Search

© 2023 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)., Chronic coronary syndrome (CCS) represents a major challenge for physicians, particularly in the context of an increasing aging population. Additionally, CCS is often underestimated and under-recognised, particularly in female patients. As patients are frequently affected by several chronic comorbidities requiring polypharmacy, this can have a negative impact on patients' adherence to treatment. To overcome this barrier, single-pill combination (SPC), or fixed-dose combination, therapies are already widely used in the management of conditions such as hypertension, dyslipidaemia, and diabetes mellitus. The use of SPC anti-anginal therapy deserves careful consideration, as it has the potential to substantially improve treatment adherence and clinical outcomes, along with reducing the failure of pharmacological treatment before considering other interventions in patients with CCS.

[Abstract] Aims: To perform a comprehensive characterization of acute heart failure (AHF) with preserved (HFpEF), versus mildly reduced (HFmrEF) versus reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). Methods and results: Of 5951 participants in the ESC HF Long-Term Registry hospitalized for AHF (acute coronary syndromes excluded), 29% had HFpEF, 18% HFmrEF, and 53% HFrEF. Hospitalization reasons were most commonly atrial fibrillation (more in HFmrEF and HFpEF), followed by ischaemia (HFmrEF), infection (HFmrEF and HFpEF), worsening renal function (HFrEF), and uncontrolled hypertension (HFmrEF and HFpEF). Hospitalization characteristics included lower blood pressure, more oedema and higher natriuretic peptides with lower ejection fraction, similar pulmonary congestion, more mitral regurgitation in HFrEF and HFmrEF and more tricuspid regurgitation in HFrEF. In-hospital mortality was 3.4% in HFrEF, 2.1% in HFmrEF and 2.2% in HFpEF. Intravenous diuretic (∼80%) and nitrate (∼15%) use was similar but inotrope use greater in HFrEF (16%, vs. HFmrEF 7.4% vs. HFpEF 5.3%). Weight loss and estimated glomerular filtration rate improvement were greater in HFrEF, whereas reduction in natriuretic peptides was similar. Over 1 year post-discharge, events per 100 patient-years (95% confidence interval) in HFrEF versus HFmrEF versus HFpEF were: all-cause death 22 (20-24) versus 17 (14-20) versus 17 (15-20); cardiovascular (CV) death 12 (10-13) versus 8.6 (6.6-11) versus 8.4 (6.9-10); non-CV death 2.4 (1.8-3.1) versus 3.3 (2.1-4.8) versus 4.5 (3.5-5.9); all-cause hospitalization 48 (45-51) versus 35 (31-40) versus 42 (39-46); HF hospitalization 29 (27-32) versus 19 (16-22) versus 17 (15-20); and non-CV hospitalization 7.7 (6.6-8.9) versus 9.6 (7.5-12) versus 15 (13-17). Conclusion: In AHF, HFrEF is more severe and has greater in-hospital mortality. Post-discharge, HFrEF has greater CV risk, HFpEF greater non-CV risk, and HFmrEF lower overall risk.

International audience

Document Reviewers: Rudolf A. de Boer (CPG Review Coordinator) (Netherlands), P. Christian Schulze (CPG Review Coordinator) (Germany), Magdy Abdelhamid (Egypt), Victor Aboyans (France), Stamatis Adamopoulos (Greece), Stefan D. Anker (Germany), Elena Arbelo (Spain), Riccardo Asteggiano (Italy), Johann Bauersachs (Germany), Antoni Bayes-Genis (Spain), Michael A. Borger (Germany), Werner Budts (Belgium), Maja Cikes (Croatia), Kevin Damman (Netherlands), Victoria Delgado (Netherlands), Paul Dendale (Belgium), Polychronis Dilaveris (Greece), Heinz Drexel (Austria), Justin Ezekowitz (Canada), Volkmar Falk (Germany), Laurent Fauchier (France), Gerasimos Filippatos (Greece), Alan Fraser (United Kingdom), Norbert Frey (Germany), Chris P. Gale (United Kingdom), Finn Gustafsson (Denmark), Julie Harris (United Kingdom), Bernard Iung (France), Stefan Janssens (Belgium), Mariell Jessup (United States of America), Aleksandra Konradi (Russia), Dipak Kotecha (United Kingdom), Ekaterini Lambrinou (Cyprus), Patrizio Lancellotti (Belgium), Ulf Landmesser (Germany), Christophe Leclercq (France), Basil S. Lewis (Israel), Francisco Leyva (United Kingdom), AleVs Linhart (Czech Republic), Maja-Lisa Løchen (Norway), Lars H. Lund (Sweden), Donna Mancini (United States of America), Josep Masip (Spain), Davor Milicic (Croatia), Christian Mueller (Switzerland), Holger Nef (Germany), Jens-Cosedis Nielsen (Denmark), Lis Neubeck (United Kingdom), Michel Noutsias (Germany), Steffen E. Petersen (United Kingdom), Anna Sonia Petronio (Italy), Piotr Ponikowski (Poland), Eva Prescott (Denmark), Amina Rakisheva (Kazakhstan), Dimitrios J. Richter (Greece), Evgeny Schlyakhto (Russia), Petar Seferovic (Serbia), Michele Senni (Italy), Marta Sitges (Spain), Miguel Sousa-Uva (Portugal), Carlo G. Tocchetti (Italy), Rhian M. Touyz (United Kingdom), Carsten Tschoepe (Germany), Johannes Waltenberger (Germany/Switzerland) All experts involved in the development of these guidelines have submitted declarations of interest. These have been compiled in a report and published in a supplementary document simultaneously to the guidelines. The report is also available on the ESC website www.escardio.org/guidelines For the Supplementary Data which include background information and detailed discussion of the data that have provided the basis for the guidelines see European Heart Journal online.

Aims Type 2 diabetes (T2DM) in patients with coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19) is associated with a worse prognosis. We separately investigated the associations between the use of sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors (SGLT2i), glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RA), and dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (DPP-4i), and the risk of COVID-19 hospitalization and death. Methods and results Patients with T2DM registered in the Swedish National Patient Registry and alive on 1 February 2020 were included. ‘Incident severe COVID-19’ was defined as the first hospitalization and/or death from COVID-19. A modified Poisson regression approach was applied to a 1:1 propensity score-matched population receiving vs. not receiving SGLT2i, GLP-1 RA, and DPP-4i to analyse the associations between their use and (I) incident severe COVID-19 and (II) risk of 30-day mortality in patients hospitalized for COVID-19. Among 344 413 patients, 39 172 (11%) were treated with SGLT2i, 34 290 (10%) with GLP-1 RA, and 53 044 (15%) with DPP-4i; 9538 (2.8%) had incident severe COVID-19 by 15 May 2021. SGLT2i and DPP-4i were associated with a 10% and 11% higher risk of incident severe COVID-19, respectively, whereas there was no association for GLP-1 RA. DPP-4i was also associated with a 10% higher 30-day mortality in patients hospitalized for COVID-19, whereas there was no association for SGLT2i and GLP-1 RA. Conclusion SGLT2i and DPP-4i use were associated with a higher risk of incident severe COVID-19. DPP-4i use was associated with higher 30-day mortality in patients with COVID-19, whereas SGLT2i use was not. No increased risk for any outcome was observed with GLP-1 RA.

Heart failure (HF) is a long-term clinical syndrome, with increasing prevalence and considerable healthcare costs that are further expected to increase dramatically. Despite significant advances in therapy and prevention, mortality and morbidity remain high and quality of life poor. Epidemiological data, that is, prevalence, incidence, mortality, and morbidity, show geographical variations across the European countries, depending on differences in aetiology, clinical characteristics, and treatment. However, data on the prevalence of the disease are scarce, as are those on quality of life. For these reasons, the ESC-HFA has developed a position paper to comprehensively assess our understanding of the burden of HF in Europe, in order to guide future policies for this syndrome. This manuscript will discuss the available epidemiological data on HF prevalence, outcomes, and human costs—in terms of quality of life—in European countries.

These are the clinical practice guidelines from the European Society of Cardiology for the diagnosis and treatment of acute and chronic heart failure, from 2021.

AIMS: We assessed the outcome of hospitalized coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients with heart failure (HF) compared with patients with other cardiovascular disease and/or risk factors (arterial hypertension, diabetes, or dyslipidaemia). We further wanted to determine the incidence of HF events and its consequences in these patient populations. METHODS AND RESULTS: International retrospective Postgraduate Course in Heart Failure registry for patients hospitalized with COVID-19 and CArdioVascular disease and/or risk factors (arterial hypertension, diabetes, or dyslipidaemia) was performed in 28 centres from 15 countries (PCHF-COVICAV). The primary endpoint was in-hospital mortality. Of 1974 patients hospitalized with COVID-19, 1282 had cardiovascular disease and/or risk factors (median age: 72 [interquartile range: 62-81] years, 58% male), with HF being present in 256 [20%] patients. Overall in-hospital mortality was 25% (n = 323/1282 deaths). In-hospital mortality was higher in patients with a history of HF (36%, n = 92) compared with non-HF patients (23%, n = 231, odds ratio [OR] 1.93 [95% confidence interval: 1.44-2.59], P

Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) is common in patients with heart failure (HF) and associated with considerable morbidity and mortality. Significant advances have recently occurred in the treatment of T2DM, with evidence of several new glucose-lowering medications showing either neutral or beneficial cardiovascular effects. However, some of these agents have safety characteristics with strong practical implications in HF [i.e. dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors, glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RA), and sodium-glucose co-transporter type 2 (SGLT-2) inhibitors]. Regarding safety of DPP-4 inhibitors, saxagliptin is not recommended in HF because of a greater risk of HF hospitalisation. There is no compelling evidence of excess HF risk with the other DPP-4 inhibitors. GLP-1 RAs have an overall neutral effect on HF outcomes. However, a signal of harm suggested in two small trials of liraglutide in patients with reduced ejection fraction indicates that their role remains to be defined in established HF. SGLT-2 inhibitors (empagliflozin, canagliflozin and dapagliflozin) have shown a consistent reduction in the risk of HF hospitalisation regardless of baseline cardiovascular risk or history of HF. Accordingly, SGLT-2 inhibitors could be recommended to prevent HF hospitalisation in patients with T2DM and established cardiovascular disease or with multiple risk factors. The recently completed trial with dapagliflozin has shown a significant reduction in cardiovascular mortality and HF events in patients with HF and reduced ejection fraction, with or without T2DM. Several ongoing trials will assess whether the results observed with dapagliflozin could be extended to other SGLT-2 inhibitors in the treatment of HF, with either preserved or reduced ejection fraction, regardless of the presence of T2DM. This position paper aims to summarise relevant clinical trial evidence concerning the role and safety of new glucose-lowering therapies in patients with HF. G.A. reports personal fees from Angelini, Behring, Menarini, outside the submitted work. S.A. reports grants and personal fees from Vifor Int, Abbott Vascular, and personal fees from Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Novartis, Servier, outside the submitted work. J.B. reports personal fees from Novartis, BMS, Pfizer, Servier, Orion, MSD, Boehringer Ingelheim, AstraZeneca, Abiomed, Abbott, and grants and personal fees from Vifor, Bayer, CvRX, Medtronic, outside the submitted work. O.C. reports grants from Servier, Novartis, Vifor, outside the submitted work. A.J.S.C reports personal fees from Actimed, AstraZeneca, Faraday, WL Gore, Menarini, Novartis, Nutricia, Respicardia, Servier, Stealth Peptides, Verona, Vifor, outside the submitted work. F.C. reports personal fees from Novo Nordisk, MSD, Pfizer, Mundipharma, Lilly, AstraZeneca, BMS, outside the submitted work. R.A.D.B reports grants from Abbott, AstraZeneca, Novo Nordisk, Novartis, Roche, and personal fees from Abbott, AstraZeneca, MandalMed, Inc., Novartis, Roche, outside the submitted work. G.F. reports he was Committee member of trials and registries sponsored by Byer, Novartis, Servier, Vifor, Medtronic, Boehringer Ingelheim, outside the submitted work. L.H. reports personal fees from Novartis, during the conduct of the study. M.H. reports grants from Roche Diagnostics, and personal fees from Boerhinger, AstraZeneca during the conduct of the study. P.S.J. reports other from AstraZeneca, personal fees from Novartis, grants from Boehringer Ingelheim, during the conduct of the study; personal fees from Cytokinetics, outside the submitted work. M.K. reports personal fees from Novartis, Servier, BMS, Torrent, Sanofi, AstraZeneca, MSD, Novo Nordisk, outside the submitted work. Y.L. reports personal fees from Servier, Novartis, Boehringer Ingelheim, during the conduct of the study. L.H.L. reports personal fees from Merck, Sanofi, Bayer, Pharmacosmos, Abbott, Medscape; grants from Boehringer Ingelheim, Boston Scientific; grants and personal fees from Vifor-Fresenius, AstraZeneca, Relypsa, Novartis, Mundipharma, outside the submitted work. A.L. reports personal fees from Servier; grants and personal fees from Pfizer; personal fees from Novartis, Roche, Takeda, Boehringer Ingelheim, Amgen, Clinigen Group, Ferring Pharmaceuticals, Eli Lily, BMS, Eisai Ltd, outside the submitted work. M.M. reports grants from European Community during the conduct of the study and personal fees from Bayer, Novartis, and Servier outside the submitted work. W.M. has nothing to disclose. M.C.P. reports personal fees and other from AstraZeneca; personal fees from Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Lilly, Bayer; grants and personal fees from Beohringer Ingelheim, during the conduct of the study.; personal fees from Maquet, Takeda, null, outside the submitted work. M.P. has nothing to disclose. M.M.P. has nothing to disclose. P.P. has nothing to disclose. G.M.C.R. has nothing to disclose. I.S. has nothing to disclose. J.S. has nothing to disclose. P.M.S. received grants/research supports: Ministry of Education, Science and Technological Development of Republic of Serbia; receipt of honoraria or consultation fees from Servier, Boehringher Ingelheim, Hemofarm, Novartis, AstraZeneca; participation in a company sponsored speaker's bureau: Fondazione Internazionale Menarini. T.T. reports personal fees from Cardior Pharmaceuticals GmbH, outside the submitted work. M.V. reports personal fees from Servier during the conduct of the study. Seferovic, PM (reprint author), Univ Belgrade, Fac Med, 8 Koste Todorovica, Belgrade 11000, Serbia, Univ Belgrade, Med Ctr, Heart Failure Ctr, 8 Koste Todorovica, Belgrade 11000, Serbia. seferovic.petar@gmail.com

© 2018 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved., Background:The cornerstone of the treatment of patients affected by stable angina is based on drugs administration classified as first (beta-blockers, calcium channel blockers, short acting nitrates) or second line treatment (long-acting nitrates, ivabradine, nicorandil, ranolazine and trimetazidine). However, few data on comparison between different classes of drugs justify that one class of drugs is superior to another.Methods:We performed a systematic review of the literature following PRISMA guidelines. Inclusion criteria:i) paper published in English; ii) diagnosis of stable coronary disease; iii) randomized clinical trial; iv) comparison of two anti-angina drugs; v) a sample size N 100 patients; vi) a follow-up lasting at least 2 weeks; vii) paper published after 1999, when a meta-analysis of trials comparing beta-blockers, calcium antagonists, and nitratesfor stable angina of Heidenreich et al. was published. Outcome: to establish whether the categorization in first and second line anti-anginal treatment is scientifically supported.Results:Eleven trials fulfilled inclusion criteria. The results show that there is a paucity of data comparing the efficacy of anti-anginal agents. The little data available show that there are not compounds superior to others in terms of improvement in exercise test duration, frequency of anginal attacks, need for sub-lingual nitroglycerin.Conclusion:The categorization of anti-anginal drug in first and second line is not confirmed.

Published on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology. All rights reserved. © The Author(s) 2018., Chronic stable angina is the most prevalent symptom of ischaemic heart disease and its management is a priority. Current guidelines recommend pharmacological therapy with drugs classified as being first line (beta blockers, calcium channel blockers, short acting nitrates) or second line (long-acting nitrates, ivabradine, nicorandil, ranolazine, and trimetazidine). Second line drugs are indicated for patients who have contraindications to first line agents, do not tolerate them or remain symptomatic. Evidence that one drug is superior to another has been questioned. Between January and March 2018, we performed a systematic review of articles written in English over the past 50 years English-written articles in Medline and Embase following preferred reporting items and the Cochrane collaboration approach. We included double blind randomized studies comparing parallel groups on treatment of angina in patients with stable coronary artery disease, with a sample size of, at least, 100 patients (50 patients per group), with a minimum follow-up of 1 week and an outcome measured on exercise testing, duration of exercise being the preferred outcome. Thirteen studies fulfilled our criteria. Nine studies involved between 100 and 300 patients, (2818 in total) and a further four enrolled greater than 300 patients. Evidence of equivalence was demonstrated for the use of beta-blockers (atenolol), calcium antagonists (amlodipine, nifedipine), and channel inhibitor (ivabradine) in three of these studies. Taken all together, in none of the studies was there evidence that one drug was superior to another in the treatment of angina or to prolong total exercise duration. There is a paucity of data comparing the efficacy of anti-anginal agents. The little available evidence shows that no anti-anginal drug is superior to another and equivalence has been shown only for three classes of drugs. Guidelines draw conclusions not from evidence but from clinical beliefs.

The addition of ezetimibe to statin therapy has been widely demonstrated to significantly reduce low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels. However, the efficacy of ezetimibe in reducing CV events and its safety has been less investigated. The aim of the current meta-analysis was to report efficacy and safety of ezetimibe from randomized clinical trials.Randomized clinical trials with a follow-up of at least 24 weeks, enrolling more than 200 patients, comparing ezetimibe versus placebo or ezetimibe plus another hypolipidemic agent versus the same hypolipidemic drug alone and reporting at least one event among all-cause and CV mortality, myocardial infarction (MI), stroke and new onset of cancer were included in the analysis.7 trials enrolling 31,048 patients (median follow-up 34.1 ± 26.3 months; 70% women; mean age 61 ± 8 years) were included in the analysis. Compared to control therapy, ezetimibe significantly reduced the risk of MI by 13.5% (RR: 0.865, 95% CI: 0.801 to 0.934, p0.001) and the risk of any stroke by 16.0% (RR: 0.840, 95% CI: 0.744 to 0.949, p=0.005), without any effect on all-cause and CV mortality (RR: 1.003, 95% CI: 0.954 to 1.055, p=0.908; RR: 0.958, 95% CI: 0.879 to 1.044, p=0.330; respectively) and risk of new cancer (RR: 1.040, 95% CI: 0.965 to 1.120, p=0.303).Ezetimibe significantly reduces the risk of MI and stroke without any effect on all-cause and CV mortality and risk of cancer.

In clinical guidelines, drugs for symptomatic angina are classified as being first choice (β-blockers, calcium-channel blockers, short-acting nitrates) or second choice (ivabradine, nicorandil, ranolazine, trimetazidine), with the recommendation to reserve second-choice medications for patients who have contraindications to first-choice agents, do not tolerate them, or remain symptomatic. No direct comparisons between first-choice and second-choice treatments have demonstrated the superiority of one group of drugs over the other. Meta-analyses show that all antianginal drugs have similar efficacy in reducing symptoms, but provide no evidence for improvement in survival. The newer, second-choice drugs have more evidence-based clinical data that are more contemporary than is available for traditional first-choice drugs. Considering some drugs, but not others, to be first choice is, therefore, difficult. Moreover, double or triple therapy is often needed to control angina. Patients with angina can have several comorbidities, and symptoms can result from various underlying pathophysiologies. Some agents, in addition to having antianginal effects, have properties that could be useful depending on the comorbidities present and the mechanisms of angina, but the guidelines do not provide recommendations on the optimal combinations of drugs. In this Consensus Statement, we propose an individualized approach to angina treatment, which takes into consideration the patient, their comorbidities, and the underlying mechanism of disease.

Background Dipeptidyl Peptidase 4 Inhibitors (DPP4-I) and Sodium-Glucose Linked coTransporter-2 Inhibitors (SGLT2-I) improve glycemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM). However, only few studies were designed to assess the efficacy and safety of these drugs on cardiovascular (CV) events and mortality. The purpose of the current study was to evaluate the effects of DPP4-Is and SGLT2-Is on CV events and mortality by meta-analysis. Methods Randomized trials enrolling more than 200 patients, comparing DPP-4-Is or SGLT2-Is versus placebo or active treatments in patients with DM, and reporting at least one event among all-cause and CV mortality, stroke, myocardial infarction (MI) and new onset of heart failure (HF), were included. Results 157 randomized trials (114 on DPP4-Is and 43 on SGLT2-Is) enrolling 140,470 patients (107,100 in DPP4-I and 33,370 in SGLT2-I studies) were included in the analysis. Compared to control, treatment with DPP4-Is did not affect all-cause (RR: 1.010; 95% CI: 0.935–1.091) and CV (RR: 0.975; CI: 0.887–1.073) mortality as well as risk of MI (RR: 0.915; CI: 0.835–1.002), stroke (RR: 0.933; CI: 0.820–1.062) and HF (RR: 1.083; CI: 0.973–1.205). Treatment with SGLT2-Is significantly reduced the risk of all-cause death by 28% (RR: 0.718; CI: 0.613–0.840), CV death by 33% (RR: 0.668; CI: 0.544–0.821), MI by 20% (RR: 0.803; CI: 0.668–0.965) and HF by 35% (RR: 0.652; CI: 0.517–0.823) without effect on stroke (RR: 1.158; CI: 0.912–1.469). Conclusions DPP4-Is show a safe CV profile as they do not affect mortality and CV events, including HF, in patients with type 2 DM. SGLT2-Is are associated with improved CV outcome and survival in DM patients.

Background— In heart failure with mid-range ejection fraction (HFmrEF) and preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), feasible surrogate end points are needed for phase II trials. The aim was to assess whether a reduction in N-terminal pro–B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) is associated with improved mortality/morbidity in an unselected population of HFmrEF and HFpEF patients. Methods and Results— In the Swedish Heart Failure Registry, HFmrEF (EF=40%–49%) and HFpEF (EF≥50%) patients reporting at least 2 consecutive outpatient NT-proBNP assessments were prospectively studied. Associations between reduction in NT-proBNP and overall mortality, HF hospitalization, and their composite were assessed by multivariable Cox regressions, with NT-proBNP changes modeled as binary (decrease/increase) or quantitative predictor by restricted cubic splines. In 650 patients, at a median of 7 months between the 2 measurements of NT-proBNP and over a median follow-up of 1.65 years, 361 patients (55%) showed a reduction and 289 patients (45%) an increase in NT-proBNP. Change in NT-proBNP was associated with risk of outcomes. Fifty-seven patients (16%) who decreased their NT-proBNP versus 78 patients (27%) who increased it died from any cause (adjusted hazard ratio=0.53; 95% confidence interval=0.36–0.77), 61 (17%) versus 86 (30%) were hospitalized for HF (hazard ratio=0.41; 95% confidence interval=0.29–0.60), and 96 (27%) versus 125 (43%) reported the composite outcome (hazard ratio=0.46; 95% confidence interval=0.34–0.62). These findings were replicated in HFmrEF and HFpEF separately. Conclusions— In HFmrEF and HFpEF during routine care, decreases in NT-proBNP were associated with improved mortality and morbidity. Studies to determine whether NT-proBNP changes in response to therapy predict drug efficacy are needed.

The role of spironolactone and eplerenone in patients with Heart Failure with preserved Ejection Fraction (HFpEF) is not well defined. Since a growing medical literature has suggested that mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists may be beneficial for patients with HFpEF, this review gives an in-depth update on the role of spironolactone and eplerenone and their implications for therapy in the setting of HFpEF. Eleven clinical studies, including seven randomized trials, were reviewed. Two randomized controlled trials evaluated the effect of eplerenone on different end-points, including 6 minute walk distance (6 MWD), cardiovascular mortality, non-fatal reinfarction, hospitalization for unstable angina and congestive heart failure. Eplerenone did not affect either 6 MWD or event-free survival rates in the overall study population in these two reports. The effects of spironolactone on similar composite endpoints were evaluated in 7 studies in patients with HFpEF. Compared to placebo, hospitalization for heart failure was significantly lower in the spironolactone group and spironolactone was also shown to improve diastolic function and induced beneficial remodeling through a reduction in myocardial fibrosis. The safety profile of spironolactone and eplerenone has been assessed in two recent studies. Data showed that eplerenone and spironolactone are both associated with the occurrence of gynecomastia, mastodynia, and abnormal vaginal bleeding and in addition, they can increase natriuresis and cause renal retention of potassium; furthermore, eplerenone may cause hyperkalemia and promote the onset of metabolic acidosis or hyponatremia. In conclusion although the mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists eplerenone and spironolactone improve clinical outcomes in patients with HFrEF, additional data will be necessary to better define their risk-benefit profile, especially for eplerenone, in the treatment of HFpEF.

Background Dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (DPP-4is) improve glucose control in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM); however, only few studies were properly designed to evaluate their cardiovascular (CV) effects. The purpose of this study was to assess the impact of DPP-4i treatment on CV morbidity and mortality. Methods Randomized clinical trials enrolling more than 200 patients, comparing DPP-4 versus placebo or active treatments in patients with DM and reporting at least one event among all-cause and CV mortality, myocardial infarction (MI), stroke and new onset of heart failure (HF) were included in the analysis. Results Ninety-four trials enrolling 85,224 patients (median follow-up=29weeks) were included in the analysis. Compared to control, treatment with DPP-4i did not affect all-cause and CV mortality, as well as stroke, in the short and long terms ( =29weeks, respectively). DPP-4i reduced the risk of MI in the short (RR: 0.584 [95% CI: 0.361 to 0.943]; p=0.028), but not in the long term. Additionally, long-term treatment with DPP-4 was associated with a 15.8% increased risk of HF (RR: 1.158 [CI: 1.011 to 1.326]; p=0.034). No heterogeneity among studies or publication bias was detected. Conclusions DPP4is do not affect all cause- and CV-mortality and stroke in diabetic patients; the reduction in MI observed with short-term treatment does not persist in the long term. Long-term use of DPP-4i in diabetic patients is associated with increased risk of HF.

Background The association between C-reactive protein (CRP) levels and risk of cardiovascular (CV) events has been reported in several studies. However, it is unclear whether a reduction in CRP is associated with a reduction in risk of clinical events. Therefore we sought to investigate, in a meta-regression analysis of randomized studies enrolling patients treated by statins, whether changes in CRP are associated with changes in risk of CV events or overall survival. Methods Randomized trials enrolling patients treated by statins, reporting CRP at baseline and at end of follow-up, CV events [myocardial infarction (MI) and stroke], CV and all-cause mortality were selected. Results Twenty-two trials enrolling 54,213 participants were included in the analysis. Meta-analysis showed that active treatment significantly reduced risk of all-cause death by 8%, myocardial infarction by 11%, stroke by 10.3% and the composite outcome (including CV death, MI and stroke) by 8%, whereas risks of CV mortality was not significantly reduced. Meta-regression analysis revealed that reduction in CRP levels was significantly associated only with the reduction of MI, whereas no relationship was identified between changes in CRP and risk of stroke, CV and all-cause mortality, and the composite outcome. Conclusions These findings demonstrate that statin-induced changes in CRP do not correlate with major CV events apart from the risk of MI nor with overall survival in high-risk patients. These data suggest that although CRP may be a surrogate marker for coronary risk, it should not be used for predicting the effectiveness of statin therapy.