Search

Background: Dapagliflozin reduces the risk of end-stage renal disease in patients with chronic kidney disease. We examined the relative risk of cardiovascular and renal events in these patients and the effect of dapagliflozin on either type of event, taking account of history of cardiovascular disease.Methods: In the DAPA-CKD trial (Dapagliflozin and Prevention of Adverse Outcomes in Chronic Kidney Disease), 4304 participants with chronic kidney disease were randomly assigned to dapagliflozin 10 mg once daily or placebo. The primary end point was a composite of sustained decline in estimated glomerular filtration rate ≥50%, end-stage kidney disease, or kidney or cardiovascular death. The secondary end points were a kidney composite outcome (primary end point, minus cardiovascular death), the composite of hospitalization for heart failure or cardiovascular death, and all-cause death. In a prespecified subgroup analysis, we divided patients into primary and secondary prevention subgroups according to history of cardiovascular disease.Results: Secondary prevention patients (n=1610; 37.4%) were older, were more often male, had a higher blood pressure and body mass index, and were more likely to have diabetes. Mean estimated glomerular filtration rate and median urinary albumin-to-creatinine ratio were similar in the primary and secondary prevention groups. The rates of adverse cardiovascular outcomes were higher in the secondary prevention group, but kidney failure occurred at the same rate in the primary and secondary prevention groups. Dapagliflozin reduced the risk of the primary composite outcome to a similar extent in both the primary (hazard ratio, 0.61 [95% CI, 0.48-0.78]) and secondary (0.61 [0.47-0.79]) prevention groups (P-interaction=0.90). This was also true for the composite of heart failure hospitalization or cardiovascular death (0.67 [0.40-1.13] versus 0.70 [0.52-0.94], respectively; P-interaction=0.88), and all-cause mortality (0.63 [0.41-0.98] versus 0.70 [0.51-0.95], respectively; P-interaction=0.71). Rates of adverse events were low overall and did not differ between patients with and without cardiovascular disease.Conclusions: Dapagliflozin reduced the risk of kidney failure, death from cardiovascular causes or hospitalization for heart failure, and prolonged survival in people with chronic kidney disease, with or without type 2 diabetes, independently of the presence of concomitant cardiovascular disease. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT03036150. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Among patients with chronic heart failure, angiotensin-converting-enzyme (ACE) inhibitors reduce mortality and hospitalization, but the role of a renin inhibitor in such patients is unknown. We compared the ACE inhibitor enalapril with the renin inhibitor aliskiren (to test superiority or at least noninferiority) and with the combination of the two treatments (to test superiority) in patients with heart failure and a reduced ejection fraction.Methods: After a single-blind run-in period, we assigned patients, in a double-blind fashion, to one of three groups: 2336 patients were assigned to receive enalapril at a dose of 5 or 10 mg twice daily, 2340 to receive aliskiren at a dose of 300 mg once daily, and 2340 to receive both treatments (combination therapy). The primary composite outcome was death from cardiovascular causes or hospitalization for heart failure.Results: After a median follow-up of 36.6 months, the primary outcome occurred in 770 patients (32.9%) in the combination-therapy group and in 808 (34.6%) in the enalapril group (hazard ratio, 0.93; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.85 to 1.03). The primary outcome occurred in 791 patients (33.8%) in the aliskiren group (hazard ratio vs. enalapril, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.90 to 1.10); the prespecified test for noninferiority was not met. There was a higher risk of hypotensive symptoms in the combination-therapy group than in the enalapril group (13.8% vs. 11.0%, P=0.005), as well as higher risks of an elevated serum creatinine level (4.1% vs. 2.7%, P=0.009) and an elevated potassium level (17.1% vs. 12.5%, P<0.001).Conclusions: In patients with chronic heart failure, the addition of aliskiren to enalapril led to more adverse events without an increase in benefit. Noninferiority was not shown for aliskiren as compared with enalapril. (Funded by Novartis; ATMOSPHERE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00853658.). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Daprodustat is an oral hypoxia-inducible factor prolyl hydroxylase inhibitor. In patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) who are not undergoing dialysis, the efficacy and safety of daprodustat, as compared with the conventional erythropoiesis-stimulating agent darbepoetin alfa, are unknown.Methods: In this randomized, open-label, phase 3 trial with blinded adjudication of cardiovascular outcomes, we compared daprodustat with darbepoetin alfa for the treatment of anemia in patients with CKD who were not undergoing dialysis. The primary outcomes were the mean change in the hemoglobin level from baseline to weeks 28 through 52 and the first occurrence of a major adverse cardiovascular event (MACE; a composite of death from any cause, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or nonfatal stroke).Results: Overall, 3872 patients were randomly assigned to receive daprodustat or darbepoetin alfa. The mean (±SD) baseline hemoglobin levels were similar in the two groups. The mean (±SE) change in the hemoglobin level from baseline to weeks 28 through 52 was 0.74±0.02 g per deciliter in the daprodustat group and 0.66±0.02 g per deciliter in the darbepoetin alfa group (difference, 0.08 g per deciliter; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.03 to 0.13), which met the prespecified noninferiority margin of -0.75 g per deciliter. During a median follow-up of 1.9 years, a first MACE occurred in 378 of 1937 patients (19.5%) in the daprodustat group and in 371 of 1935 patients (19.2%) in the darbepoetin alfa group (hazard ratio, 1.03; 95% CI, 0.89 to 1.19), which met the prespecified noninferiority margin of 1.25. The percentages of patients with adverse events were similar in the two groups.Conclusions: Among patients with CKD and anemia who were not undergoing dialysis, daprodustat was noninferior to darbepoetin alfa with respect to the change in the hemoglobin level from baseline and with respect to cardiovascular outcomes. (Funded by GlaxoSmithKline; ASCEND-ND ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02876835.). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Importance: Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) lacks effective treatments. Based on preclinical studies, neladenoson bialanate, a first-in-class partial adenosine A1 receptor agonist, has the potential to improve several heart failure-related cardiac and noncardiac abnormalities but has not been evaluated to treat HFpEF.Objectives: To determine whether neladenoson improves exercise capacity, physical activity, cardiac biomarkers, and quality of life in patients with HFpEF and to find the optimal dose.Design, Setting, and Participants: Phase 2b randomized clinical trial conducted at 76 centers in the United States, Europe, and Japan. Patients (N = 305) with New York Heart Association class II or III HFpEF with elevated natriuretic peptide levels were enrolled between May 10, 2017, and December 7, 2017 (date of final follow-up: June 20, 2018).Interventions: Participants were randomized (1:2:2:2:2:3) to neladenoson (n = 27 [5 mg], n = 50 [10 mg], n = 51 [20 mg], n = 50 [30 mg], and n = 51 [40 mg]) or matching placebo (n = 76) for 20 weeks of treatment.Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was change in 6-minute walk test distance from baseline to 20 weeks (minimal clinically important difference, 40 m). Key safety measures included bradyarrhythmias and adverse events. To evaluate the effects of varying doses of neladenoson, a multiple comparison procedure with 5 modeling techniques (linear, Emax, 2 variations of sigmoidal Emax, and quadratic) was used to evaluate diverse dose-response profiles.Results: Among 305 patients who were randomized (mean age, 74 years; 160 [53%] women; mean 6-minute walk test distance, 321.5 m), 261 (86%) completed the trial and were included in the primary analysis. After 20 weeks of treatment, the mean absolute changes from baseline in 6-minute walk test distance were 0.2 m (95% CI, -12.1 to 12.4 m) for the placebo group; 19.4 m (95% CI, -10.8 to 49.7 m) for the 5 mg of neladenoson group; 29.4 m (95% CI, 3.0 to 55.8 m) for 10 mg of neladenoson group; 13.8 m (95% CI, -2.3 to 29.8 m) for 20 mg of neladenoson group; 16.3 m (95% CI, -1.1 to 33.6 m) for 30 mg of neladenoson group; and 13.0 m (95% CI, -5.9 to 31.9 m) for 40 mg of neladenoson group. Because none of the neladenoson groups achieved the clinically relevant 40-m increase in 6-minute walk test distance from baseline, an optimal dose of neladenoson was not identified. There was no significant dose-response relationship for the change in 6-minute walk test distance among the 5 different dose-response models (P = .05 for Emax; P = .18 for quadratic; P = .21 for sigmoidal Emax 1; P = .39 for linear; and P = .52 for sigmoidal Emax 2). Serious adverse events were similar among the neladenoson groups (61/229 [26.6%]) and the placebo group (21/76 [27.6%]).Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients with HFpEF, there was no significant dose-response relationship detected for neladenoson with regard to the change in exercise capacity from baseline to 20 weeks. In light of these findings, novel approaches will be needed if further development of neladenoson for the treatment of patients with HFpEF is pursued.Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03098979. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: SGLT2 inhibitors are strongly recommended in guidelines to treat patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, but their clinical benefits at higher ejection fractions are less well established. Two large-scale trials, DELIVER and EMPEROR-Preserved, in heart failure with mildly reduced or preserved ejection fraction have been done, providing power to examine therapeutic effects on cardiovascular mortality and in patient subgroups when combined with the earlier trials in reduced ejection fraction.Methods: We did a prespecified meta-analysis of DELIVER and EMPEROR-Preserved, and subsequently included trials that enrolled patients with reduced ejection fraction (DAPA-HF and EMPEROR-Reduced) and those admitted to hospital with worsening heart failure, irrespective of ejection fraction (SOLOIST-WHF). Using trial-level data with harmonised endpoint definitions, we did a fixed-effects meta-analysis to estimate the effect of SGLT2 inhibitors on various clinical endpoints in heart failure The primary endpoint for this meta-analysis was time from randomisation to the occurrence of the composite of cardiovascular death or hospitalisation for heart failure. We assessed heterogeneity in treatment effects for the primary endpoint across subgroups of interest. This study is registered with PROSPERO, CRD42022327527.Findings: Among 12 251 participants from DELIVER and EMPEROR-Preserved, SGLT2 inhibitors reduced composite cardiovascular death or first hospitalisation for heart failure (hazard ratio 0·80 [95% CI 0·73-0·87]) with consistent reductions in both components: cardiovascular death (0·88 [0·77-1·00]) and first hospitalisation for heart failure (0·74 [0·67-0·83]). In the broader context of the five trials of 21 947 participants, SGLT2 inhibitors reduced the risk of composite cardiovascular death or hospitalisation for heart failure (0·77 [0·72-0·82]), cardiovascular death (0·87 [0·79-0·95]), first hospitalisation for heart failure (0·72 [0·67-0·78]), and all-cause mortality (0·92 [0·86-0·99]). These treatment effects for each of the studied endpoints were consistently observed in both the trials of heart failure with mildly reduced or preserved ejection fraction and across all five trials. Treatment effects on the primary endpoint were generally consistent across the 14 subgroups examined, including ejection fraction.Interpretation: SGLT2 inhibitors reduced the risk of cardiovascular death and hospitalisations for heart failure in a broad range of patients with heart failure, supporting their role as a foundational therapy for heart failure, irrespective of ejection fraction or care setting.Funding: None. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims Sudden death is a leading cause of mortality in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). In PARADIGM-HF, sacubitril/valsartan reduced the incidence of sudden death. The purpose of this post hoc study was to analyse the effect of sacubitril/valsartan, compared to enalapril, on the incidence of ventricular arrhythmias. Methods and results Adverse event reports related to ventricular arrhythmias were examined in PARADIGM-HF. The effect of randomized treatment on two arrhythmia outcomes was analysed: ventricular arrhythmias and the composite of a ventricular arrhythmia, implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) shock or resuscitated cardiac arrest. The risk of death related to a ventricular arrhythmia was examined in time-updated models. The interaction between heart failure aetiology, or baseline ICD/cardiac resynchronization therapy-defibrillator (CRT-D) use, and the effect of sacubitril/valsartan was analysed. Of the 8399 participants, 333 (4.0%) reported a ventricular arrhythmia and 372 (4.4%) the composite arrhythmia outcome. Ventricular arrhythmias were associated with higher mortality. Compared with enalapril, sacubitril/valsartan reduced the risk of a ventricular arrhythmia (hazard ratio [HR] 0.76, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.62-0.95; p = 0.015) and the composite arrhythmia outcome (HR 0.79, 95% CI 0.65-0.97; p = 0.025). The treatment effect was maintained after adjustment and accounting for the competing risk of death. Baseline ICD/CRT-D use did not modify the effect of sacubitril/valsartan, but aetiology did: HR in patients with an ischaemic aetiology 0.93 (95% CI 0.71-1.21) versus 0.53 (95% CI 0.37-0.78) in those without an ischaemic aetiology (p for interaction = 0.020). Conclusions Sacubitril/valsartan reduced the incidence of investigator-reported ventricular arrhythmias in patients with HFrEF. This effect may have been greater in patients with a non-ischaemic aetiology. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims Among patients with heart failure (HF) and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), those with atrial fibrillation (AF) may respond differently to certain treatments than patients without AF. We investigated the efficacy and safety of dapagliflozin in patients with HFrEF with and without AF in the Dapagliflozin And Prevention of Adverse-outcomes in Heart Failure trial (DAPA-HF). We also examined the effect of dapagliflozin on new-onset AF. Methods and results The primary outcome was the composite of an episode of worsening HF (HF hospitalization or urgent HF visit requiring intravenous therapy) or cardiovascular death. Of the 4744 patients randomized, 1910 (40.3%) had 'any AF' (history of AF or AF on enrolment electrocardiogram). Compared with placebo, dapagliflozin reduced the risk of worsening HF or cardiovascular death to a similar extent in patients with and without any AF [hazard ratio (HR) 0.75, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.62-0.92 and 0.74, 95% CI 0.62-0.88, respectively; p for interaction = 0.88]. Consistent benefits were observed for the components of the primary outcome, all-cause mortality, and improvement of Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire total symptom score. Among patients without AF at baseline, dapagliflozin did not significantly reduce the risk of new-onset AF compared with placebo (HR 0.86, 95% CI 0.60-1.22). However, patients with new-onset AF had a 5 to 6-fold higher risk of adverse outcomes when compared to those without incident AF. Conclusions Dapagliflozin, compared with placebo, reduced the risk of worsening HF events, cardiovascular death, and all-cause death, and improved symptoms, in patients with and without AF. Dapagliflozin did not reduce the risk of new-onset AF. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Patients with left ventricular (LV) systolic dysfunction after myocardial infarction are at a high risk of developing heart failure. The addition of neprilysin inhibition to renin angiotensin system inhibition may result in greater attenuation of adverse LV remodeling as a result of increased levels of substrates for neprilysin with vasodilatory, antihypertrophic, antifibrotic, and sympatholytic effects.Methods: We performed a prospective, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, active-comparator trial comparing sacubitril/valsartan 97/103 mg twice daily with valsartan 160 mg twice daily in patients ≥3 months after myocardial infarction with a LV ejection fraction ≤40% who were taking a renin angiotensin system inhibitor (equivalent dose of ramipril ≥2.5 mg twice daily) and a β-blocker unless contraindicated or intolerant. Patients in New York Heart Association class ≥II or with signs and symptoms of heart failure were excluded. The primary outcome was change from baseline to 52 weeks in LV end-systolic volume index measured using cardiac magnetic resonance imaging. Secondary outcomes included other magnetic resonance imaging measurements of LV remodeling, change in NT-proBNP (N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide) and high-sensitivity cardiac troponin I, and a patient global assessment of change questionnaire.Results: From July 2018 to June 2019, we randomized 93 patients with the following characteristics: mean age, 60.7±10.4 years; median time from myocardial infarction, 3.6 years (interquartile range, 1.2-7.2); mean LV ejection fraction, 36.8%±7.1%; and median NT-proBNP, 230 pg/mL (interquartile range, 124-404). Sacubitril/valsartan, compared with valsartan, did not significantly reduce LV end-systolic volume index; adjusted between-group difference, -1.9 mL/m2 (95% CI, -4.9 to 1.0); P=0.19. There were no significant between-group differences in NT-proBNP, high-sensitivity cardiac troponin I, LV end-diastolic volume index, left atrial volume index, LV ejection fraction, LV mass index, or patient global assessment of change.Conclusions: In patients with asymptomatic LV systolic dysfunction late after myocardial infarction, treatment with sacubitril/valsartan did not have a significant reverse remodeling effect compared with valsartan. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT03552575. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Febuxostat and allopurinol are urate-lowering therapies used to treat patients with gout. Following concerns about the cardiovascular safety of febuxostat, the European Medicines Agency recommended a post-licensing study assessing the cardiovascular safety of febuxostat compared with allopurinol.Methods: We did a prospective, randomised, open-label, blinded-endpoint, non-inferiority trial of febuxostat versus allopurinol in patients with gout in the UK, Denmark, and Sweden. Eligible patients were 60 years or older, already receiving allopurinol, and had at least one additional cardiovascular risk factor. Those who had myocardial infarction or stroke in the previous 6 months or who had severe congestive heart failure or severe renal impairment were excluded. After a lead-in phase in which allopurinol dose was optimised towards achieving a serum urate concentration of less than 0·357 mmol/L (<6 mg/dL), patients were randomly assigned (1:1, with stratification according to previous cardiovascular events) to continue allopurinol (at the optimised dose) or start febuxostat at 80 mg/day, increasing to 120 mg/day if necessary to achieve the target serum urate concentration. The primary outcome was a composite of hospitalisation for non-fatal myocardial infarction or biomarker-positive acute coronary syndrome; non-fatal stroke; or cardiovascular death. The hazard ratio (HR) for febuxostat versus allopurinol in a Cox proportional hazards model (adjusted for the stratification variable and country) was assessed for non-inferiority (HR limit 1·3) in an on-treatment analysis. This study is registered with the EU Clinical Trials Register (EudraCT 2011-001883-23) and ISRCTN (ISRCTN72443728) and is now closed.Findings: From Dec 20, 2011, to Jan 26, 2018, 6128 patients (mean age 71·0 years [SD 6·4], 5225 [85·3%] men, 903 [14·7%] women, 2046 [33·4%] with previous cardiovascular disease) were enrolled and randomly allocated to receive allopurinol (n=3065) or febuxostat (n=3063). By the study end date (Dec 31, 2019), 189 (6·2%) patients in the febuxostat group and 169 (5·5%) in the allopurinol group withdrew from all follow-up. Median follow-up time was 1467 days (IQR 1029-2052) and median on-treatment follow-up was 1324 days (IQR 870-1919). For incidence of the primary endpoint, on-treatment, febuxostat (172 patients [1·72 events per 100 patient-years]) was non-inferior to allopurinol (241 patients [2·05 events per 100 patient-years]; adjusted HR 0·85 [95% CI 0·70-1·03], p<0·0001). In the febuxostat group, 222 (7·2%) of 3063 patients died and 1720 (57·3%) of 3001 in the safety analysis set had at least one serious adverse event (with 23 events in 19 [0·6%] patients related to treatment). In the allopurinol group, 263 (8·6%) of 3065 patients died and 1812 (59·4%) of 3050 had one or more serious adverse events (with five events in five [0·2%] patients related to treatment). Randomised therapy was discontinued in 973 (32·4%) patients in the febuxostat group and 503 (16·5%) patients in the allopurinol group.Interpretation: Febuxostat is non-inferior to allopurinol therapy with respect to the primary cardiovascular endpoint, and its long-term use is not associated with an increased risk of death or serious adverse events compared with allopurinol.Funding: Menarini, Ipsen, and Teijin Pharma Ltd. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Patients with chronic kidney disease have a high risk of adverse kidney and cardiovascular outcomes. The effect of dapagliflozin in patients with chronic kidney disease, with or without type 2 diabetes, is not known.Methods: We randomly assigned 4304 participants with an estimated glomerular filtration rate (GFR) of 25 to 75 ml per minute per 1.73 m2 of body-surface area and a urinary albumin-to-creatinine ratio (with albumin measured in milligrams and creatinine measured in grams) of 200 to 5000 to receive dapagliflozin (10 mg once daily) or placebo. The primary outcome was a composite of a sustained decline in the estimated GFR of at least 50%, end-stage kidney disease, or death from renal or cardiovascular causes.Results: The independent data monitoring committee recommended stopping the trial because of efficacy. Over a median of 2.4 years, a primary outcome event occurred in 197 of 2152 participants (9.2%) in the dapagliflozin group and 312 of 2152 participants (14.5%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.61; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.51 to 0.72; P<0.001; number needed to treat to prevent one primary outcome event, 19 [95% CI, 15 to 27]). The hazard ratio for the composite of a sustained decline in the estimated GFR of at least 50%, end-stage kidney disease, or death from renal causes was 0.56 (95% CI, 0.45 to 0.68; P<0.001), and the hazard ratio for the composite of death from cardiovascular causes or hospitalization for heart failure was 0.71 (95% CI, 0.55 to 0.92; P = 0.009). Death occurred in 101 participants (4.7%) in the dapagliflozin group and 146 participants (6.8%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.53 to 0.88; P = 0.004). The effects of dapagliflozin were similar in participants with type 2 diabetes and in those without type 2 diabetes. The known safety profile of dapagliflozin was confirmed.Conclusions: Among patients with chronic kidney disease, regardless of the presence or absence of diabetes, the risk of a composite of a sustained decline in the estimated GFR of at least 50%, end-stage kidney disease, or death from renal or cardiovascular causes was significantly lower with dapagliflozin than with placebo. (Funded by AstraZeneca; DAPA-CKD ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03036150.). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Myocardial fibrosis may contribute to the pathophysiology of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction. Given the biochemical targets of sacubitril/valsartan, this study hypothesized that circulating biomarkers reflecting the mechanisms that determine extracellular matrix homeostasis are altered by sacubitril/valsartan compared with valsartan alone.Objectives: This study investigated the effects of sacubitril/valsartan on biomarkers of extracellular matrix homeostasis and the association between biomarkers and the primary endpoint (total heart failure hospitalizations and cardiovascular death).Methods: N-terminal propeptide of collagen I and III, tissue inhibitor of matrix metalloproteinase 1, carboxyl-terminal telopeptide of collagen type I, and soluble ST2 were measured at baseline (n = 1,135) and 16 (n = 1,113) and 48 weeks (n = 1,016) after randomization. The effects of sacubitril/valsartan on these biomarkers were compared with those of valsartan alone. Baseline biomarker values and changes from baseline to 16 weeks were related to primary endpoint.Results: At baseline, all 5 biomarkers were higher than published referent control values. Sixteen weeks after randomization, sacubitril/valsartan decreased tissue inhibitor of matrix metalloproteinase 1 by 8% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 6% to 10%; p < 0.001), soluble ST2 by 4% (95% CI: 1% to 7%; p = 0.002), and N-terminal propeptide of collagen III by 3% (95% CI: 0% to 6%; p = 0.04) and increased carboxyl-terminal telopeptide of collagen type I by 4% (95% CI: 1% to 8%; p = 0.02) compared with valsartan alone, consistently in men and women and patients with left ventricular ejection fraction above or below the median of 57%. Higher levels of tissue inhibitor of matrix metalloproteinase 1 and soluble ST2 at baseline and increases in these markers at 16 weeks were associated with higher primary endpoint event rates.Conclusions: Biomarkers reflecting extracellular matrix homeostasis are elevated in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction, favorably altered by sacubitril/valsartan, and have important prognostic value. (Prospective Comparison of ARNI With ARB Global Outcomes in HF With Preserved Ejection Fraction [PARAGON-HF]; NCT01920711). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Three drug classes (mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists [MRAs], angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitors [ARNIs], and sodium/glucose cotransporter 2 [SGLT2] inhibitors) reduce mortality in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) beyond conventional therapy consisting of angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) and β blockers. Each class was previously studied with different background therapies and the expected treatment benefits with their combined use are not known. Here, we used data from three previously reported randomised controlled trials to estimate lifetime gains in event-free survival and overall survival with comprehensive therapy versus conventional therapy in patients with chronic HFrEF.Methods: In this cross-trial analysis, we estimated treatment effects of comprehensive disease-modifying pharmacological therapy (ARNI, β blocker, MRA, and SGLT2 inhibitor) versus conventional therapy (ACE inhibitor or ARB and β blocker) in patients with chronic HFrEF by making indirect comparisons of three pivotal trials, EMPHASIS-HF (n=2737), PARADIGM-HF (n=8399), and DAPA-HF (n=4744). Our primary endpoint was a composite of cardiovascular death or first hospital admission for heart failure; we also assessed these endpoints individually and assessed all-cause mortality. Assuming these relative treatment effects are consistent over time, we then projected incremental long-term gains in event-free survival and overall survival with comprehensive disease-modifying therapy in the control group of the EMPHASIS-HF trial (ACE inhibitor or ARB and β blocker).Findings: The hazard ratio (HR) for the imputed aggregate treatment effects of comprehensive disease-modifying therapy versus conventional therapy on the primary endpoint of cardiovascular death or hospital admission for heart failure was 0·38 (95% CI 0·30-0·47). HRs were also favourable for cardiovascular death alone (HR 0·50 [95% CI 0·37-0·67]), hospital admission for heart failure alone (0·32 [0·24-0·43]), and all-cause mortality (0·53 [0·40-0·70]). Treatment with comprehensive disease-modifying pharmacological therapy was estimated to afford 2·7 additional years (for an 80-year-old) to 8·3 additional years (for a 55-year-old) free from cardiovascular death or first hospital admission for heart failure and 1·4 additional years (for an 80-year-old) to 6·3 additional years (for a 55-year-old) of survival compared with conventional therapy.Interpretation: Among patients with HFrEF, the anticipated aggregate treatment effects of early comprehensive disease-modifying pharmacological therapy are substantial and support the combination use of an ARNI, β blocker, MRA, and SGLT2 inhibitor as a new therapeutic standard.Funding: None. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Short-term treatment for people with type 2 diabetes using a low dose of the selective endothelin A receptor antagonist atrasentan reduces albuminuria without causing significant sodium retention. We report the long-term effects of treatment with atrasentan on major renal outcomes.Methods: We did this double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trial at 689 sites in 41 countries. We enrolled adults aged 18-85 years with type 2 diabetes, estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) 25-75 mL/min per 1·73 m2 of body surface area, and a urine albumin-to-creatinine ratio (UACR) of 300-5000 mg/g who had received maximum labelled or tolerated renin-angiotensin system inhibition for at least 4 weeks. Participants were given atrasentan 0·75 mg orally daily during an enrichment period before random group assignment. Those with a UACR decrease of at least 30% with no substantial fluid retention during the enrichment period (responders) were included in the double-blind treatment period. Responders were randomly assigned to receive either atrasentan 0·75 mg orally daily or placebo. All patients and investigators were masked to treatment assignment. The primary endpoint was a composite of doubling of serum creatinine (sustained for ≥30 days) or end-stage kidney disease (eGFR <15 mL/min per 1·73 m2 sustained for ≥90 days, chronic dialysis for ≥90 days, kidney transplantation, or death from kidney failure) in the intention-to-treat population of all responders. Safety was assessed in all patients who received at least one dose of their assigned study treatment. The study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01858532.Findings: Between May 17, 2013, and July 13, 2017, 11 087 patients were screened; 5117 entered the enrichment period, and 4711 completed the enrichment period. Of these, 2648 patients were responders and were randomly assigned to the atrasentan group (n=1325) or placebo group (n=1323). Median follow-up was 2·2 years (IQR 1·4-2·9). 79 (6·0%) of 1325 patients in the atrasentan group and 105 (7·9%) of 1323 in the placebo group had a primary composite renal endpoint event (hazard ratio [HR] 0·65 [95% CI 0·49-0·88]; p=0·0047). Fluid retention and anaemia adverse events, which have been previously attributed to endothelin receptor antagonists, were more frequent in the atrasentan group than in the placebo group. Hospital admission for heart failure occurred in 47 (3·5%) of 1325 patients in the atrasentan group and 34 (2·6%) of 1323 patients in the placebo group (HR 1·33 [95% CI 0·85-2·07]; p=0·208). 58 (4·4%) patients in the atrasentan group and 52 (3·9%) in the placebo group died (HR 1·09 [95% CI 0·75-1·59]; p=0·65).Interpretation: Atrasentan reduced the risk of renal events in patients with diabetes and chronic kidney disease who were selected to optimise efficacy and safety. These data support a potential role for selective endothelin receptor antagonists in protecting renal function in patients with type 2 diabetes at high risk of developing end-stage kidney disease.Funding: AbbVie. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists differ in chemical structure, duration of action, and in their effects on clinical outcomes. The cardiovascular effects of once-weekly albiglutide in type 2 diabetes are unknown. We aimed to determine the safety and efficacy of albiglutide in preventing cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or stroke.Methods: We did a double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trial in 610 sites across 28 countries. We randomly assigned patients aged 40 years and older with type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease (at a 1:1 ratio) to groups that either received a subcutaneous injection of albiglutide (30-50 mg, based on glycaemic response and tolerability) or of a matched volume of placebo once a week, in addition to their standard care. Investigators used an interactive voice or web response system to obtain treatment assignment, and patients and all study investigators were masked to their treatment allocation. We hypothesised that albiglutide would be non-inferior to placebo for the primary outcome of the first occurrence of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or stroke, which was assessed in the intention-to-treat population. If non-inferiority was confirmed by an upper limit of the 95% CI for a hazard ratio of less than 1·30, closed testing for superiority was prespecified. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02465515.Findings: Patients were screened between July 1, 2015, and Nov 24, 2016. 10 793 patients were screened and 9463 participants were enrolled and randomly assigned to groups: 4731 patients were assigned to receive albiglutide and 4732 patients to receive placebo. On Nov 8, 2017, it was determined that 611 primary endpoints and a median follow-up of at least 1·5 years had accrued, and participants returned for a final visit and discontinuation from study treatment; the last patient visit was on March 12, 2018. These 9463 patients, the intention-to-treat population, were evaluated for a median duration of 1·6 years and were assessed for the primary outcome. The primary composite outcome occurred in 338 (7%) of 4731 patients at an incidence rate of 4·6 events per 100 person-years in the albiglutide group and in 428 (9%) of 4732 patients at an incidence rate of 5·9 events per 100 person-years in the placebo group (hazard ratio 0·78, 95% CI 0·68-0·90), which indicated that albiglutide was superior to placebo (p<0·0001 for non-inferiority; p=0·0006 for superiority). The incidence of acute pancreatitis (ten patients in the albiglutide group and seven patients in the placebo group), pancreatic cancer (six patients in the albiglutide group and five patients in the placebo group), medullary thyroid carcinoma (zero patients in both groups), and other serious adverse events did not differ between the two groups. There were three (<1%) deaths in the placebo group that were assessed by investigators, who were masked to study drug assignment, to be treatment-related and two (<1%) deaths in the albiglutide group.Interpretation: In patients with type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease, albiglutide was superior to placebo with respect to major adverse cardiovascular events. Evidence-based glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists should therefore be considered as part of a comprehensive strategy to reduce the risk of cardiovascular events in patients with type 2 diabetes.Funding: GlaxoSmithKline. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims: We investigated which patients with heart failure (HF) should receive specialist palliative care (SPC) by first creating a definition of need for SPC in patients hospitalised with HF using patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) and then testing this definition using the outcome of days alive and out of hospital (DAOH). We also evaluated which baseline variables predicted need for SPC and whether those with this need received SPC.Methods and Results: PROMs assessing quality of life (QoL), symptoms, and mood were administered at baseline and every 4 months. SPC need was defined as persistently severe impairment of any PROM without improvement (or severe impairment immediately preceding death). We then tested whether need for SPC, so defined, was reflected in DAOH, a measure which combines length of stay, days of hospital re-admission, and days lost due to death. Of 272 patients recruited, 74 (27%) met the definition of SPC needs. These patients lived one third fewer DAOH than those without SPC need (and less than a quarter of QoL-adjusted DAOH). A Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ) summary score of <29 identified patients who subsequently had SPC needs (area under receiver operating characteristic curve 0.78). Twenty-four per cent of patients with SPC needs actually received SPC (n = 18).Conclusions: A quarter of patients hospitalised with HF had a need for SPC and were identified by a low KCCQ score on admission. Those with SPC need spent many fewer DAOH and their DAOH were of significantly worse quality. Very few patients with SPC needs accessed SPC services. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims: We tested the hypothesis that candesartan improves outcomes in heart failure (HF) with mid-range ejection fraction [HFmrEF; ejection fraction (EF) 40-49%].Methods and Results: In 7598 patients enrolled in the CHARM Programme (HF across the spectrum of EF), we assessed characteristics, outcomes and treatment effect of candesartan according to EF. Patients with HFmrEF (n = 1322, 17%) were similar to those with HF with reduced EF (HFrEF; n = 4323, 57%) with respect to some characteristics, and intermediate between HFrEF and HF with preserved EF (HFpEF; n = 1953, 26%) with respect to others. Over a mean follow-up of 2.9 years, the incidence rates for the primary outcome of cardiovascular death or HF hospitalization were 15.9, 8.5 and 8.9 per 100 patient-years in HFrEF, HFmrEF and HFpEF. In adjusted analyses, the rates of the primary outcome declined with increasing EF up to 50%. For treatment effect, the incidence rates for the primary outcome for candesartan vs. placebo were 14.4 vs. 17.5 per 100 patient-years in HFrEF [hazard ratio (HR) 0.82, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.75-0.91; P < 0.001], 7.4 vs. 9.7 per 100 patient-years in HFmrEF (HR 0.76, 95% CI 0.61-0.96; P = 0.02), and 8.6 vs. 9.1 per 100 patient-years in HFpEF (HR 0.95, 95% CI 0.79-1.14; P = 0.57). For recurrent HF hospitalization, the incidence rate ratios were 0.68 in HFrEF (95% CI 0.58-0.80; P < 0.001), 0.48 in HFmrEF (95% CI 0.33-0.70; P < 0.001), and 0.78 in HFpEF (95% CI 0.59-1.03; P = 0.08). With EF as a continuous spline variable, candesartan significantly reduced the primary outcome until EF well over 50% and recurrent HF hospitalizations until EF well over 60%.Conclusion: Candesartan improved outcomes in HFmrEF to a similar degree as in HFrEF. ClinicalTrials.gov: CHARM Alternative NCT00634400, CHARM Added NCT00634309, CHARM Preserved NCT00634712. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims: To evaluate the effects of digoxin in patients with the newly described phenotype of heart failure (HF) and mid-range ejection fraction (HFmrEF), attributed to mild left ventricular systolic dysfunction.Methods and Results: We carried out a retrospective analysis of the Digitalis Investigation Group (DIG) trial which had 7788 patients available for analysis with a left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) ranging between 3% and 85%. We compared the effect of digoxin to placebo in three mutually exclusive groups of patients defined by LVEF category: <40% (HF with reduced LVEF, HFrEF, n = 5874), 40-49% (HFmrEF, n = 1195) and ≥50% (HF with preserved LVEF, HFpEF, n = 719). The primary outcome was the composite of cardiovascular death or HF hospitalisation. Patients with HFmrEF resembled patients with HFrEF, more than those with HFpEF, with respect to age, sex and aetiology but were more like HFpEF patients with respect to blood pressure and the prevalence of hypertension. Event rates in patients with HFmrEF were similar to those in HFpEF and much lower than in HFrEF. Digoxin reduced the primary endpoint in patients with HFrEF, mainly due to reduced HF hospitalisation: the digoxin/placebo hazard ratio (HR) for HF hospitalisation was 0.71 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.65-0.77]. The digoxin/placebo HR for HF hospitalisation in patients with HFmrEF was 0.80 (95% CI 0.63-1.03) and 0.85 (95% CI 0.62-1.17) in those with HFpEF. The digoxin/placebo HR for the composite of HF death or HF hospitalisation was 0.74 (95% CI 0.68-0.81) in HFrEF, 0.83 (95% CI 0.66-1.05) in HFmrEF and 0.88 (95% CI 0.65-1.19) in HFpEF.Conclusions: In this study, event rates in patients with HFmrEF were closer to those in HFpEF than HFrEF. Digoxin had most effect on HF hospitalisation in patients with HFrEF, an intermediate effect in HFmrEF, and the smallest effect in HFpEF. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims: Recurrent hospitalizations are a major part of the disease burden in heart failure (HF), but conventional analyses consider only the first event. We compared the effect of sacubitril/valsartan vs. enalapril on recurrent events, incorporating all HF hospitalizations and cardiovascular (CV) deaths in PARADIGM-HF, using a variety of statistical approaches advocated for this type of analysis.Methods and Results: In PARADIGM-HF, a total of 8399 patients were randomized and followed for a median of 27 months. We applied various recurrent event analyses, including a negative binomial model, the Wei, Lin and Weissfeld (WLW), and Lin, Wei, Ying and Yang (LWYY) methods, and a joint frailty model, all adjusted for treatment and region. Among a total of 3181 primary endpoint events (including 1251 CV deaths) during the trial, only 2031 (63.8%) were first events (836 CV deaths). Among a total of 1195 patients with at least one HF hospitalization, 410 (34%) had at least one further HF hospitalization. Sacubitril/valsartan compared with enalapril reduced the risk of recurrent HF hospitalization using the negative binomial model [rate ratio (RR) 0.77, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.67-0.89], the WLW method [hazard ratio (HR) 0.79, 95% CI 0.71-0.89], the LWYY method (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.68-0.90), and the joint frailty model (HR 0.75, 95% CI 0.66-0.86) (all P < 0.001). The effect of sacubitril/valsartan vs. enalapril on recurrent HF hospitalizations/CV death was similar.Conclusions: In PARADIGM-HF, approximately one third of patients with a primary endpoint (time-to-first) experienced a further event. Compared with enalapril, sacubitril/valsartan reduced both first and recurrent events. The treatment effect size was similar, regardless of the statistical approach applied. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Large-scale and contemporary population-based studies of heart failure incidence are needed to inform resource planning and research prioritisation but current evidence is scarce. We aimed to assess temporal trends in incidence and prevalence of heart failure in a large general population cohort from the UK, between 2002 and 2014.Methods: For this population-based study, we used linked primary and secondary electronic health records of 4 million individuals from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD), a cohort that is representative of the UK population in terms of age and sex. Eligible patients were aged 16 years and older, had contributed data between Jan 1, 2002, and Dec 31, 2014, had an acceptable record according to CPRD quality control, were approved for CPRD and Hospital Episodes Statistics linkage, and were registered with their general practice for at least 12 months. For patients with incident heart failure, we extracted the most recent measurement of baseline characteristics (within 2 years of diagnosis) from electronic health records, as well as information about comorbidities, socioeconomic status, ethnicity, and region. We calculated standardised rates by applying direct age and sex standardisation to the 2013 European Standard Population, and we inferred crude rates by applying year-specific, age-specific, and sex-specific incidence to UK census mid-year population estimates. We assumed no heart failure for patients aged 15 years or younger and report total incidence and prevalence for all ages (>0 years).Findings: From 2002 to 2014, heart failure incidence (standardised by age and sex) decreased, similarly for men and women, by 7% (from 358 to 332 per 100 000 person-years; adjusted incidence ratio 0·93, 95% CI 0·91-0·94). However, the estimated absolute number of individuals with newly diagnosed heart failure in the UK increased by 12% (from 170 727 in 2002 to 190 798 in 2014), largely due to an increase in population size and age. The estimated absolute number of prevalent heart failure cases in the UK increased even more, by 23% (from 750 127 to 920 616). Over the study period, patient age and multi-morbidity at first presentation of heart failure increased (mean age 76·5 years [SD 12·0] to 77·0 years [12·9], adjusted difference 0·79 years, 95% CI 0·37-1·20; mean number of comorbidities 3·4 [SD 1·9] vs 5·4 [2·5]; adjusted difference 2·0, 95% CI 1·9-2·1). Socioeconomically deprived individuals were more likely to develop heart failure than were affluent individuals (incidence rate ratio 1·61, 95% CI 1·58-1·64), and did so earlier in life than those from the most affluent group (adjusted difference -3·51 years, 95% CI -3·77 to -3·25). From 2002 to 2014, the socioeconomic gradient in age at first presentation with heart failure widened. Socioeconomically deprived individuals also had more comorbidities, despite their younger age.Interpretation: Despite a moderate decline in standardised incidence of heart failure, the burden of heart failure in the UK is increasing, and is now similar to the four most common causes of cancer combined. The observed socioeconomic disparities in disease incidence and age at onset within the same nation point to a potentially preventable nature of heart failure that still needs to be tackled.Funding: British Heart Foundation and National Institute for Health Research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims: Because of concerns about the safety of aliskiren in patients with diabetes, study treatment was stopped prematurely in the Aliskiren Trial of Minimizing OutcomeS for Patients with HEart failuRE (ATMOSPHERE). We examined outcomes and treatment effect in these patients compared with those without diabetes.Methods and Results: ATMOSPHERE included 7016 patients with heart failure and a reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) randomly assigned to enalapril plus aliskiren, aliskiren alone, or enalapril. At baseline, 1944 (27.7%) patients had diabetes. Median follow-up was shorter in patients with diabetes compared with those without (24 months vs. 46 months). Among patients with diabetes, the primary endpoint of cardiovascular death or hospitalization for heart failure occurred in 216 patients (33.1%) in the enalapril group (reference), 172 (27.4%) in the aliskiren group [hazard ratio (HR) 0.82, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.67-1.00; P = 0.053], and 196 (29.5%) in the combination group (HR 0.86, 95% CI 0.71-1.04; P = 0.13). The effects of the treatments studied did not differ significantly compared with patients without diabetes. In patients with diabetes, aliskiren monotherapy was associated with a lower risk of symptomatic hypotension compared to enalapril [42 (6.7%) vs. 65 (10.0%); P = 0.04], whereas other adverse events were generally balanced between the three groups.Conclusion: In patients with HFrEF and diabetes, there was no signal of harm and a trend towards benefit when direct renin inhibition monotherapy was compared with an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor, whereas combined aliskiren and enalapril treatment led to more adverse events with no improvement in outcomes. Treatment effects did not differ in patients with diabetes compared with those without. Clinical Trial Registration URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00853658. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: In patients with heart failure and preserved ejection fraction, little is known about the characteristics of, and outcomes in, those with and without diabetes mellitus.Methods: We examined clinical and echocardiographic characteristics and outcomes in the I-Preserve trial (Irbesartan in Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction) according to history of diabetes mellitus. Cox regression models were used to estimate hazard ratios for cardiovascular outcomes adjusted for known predictors, including age, sex, natriuretic peptides, and comorbidity. Echocardiographic data were available in 745 patients and were additionally adjusted for in supplementary analyses.Results: Overall, 1134 of 4128 patients (27%) had diabetes mellitus. Compared with those without diabetes mellitus, they were more likely to have a history of myocardial infarction (28% versus 22%), higher body mass index (31 versus 29 kg/m2), worse Minnesota Living With Heart Failure score (48 versus 40), higher median N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide concentration (403 versus 320 pg/mL; all P<0.01), more signs of congestion, but no significant difference in left ventricular ejection fraction. Patients with diabetes mellitus had a greater left ventricular mass and left atrial area than patients without diabetes mellitus. Doppler E-wave velocity (86 versus 76 cm/s; P<0.0001) and the E/e' ratio (11.7 versus 10.4; P=0.010) were higher in patients with diabetes mellitus. Over a median follow-up of 4.1 years, cardiovascular death or heart failure hospitalization occurred in 34% of patients with diabetes mellitus versus 22% of those without diabetes mellitus (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.75; 95% confidence interval, 1.49-2.05), and 28% versus 19% of patients with and without diabetes mellitus died (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.59; confidence interval, 1.33-1.91).Conclusions: In heart failure with preserved ejection fraction, patients with diabetes mellitus have more signs of congestion, worse quality of life, higher N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide levels, and a poorer prognosis. They also display greater structural and functional echocardiographic abnormalities. Further investigation is needed to determine the mediators of the adverse impact of diabetes mellitus on outcomes in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction and whether they are modifiable.Clinical Trial Registration: URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00095238. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Impaired contractility is a feature of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction. We assessed the pharmacokinetics and effects on cardiac function and structure of the cardiac myosin activator, omecamtiv mecarbil.Methods: In this randomised, double-blind study, done at 87 sites in 13 countries, we recruited patients with stable, symptomatic chronic heart failure and left ventricular ejection fraction 40% or lower. Patients were randomly assigned equally, via an interactive web response system, to receive 25 mg oral omecamtiv mecarbil twice daily (fixed-dose group), 25 mg twice daily titrated to 50 mg twice daily guided by pharmacokinetics (pharmacokinetic-titration group), or placebo for 20 weeks. We assessed the maximum concentration of omecamtiv mecarbil in plasma (primary endpoint) and changes in cardiac function and ventricular diameters. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01786512.Findings: From March 17, 2014, to March 5, 2015, we enrolled 150 patients in the fixed-dose omecamtiv mecarbil group and 149 in the pharmacokinetic-titration and placebo groups. Mean maximum concentration of omecamtiv mecarbil at 12 weeks was 200 (SD 71) ng/mL in the fixed-dose group and 318 (129) ng/mL in the pharmacokinetic-titration group. For the pharmacokinetic-titration group versus placebo group at 20 weeks, least square mean differences were as follows: systolic ejection time 25 ms (95% CI 18-32, p<0·0001), stroke volume 3·6 mL (0·5-6·7, p=0·0217), left ventricular end-systolic diameter -1·8 mm (-2·9 to -0·6, p=0·0027), left ventricular end-diastolic diameter -1·3 mm, (-2·3 to 0·3, p=0·0128), heart rate -3·0 beats per min (-5·1 to -0·8, p=0·0070), and N-terminal pro B-type natriuretic peptide concentration in plasma -970 pg/mL (-1672 to -268, p=0·0069). The frequency of adverse clinical events did not differ between groups.Interpretation: Omecamtiv mecarbil dosing guided by pharmacokinetics achieved plasma concentrations associated with improved cardiac function and decreased ventricular diameter.Funding: Amgen. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Many episodes of worsening of heart failure (HF) are treated by increasing oral therapy or temporary intravenous treatment in the community or emergency department (ED), without hospital admission. We studied the frequency and prognostic importance of these episodes of worsening in the Prospective Comparison of ARNI (angiotensin-receptor-neprilysin inhibitor) with ACEI (angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor) to Determine Impact on Global Mortality and Morbidity in Heart Failure Trial (PARADIGM-HF).Methods and Results: Outpatient intensification of HF therapy was added to an expanded composite outcome with ED visits, HF hospitalizations, and cardiovascular deaths. In an examination of first nonfatal events, 361 of 8399 patients (4.3%) had outpatient intensification of HF therapy without a subsequent event (ie, ED visit/HF hospitalizations) within 30 days; 78 of 8399 (1.0%) had an ED visit without previous outpatient intensification of HF therapy or a subsequent event within 30 days; and 1107 of 8399 (13.2%) had HF hospitalizations without a preceding event. The risk of death (in comparison with no-event patients) was similar after each manifestation of worsening: outpatient intensification of HF therapy (hazard ratio, 4.8; 95% confidence interval, 3.9-5.9); ED visit (hazard ratio, 4.5; 95% confidence interval, 3.0-6.7); HF hospitalizations (hazard ratio, 5.9; 95% confidence interval, 5.2-6.6). The expanded composite added 14% more events and shortened time to accrual of a fixed number of events. The benefit of sacubitril/valsartan over enalapril was similar to the primary outcome for the expanded composite (hazard ratio, 0.79; 95% confidence interval, 0.73-0.86) and was consistent across the components of the latter.Conclusions: Focusing only on HF hospitalizations underestimates the frequency of worsening and the serious implications of all manifestations of worsening. For clinical trials conducted in an era of heightened efforts to avoid HF hospitalizations, inclusion of episodes of outpatient treatment intensification (and ED visits) in a composite outcome adds an important number of events and shortens the time taken to accrue a target number of end points in an event-driven trial.Clinical Trial Registration: URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01035255. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Cardiovascular morbidity and mortality are higher among patients with type 2 diabetes, particularly those with concomitant cardiovascular diseases, than in most other populations. We assessed the effects of lixisenatide, a glucagon-like peptide 1-receptor agonist, on cardiovascular outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes who had had a recent acute coronary event.Methods: We randomly assigned patients with type 2 diabetes who had had a myocardial infarction or who had been hospitalized for unstable angina within the previous 180 days to receive lixisenatide or placebo in addition to locally determined standards of care. The trial was designed with adequate statistical power to assess whether lixisenatide was noninferior as well as superior to placebo, as defined by an upper boundary of the 95% confidence interval for the hazard ratio of less than 1.3 and 1.0, respectively, for the primary composite end point of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, stroke, or hospitalization for unstable angina.Results: The 6068 patients who underwent randomization were followed for a median of 25 months. A primary end-point event occurred in 406 patients (13.4%) in the lixisenatide group and in 399 (13.2%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 1.02; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.89 to 1.17), which showed the noninferiority of lixisenatide to placebo (P<0.001) but did not show superiority (P=0.81). There were no significant between-group differences in the rate of hospitalization for heart failure (hazard ratio in the lixisenatide group, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.75 to 1.23) or the rate of death (hazard ratio, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.78 to 1.13). Lixisenatide was not associated with a higher rate of serious adverse events or severe hypoglycemia, pancreatitis, pancreatic neoplasms, or allergic reactions than was placebo.Conclusions: In patients with type 2 diabetes and a recent acute coronary syndrome, the addition of lixisenatide to usual care did not significantly alter the rate of major cardiovascular events or other serious adverse events. (Funded by Sanofi; ELIXA ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01147250.). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Renal impairment is a major risk factor for mortality in various populations. Three formulas are frequently used to assess both glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) or creatinine clearance (CrCl) and mortality prediction: body surface area adjusted-Cockcroft-Gault (CG-BSA), Modification of Diet in Renal Disease Study (MDRD4), and the Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration (CKD-EPI) equation. The CKD-EPI is the most accurate eGFR estimator as compared to a "gold-standard"; however, which of the latter is the best formula to assess prognosis remains to be clarified. This study aimed to compare the prognostic value of these formulas in predicting the risk of cardiovascular mortality (CVM) in population-based, cardiovascular risk, heart failure (HF) and post-myocardial infarction (MI) cohorts.Methods: Two previously published cohorts of pooled patient data derived from the partners involved in the HOMAGE-consortium and from four clinical trials - CAPRICORN, EPHESUS, OPTIMAAL and VALIANT - the high risk MI initiative, were used. A total of 54,111 patients were included in the present analysis: 2644 from population-based cohorts; 20,895 from cardiovascular risk cohorts; 1801 from heart failure cohorts; and 28,771 from post-myocardial infarction cohorts. Participants were patients enrolled in the respective cohorts and trials. The primary outcome was CVM.Results: All formulas were strongly and independently associated with CVM. Lower eGFR/CrCl was associated with increasing CVM rates for values below 60 mL/min/m2. Categorical renal function stages diverged in a more pronounced manner with the CG-BSA formula in all populations (higher χ2 values), with lower stages showing stronger associations. The discriminative improvement driven by the CG-BSA formula was superior to that of MDRD4 and CKD-EPI, but remained low overall (increase in C-index ranging from 0.5 to 2 %) while not statistically significant in population-based cohorts. The integrated discrimination improvement and net reclassification improvement were higher (P < 0.05) for the CG-BSA formula compared to MDRD4 and CKD-EPI in CV risk, HF and post-MI cohorts, but not in population-based cohorts. The CKD-EPI formula was superior overall to MDRD4.Conclusions: The CG-BSA formula was slightly more accurate in predicting CVM in CV risk, HF, and post-MI cohorts (but not in population-based cohorts). However, the CG-BSA discriminative improvement was globally low compared to MDRD4 and especially CKD-EPI, the latter offering the best compromise between renal function estimation and CVM prediction. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]