group but predominantly elderly individuals, especially men and those with cardiovascular disease. Recent reports suggest an association with use of renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS) inhibitors. Angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) is a functional receptor for coronaviruses. Higher ACE2 concentrations might lead to increased vulnerability to SARS-CoV-2 in patients on RAAS inhibitors., Methods and Results: We measured ACE2 concentrations in 1485 men and 537 women with heart failure (index cohort). Results were validated in 1123 men and 575 women (validation cohort).The median age was 69 years for men and 75 years for women. The strongest predictor of elevated concentrations of ACE2 in both cohorts was male sex (estimate = 0.26, P < 0.001; and 0.19, P < 0.001, respectively). In the index cohort, use of ACE inhibitors, angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs), or mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRAs) was not an independent predictor of plasma ACE2. In the validation cohort, ACE inhibitor (estimate = -0.17, P = 0.002) and ARB use (estimate = -0.15, P = 0.03) were independent predictors of lower plasma ACE2, while use of an MRA (estimate = 0.11, P = 0.04) was an independent predictor of higher plasma ACE2 concentrations., Conclusion: In two independent cohorts of patients with heart failure, plasma concentrations of ACE2 were higher in men than in women, but use of neither an ACE inhibitor nor an ARB was associated with higher plasma ACE2 concentrations. These data might explain the higher incidence and fatality rate of COVID-19 in men, but do not support previous reports suggesting that ACE inhibitors or ARBs increase the vulnerability for COVID-19 through increased plasma ACE2 concentrations., (Published on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology. All rights reserved. © The Author(s) 2020. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Background: Guideline-recommended doses of angiotensin-converting-enzyme (ACE) inhibitors or angiotensin-receptor blockers (ARBs), and β blockers are similar for men and women with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), even though there are known sex differences in pharmacokinetics of these drugs. We hypothesised that there might be sex differences in the optimal dose of ACE inhibitors or ARBs and β blockers in patients with HFrEF., Methods: We did a post-hoc analysis of BIOSTAT-CHF, a prospective study in 11 European countries of patients with heart failure in whom initiation and up-titration of ACE inhibitors or ARBs and β blockers was encouraged by protocol. We included only patients with left ventricular ejection fraction less than 40%, and excluded those who died within the first 3 months. Primary outcome was a composite of time to all-cause mortality or hospitalisation for heart failure. Findings were validated in ASIAN-HF, an independent cohort of 3539 men and 961 women with HFrEF., Findings: Among 1308 men and 402 women with HFrEF from BIOSTAT-CHF, women were older (74 [12] years vs 70 [12] years, p<0·0001) and had lower bodyweights (72 [16] kg vs 85 [18] kg, p<0·0001) and heights (162 [7] cm vs 174 [8] cm, p<0·0001) than did men, although body-mass index did not differ significantly. A similar number of men and women reached guideline-recommended target doses of ACE inhibitors or ARBs (99 [25%] vs 304 [23%], p=0·61) and β blockers (57 [14%] vs 168 [13%], p=0·54). In men, the lowest hazards of death or hospitalisation for heart failure occurred at 100% of the recommended dose of ACE inhibitors or ARBs and β blockers, but women showed approximately 30% lower risk at only 50% of the recommended doses, with no further decrease in risk at higher dose levels. These sex differences were still present after adjusting for clinical covariates, including age and body surface area. In the ASIAN-HF registry, similar patterns were observed for both ACE inhibitors or ARBs and β blockers, with women having approximately 30% lower risk at 50% of the recommended doses, with no further benefit at higher dose levels., Interpretation: This study suggests that women with HFrEF might need lower doses of ACE inhibitors or ARBs and β blockers than men, and brings into question what the true optimal medical therapy is for women versus men., Funding: European Commission., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Heart failure guidelines recommend up-titration of angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor/angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs), beta-blockers, and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRAs) to doses used in randomized clinical trials, but these recommended doses are often not reached. Up-titration may, however, not be necessary in all patients., Objectives: This study sought to establish the role of blood biomarkers to determine which patients should or should not be up-titrated., Methods: Clinical outcomes of 2,516 patients with worsening heart failure from the BIOSTAT-CHF (BIOlogy Study to Tailored Treatment in Chronic Heart Failure) were compared between 3 theoretical treatment scenarios: scenario A, in which all patients are up-titrated to >50% of recommended doses; scenario B, in which patients are up-titrated according to a biomarker-based treatment selection model; and scenario C, in which no patient is up-titrated to >50% of recommended doses. The study conducted multivariable Cox regression using 161 biomarkers and their interaction with treatment, weighted for treatment-indication bias to estimate the expected number of deaths or heart failure hospitalizations at 24 months for all 3 scenarios., Results: Estimated death or hospitalization rates in 1,802 patients with available (bio)markers were 16%, 16%, and 26%, respectively, in the ACE inhibitor/ARB up-titration scenarios A, B, and C. Similar rates for beta-blocker and MRA up-titration scenarios A, B, and C were 23%, 19%, and 24%, and 12%, 11%, and 24%, respectively. If up-titration was successful in all patients, an estimated 9.8, 1.3, and 12.3 events per 100 treated patients could be prevented at 24 months by ACE inhibitor/ARB, beta-blocker, and MRA therapy, respectively. Similar numbers were 9.9, 4.7, and 13.1 if up-titration treatment decision was based on a biomarker-based treatment selection model., Conclusions: Up-titrating patients with heart failure based on biomarker values might have resulted in fewer deaths or hospitalizations compared with a hypothetical scenario in which all patients were successfully up-titrated., (Copyright © 2018 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Aims: Despite major improvements in pharmacological and device treatments, heart failure remains a syndrome with high morbidity and mortality, poor quality of life, and high health-care costs. Given the extensive heterogeneity among patients with heart failure, substantial differences in the response to therapy can be expected. We hypothesize that individualized therapy is an essential next step to improve outcomes in patients with heart failure., Methods: The BIOlogy Study to TAilored Treatment in Chronic Heart Failure (BIOSTAT-CHF) included 2516 patients with worsening signs and/or symptoms of heart failure from 11 European countries, who were considered to be on suboptimal medical treatment. Another 1738 patients from Scotland were included in a validation cohort. Overall, both patient cohorts were well matched. The majority of patients were hospitalized for acute heart failure, and the remainder presented with worsening signs and/or symptoms of heart failure at outpatient clinics. Approximately half of the patients were in New York Heart Association class III, and 7% vs 34% of patients of the index vs validation cohort had heart failure with preserved ejection fraction. According to study design, all patients used diuretics, but owing to the inclusion criteria of both cohorts, patients were not on optimal, evidence-based medical therapy. In the follow-up phase, uptitration to guideline-recommended doses was encouraged., Conclusion: By using a novel systems biology approach, incorporating demographics, biomarkers, genome-wide analysis, and proteomics, a model that predicts response to therapy will be developed, which should be instrumental in developing alternative therapies for patients with suboptimal response to currently recommended therapies and thus further improve care for patients with heart failure., (© 2016 The Authors European Journal of Heart Failure © 2016 European Society of Cardiology.)