Search

Background: Heart failure (HF) is common among patients with atrial fibrillation (AF), and accurate risk assessment is clinically important., Objectives: The goal of this study was to investigate the incremental prognostic performance of N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP), high-sensitivity cardiac troponin T (hs-cTnT), and growth differentiation factor (GDF)-15 for HF risk stratification in patients with AF., Methods: Individual patient data from 3 large randomized trials comparing direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) with warfarin (ARISTOTLE [Apixaban for Reduction in Stroke and Other Thromboembolic Events in Atrial Fibrillation], ENGAGE AF-TIMI 48 [Effective Anticoagulation With Factor Xa Next Generation in Atrial Fibrillation-Thrombolysis In Myocardial Infarction 48], and RE-LY [Randomized Evaluation of Long-Term Anticoagulation Therapy]) from the COMBINE-AF (A Collaboration Between Multiple Institutions to Better Investigate Non-Vitamin K Antagonist Oral Anticoagulant Use in Atrial Fibrillation) cohort were pooled; all patients with available biomarkers at baseline were included. The composite endpoint was hospitalization for HF (HHF) or cardiovascular death (CVD), and secondary endpoints were HHF and HF-related death. Cox regression was used, adjusting for clinical factors, and interbiomarker correlation was addressed using weighted quantile sum regression analysis., Results: In 32,041 patients, higher biomarker values were associated with a graded increase in absolute risk for CVD/HHF, HHF, and HF-related death. Adjusting for clinical variables and all biomarkers, NT-proBNP (HR per 1 SD: 1.68; 95% CI: 1.59-1.77), hs-cTnT (HR: 1.39; 95% CI: 1.33-1.44), and GDF-15 (HR: 1.20; 95% CI: 1.15-1.25) were significantly associated with CVD/HHF. The discrimination of the clinical model improved significantly upon addition of the biomarkers (c-index: 0.70 [95% CI: 0.69-0.71] to 0.77 [95% CI: 0.76-0.78]; likelihood ratio test, P < 0.001). Using weighted quantile sum regression analysis, the contribution to risk assessment was similar for NT-proBNP and hs-cTnT for CVD/HHF (38% and 41%, respectively); GDF-15 provided a statistically significant but lesser contribution to risk assessment. Results were similar for HHF and HF-related death, individually, and across key subgroups of patients based on a history of HF, AF pattern, and reduced or preserved left ventricular ejection fraction., Conclusions: NT-proBNP, hs-cTnT, and GDF-15 contributed significantly and independently to the risk stratification for HF endpoints in patients with AF, with hs-cTnT being as important as NT-proBNP for HF risk stratification. Our findings support a possible future use of these biomarkers to distinguish patients with AF at low or high risk for HF., Competing Interests: Funding Support and Author Disclosures Dr Haller is supported by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG, German Research Foundation)–10086/1-1. Dr S.M. Patel is supported by a T32 postdoctoral training grant from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI) (T32HL007604). RE-LY was funded by Boehringer Ingelheim, ARISTOTLE was funded by Bristol Myers Squibb and Pfizer, and ENGAGE AF-TIMI 48 was funded by Daiichi-Sankyo. No outside funding was obtained to support the creation of the COMBINE AF database or for these analyses. Dr Haller has received travel grants from the German Center of Cardiovascular Research (DZHK); and has received funding by the German Foundation for Heart Research and the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG, German Research Foundation)–10086/1-1. Dr Jarolim has received research support through BWH from Abbott Laboratories, Amgen, Inc, AstraZeneca, LP, Daiichi-Sankyo, Roche Diagnostic Corporation, and Siemens Healthineers. Dr Antman received grants from Daiichi-Sankyo during the conduct of the study. Mr Eikelboom has received honoraria and/or research support from Anthos, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Idorsia, Janssen, Merck, and Pfizer. Dr Granger has received consulting fees from AbbVie, Abiomed, Alnylam Pharmaceuticals, Amgen, Anthos, Bayer Corporation, Boehringer Ingelheim, Boston Scientific Corporation, Bristol Myers Squibb, Cardionomic, CeleCor Therapeutics, Janssen Pharmaceutical, Merck, Novo Nordisk, Novartis, Pfizer, Philips, and Roche; has salary funded by Duke grants sponsored by Alnylam Pharmaceuticals, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, NHLBI, Novartis, Pfizer, and Philips; and has equity in tenac.io. Dr Healey has received research grants and speaking fees from Boston Scientific, Medtronic, Bristol Myers Squibb/Pfizer, and Servier; and has been a consultant for Bayer. Dr Hijazi has received lecture and consulting fees from Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Pfizer, and Roche Diagnostics; and has received research support from Hjärt-Lungfonden (The Swedish Heart-Lung Foundation and Uppsala University Hospital). Dr M.R. Patel has received consulting fees from Bayer, Janssen, and Novartis; and has received research grants from the NHLBI, Bayer, Novartis, and Philips. Dr S.M. Patel has received consulting fees from Janssen. Dr Ruff has received research grants through Brigham and Women’s Hospital from Anthos, AstraZeneca, Daiichi-Sankyo, Janssen, and Novartis; and has received honoraria for scientific advisory boards and consulting from Anthos, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Daiichi-Sankyo, Janssen, and Pfizer. Dr Wallentin has received institutional research grants from Bristol Myers Squibb/Pfizer, AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Roche Diagnostics; and is a patent holder on GDF-15 for prognostication in acute coronary syndrome. Dr Braunwald has received research grants through his institution from AstraZeneca, Daiichi-Sankyo, Merck, and Novartis; and has consulted for Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Cardurion, Edgewise, and Verve. Dr Giugliano has received research support from Anthos Therapeutics and Daiichi-Sankyo; has received honoraria for lectures from Daiichi-Sankyo, Medical Education Resources (MER), Menarini, Pfizer, SAJA Pharmaceuticals, Servier, and Shanghai Medical Telescope; and has received consulting fees from Artivion, Inc, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Daiichi-Sankyo, Perosphere, PhaseBio Pharmaceuticals, Samsung, Sanofi, Syneos Health, and Thrombosis Research Institute. Dr Morrow has received consulting fees from Abbott Laboratories, ARCA Biopharma, InCarda, Inflammatix, Merck & Co, Novartis, and Roche Diagnostics. Dr Haller, Dr Morrow, Mr Palazzolo, Dr Bellavia, Dr Ruff, Dr Braunwald, and Dr Giugliano are members of the TIMI Study Group, which has received institutional research grant support through Brigham and Women’s Hospital from Abbott, Amgen, Anthos Therapeutics, AstraZeneca, Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, Inc, Daiichi-Sankyo, Eisai, Intarcia, MedImmune, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Quark Pharmaceuticals, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc, Roche, Siemens Healthcare Diagnostics, Inc, The Medicines Company, and Zora Biosciences. All other authors have reported that they have no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose., (Copyright © 2024 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: The efficacy and safety of sacubitril/valsartan in patients hospitalized with heart failure (HF) across the spectrum of left ventricular ejection fraction (EF) has not been described., Objectives: Data from randomized trials of sacubitril/valsartan in HF patients with EF ≤40% (PIONEER-HF [Comparison of Sacubitril/Valsartan Versus Enalapril on Effect of NT-proBNP in Patients Stabilized From an Acute Heart Failure Episode] trial) and >40% (PARAGLIDE-HF [Prospective comparison of ARNI with ARB Given following stabiLization In DEcompensated HFpEF] trial) following recent worsening heart failure (WHF) were pooled to examine treatment effect across the EF spectrum., Methods: The PIONEER-HF and PARAGLIDE-HF trials were double-blind, randomized trials of sacubitril/valsartan vs control therapy (enalapril or valsartan, respectively). All participants in the PIONEER-HF trial and 69.5% in the PARAGLIDE-HF trial were enrolled during hospitalization for HF after stabilization. The remainder in the PARAGLIDE-HF trial were enrolled ≤30 days after a WHF event. The primary endpoint of both trials was time-averaged proportional change in N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) from baseline through weeks 4 and 8. Adjudicated clinical endpoints were analyzed through the end of follow-up, adjusting for trial., Results: The pooled analysis included 1,347 patients (881 from PIONEER-HF, 466 from PARAGLIDE-HF). Baseline characteristics included median age 66 years, 36% women, 31% Black, 34% de novo HF, and median EF 30%. The reduction in NT-proBNP was 24% greater with sacubitril/valsartan vs control therapy (n = 1,130; ratio of change = 0.76; 95% CI: 0.69-0.83; P < 0.0001). Cardiovascular death or hospitalization for HF was reduced by 30% with sacubitril/valsartan vs control therapy (HR: 0.70; 95% CI: 0.54-0.91; P = 0.0077). This effect was consistent across the spectrum of EF ≤60%. Sacubitril/valsartan increased symptomatic hypotension (risk ratio: 1.35; 95% CI: 1.05-1.72)., Conclusions: In patients stabilized after WHF, sacubitril/valsartan led to a greater reduction in plasma NT-proBNP and improved clinical outcome compared with control therapy, in particular across the spectrum of EF ≤60%. (Comparison of Sacubitril/Valsartan Versus Enalapril on Effect of NT-proBNP in Patients Stabilized From an Acute Heart Failure Episode [PIONEER-HF]; NCT02554890; Changes in NT-proBNP, Safety, and Tolerability in HFpEF Patients With a WHF Event [HFpEF Decompensation] Who Have Been Stabilized and Initiated at the Time of or Within 30 Days Post-decompensation [PARAGLIDE-HF]; NCT03988634)., Competing Interests: Funding Support and Author Disclosures The PIONEER-HF and PARAGLIDE-HF trials were supported by Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp. Drs Morrow and Park are members of the TIMI Study Group, which has received institutional research grant support through Brigham and Women’s Hospital from Abbott, Abiomed, Amgen, Anthos Therapeutics, ARCA Biopharma, AstraZeneca, Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, Daiichi-Sankyo, Eisai, Intarcia, Ionis Pharmaceuticals, Janssen Research and Development, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Quark Pharmaceuticals, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Roche, Siemens Healthcare Diagnostics, Softcell Medical Limited, and Zora Biosciences. Dr Morrow has received consulting fees from Abbott Laboratories, ARCA Biopharma, Inflammatix, Merck and Co, Novartis, Regeneron, and Roche Diagnostics. Dr Velazquez has received institutional research grant support and/or honoraria for serving on advisory boards from Novartis, Abiomed, Rednvia, and the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute/National Institutes of Health. Dr Desai has received research grants (to Brigham and Women’s Hospital) from Abbott, Alnylam, AstraZeneca, Bayer, and Novartis; and has received personal consulting fees from Abbott, Alnylam, AstraZeneca, Avidity Biopharma, Axon Therapeutics, Bayer, Biofourmis, Cytokinetics, GlaxoSmithKline, Medpace, Merck, New Amsterdam, Novartis, Parexel, Regeneron, River2Renal, Roche, Verily, and Veristat. Dr DeVore has received research funding through his institution from Biofourmis, Bodyport, Cytokinetics, American Regent, Inc, the National Institutes of Health and National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, Novartis, and Story Health; and has served as a consultant for and/or received honoraria from Abiomed, Cardionomic, LivaNova, Natera, Novo Nordisk, Story Health, and Zoll. Dr Sharma has served on the advisory board and/or as a consultant for Alleviant, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Edwards Lifesciences, Imbria, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, RIVUS, and ViCardia. Dr Solomon has received research grants from Alnylam, AstraZeneca, Bellerophon, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Cytokinetics, Eidos, GlaxoSmithKline, Ionis, Lilly, MyoKardia, National Institutes of Health/National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Respicardia, Sanofi Pasteur, Theracos, Actelion, Amgen, Bellerophon, Celladon, Gilead, Mesoblast, Neurotronik, and US2; and has served as a consultant for Abbott, Action, Akros, Alnylam, Amgen, Arena, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Cardior, Cardurion, Corvia, Cytokinetics, Daiichi-Sankyo, GlaxoSmithKline, Lilly, Merck, MyoKardia, Novartis, Roche, Theracos, Quantum Genomics, Cardurion, Janssen, Cardiac Dimensions, Tenaya, Sanofi Pasteur, Dinaqor, Tremeau, CellProThera, Moderna, American Regent, Sarepta, Lexicon, Anacardio, Akros, and Valo. Dr Starling has served on the steering committee for the PARAGLIDE trial sponsored by Novartis and for the RESPONDER HF trial sponsored by Corvia Medical. Drs Ward and Williamson are employees of Novartis. Dr Zieroth has received research grant support from, served on advisory boards for, or served as a speaker for Abbott, Akcea AstraZeneca, Amgen, Alnylam, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Otsuka, Pfizer, Roche, Servier, and Vifor Pharma; and has served on a clinical trial committee or as a national lead for studies sponsored by AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Merck, Novartis, and Pfizer. Dr Hernandez has received research grants from American Regent, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Cytokinetics, Merck, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Somologic, and Verily; and has served as a consultant for Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Boston Scientific, Cytokinetics, Intellia, Merck, Novartis, and Novo Nordisk. Dr Mentz has received research support and/or honoraria from Novartis, Abbott, American Regent, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Boston Scientific, Cytokinetics, Fast BioMedical, Gilead, Innolife, Eli Lilly, Medtronic, Medable, Merck, Novo Nordisk, Pharmacosmos, Relypsa, Respicardia, Roche, Sanofi, Vifor, Windtree Therapeutics, and Zoll. Dr Braunwald has received grant support to his institution from Novartis for the conduct of the PIONEER-HF trial, for serving on the Executive Committee of the PARADISE-MI trial and the Steering Committee of the PARAGLIDE-HF trial, and for participation in an advisory board meeting; and has served as a consultant for Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Cardurion, Edgewise, and Verve. Dr Lepage has reported that he has no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose., (Copyright © 2024 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Patients who sustain an acute myocardial infarction (AMI), including ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI), remain at high risk for heart failure (HF), coronary events, and death. Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors have been shown to significantly decrease the risk for cardiovascular events in both STEMI and NSTEMI patients., Objectives: The objectives were to determine whether angiotensin-receptor blockade and neprilysin inhibition with sacubitril/valsartan, compared with ramipril, has impact on reducing cardiovascular events according to the type of AMI., Methods: The PARADISE-MI (Prospective ARNI versus ACE inhibitor trial to DetermIne Superiority in reducing heart failure Events after Myocardial Infarction) trial enrolled patients with AMI complicated by left ventricular dysfunction and/or pulmonary congestion and at least 1 risk-enhancing factor. Patients were randomized to either sacubitril/valsartan or ramipril. The primary endpoint was death from cardiovascular causes or incident HF. In this prespecified analysis, we stratified patients according to AMI type., Results: Of 5,661 enrolled patients, 4,291 (75.8%) had STEMI. These patients were younger and had fewer comorbidities and cardiovascular risk factors than NSTEMI patients. After adjustment for potential confounders, the risk for the primary outcome was marginally higher in NSTEMI vs STEMI patients (adjusted HR: 1.19; 95% CI: 1.00-1.41), with borderline statistical significance (P = 0.05). The primary composite outcome occurred at similar rates in patients randomized to sacubitril/valsartan vs ramipril in STEMI (10% vs 12%; HR: 0.87; 95% CI: 0.73-1.04; P = 0.13) and NSTEMI patients (17% vs 17%; HR: 0.97; 95% CI: 0.75-1.25; P = 0.80; P interaction = 0.53)., Conclusions: Compared with ramipril, sacubitril/valsartan did not significantly decrease the risk for cardiovascular death and HF in patients with AMI complicated by left ventricular dysfunction, irrespective of the type of AMI. (Prospective ARNI vs ACE Inhibitor Trial to Determine Superiority in Reducing Heart Failure Events After MI; NCT02924727)., Competing Interests: Funding Support and Author Disclosures The PARADISE-MI trial was funded by Novartis. Dr Braunwald has received research grants through his institution from AstraZeneca, Daiichi-Sankyo, Merck, and Novartis; and has consultancies with Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim/Lilly, Cardurion, and Verve. Dr Claggert has received consultancy fees from Novartis, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Cardurion, Corvia, and Myokardia. Dr Granger has received research grants from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Daiichi-Sankyo, Duke Clinical Research Institute, FDA, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen Pharmaceutical Products, L.P., Medtronic Foundation, Novartis Pharmaceutic Company, and Pfizer; has received consulting fees from Abbvie, Abiomed, Alnylam Pharm, Bayer Corporation US, Boehringer Ingelheim, Boston Scientific Corporation, Bristol Myers Squibb, Cardionomic, CeleCor Therapeutics, HengRui USA, Janssen Pharmaceutica Products, L.P., Medscape, LLC, Medtronic Inc, Merck, NIH, Novo Nordisk, Novartis Pharmaceutic Company, Pfizer, Phillips, and REATA; and owns equity in Tenac.io. Dr Kerkar has received speaker fees from Novartis, AstraZeneca, Bayer Zydus, Boehringer Ingelheim, Cipla, Dr Reddy’s, Emcure, Intas, Johnson and Johnson, Mankind, Pfizer, Torrent, and USV. Dr Kober has received speaker honorarium from Nova, Novartis, AstraZeneca, Bayer, and Boehringer. Dr Lewis has received personal fees from Amgen and Dal-Cor. Dr Maggioni has received personal fees for participation in committees of studies supported by Bayer, Novartis, AstraZeneca, and Fresenius, outside the present work. Dr Mann has received consulting fees from Cardurion, HAYA Therapeutics, Tenaya, and Novo Nordisk. Dr Mehran has received institutional research payments from Abbott, Abiomed, Alleviant Medical, AM-Pharma, Applied Therapeutics, Arena, AstraZeneca, BAIM, Bayer, Beth Israel Deaconess, Biosensors, Biotronik, Boston Scientific, Bristol Myers Squibb, CardiaWave, CellAegis, CeloNova, CERC, Chiesi, Concept Medical, CSL Behring, Cytosorbents, DSI, Duke University, Element Science, Faraday, Humacyte, Idorsia, Insel Gruppe AG, Magenta, Medtronic, Novartis, OrbusNeich, Philips, RenalPro, Vivasure, and Zoll; has received personal fees from Cine-Med Research and WebMD; has received consulting fees paid to the institution from Abbott, Janssen, Medtronic, and Novartis; has equity <1% in Applied Therapeutics, Elixir Medical, STEL, and CONTROLRAD (spouse); and is on the Scientific Advisory Board for AMA, ACC (BOT Member), SCAI (Women in Innovations Committee Member), and JAMA Associate Editor; and Faculty CRF (no fee). Dr McMurray has received payments through Glasgow University from work on clinical trials, consulting, and other activities from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Cardurion, Cytokinetics, GSK, KBP Biosciences, and Novartis; has received personal consultancy fees from Alnylam Pharma, Bayer, BMS, George Clinical PTY Ltd, Ionis Pharma, Novartis, Regeneron Pharma, and River 2 Renal Corporation; has received personal lecture fees from Abbott, Alkem Metabolics, AstraZeneca, Blue Ocean Scientific Solutions Ltd., Boehringer Ingelheim, Canadian Medical and Surgical Knowledge, Emcure Pharma. Ltd, Eris Lifesciences, European Academy of CME, Hikma Pharmaceuticals, Imagica health, Intas Pharma, J.B. Chemicals & Pharma. Ltd, Lupin Pharma, Medscape/Heart.Org, ProAdWise Communications, Radcliffe Cardiology, Sun Pharma., The Corpus, Translation Research Group, and Translational Medicine Academy; and he is a director of Global Clinical Trial Partners Ltd. Dr Nunez has received personal fees from or is on the advisory boards for Alleviant, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bayer, Cytokinetics, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Rovi, and Vifor Pharma. Dr Pfeffer has received research grant support through his institution from Novartis; has been a consultant to Alnylam, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim and Eli Lilly Alliance, Corvidia, DalCor, GlaxoSmithKline, Lexicon, NHLBI CONNECTs (Master Protocol Committee), Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Peerbridge, and Sanofi; and has equity in DalCor. Dr Rouleau has received consultant fees from Novartis, BMS, Bayer, and AstraZeneca. Dr Sim has received research grants from Actelion, Alnylam, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bellerophon, Bayer, BMS, Celladon, Cytokinetics, Eidos, Gilead, GSK, Ionis, Lilly, Mesoblast, MyoKardia, NIH/NHLBI, Neurotronik, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Respicardia, Sanofi Pasteur, Theracos, and US2.AI; and has consulted for Abbott, Action, Akros, Alnylam, Amgen, Arena, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, BMS, Cardior, Cardurion, Corvia, Cytokinetics, Daiichi-Sankyo, GSK, Lilly, Merck, Myokardia, Novartis, Roche, Theracos, Quantum Genomics, Cardurion, Janssen, Cardiac Dimensions, Tenaya, Sanofi-Pasteur, Dinaqor, Tremeau, CellProThera, Moderna, American Regent, Sarepta, Lexicon, Anacardio, Akros, and Puretech Health. Dr Solomon has received research grants from Actelion, Alnylam, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bellerophon, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celladon, Cytokinetics, Eidos, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Ionis, Lilly, Mesoblast, MyoKardia, National Institutes of Health/NHLBI, Neurotronik, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Respicardia, Sanofi Pasteur, Theracos, and US2.AI; and has consulted for Abbott, Action, Akros, Alnylam, Amgen, Arena, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Cardior, Cardurion, Corvia, Cytokinetics, Daiichi-Sankyo, GlaxoSmithKline, Lilly, Merck, Myokardia, Novartis, Roche, Theracos, Quantum Genomics, Cardurion, Janssen, Cardiac Dimensions, Tenaya, Sanofi-Pasteur, Dinaqor, Tremeau, CellPro-Thera, Moderna, American Regent, and Sarepta. Dr Steg has received research grants from Amarin, Bayer, Sanofi, and Servier; and has received speaker or consultant fees from Amarin, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Janssen, Kowa, Idorsia, Lexicon, Merck, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, PhaseBio, Pfizer, Regeneron, Sanofi, and Servier. Dr Van der Meer has received consultancy fees and/or grants, through the University Medical Center Groningen, from Novartis, Pharmacosmos, Vifor Pharma, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Pharma Nord, BridgeBio, Novo Nordisk, Daiichi-Sankyo, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Ionis. All other authors have reported that they have no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose., (Crown Copyright © 2024. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Aim: N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) concentrations are lower in patients with obesity. The interaction between body mass index (BMI) and NT-proBNP with respect to heart failure risk remains incompletely defined., Methods and Results: Data were pooled across three randomized clinical trials enrolling predominantly patients who were overweight or obese with established cardiometabolic disease: SAVOR-TIMI 53, DECLARE-TIMI 58 and CAMELLIA-TIMI 61. Hospitalization for heart failure (HHF) was examined across strata of baseline BMI and NT-proBNP. The effect of dapagliflozin versus placebo was assessed for a treatment interaction across BMI categories in patients with or without an elevated baseline NT-proBNP (≥125 pg/ml). Among 24 455 patients, the median NT-proBNP was 96 (interquartile range [IQR]: 43-225) pg/ml and the median BMI was 33 (IQR 29-37) kg/m 2 , with 68% of patients having a BMI ≥30 kg/m 2 . There was a significant inverse association between NT-proBNP and BMI which persisted after adjustment for all clinical variables (p < 0.001). Within any range of NT-proBNP, those at higher BMI had higher risk of HHF at 2 years (comparing BMI <30 vs. ≥40 kg/m 2 for NT-proBNP ranges of <125, 125-<450 and ≥450 pg/ml: 0.0% vs. 0.6%, 1.3% vs. 4.0%, and 8.1% vs. 13.8%, respectively), which persisted after multivariable adjustment (adjusted hazard ratio [HR adj ] 7.47, 95% confidence interval [CI] 3.16-17.66, HR adj 3.22 [95% CI 2.13-4.86], and HR adj 1.87 [95% CI 1.35-2.60], respectively). In DECLARE-TIMI 58, dapagliflozin versus placebo consistently reduced HHF across BMI categories in those with an elevated NT-proBNP (p-trend for HR across BMI = 0.60), with a pattern of greater absolute risk reduction (ARR) at higher BMI (ARR for BMI <30 to ≥40 kg/m 2 : 2.2% to 4.7%; p-trend = 0.059)., Conclusions: The risk of HHF varies across BMI categories for any given range of circulating NT-proBNP. These findings showcase the importance of considering BMI when applying NT-proBNP for heart failure risk stratification, particularly for patients with low-level elevations in NT-proBNP (125-<450 pg/ml) where there appears to be a clinically meaningful absolute and relative risk gradient., (© 2023 European Society of Cardiology.)

Hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM) is a complex, heterogeneous disorder that affects approximately 1 in every 500 persons worldwide and about 750,000 Americans. It is characterized by left ventricular hypertrophy that is usually asymmetric, with enlarged myocytes in disarray, unexplained by loading conditions. Obstruction to left ventricular outflow occurs in approximately 60% of patients. The natural history and cardiac morphology of HCM are quite heterogeneous. Although most patients with HCM are asymptomatic or mildly symptomatic, a minority are disabled by dyspnea, angina, or syncope, develop advanced heart failure, or die suddenly., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The author has no competing interests to declare., (Copyright © 2023 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Aim: It is unknown whether safety and clinical endpoints by use of sacubitril/valsartan (an angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor [ARNI]) are affected by mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRA) in high-risk myocardial infarction (MI) patients. The aim of this study was to examine whether MRA modifies safety and clinical endpoints by use of sacubitril/valsartan in patients with a MI and left ventricular systolic dysfunction (LVSD) and/or pulmonary congestion., Methods and Results: Patients (n = 5661) included in the PARADISE MI trial (Prospective ARNI vs. ACE Inhibitor Trial to Determine Superiority in Reducing Heart Failure Events After MI) were stratified according to MRA. Primary outcomes in this substudy were worsening heart failure or cardiovascular death. Safety was defined as symptomatic hypotension, hyperkalaemia >5.5 mmol/L, or permanent drug discontinuation. A total of 2338 patients (41%) were treated with MRA. Safety of ARNI compared to ramipril was not altered significantly by ± MRA, and both groups had similar increase in symptomatic hypotension with ARNI. In patients taking MRA, the risk of hyperkalaemia or permanent drug discontinuation was not significantly altered by ARNI (p > 0.05 for all comparisons). The effect of ARNI compared with ramipril was similar in those who were and were not taking MRA (hazard ratio [HR] MRA 0.96, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.77-1.19 and HR MRA- 0.87, 95% CI 0.71-1.05, for the primary endpoint; p = 0.51 for interaction [Clinical Endpoint Committee adjudicated]); similar findings were observed if investigator-reported endpoints were evaluated (p = 0.61 for interaction)., Conclusions: Use of a MRA did not modify safety or clinical endpoints related to initiation of ARNI compared to ramipril in the post-MI setting in patients with LVSD and/or congestion., (© 2023 European Society of Cardiology.)

Aims: The PARAGLIDE-HF trial demonstrated reductions in natriuretic peptides with sacubitril/valsartan compared with valsartan in patients with heart failure (HF) with mildly reduced or preserved ejection fraction who had a recent worsening HF event, but was not adequately powered to examine clinical outcomes. PARAGON-HF included a subset of PARAGLIDE-HF-like patients who were recently hospitalized for HF. Participant-level data from PARAGLIDE-HF and PARAGON-HF were pooled to better estimate the efficacy and safety of sacubitril/valsartan in reducing cardiovascular and renal events in HF with mildly reduced or preserved ejection fraction., Methods and Results: Both PARAGLIDE-HF and PARAGON-HF were multicentre, double-blind, randomized, active-controlled trials of sacubitril/valsartan vs. valsartan in patients with HF with mildly reduced or preserved left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF >40% in PARAGLIDE-HF and ≥45% in PARAGON-HF). In the pre-specified primary analysis, we pooled participants in PARAGLIDE-HF (all of whom were enrolled during or within 30 days of a worsening HF event) with a 'PARAGLIDE-like' subset of PARAGON-HF (those hospitalized for HF within 30 days). We also pooled the entire PARAGLIDE-HF and PARAGON-HF populations for a broader context. The primary endpoint for this analysis was the composite of total worsening HF events (including first and recurrent HF hospitalizations and urgent visits) and cardiovascular death. The secondary endpoint was the pre-specified renal composite endpoint for both studies (≥50% decline in estimated glomerular filtration rate from baseline, end-stage renal disease, or renal death). Compared with valsartan, sacubitril/valsartan significantly reduced total worsening HF events and cardiovascular death in both the primary pooled analysis of participants with recent worsening HF [n = 1088; rate ratio (RR) 0.78; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.61-0.99; P = 0.042] and in the pooled analysis of all participants (n = 5262; RR 0.86; 95% CI: 0.75-0.98; P = 0.027). In the pooled analysis of all participants, first nominal statistical significance was reached by Day 9 after randomization, and treatment benefits were larger in those with LVEF ≤60% (RR 0.78; 95% CI 0.66-0.91) compared with those with LVEF >60% (RR 1.09; 95% CI 0.86-1.40; Pinteraction = 0.021). Sacubitril/valsartan was also associated with lower rates of the renal composite endpoint in the primary pooled analysis [hazard ratio (HR) 0.67; 95% CI 0.43-1.05; P = 0.080] and the pooled analysis of all participants (HR 0.60; 95% CI 0.44-0.83; P = 0.002)., Conclusion: In pooled analyses of PARAGLIDE-HF and PARAGON-HF, sacubitril/valsartan reduced cardiovascular and renal events among patients with HF with mildly reduced or preserved ejection fraction. These data provide support for use of sacubitril/valsartan in patients with HF with mildly reduced or preserved ejection fraction, particularly among those with an LVEF below normal, regardless of care setting., (© The Author(s) 2023. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology.)

Aim: The globalization of clinical trials has highlighted geographic differences in patient characteristics, treatments, and outcomes. We examined these differences in PARADISE-MI., Methods and Results: Overall, 23.0% were randomized in Eastern Europe/Russia, 17.5% in Western Europe, 12.2% in Southern Europe, 10.1% in Northern Europe, 12.0% in Latin America (LA), 9.3% in North America (NA), 10.0% in East/South-East Asia and 5.8% in South Asia (SA). Those from Asia, particularly SA, were different from patients enrolled in the other regions, being younger and thinner. They also differed in terms of comorbidities (high prevalence of diabetes and low prevalence of atrial fibrillation), type of myocardial infarction (more often ST-elevation myocardial infarction), and treatment (low rate of primary percutaneous coronary intervention). By contrast, patients from LA did not differ meaningfully from those randomized in Europe or NA. Use of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors/angiotensin receptor blockers (34.8%) and beta-blockers (65.5%) was low in SA, whereas mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist use was lowest in NA (22%) and highest in Eastern Europe/Russia (53%). Rates of the primary composite outcome of cardiovascular death or incident heart failure varied two-fold among regions, with the lowest rate in SA (4.6/100 person-years) and the highest in LA (9.2/100 person-years). Rates of incident heart failure varied almost six-fold among regions, with the lowest rate in SA (1.0/100 person-years) and the highest in Northern Europe (5.9/100 person-years). The effect of sacubitril/valsartan was not modified by region., Conclusion: In PARADISE-MI, there were substantial regional differences in patient characteristics, treatments and outcomes. Although the generalizability of these findings to a 'real-world' unselected population may be limited, these findings underscore the importance of considering both regional and within-region differences when designing global clinical trials., (© 2023 European Society of Cardiology.)

Background: U.S. guidelines recommend consideration of sacubitril/valsartan in chronic heart failure (HF) and mildly reduced or preserved ejection fraction (EF). Whether initiation is safe and effective in EF >40% after a worsening heart failure (WHF) event is unknown., Objectives: PARAGLIDE-HF (Prospective comparison of ARNI with ARB Given following stabiLization In DEcompensated HFpEF) assessed sacubitril/valsartan vs valsartan in EF >40% following a recent WHF event., Methods: PARAGLIDE-HF is a double-blind, randomized controlled trial of sacubitril/valsartan vs valsartan in patients with EF >40% enrolled within 30 days of a WHF event. The primary endpoint was time-averaged proportional change in amino terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) from baseline through Weeks 4 and 8. A secondary hierarchical outcome (win ratio) consisted of: 1) cardiovascular death; 2) HF hospitalizations; 3) urgent HF visits; and 4) change in NT-proBNP., Results: In 466 patients (233 sacubitril/valsartan; 233 valsartan), time-averaged reduction in the NT-proBNP was greater with sacubitril/valsartan (ratio of change: 0.85; 95% CI: 0.73-0.999; P = 0.049). The hierarchical outcome favored sacubitril/valsartan but was not significant (unmatched win ratio: 1.19; 95% CI: 0.93-1.52; P = 0.16). Sacubitril/valsartan reduced worsening renal function (OR: 0.61; 95% CI: 0.40-0.93) but increased symptomatic hypotension (OR: 1.73; 95% CI: 1.09-2.76). There was evidence of a larger treatment effect in the subgroup with EF ≤60% for NT-proBNP change (0.78; 95% CI: 0.61-0.98) and the hierarchical outcome (win ratio: 1.46; 95% CI: 1.09-1.95)., Conclusions: Among patients with EF >40% stabilized after WHF, sacubitril/valsartan led to greater reduction in plasma NT-proBNP levels and was associated with clinical benefit compared with valsartan alone, despite more symptomatic hypotension. (Prospective comparison of ARNI with ARB Given following stabiLization In DEcompensated HFpEF; NCT03988634)., Competing Interests: Funding Support and Author Disclosures PARAGLIDE-HF was funded by Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation. Dr Mentz has received research support and/or honoraria from Novartis, Abbott, American Regent, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Boston Scientific, Cytokinetics, Fast BioMedical, Gilead, Innolife, Eli Lilly, Medtronic, Medable, Merck, Novo Nordisk, Pharmacosmos, Relypsa, Respicardia, Roche, Sanofi, Vifor, Windtree Therapeutics, and Zoll. Drs Ward, Sarwat, and Williamson are employees of Novartis. Dr Hernandez has received research grants from American Regent, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Cytokinetics, Merck, Novartis, Somologic, and Verily; and has served as a consultant for Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Boston Scientific, Cytokinetics, Merck, Novartis, and Novo Nordisk. Dr Morrow is a member of the TIMI Study Group, which has received institutional research grant support through Brigham and Women’s Hospital from Abbott, Abiomed, Amgen, Anthos Therapeutics, ARCA Biopharma, Inc, AstraZeneca, Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, Inc, Daiichi-Sankyo, Eisai, Intarcia, Ionis Pharmaceuticals, Inc, Janssen Research and Development, LLC, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Quark Pharmaceuticals, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc, Roche, Siemens Healthcare Diagnostics, Inc, Softcell Medical Limited, and Zora Biosciences; and has received consulting fees from Abbott Laboratories, ARCA Biopharma, Inflammatix, Merck and Co, Novartis, and Roche Diagnostics. Dr Sharma serves as an advisory board member and/or consultant to AstraZeneca, Alleviant, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Imbria, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, RIVUS, and ViCardia; and receives grant funding from Amgen and the American Heart Association. Dr Starling serves on the steering committee for the PARAGLIDE trial sponsored by Novartis. Dr Velazquez has received grants from Novartis, Amgen, Phillips, and the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute/National Institutes of Health. Dr Desai has received research grants (to BWH) from Abbott, Alnylam, AstraZeneca, Bayer, and Novartis; and has received personal consulting fees from Abbott, Alnylam, AstraZeneca, Avidity Biopharma, Axon Therapeutics, Bayer, Biofourmis, Cytokinetics, GlaxoSmithKline, Medpace, Merck, New Amsterdam, Novartis, Parexel, Regeneron, River2Renal, Roche, Verily, and Veristat. Dr Zieroth has received research grant support, served on advisory boards for, or has had speaker engagements with Abbott, Akcea AstraZeneca, Amgen, Alnylam, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Otsuka, Pfizer, Roche, Servier and Vifor Pharma; and serves on a clinical trial committee or as a national lead for studies sponsored by AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Merck, Novartis, and Pfizer. Dr Solomon has received research grants from Alnylam, AstraZeneca, Bellerophon, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Cytokinetics, Eidos, GlaxoSmithKline, Ionis, Lilly, MyoKardia, National Institutes of Health/National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Respicardia, Sanofi Pasteur, Theracos, Actelion, Amgen, Bellerophon, Celladon, Gilead, Mesoblast, Neurotronik, and US2; and has consulted for Abbott, Action, Akros, Alnylam, Amgen, Arena, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Cardior, Cardurion, Corvia, Cytokinetics, Daiichi-Sankyo, GlaxoSmithKline, Lilly, Merck, Myokardia, Novartis, Roche, Theracos, Quantum Genomics, Cardurion, Janssen, Cardiac Dimensions, Tenaya, Sanofi-Pasteur, Dinaqor, Tremeau, CellProThera, Moderna, American Regent, Sarepta, Lexicon, Anacardio, Akros, and Valo. Dr Braunwald has received grant support to his institution from Novartis for the conduct of the PIONEER-HF trial, for serving on the Executive Committee of the PARADISE-MI trial and the Steering Committee of the PARAGLIDE-HF trial, and for participation in an Advisory Board Meeting. Dr Lepage has reported that he has no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose., (Copyright © 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Aims: Cardiac functional and structural remodelling in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) contributes to development of heart failure (HF) as their major cardiovascular comorbidity. Circulating biomarkers may reflect these cardiac alterations., Methods and Results: ENGAGE AF-TIMI 48 was a randomized trial of edoxaban versus warfarin in 21 105 patients with AF. We performed a nested biomarker study, analysing high-sensitivity troponin T (hsTnT, n = 8705), N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP, n = 8765), and growth differentiation factor-15 (GDF-15, n = 8705) at baseline and 12 months. Of the biomarker cohort, 5207 had a history of HF, among whom 3996 had known ejection fraction (EF): 926 with reduced EF (HFrEF; ≤40%), 1043 with mildly reduced EF (HFmrEF; 40-49%), and 2027 with preserved EF (HFpEF; ≥50%). Elevated baseline hsTnT, NT-proBNP, and GDF-15 were associated with higher risk of hospitalization for HF (HHF) or HF death overall and in subpopulations defined by HF history and EF (p < 0.001 for each). These associations of outcome with each biomarker were consistent regardless of a history of HF or EF (p-interaction >0.05 for each). Patients who had an increase in or had persistently elevated values in any of the three biomarkers over 12 months were at higher risk for HHF or HF death in the overall population (p < 0.001 for each biomarker and category)., Conclusion: Serial measurement of hsTnT, NT-proBNP, and GDF-15 revealed that higher baseline values, and increasing or persistently elevated values over 1 year are associated with higher risk of HF outcomes in patients with AF regardless of HF history or HF phenotype based on EF., Clinical Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov unique identifier NCT00781391., (© 2023 European Society of Cardiology.)

Background: The PARAGON-HF trial studied the effect of sacubitril/valsartan (Sac/Val) compared with valsartan (Val) on clinical outcomes in patients with chronic heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) or mildly reduced EF (HFmrEF). Further data are needed regarding the use of Sac/Val in these groups with EF and with recent worsening heart failure (WHF) events and in key populations not broadly represented in the PARAGON-HF trial, including those with de novo HF, the severely obese and Black patients., Methods: The PARAGLIDE-HF trial is a multicenter, double-blind, randomized, controlled trial of Sac/Val vs Val that enrolled patients at 100 sites. Medically stable patients ≥ 18 years old with EF > 40%, amino terminal-pro B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) levels ≥ 500 pg/mL and within 30 days of a WHF event were eligible for participation. Patients were randomly assigned 1:1 to Sac/Val vs Val. The primary efficacy endpoint is time-averaged proportional change in NT-proBNP from baseline through Weeks 4 and 8. Secondary endpoints include clinical outcomes during follow-up and additional biomarker assessments. Safety endpoints include symptomatic hypotension, worsening renal function and hyperkalemia., Results: The trial enrolled 467 participants from June 2019 through October 2022 (52% women, 22% Black, age 70 ± 12 years, median (IQR) BMI 33 (27-40) kg/m 2 ). The median (IQR) EF was 55% (50%-60%), 23% with HFmrEF (LVEF 41%-49%), 24% with EF > 60% and 33% with de novo HFpEF. Median screening NT-proBNP was 2009 (1291-3813) pg/mL, and 69% were enrolled in the hospital., Conclusions: The PARAGLIDE-HF trial enrolled a broad and diverse range of patients with heart failure with mildly reduced or preserved ejection fraction and will inform clinical practice by providing evidence about the safety, tolerability and efficacy of Sac/Val vs Val in those with a recent WHF event., (Copyright © 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: NT-proBNP (N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide) is a potent predictor of death and heart failure (HF) across multiple populations. We evaluated the prognostic importance of NT-proBNP in patients with acute myocardial infarction (MI) complicated by left ventricular systolic dysfunction, pulmonary congestion, or both and ≥1 of 8 risk-augmenting factors enrolled in the PARADISE-MI trial (Prospective ARNI vs ACE Inhibitor Trial to Determine Superiority in Reducing Heart Failure Events After Myocardial Infarction)., Methods: Patients were randomized to sacubitril/valsartan 200 mg or ramipril 5 mg twice daily within 0.5 to 7 days of a MI. Patients with prior HF were excluded. NT-proBNP and hs-cTnT (high-sensitivity troponin T) were collected at randomization in a prespecified substudy of 1129 patients. The primary end point of PARADISE-MI was a composite of cardiovascular death or incident HF (hospitalization or outpatient symptomatic HF), analyzed as time-to-first event; additional end points included all-cause death and the composite of fatal or nonfatal MI or stroke., Results: Median NT-proBNP was 1757 ng/L (25th-75th percentiles, 896-3462 ng/L) at randomization (4.0±1.8 days after the index MI). Patients in the highest quartile of NT-proBNP were older, more commonly women and had more hypertension, atrial fibrillation, renal dysfunction, and pulmonary congestion on presentation (all P <0.001). NT-proBNP was strongly associated with the primary end point (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.45 per doubling of NT-proBNP; [95% CI, 1.23-1.70]), adjusted for clinical variables and baseline hs-cTnT. NT-proBNP was also independently associated with all-cause death (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.74 [95% CI, 1.38-2.21]) and fatal or nonfatal MI or stroke (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.24 [95% CI, 1.05-1.45]). NT-proBNP did not significantly modify the neutral treatment effect of sacubitril/valsartan relative to ramipril ( P interaction=0.46)., Conclusions: Within the first week of a high-risk MI NT-proBNP is associated with incident HF, death and atherosclerotic events. This prognostic information is independent of hs-cTnT., Registration: URL: https://www., Clinicaltrials: gov; Unique identifier: NCT02924727., Competing Interests: Disclosures Dr Braunwald has received research grants through his institution from AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, Merck, and Novartis and consultancies with Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim/Lilly, Cardurion, and Verve. Dr Claggett has received consulting fees from Amgen, Cardurion, Corvia, and Novartis. Dr Granger has received research grants from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Daiichi Sankyo, Duke Clinical Research Institute, US Food and Drug Administration, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen Pharmaceutica Products LP, Medtronic Foundation, Novartis Pharmaceutic Company, and Pfizer and consulting fees from Abbvie, Abiomed, Alnylam Pharmaceuticals, Bayer Corporation US, Boehringer Ingelheim, Boston Scientific Corporation, Bristol Myers Squibb, Cardionomic, CeleCor Therapeutics, HengRui US, Janssen Pharmaceutica Products LP, Medscape LLC, Medtronic Inc, Merck, National Institutes of Health (NIH), Novo Nordisk, Novartis Pharmaceutic Company, Pfizer, Phillips, and Reata and owns equity in Tenac.io. Dr Køber has received payments to his institution from AstraZeneca and Novartis for participation in trial executive communities and speaker’s honoraria from Novo Novartis, AstraZeneca, and Boehringer. Dr Mann has received consulting fees from Bristol Meyers Squibb and serves as a member on the scientific advisory board for Tenaya, Renovacor, and Cardurion. Dr Lewis has received personal fees from Amgen and Dal-Cor. Dr Maggioni has received personal fees from AstraZeneca, Bayer, Novartis, and Fresenius for participation in study committees. Dr McMurray has received payments through Glasgow University from work on clinical trials, consulting, and other activities from Alnylam, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Cardurion, Cytokinetics, Dal-Cor, GlaxoSmithKline, Ionis, KBP Biosciences, Novartis, Pfizer, and Theracos and personal lecture fees from the Corpus, Abbott, Hikma, Sun Pharmaceuticals, Medscape/Heart.Org, Radcliffe Cardiology, Servier Director, and Global Clinical Trial Partners. Dr Pfeffer has received research grant support through his institution from Novartis, has been a consultant to Alnylam, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim and Eli Lilly Alliance, Corvidia, DalCor, GlaxoSmithKline, Lexicon, National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute CONNECTs (Collaborating Network of Networks for Evaluating COVID-19 and Therapeutic Strategies; Master Protocol Committee), Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Peerbridge, and Sanofi, and has equity in DalCor. Dr Prescott is an employee of Novartis Pharmaceuticals and owns Novartis stock provided as part of her salary. Dr Rouleau has been a consultant to Bayer, Novartis, AstraZenaca, and Bristol Myers Squibb. Dr Solomon has received research grants from Actelion, Alnylam, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bellerophon, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celladon, Cytokinetics, Eidos, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Ionis, Lilly, Mesoblast, MyoKardia, NIH/National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, Neurotronik, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Respicardia, Sanofi Pasteur, Theracos, and US2.AI and has consulted for Abbott, Action, Akros, Alnylam, Amgen, Arena, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Cardior, Cardurion, Corvia, Cytokinetics, Daiichi-Sankyo, GlaxoSmithKline, Lilly, Merck, Myokardia, Novartis, Roche, Theracos, Quantum Genomics, Cardurion, Janssen, Cardiac Dimensions, Tenaya, Sanofi-Pasteur, Dinaqor, Tremeau, CellProThera, Moderna, American Regent, Sarepta, Lexicon, Anacardio, Akros, and Puretech Health. Dr Steg has received research grants from Amarin, Bayer, Sanofi, and Servier and speaker or consultant fees from Amarin, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Janssen, Kowa, Idorsia, Lexicon, Merck, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, PhaseBio, Pfizer, Regeneron, Sanofi, and Servier. Dr von Lewinski is on the advisory board and speakers bureau of Abiomed, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Daiichi Sankyo, Novartis, Orion, Sanofi, and Servier and receives consulting fees from Recardio Inc, Bayer, and Vaxxinity Inc. The other authors report no conflicts.

Background: The risks of heart failure (HF) events compared with stroke/systemic embolic events (SEE) or major bleeding (MB) in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) vs heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) in a large atrial fibrillation (AF) population have not been well-studied., Objectives: This study sought to assess HF outcomes, according to HF history and HF phenotypes (HFrEF vs HFpEF), and compare these events with SEE and MB, among patients with AF., Methods: We analyzed patients enrolled in the ENGAGE-AF TIMI 48 (Effective Anticoagulation with Factor Xa Next Generation in AF-Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction 48) trial. Cumulative incidence of heart failure hospitalization (HHF) or HF death was assessed and compared with the rates of fatal and nonfatal stroke/SEE and MB over a median follow-up of 2.8 years., Results: Overall, 12,124 (57.4%) had a history of HF (37.7% HFrEF, 40.1% HFpEF, 22.1% with unknown ejection fraction). The rate per 100 person-years (py) of HHF or HF death (4.95; 95% CI: 4.70-5.20) was higher than of fatal and nonfatal stroke/SEE (1.77; 95% CI: 1.63-1.92) and MB (2.66; 95% CI: 2.47-2.86) among patients with HF history. HFrEF patients experienced a higher rate of HHF or HF death compared with HFpEF patients (7.15 vs 3.65; P < 0.001), while the rates of fatal and nonfatal stroke/SEE and MB were similar by HF phenotype. Patients with HF history had a higher rate of mortality after a HHF (1.29; 95% CI: 1.17-1.42) than after a stroke/SEE (0.69; 95% CI: 0.60-0.78) or after MB (0.61; 95% CI: 0.53-0.70). Overall, patients with nonparoxysmal AF had a higher rate of HF and stroke/SEE events regardless of HF history., Conclusions: Patients with AF and HF, regardless of ejection fraction, are at a higher risk of HF events with higher subsequent mortality rates than of stroke/SEE or MB. While HFrEF is associated with a higher risk of HF events than HFpEF, the risk of stroke/SEE and MB is similar between HFrEF and HFpEF., Competing Interests: Funding Support and Author Disclosures The ENGAGE AF-TIMI 48 study (NCT00781391) was supported by Daiichi Sankyo Pharma Development. Dr Giugliano has received clinical trials/research support to his institution from Daiichi Sankyo, Anthos Therapeutics, and Amgen; and honoraria for continuing medical education lectures and/or consulting from Amarin, the American College of Cardiology, Amgen, Astra Zeneca, CryoLife, CVS Caremark, and Daiichi Sankyo. Dr Ruff has received research grants through his institution from Anthos Therapeutics, Boehringer Ingelheim, Daiichi Sankyo, MedImmune, and the National Institutes of Health; and honoraria for serving on the scientific advisory board and consulting for Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Daiichi Sankyo, Janssen, MedImmune, Pfizer, and Portola. Dr Antman has received grant support through his institution from Daiichi-Sankyo. Dr Braunwald has received research grant support to his institution from Daiichi Sankyo; and outside the submitted work has received research grants through his institution from AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, Merck, and Novartis; and has received consultancy fees from Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim/Lilly, Cardurion, MyoKardia, Novo Nordisk, and Verve. Dr Solomon has received research grants from Actelion, Alnylam, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bellerophon, Bayer, BMS, Celladon, Cytokinetics, Eidos, Gilead, GSK, Ionis, Lilly, Mesoblast, MyoKardia, the National Institutes of Health/National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, Neurotronik, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Respicardia, Sanofi Pasteur, Theracos, and US2.AI; and has served as a consultant for Abbott, Action, Akros, Alnylam, Amgen, Arena, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, BMS, Cardior, Cardurion, Corvia, Cytokinetics, Daiichi Sankyo, GSK, Lilly, Merck, MyoKardia, Novartis, Roche, Theracos, Quantum Genomics, Cardurion, Janssen, Cardiac Dimensions, Tenaya, Sanofi Pasteur, Dinaqor, Tremeau, CellProThera, Moderna, American Regent, and Sarepta. All other authors have reported that they have no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose., (Copyright © 2023 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Aims: Levels of growth differentiation factor 15 (GDF-15), a cytokine secreted in response to cellular stress and inflammation, have been associated with multiple types of cardiovascular (CV) events. However, its comparative prognostic performance across different presentations of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) remains unknown., Methods and Results: An individual patient meta-analysis was performed using data pooled from eight trials including 53 486 patients. Baseline GDF-15 concentration was analyzed as a continuous variable and using established cutpoints (<1200 ng/L, 1200-1800 ng/L, > 1800 ng/L) to evaluate its prognostic performance for CV death/hospitalization for heart failure (HHF), major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), and their components using Cox models adjusted for clinical variables and established CV biomarkers. Analyses were further stratified on ASCVD status: acute coronary syndrome (ACS), stabilized after recent ACS, and stable ASCVD. Overall, higher GDF-15 concentration was significantly and independently associated with an increased rate of CV death/HHF and MACE (P < 0.001 for each). However, while GDF-15 showed a robust and consistent independent association with CV death and HHF across all presentations of ASCVD, its prognostic association with future myocardial infarction (MI) and stroke only remained significant in patients stabilized after recent ACS or with stable ASCVD [hazard ratio (HR): 1.24, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.17-1.31 and HR: 1.16, 95% CI: 1.05-1.28 for MI and stroke, respectively] and not in ACS (HR: 0.98, 95% CI: 0.90-1.06 and HR: 0.87, 95% CI: 0.39-1.92, respectively)., Conclusion: Growth differentiation factor 15 consistently adds prognostic information for CV death and HHF across the spectrum of ASCVD. GDF-15 also adds prognostic information for MI and stroke beyond clinical risk factors and cardiac biomarkers but not in the setting of ACS., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest: E.T.K. reports receiving lecture fees from Astellas, Abbott, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli-Lilly Japan KK, Daiichi-Sankyo, Menarini, Ono Pharmaceutical, Ootsuka Pharmaceutical, MSD KK, Takeda Pharmaceutical, Tanabe-Mitsubishi, Bayer, Pfizer; consultant fee from Boehringer Ingelheim and Daiichi-Sankyo; research fund from Abbott, Ono Pharmaceutical, and Tanabe-Mitsubishi; D.M. reports grants to the Brigham and Women’s Hospital from Abbott Laboratories, Amgen, Anthos Therapeutics, AstraZeneca, Eisai, Medicines Co., Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche Diagnostics, and Siemens; and consultant fees from InCardia, Inflammatix, Merck & Co, Novartis, and Roche Diagnostics. D.M. is a member of the TIMI Study Group, which has received institutional research grant support through Brigham and Women’s Hospital from Abbott, Amgen, Anthos Therapeutics, ARCA Biopharma, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Daiichi-Sankyo, Eisai, Intarcia, Ionis Pharmaceuticals, MedImmune, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Quark Pharmaceuticals, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Roche, Siemens Healthcare Diagnostics, The Medicines Company, and Zora Biosciences; J.G. is a member of the TIMI Study Group which has received institutional research grant support through Brigham and Women’s from Abbott Laboratories, Amgen; AstraZeneca; Critical Diagnostics, Daiichi-Sankyo; Eisai; Genzyme; Gilead; GlaxoSmithKline; Intarcia; Janssen Research and Development; Medicines Company; MedImmune; Merck; Novartis; Pfizer; Poxel; Roche Diagnostics; and Takeda; D.D.B. is supported by Harvard Catalyst KL2/CMeRIT (NIH/NCATS grant UL 1TR002541). He has received research grant support to his institution from AstraZeneca and Pfizer; consulting fees from AstraZeneca; and participates on a clinical endpoint committee for a study sponsored by Kowa Pharmaceuticals. M.B. has no conflict of interest; E.A.B. is a member of the TIMI Study Group which has received institutional research grant support through Brigham and Women’s Hospital from Abbott, Amgen, Anthos Therapeutics, AstraZeneca, Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Daiichi-Sankyo, Eisai, Intarcia, MedImmune, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Quark Pharmaceuticals, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Roche, Siemens Healthcare Diagnostics, Inc., The Medicines Company, Zora Biosciences. E.A.B. has received personal fees from Servier, Kowa, Medscape, Novo Nordisk, Amgen, PriMed and Merck; M.P.B. is the Executive Director of CPC, a non-profit academic research organization affiliated with the University of Colorado, that receives research grant/consulting funding from: Abbott, Agios, Alexion Pharma, Alnylam, Amgen, Angionetics, ARCA Biopharma, Array, AstraZeneca, Atentiv, Audentes, Bayer, Better Therapeutics, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Cardiol Therapeutics, CellResearch, Cook Medical, Cook, CSL Behring, Eidos Therapeutics, EP Trading Co, Esperion Therapeutics, EverlyWell, Faraday, Fortress Biotech, HDL Therapeutics, Heartflow, Hummingbird Bioscience, Insmed, Janssen, Kowa Research, Lexicon, Merck, Medtronic, Moderna, Novate Medical, NovoNordisk, Pfizer, PhaseBio, PPD Development, Prairie Education and Research, Prothena Ciosciences, Regeneron, Regio Biosciences, Sanifit Therapeutics, Sanofi, Smith and Nephew, Stealth BioTherapeutics, University of Colorado, Worldwide Clinical Trials, Wraser, Yale Cardiovascular Research Group. M.P.B. also reports stock in Medtronic and Pfizer and consulting fees from Audent; C.P.C. reports research grants from: Amgen, Better Therapeutics, Boehringer-Ingelheim (BI), Bristol-Myers Squibb (BMS), Daiichi Sankyo, Janssen, Merck, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, Consulting fees from Aegerion/Amryt, Alnylam, Amarin, Amgen, Applied Therapeutics, Ascendia, BI, BMS, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Lexicon, Merck, Pfizer, Rhoshan, and Sanofi. C.P.C. serve on Data and Safety Monitoring Boards for the Veteran’s Administration, Applied Therapeutics and NovoNordisk; J.A.d.L reports grant support from Roche Diagnostics and Abbott Diagnostics, consulting fees from Ortho Clinical Diagnostics, Siemen’s Health Care Diagnostics, Beckman Coulter, and Quidel; R.P.G. reports clinical trials/research support from Amgen, Anthos Therapeutics, Daiichi Sankyo, honoraria for Lectures/CME Programs for Amgen, Centrix, Daiichi Sankyo, Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories, Medical Education Resources (MER), Medscape, Menarini, Merck, Pfizer, SAJA Pharmaceuticals, Servier, Shanghai Medical Telescope, Voxmedia, Consultant fee from Amarin, Amgen, Boston Scientific, CryoLife, CSL Behring, CVS Caremark, Daiichi Sankyo, Esperion, Gilead, Hengrui, Inari, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, PhaseBio Pharmaceuticals, St. Lukes, Samsung; P.J. reports research support from Abbott Laboratories, Amgen, Inc., AstraZeneca, LP, Daiichi-Sankyo, Inc., GlaxoSmithKline, Merck & Co., Inc., Regeneron, Roche Diagnostics Corporation, and Siemens Healthineers; T.K. has been a paid consultant for and/or received honoraria payments from AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Edwards, Novartis, Pharmacosmos, and Vifor and has received research support from Vifor; K.N. reports research funding through Duke University from Roche Diagnostics; Consulting honoraria from Beckman-Coulter; M.O’. reports Grants via Brigham and Women’s Hospital from Amgen, Novartis, AstraZeneca, Janssen, Intarcia, Merck, Pfizer. Honararia from Novartis, AstraZeneca, Amgen, Janssen; M.A.P. reports Research Grant Support from Novartis; consultant to AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim and Eli Lilly Alliance, DalCor, GlaxoSmithKline, Lexicon, NHLBI CONNECTs (Master Protocol Committee), Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Peerbridge and Sanofi; and has equity in DalCor; N.R. has no conflic of interest; S.D.W. reports research grants from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, Eisai, Janssen, and Merck. He reports consulting fees from AstraZeneca, Boston Clinical Research Institute, ICON Clinical, Novo Nordisk. Spouse, Dr. Caroline Fox is an employee of Merck. S.D.W. is a member of the TIMI Study Group, which has received institutional research grant support through Brigham and Women’s Hospital from: Abbott, Amgen, Aralez, AstraZeneca, Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, Inc., BRAHMS, Daiichi-Sankyo, Eisai, GlaxoSmithKline, Intarcia, Janssen, MedImmune, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Poxel, Quark Pharmaceuticals, Roche, Takeda, The Medicines Company, Zora Biosciences; S.D.W. has been a paid consultant for and has received research support from Boehringer Ingelheim, and has received honoraria payments from Roche Diagnostics. T.K. and S.D.W. hold patents (EP 2047275 B1 and US 8951742) and have a licensing contract with Roche Diagnostics related to GDF-15; E.B. reports research grants through his institution from Astra Zeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, Merck and Novartis, and consultancies with Amgen, Boehringer-Ingelheim/Lilly, Bristol Myers Squibb, Cardurion, Novo Nordisk, and Verve; M.S. report research grant support through Brigham and Women’s Hospital from Amgen; Anthos Therapeutics; AstraZeneca; Bayer; Daiichi-Sankyo; Eisai; Intarcia; Ionis; Medicines Company; MedImmune; Merck; Novartis; Pfizer; Quark Pharmaceuticals. Consulting for: Althera; Amgen; Anthos Therapeutics; AstraZeneca; Beren Therapeutics; Bristol-Myers Squibb; DalCor; Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories; Fibrogen; Intarcia; Merck; Moderna; Novo Nordisk; Silence Therapeutics. Additionally, M.S. is a member of the TIMI Study Group, which has also received institutional research grant support through Brigham and Women’s Hospital from Abbott, ARCA Biopharma, Inc., Janssen Research and Development, LLC, Siemens Healthcare Diagnostics, Inc., Softcell Medical Limited, Regeneron, Roche, and Zora Biosciences., (© The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of European Society of Cardiology.)

Background: In patients who survive an acute myocardial infarction (AMI), angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors decrease the risk of subsequent major cardiovascular events. Whether angiotensin-receptor blockade and neprilysin inhibition with sacubitril/valsartan reduce major coronary events more effectively than angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors in high-risk patients with recent AMI remains unknown. We aimed to compare the effects of sacubitril/valsartan on coronary outcomes in patients with AMI., Methods: We conducted a prespecified analysis of the PARADISE-MI trial (Prospective ARNI vs ACE Inhibitors Trial to Determine Superiority in Reducing Heart Failure Events After MI), which compared sacubitril/valsartan (97/103 mg twice daily) with ramipril (5 mg twice daily) for reducing heart failure events after myocardial infarction in 5661 patients with AMI complicated by left ventricular systolic dysfunction, pulmonary congestion, or both. In the present analysis, the prespecified composite coronary outcome was the first occurrence of death from coronary heart disease, nonfatal myocardial infarction, hospitalization for angina, or postrandomization coronary revascularization., Results: Patients were randomly assigned at a median of 4.4 [3.0-5.8] days after index AMI (ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction 76%, non-ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction 24%), by which time 89% of patients had undergone coronary reperfusion. Compared with ramipril, sacubitril/valsartan decreased the risk of coronary outcomes (hazard ratio, 0.86 [95% CI, 0.74-0.99], P =0.04) over a median follow-up of 22 months. Rates of the components of the composite outcomes were lower in patients on sacubitril/valsartan but were not individually significantly different., Conclusions: In survivors of an AMI with left ventricular systolic dysfunction and pulmonary congestion, sacubitril/valsartan-compared with ramipril-reduced the risk of a prespecified major coronary composite outcome. Dedicated studies are necessary to confirm this finding and elucidate its mechanism., Registration: URL: https://www., Clinicaltrials: gov; Unique identifier: NCT02924727.

Cardiac amyloidosis (CA) is now recognized as an important cause of heart failure. Increased wall thickness and diastolic dysfunction of the left ventricle are the most easily detectable manifestations of CA, but amyloid accumulates in all cardiac structures. Involvement of the left and right atria may be due to the haemodynamic effects of ventricular diastolic dysfunction, the effects of amyloid infiltration into the atrial wall, and the cardiotoxic damage of atrial cardiomyocytes by amyloid precursors. Atrial amyloidosis is an early manifestation of CA, and is associated with an increased risk of atrial fibrillation and thromboembolic events. Furthermore, atrial amyloidosis can be found even in the absence of systemic disease and ventricular involvement. This condition is named isolated atrial amyloidosis and is due to a local overproduction of atrial natriuretic peptide. In this review we summarize the evidence on the mechanisms and clinical relevance of atrial amyloidosis., (© 2022 The Authors. European Journal of Heart Failure published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of European Society of Cardiology.)

Aim: The win ratio can incorporate different types of outcomes and enhance statistical power, making it a useful method for analysing composite outcomes in cardiovascular trials. The application of this approach to the PARADISE-MI trial provides an additional perspective into understanding the effects of sacubitril/valsartan in patients with acute myocardial infarction., Methods and Results: We conducted a post-hoc analysis of the PARADISE-MI trial, which randomly assigned patients with acute myocardial infarction complicated by a reduced left ventricular ejection fraction, pulmonary congestion, or both to receive either sacubitril/valsartan (97 mg of sacubitril and 103 mg of valsartan twice daily) or ramipril (5 mg twice daily) in addition to guideline-recommended therapy. The principal composite outcome was analysed in the hierarchical order of death due to cardiovascular causes, first hospitalization for heart failure, and first outpatient episode of symptomatic heart failure. We included events confirmed by the clinical events classification (CEC) committee as well as events identified by investigators that did not meet study definitions. Results were analysed by the unmatched win-ratio method. A win ratio that exceeds 1.00 reflects a better outcome. A total of 5661 patients underwent randomization; 2830 were assigned to receive sacubitril/valsartan and 2831 to receive ramipril. The hierarchical analysis of the principal composite outcome demonstrated a larger number of wins (1 265 767 [15.7%]) than losses (1 079 502 [13.4%]) in the sacubitril/valsartan group (win ratio of 1.17, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.03-1.33; p = 0.015). Sensitivity analyses using alternative definitions of the composite outcome showed results similar to those of the principal analysis, except for analysis restricted to events that met CEC definitions (win ratio of 1.11, 95% CI 0.96-1.30; p = 0.16)., Conclusion: In this post-hoc analysis of the PARADISE-MI trial using the win ratio and including investigator-identified events not having CEC confirmation, sacubitril/valsartan was superior to ramipril among high-risk survivors of acute myocardial infarction., (© 2022 European Society of Cardiology.)

Competing Interests: Conflict of interest: Research grant support through Brigham and Women’s Hospital from: AstraZeneca, Daiichi-Sankyo, Merck, and Novartis; consulting for: Amgen, Boehringer-Ingelheim/Lilly, Bristol Myers Squibb (MyoKardia), Cardurion, and Verve.

Background: The LIFE (LCZ696 In Hospitalized Advanced Heart FailurE) trial, which evaluated sacubitril/valsartan in patients with advanced heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction and recent New York Heart Association functional class IV symptomatology, did not require tolerance to a renin angiotensin system antagonist before initiating sacubitril/valsartan, thus affording an opportunity to study the tolerability of sacubitril/valsartan in advanced HF with reduced ejection fraction., Objectives: The goal of this analysis of the LIFE trial is to characterize the tolerability of initiating sacubitril/valsartan in patients with chronic advanced HF with reduced ejection fraction., Methods: In the LIFE trial, 445 subjects with advanced HF entered an unblinded run-in period of 3-7 days with sacubitril/valsartan 24/26 mg twice a day. The authors compared characteristics of subjects completing and failing run-in, performed multivariable analysis of clinical parameters associated with run-in failure, and developed a predictive model for short-term intolerance to sacubitril/valsartan., Results: Of 445 subjects entering run-in, 73 (18%) were intolerant of sacubitril/valsartan. Reasons for intolerance included systolic blood pressure <90 mm Hg (59%), symptoms of hypotension/dizziness with systolic blood pressure >90 mm Hg (19%), and renal dysfunction (creatinine >2.0 mg/dL) (12%). Multivariable predictors of intolerance included lower mean arterial pressure, lower serum chloride, presence of an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator and/or cardiac resynchronization device, moderate or greater mitral regurgitation, nonuse of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker at the screening visit, and use of insulin at screening. Subjects with 4 or more predictors had a 48.9% probability of sacubitril/valsartan intolerance., Conclusions: Intolerance to low doses of sacubitril/valsartan is common in patients with advanced chronic HF with reduced ejection fraction and may be predicted by the presence of certain risk factors. (EntrestoTM [LCZ696] in Advanced Heart Failure [LIFE Study] [HFN-LIFE] NCT02816736)., Competing Interests: Funding Support and Author Disclosures Research reported in this publication was supported by the NHLBI of the NIH under award number U10 HL084904 (for the Coordinating Center) and award numbers U10 HL110297, U10 HL110342, U10 HL110309, U10 HL110262, U10 HL110338, U10 HL110312, U10 HL110302, U10 HL110336, and U10 HL110337 (for the Regional Clinical Centers). The NHLBI contributed to the design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data; preparation, review, and approval of the manuscript; and the decision to submit the manuscript for publication. Novartis Pharmaceutical Corporation provided study drug and partial funding through its investigator-initiated trial program CLCZ696BUS04T, but did not contribute to the design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data; preparation, review, and approval of the manuscript; and the decision to submit the manuscript for publication. Neither the NHLBI nor Novartis Pharmaceutical Corporation were involved in manuscript submission. Dr Mann serves on the steering committee for the PARADISE-MI trial for Novartis; and is a member of the Scientific Advisory Board for MyoKardia. Dr Anstrom has received research support from the National Institutes of Health (NIH), Merck, Bayer, and PCORI. Dr Starling serves on the steering committee for the PARAGLIDE trial sponsored by Novartis. Dr Desvigne-Nickens is an employee of the NHLBI; and is a consultant for Novartis. Dr Hernandez has received research grants and consulting fees from AstraZeneca, Amgen, Bayer, Merck, and Novartis. Dr Braunwald has received research support through his institution from AstraZeneca, Daiichi-Sankyo, Merck, and Novartis; and is a consultant for Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim/Lilly, Cardurion, MyoKardia, Novo-Nordisk, and Verve. All other authors have reported that they have no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose., (Copyright © 2022 American College of Cardiology Foundation. All rights reserved.)

Aims: Ceramide (Cer) and phosphatidylcholine (PC) lipids are associated with pathophysiological processes in cardiovascular (CV) diseases. A previously derived and validated plasma Cer-PC risk score (CERT2) was associated with CV death risk in patients with stable disease, but its prognostic value has not been evaluated in patients early post-acute coronary syndrome (ACS)., Methods and Results: Prespecified plasma Cer and PC species in the CERT2 risk score were measured in 4871 subjects from SOLID-TIMI 52, which enrolled patients ≤30 days after ACS (median follow-up 2.5 years). The CERT2 score (scale 0-12 points) was calculated as previously defined. The primary outcome was CV death; Coronary heart disease death, all-cause death, hospitalization for heart failure (HF), myocardial infarction (MI) and stroke were also analyzed. Poisson models included baseline characteristics and established biomarkers. Patients with higher CERT2 risk scores were more likely to be older, female, current smokers, presenting with STEMI, and to have impaired renal function and higher LDL-C. After multivariable adjustment, patients in the highest risk score category remained at a nearly two-fold higher risk of CV death (adj relative risk [RR] 1.92, 95% CI 1.01-3.66, P = 0.047). Patients in the highest risk score category were also at higher risk of all-cause death (adj RR 2.01, 95% CI 1.21-3.35, P = 0.007), whereas the relationships with HF, MI, and stroke were attenuated with multivariable adjustment., Conclusions: A plasma ceramide and phospholipid-based risk score is associated with the risk of CV death independent of established clinical risk factors and biomarkers in patients after ACS., (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 Unlike patients with low ejection fraction after an acute coronary syndrome (ACS), little is known about the long-term incidence and influence of cardiovascular events before sudden death among stabilized patients after ACS. Methods and Results A total of 18 144 patients stabilized within 10 days after ACS in IMPROVE-IT (Improved Reduction of Outcomes: Vytorin Efficacy International Trial) were studied. Cumulative incidence rates (IRs) and IRs per 100 patient-years of sudden death were calculated. Using Cox proportional hazards, the association of ≥1 additional postrandomization cardiovascular events (myocardial infarction, stroke, and hospitalization for unstable angina or heart failure) with sudden death was examined. Early (≤1 year after ACS) and late sudden deaths (>1 year) were compared. Of 2446 total deaths, 402 (16%) were sudden. The median time to sudden death was 2.7 years, with 109 early and 293 late sudden deaths. The cumulative IR was 2.47% (95% CI, 2.23%-2.73%) at 7 years of follow-up. The risk of sudden death following a postrandomization cardiovascular event (150/402 [37%] sudden deaths; median 1.4 years) was greater (IR/100 patient-years, 1.45 [95% CI, 1.23-1.69]) than the risk with no postrandomization cardiovascular event (IR/100 patient-years, 0.27 [95% CI, 0.24-0.30]). Postrandomization myocardial infarction (hazard ratio [HR], 3.64 [95% CI, 2.85-4.66]) and heart failure (HR, 4.55 [95% CI, 3.33-6.22]) significantly increased future risk of sudden death. Conclusions Patients stabilized within 10 days of an ACS remain at long-term risk of sudden death with the greatest risk in those with an additional cardiovascular event. These results refine the long-term risk and risk effectors of sudden death, which may help clinicians identify opportunities to improve care. Registration: URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00202878.

Importance: The use of sacubitril/valsartan is not endorsed by practice guidelines for use in patients with New York Heart Association class IV heart failure with a reduced ejection fraction because of limited clinical experience in this population., Objective: To compare treatment with sacubitril/valsartan treatment with valsartan in patients with advanced heart failure and a reduced ejection fraction and recent New York Heart Association class IV symptoms., Design, Setting, and Participants: A double-blind randomized clinical trial was conducted; a total of 335 patients with advanced heart failure were included. The trial began on March 2, 2017, and was stopped early on March 23, 2020, owing to COVID-19 risk., Intervention: Patients were randomized to receive sacubitril/valsartan (target dose, 200 mg twice daily) or valsartan (target dose, 160 mg twice daily) in addition to recommended therapy., Main Outcomes and Measures: The area under the curve (AUC) for the ratio of N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) compared with baseline measured through 24 weeks of therapy., Results: Of the 335 patients included in the analysis, 245 were men (73%); mean (SD) age was 59.4 (13.5) years. Seventy-two eligible patients (18%) were not able to tolerate sacubitril/valsartan, 100 mg/d, during the short run-in period, and 49 patients (29%) discontinued sacubitril/valsartan during the 24 weeks of the trial. The median NT-proBNP AUC for the valsartan treatment arm (n = 168) was 1.19 (IQR, 0.91-1.64), whereas the AUC for the sacubitril/valsartan treatment arm (n = 167) was 1.08 (IQR, 0.75-1.60). The estimated ratio of change in the NT-proBNP AUC was 0.95 (95% CI 0.84-1.08; P = .45). Compared with valsartan, treatment with sacubitril/valsartan did not improve the clinical composite of number of days alive, out of hospital, and free from heart failure events. Aside from a statistically significant increase in non-life-threatening hyperkalemia in the sacubitril/valsartan arm (28 [17%] vs 15 [9%]; P = .04), there were no observed safety concerns., Conclusions and Relevance: The findings of this trial showed that, in patients with chronic advanced heart failure with a reduced ejection fraction, there was no statistically significant difference between sacubitril/valsartan and valsartan with respect to reducing NT-proBNP levels., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02816736.

Background: In patients with symptomatic heart failure, sacubitril-valsartan has been found to reduce the risk of hospitalization and death from cardiovascular causes more effectively than an angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibitor. Trials comparing the effects of these drugs in patients with acute myocardial infarction have been lacking., Methods: We randomly assigned patients with myocardial infarction complicated by a reduced left ventricular ejection fraction, pulmonary congestion, or both to receive either sacubitril-valsartan (97 mg of sacubitril and 103 mg of valsartan twice daily) or ramipril (5 mg twice daily) in addition to recommended therapy. The primary outcome was death from cardiovascular causes or incident heart failure (outpatient symptomatic heart failure or heart failure leading to hospitalization), whichever occurred first., Results: A total of 5661 patients underwent randomization; 2830 were assigned to receive sacubitril-valsartan and 2831 to receive ramipril. Over a median of 22 months, a primary-outcome event occurred in 338 patients (11.9%) in the sacubitril-valsartan group and in 373 patients (13.2%) in the ramipril group (hazard ratio, 0.90; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.78 to 1.04; P = 0.17). Death from cardiovascular causes or hospitalization for heart failure occurred in 308 patients (10.9%) in the sacubitril-valsartan group and in 335 patients (11.8%) in the ramipril group (hazard ratio, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.78 to 1.07); death from cardiovascular causes in 168 (5.9%) and 191 (6.7%), respectively (hazard ratio, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.71 to 1.08); and death from any cause in 213 (7.5%) and 242 (8.5%), respectively (hazard ratio, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.73 to 1.05). Treatment was discontinued because of an adverse event in 357 patients (12.6%) in the sacubitril-valsartan group and 379 patients (13.4%) in the ramipril group., Conclusions: Sacubitril-valsartan was not associated with a significantly lower incidence of death from cardiovascular causes or incident heart failure than ramipril among patients with acute myocardial infarction. (Funded by Novartis; PARADISE-MI ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02924727.)., (Copyright © 2021 Massachusetts Medical Society.)

Objective: Heart failure (HF) is an impactful complication of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). We aimed to develop and validate a risk score for hospitalization for HF (HHF) incorporating biomarkers and clinical factor(s) in patients with T2DM., Research Design and Methods: We derived a risk score for HHF using clinical data, high-sensitivity troponin T (hsTnT), and N-terminal prohormone of B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) from 6,106 placebo-treated patients with T2DM in SAVOR-TIMI 53 (Saxagliptin Assessment of Vascular Outcomes Recorded in Patients with Diabetes Mellitus-Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction 53). Candidate variables were assessed using Cox regression. The strongest indicators of HHF risk were included in the score using integer weights. The score was externally validated in 7,251 placebo-treated patients in DECLARE-TIMI 58 (Dapagliflozin Effect on CardiovascuLAR Events-Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction 58). The effect of dapagliflozin on HHF was assessed by risk category in DECLARE-TIMI 58., Results: The strongest indicators of HHF risk were NT-proBNP, prior HF, and hsTnT (each P < 0.001). A risk score using these three variables identified a gradient of HHF risk ( P -trend <0.001) in the derivation and validation cohorts, with C-indices of 0.87 (95% CI, 0.84-0.89) and 0.84 (0.81-0.86), respectively. Whereas there was no significant effect of dapagliflozin versus placebo on HHF in the low-risk group (hazard ratio [HR] 0.98 [95% CI 0.50-1.92]), dapagliflozin significantly reduced HHF in the intermediate-, high-, and very-high-risk groups (HR 0.64 [0.43-0.95], 0.63 [0.43-0.94], and 0.72 [0.54-0.96], respectively). Correspondingly, absolute risk reductions (95% CI) increased across these latter 3 groups: 1.0% (0.0-1.9), 3.0% (0.7-5.3), and 4.4% (-0.2 to 8.9) ( P -trend <0.001)., Conclusions: We developed and validated a risk score for HHF in T2DM that incorporated NT-proBNP, prior HF, and hsTnT. The risk score identifies patients at higher risk of HHF who derive greater absolute benefit from dapagliflozin., (© 2021 by the American Diabetes Association.)

Hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM) is often caused by pathogenic variants in sarcomeric genes and characterized by left ventricular (LV) hypertrophy, myocardial fibrosis and increased risk of heart failure and arrhythmias. There are no existing therapies to modify disease progression. In this study, we conducted a multi-center, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 2 clinical trial to assess the safety and efficacy of the angiotensin II receptor blocker valsartan in attenuating disease evolution in early HCM. In total, 178 participants with early-stage sarcomeric HCM were randomized (1:1) to receive valsartan (320 mg daily in adults; 80-160 mg daily in children) or placebo for 2 years ( NCT01912534 ). Standardized changes from baseline to year 2 in LV wall thickness, mass and volumes; left atrial volume; tissue Doppler diastolic and systolic velocities; and serum levels of high-sensitivity troponin T and N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic protein were integrated into a single composite z-score as the primary outcome. Valsartan (n = 88) improved cardiac structure and function compared to placebo (n = 90), as reflected by an increase in the composite z-score (between-group difference +0.231, 95% confidence interval (+0.098, +0.364); P = 0.001), which met the primary endpoint of the study. Treatment was well-tolerated. These results indicate a key opportunity to attenuate disease progression in early-stage sarcomeric HCM with an accessible and safe medication., (© 2021. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature America, Inc.)

Aims: Patients surviving an acute myocardial infarction (AMI) are at risk of developing symptomatic heart failure (HF) or premature death. We hypothesized that sacubitril/valsartan, effective in the treatment of chronic HF, prevents development of HF and reduces cardiovascular death following high-risk AMI compared to a proven angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor. This paper describes the study design and baseline characteristics of patients enrolled in the Prospective ARNI vs. ACE inhibitor trial to DetermIne Superiority in reducing heart failure Events after Myocardial Infarction (PARADISE-MI) trial., Methods and Results: PARADISE-MI, a multinational (41 countries), double-blind, active-controlled trial, randomized patients within 0.5-7 days of presentation with index AMI to sacubitril/valsartan or ramipril. Transient pulmonary congestion and/or left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) ≤40% and at least one additional factor augmenting risk of HF or death (age ≥70 years, estimated glomerular filtration rate <60 mL/min/1.73 m 2 , diabetes, prior myocardial infarction, atrial fibrillation, LVEF <30%, Killip class ≥III, ST-elevation myocardial infarction without reperfusion) were required for inclusion. PARADISE-MI was event-driven targeting 708 primary endpoints (cardiovascular death, HF hospitalization or outpatient development of HF). Randomization of 5669 patients occurred 4.3 ± 1.8 days from presentation with index AMI. The mean age was 64 ± 12 years, 24% were women. The majority (76%) qualified with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction; acute percutaneous coronary intervention was performed in 88% and thrombolysis in 6%. LVEF was 37 ± 9% and 58% were in Killip class ≥II., Conclusions: Baseline therapies in PARADISE-MI reflect advances in contemporary evidence-based care. With enrollment complete PARADISE-MI is poised to determine whether sacubitril/valsartan is more effective than a proven ACE inhibitor in preventing development of HF and cardiovascular death following AMI., (© 2021 European Society of Cardiology.)

Background: In patients stabilized during hospitalization for acute decompensated heart failure (HF), initiation of sacubitril/valsartan compared with enalapril decreased the risk of cardiovascular death or rehospitalization for HF without increasing the risk of adverse events. It is unknown whether potentially high-risk subpopulations have a similar risk-benefit profile., Methods: PIONEER-HF (Comparison of Sacubitril/Valsartan Versus Enalapril on Effect on NT-proBNP [N-terminal pro-B type natriuretic peptide] in Patients Stabilized From an Acute HF Episode) was a multicenter, randomized, double-blind trial of in-hospital initiation of sacubitril/valsartan (n=440) versus enalapril (n=441) in patients stabilized during hospitalization for acute decompensated HF. The composite of cardiovascular death or rehospitalization for HF was adjudicated. Safety outcomes included worsening renal function, symptomatic hypotension, and hyperkalemia. We evaluated heterogeneity in the effect of sacubitril/valsartan on these efficacy and safety outcomes in selected subgroups of clinical concern: patients with baseline systolic blood pressure ≤118 mm Hg (median; n=448), baseline NT-proBNP >2701 pg/mL (median; n=395), estimated glomerular filtration rate <60 mL/minute per 1.73 m 2 (n=455), ≥1 additional hospitalization for HF within the prior year (n=343), admission to the ICU during the index hospitalization (n=96), inotrope use during the index hospitalization (n=68), and severe congestion (n=219)., Results: The relative risk reduction in cardiovascular death or rehospitalization for HF with sacubitril/valsartan versus enalapril was consistent across all high-risk subgroups ( P interaction=non-significant [NS] for each). The risks of worsening renal function, symptomatic hypotension, and hyperkalemia with sacubitril/valsartan versus enalapril were also consistent in each high- versus low-risk subgroup ( P interaction=NS for each)., Conclusions: In high-risk subpopulations admitted for acute decompensated HF, treatment with sacubitril/valsartan after initial stabilization conferred a consistent reduction in cardiovascular death or rehospitalization for HF and was well tolerated.

Importance: Sacubitril-valsartan use reduces mortality and hospitalizations compared with enalapril among patients with chronic heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF); however, the cost-effectiveness of these treatments when initiated during hospitalization for HF is unknown., Objective: To estimate the cost-effectiveness of inpatient initiation of sacubitril-valsartan vs enalapril compared with no initiation or posthospitalization initiation of sacubitril-valsartan among stabilized patients with HFrEF., Design, Setting, and Participants: This economic evaluation included data on US patients with HFrEF who were eligible for sacubitril-valsartan treatment from December 8, 2009, to May 15, 2018., Main Outcomes and Measures: A 5-state Markov model with all-cause mortality, HF, and non-HF hospitalization probabilities was used. Quality of life was estimated using Euro-QoL EQ-5D scores. Hospitalization, long-term care, and medication costs for sacubitril-valsartan and enalapril were modeled with a discount rate of 3%. The base-case analysis included a lifetime horizon from a health care and societal perspective., Results: Modeled patients were a mean (SD) age of 63.8 (11.5) years. Inpatient treatment with sacubitril-valsartan ($5628 per year) was associated with 62 fewer HF-related admissions per 1000 patients compared with outpatient initiation or 116 fewer HF-related admissions compared with continuation of enalapril treatment. From a health care system perspective, initiation of sacubitril-valsartan during hospitalization saved $452 per year compared with continuing enalapril and $811 per year compared with initiation at 2 months after hospitalization and was associated with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $21 532 per quality-adjusted life-year compared with continued enalapril treatment over a lifetime. From a societal perspective, inpatient initiation was estimated to save $460 per year per patient compared with no initiation of sacubitril-valsartan and $813 per year per patient compared with initiation after hospitalization. In a budget analysis, inpatient initiation of sacubitril-valsartan was estimated to save up to $449 per person for 1 year or $2550 per person over 5 years compared with continuation of enalapril., Conclusions and Relevance: The findings suggest that, for patients with HFrEF, initiation of sacubitril-valsartan during hospitalization may be associated with reduced hospitalizations, increased quality-adjusted life expectancy, and cost savings compared with no initiation or initiation after hospitalization.

The PARADIGM-HF (Prospective Comparison of Angiotensin II Receptor Blocker Neprilysin Inhibitor With Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitor to Determine Impact on Global Mortality and Morbidity in Heart Failure) trial reported that sacubitril/valsartan (S/V), an angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor, significantly reduced mortality and heart failure (HF) hospitalization in HF patients with a reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). However, fewer than 1% of patients in the PARADIGM-HF study had New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional class IV symptoms. Accordingly, data that informed the use of S/V among patients with advanced HF were limited. The LIFE (LCZ696 in Hospitalized Advanced Heart Failure) study was a 24-week prospective, multicenter, double-blinded, double-dummy, active comparator trial that compared the safety, efficacy, and tolerability of S/V with those of valsartan in patients with advanced HFrEF. The trial planned to randomize 400 patients ≥18 years of age with advanced HF, defined as an EF ≤35%, New York Heart Association functional class IV symptoms, elevated natriuretic peptide concentration (B-type natriuretic peptide [BNP] ≥250 pg/ml or N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide [NT-proBNP] ≥800 pg/ml), and ≥1 objective finding of advanced HF. Following a 3- to 7-day open label run-in period with S/V (24 mg/26 mg twice daily), patients were randomized 1:1 to S/V titrated to 97 mg/103 mg twice daily versus 160 mg of V twice daily. The primary endpoint was the proportional change from baseline in the area under the curve for NT-proBNP levels measured through week 24. Secondary and tertiary endpoints included clinical outcomes and safety and tolerability. Because of the COVID-19 pandemic, enrollment in the LIFE trial was stopped prematurely to ensure patient safety and data integrity. The primary analysis consists of the first 335 randomized patients whose clinical follow-up examination results were not severely impacted by COVID-19. (Entresto [LCZ696] in Advanced Heart Failure [LIFE STUDY] [HFN-LIFE]; NCT02816736)., (Copyright © 2020 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: This study compared the efficacy and safety of sacubitril/valsartan to enalapril in Black and non-Black Americans with acute decompensated heart failure (ADHF)., Background: Black patients have a different response to treatment with angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors compared with other racial and ethnic groups. How Black patients with ADHF respond to sacubitril/valsartan, an angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor, is unclear. PIONEER-HF was a double-blind randomized clinical trial of sacubitril/valsartan versus enalapril in hospitalized patients with ADHF following hemodynamic stabilization., Methods: In a pre-specified subgroup analysis, we examined changes in N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide, clinical outcomes, and safety according to race., Results: The study population, all enrolled in the United States, included 316 (36%) Black participants, 515 (58%) White participants, and 50 (5.7%) participants of other racial groups. The reduction in N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide concentration at weeks 4 and 8 was significantly greater with sacubitril/valsartan than enalapril in both Black (ratio of change with sacubitril/valsartan vs. enalapril: 0.71; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.58 to 0.88) and non-Black patients (ratio of change: 0.71; 95% CI: 0.61 to 0.83; interaction p = 1.00). Compared with enalapril, sacubitril/valsartan also reduced the pre-specified exploratory composite of cardiovascular death or HF rehospitalization in both Black (hazard ratio: 0.47; 95% CI: 0.24 to 0.93) and non-Black patients (hazard ratio: 0.65; 95% CI: 0.40 to 1.06; interaction p = 0.44)., Conclusions: Among Black patients admitted with ADHF in the United States, the in-hospital initiation of sacubitril/valsartan was more effective than enalapril in reducing natriuretic peptide levels and the composite of cardiovascular death or HF rehospitalization. The effect of sacubitril/valsartan did not differ by race. (Comparison of Sacubitril/Valsartan Versus Enalapril on Effect on NT-proBNP in Patients Stabilized From an Acute Heart Failure Episode [PIONEER-HF]; NCT02554890)., (Copyright © 2020 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: This study sought to evaluate the efficacy and safety of sacubitril/valsartan according to dose level achieved in the PIONEER-HF (Comparison of Sacubitril/Valsartan Versus Enalapril on Effect on NT-proBNP in Patients Stabilized From an Acute Heart Failure Episode) trial., Background: In patients hospitalized for acute decompensated heart failure (ADHF), in-hospital initiation and continuation of sacubitril/valsartan as compared with enalapril is well tolerated, achieves a greater reduction in N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP), and reduces the risk of cardiovascular death or rehospitalization for HF through 8 weeks. However, not all patients achieve the target dose of sacubitril/valsartan, and its efficacy and safety in such patients are of interest., Methods: PIONEER-HF was a randomized, double-blind, active-controlled trial of sacubitril/valsartan versus enalapril in 881 patients stabilized during hospitalization for ADHF. Blinded study medication was administered for 8 weeks, with initial dosing selected based on the systolic blood pressure at randomization and titrated toward a target of sacubitril/valsartan 97/103 mg twice daily, or enalapril 10 mg twice daily, with an algorithm based on systolic blood pressure and the investigator's assessment of tolerability., Results: At 4 weeks, 199 (55%) patients allocated to sacubitril/valsartan and 211 (60%) patients allocated to enalapril were dispensed the target dose. Baseline characteristics were similar in the 2 treatment groups within each dose level. There was no heterogeneity across dose levels in the effect of sacubitril/valsartan on the reduction in NT-proBNP (p interaction  = 0.69), the reduction in cardiovascular death or rehospitalization for heart failure (p interaction  = 0.42), or the pre-specified adverse events of special interest through 8 weeks., Conclusions: In hemodynamically stabilized patients with ADHF, the efficacy and safety of sacubitril/valsartan are generally consistent across dose levels. (Comparison of Sacubitril/Valsartan Versus Enalapril on Effect on NT-proBNP in Patients Stabilized From an Acute Heart Failure Episode [PIONEER-HF]; NCT02554890)., (Copyright © 2020 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: The PIONEER-HF (comParIson Of sacubitril/valsartaN versus Enalapril on Effect on nt-pRo-bnp in patients stabilized from an acute Heart Failure episode) trial demonstrated the efficacy and safety of sacubitril/valsartan (S/V) in stabilized patients with acute decompensated heart failure (HF) and reduced ejection fraction., Objectives: The study sought to determine whether and how prior HF history and treatment with an angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) affected the results., Methods: The PIONEER-HF trial was a prospective, multicenter, double-blind, randomized clinical trial enrolling 881 patients with an ejection fraction ≤40%. Patients were randomly assigned 1:1 to in-hospital initiation of S/V (n = 440) versus enalapril (n = 441). Pre-specified subgroup analyses were performed based on prior HF history (i.e., de novo HF vs. worsening chronic HF) and treatment with an ACE inhibitor or ARB (i.e., ACE inhibitor or ARB-yes vs. ACE inhibitor or ARB-no) at admission., Results: At enrollment, 303 (34%) patients presented with de novo HF and 576 (66%) patients with worsening chronic HF. A total of 421 (48%) patients had been treated with an ACE inhibitor or ARB, while 458 (52%) had not been treated with an ACE inhibitor or ARB. N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide declined significantly in all 4 subgroups (p < 0.001), with greater decreases in the S/V versus the enalapril arm (p < 0.001). There was no interaction between prior HF history (p = 0.350) or ACE inhibitor or ARB treatment (p = 0.880) and the effect of S/V versus enalapril on cardiovascular death or rehospitalization for HF. The incidences of adverse events were comparable between S/V and enalapril across all 4 subgroups., Conclusions: Among patients admitted for acute decompensated HF, S/V was safe and well tolerated, led to a significantly greater reduction in N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide, and improved clinical outcomes compared with enalapril irrespective of previous HF history or ACE inhibitor or ARB treatment. (Comparison of Sacubitril/Valsartan Versus Enalapril on Effect of NT-proBNP in Patients Stabilized From an Acute Heart Failure Episode [PIONEER-HF]; NCT02554890)., (Copyright © 2020 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, caused by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), has important implications for the safety of participants in clinical trials and the research staff caring for them and, consequently, for the trials themselves. Patients with heart failure may be at greater risk of infection with COVID-19 and the consequences might also be more serious, but they are also at risk of adverse outcomes if their clinical care is compromised. As physicians and clinical trialists, it is our responsibility to ensure safe and effective care is delivered to trial participants without affecting the integrity of the trial. The social contract with our patients demands no less. Many regulatory authorities from different world regions have issued guidance statements regarding the conduct of clinical trials during this COVID-19 crisis. However, international trials may benefit from expert guidance from a global panel of experts to supplement local advice and regulations, thereby enhancing the safety of participants and the integrity of the trial. Accordingly, the Heart Failure Association of the European Society of Cardiology on 21 and 22 March 2020 conducted web-based meetings with expert clinical trialists in Europe, North America, South America, Australia, and Asia. The main objectives of this Expert Position Paper are to highlight the challenges that this pandemic poses for the conduct of clinical trials in heart failure and to offer advice on how they might be overcome, with some practical examples. While this panel of experts are focused on heart failure clinical trials, these discussions and recommendations may apply to clinical trials in other therapeutic areas., (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: Diastolic dysfunction (DD) is common and occurs at an earlier age among human immunodeficiency virus-infected (HIV+) individuals, but the mechanisms and consequences of DD among HIV+ individuals are unclear., Methods and Results: The Characterization of Heart Function on Antiretroviral Therapy (CHART) study was a multicenter cross-sectional case-control study of treated and virally suppressed HIV+ individuals with (DD+) and without DD (DD-). All patients had normal ejection fraction (>50%), no significant valvular disease, and no history of coronary revascularization or persistent atrial fibrillation. Overall, 94 DD+ and 101 DD- patients were included. DD+ patients were older with higher body mass index (BMI) and more likely to have hypertension, renal dysfunction, and dyslipidemia. Groups were similar with respect to sex, race, CD4 count, and HIV RNA copies. N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide levels (median 36 [23, 85] vs 26 [12, 49] pg/mL, P < .01) and high-sensitivity troponin I (3.6 [2.6, 5.1] vs 2.5 [1.8, 3.5] pg/mL, P < .01) were higher among DD+ patients. The latter had similar left atrial size, but increased stiffness (conduit strain: 23.5 [17.5, 36.9] vs 30.0 [22.9, 37.0], P < .01) and impaired relaxation (reservoir strain: 39.7 [32.0, 58.0] vs 45.9 [37.0, 60.6], P = .04). On cardiac magnetic resonance, the prevalence of focal fibrosis was higher among DD+ patients (19.0% vs 5.3%, P < .01). DD+ patients demonstrated higher levels of carboxyl-terminal telopeptide of collagen type I (P = .04), and trends toward higher interleukin-6 and oxidized low-density lipoprotein levels (P ≤ .08). Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire physical limitation (87.1±21.4 vs 93.1±18.1, P = .01) and symptom frequency scores were lower among DD+ patients (86.0±21.5 vs 92.5±16.8, P = .01)., Conclusions: In this contemporary HIV+ population receiving antiretroviral therapy, DD was associated with multiple alterations in cardiac structure and function, including myocardial fibrosis and left atrial abnormalities, and worse quality of life. Further studies are needed to assess longitudinal changes in these parameters and their potential as therapeutic targets to prevent progressive cardiac remodeling and dysfunction in HIV., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Importance: In PIONEER-HF, among stabilized patients with acute decompensated heart failure (ADHF), the in-hospital initiation of sacubitril/valsartan was well tolerated and led to improved outcomes compared with enalapril. However, there are limited data comparing the strategies of in-hospital vs postdischarge initiation of sacubitril/valsartan., Objective: To describe changes in N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) levels in patients recently hospitalized for ADHF and switching from taking enalapril to taking sacubitril/valsartan after discharge and compare clinical outcomes for patients randomized to receive in-hospital initiation of sacubitril/valsartan vs in-hospital initiation of enalapril who later switched to taking sacubitril/valsartan during an open-label extension phase., Interventions: Sacubitril/valsartan titrated to 97/103 mg twice daily., Design, Setting, and Participants: The PIONEER-HF trial was a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, active-controlled trial conducted at 129 US sites between May 2016 and May 2018 that compared the in-hospital initiation of sacubitril/valsartan vs enalapril (titrated to target dose, 10 mg twice daily) for 8 weeks among patients admitted for ADHF with reduced ejection fraction and hemodynamic stability. All patients were to continue in a 4-week, open-label study of sacubitril/valsartan; of 881 patients enrolled in PIONEER-HF, 832 (94%) continued in the open-label study., Main Outcomes and Measures: Changes in NT-proBNP levels from week 8 to 12 as well as the exploratory composite of heart failure rehospitalization or cardiovascular death from randomization through week 12., Results: Of 881 participants, 226 (27.7%) were women, 487 (58.5%) were white, 297 (35.7%) were black, 15 (1.8%) were Asian, and 73 (8.8%) were of Hispanic ethnicity; the mean (SD) age was 61 (14) years. For patients who continued to take sacubitril/valsartan, NT-proBNP levels declined -17.2% (95% CI, -3.2 to -29.1) from week 8 to 12. The NT-proBNP levels declined to a greater extent for those switching from taking enalapril to sacubitril/valsartan after the week 8 visit (-37.4%; 95% CI, -28.1 to -45.6; P < .001; comparing changes in 2 groups). Over the entire 12 weeks of follow-up, patients that began taking sacubitril/valsartan in the hospital had a lower hazard for the composite outcome compared with patients that initiated enalapril in the hospital and then had a delayed initiation of sacubitril/valsartan 8 weeks later (hazard ratio, 0.69; 95% CI 0.49-0.97)., Conclusions and Relevance: Switching patients' treatment from enalapril to sacubitril/valsartan at 8 weeks after randomization led to a further 37% reduction in NT-proBNP levels in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction and a recent hospitalization for ADHF., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02554890.

Atrial dysfunction has been widely considered a marker or consequence of other cardiac conditions rather than the cause itself. Here, we propose the term atrial failure as a clinically relevant entity, defined as any atrial dysfunction causing impaired heart performance, symptoms, and worsening quality of life or life expectancy. Aspects of the etiology, mechanisms, and consequences of atrial failure are discussed. Recent advances in cardiac electrophysiology and imaging have improved our understanding of the highly complex atrial anatomy and function, underlying the paramount importance of the atria in optimal heart performance. It is time to reappraise the concept of the failing atrium as a primary cause or aggravating factor of the symptoms in many of our patients. The concept of atrial failure may foster basic and translational research to gain a better understanding of how to identify and manage atrial dysfunction., (Copyright © 2020 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Aims: The present study aimed to assess the association between left atrial (LA) structure and function and the risk for cardiovascular (CV) death or heart failure (HF) hospitalization in a population with atrial fibrillation (AF)., Methods and Results: In a prospective echocardiographic substudy of the Effective Anticoagulation with Factor Xa Next Generation in AF-Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction 48 (ENGAGE AF-TIMI 48) study, 971 patients underwent transthoracic echocardiography. The associations between LA structure (LA volume index [LAVi]) and function (LA emptying fraction [LAEF] and LA expansion index [LAEi]) and risk for the composite endpoint of CV death or HF hospitalization, and its components, were assessed. Over a median follow-up of 2.5 years, 142 patients (14.6%) experienced CV death or HF hospitalization. Higher LAVi and lower LAEF and LAEi were each associated with a higher unadjusted risk for the composite outcome and its components. After adjustment for clinical and echocardiographic confounders, only measures of impaired LA function were predictive of the composite outcome (hazard ratio [HR] per 1 standard deviation [SD] decrease in LAEF: 1.35; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.09-1.67 [P = 0.005]; HR per 1 SD decrease in LAEi: 1.34; 95% CI 1.06-1.69 [P = 0.012]). These findings were similar regardless of left ventricular ejection fraction, history of HF or whether patients were in AF or sinus rhythm at the time of the echocardiographic examination., Conclusions: In patients with AF, LA dysfunction was significantly associated with an increased risk for CV death or HF hospitalization and was more predictive of these outcomes than LA size. These parameters may help to identify AF patients at greatest risk for the development of HF., Clinical Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00781391., (© 2019 The Authors. European Journal of Heart Failure © 2019 European Society of Cardiology.)

In a randomized trial of patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction, the SGLT2 inhibitor dapagliflozin markedly reduced mortality and worsening heart failure (McMurray et al., 2019). Remarkably, these benefits seemed to be similar in people with and without diabetes. These data usher in a new paradigm in the treatment of heart failure., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) are at increased risk of developing heart failure. Sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors reduce the risk of hospitalization for heart failure (HHF) in patients with T2DM. We aimed to develop and validate a practical clinical risk score for HHF in patients with T2DM and assess whether this score can identify high-risk patients with T2DM who have the greatest reduction in risk for HHF with a sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitor., Methods: We developed a clinical risk score for HHF in 8212 patients with T2DM in the placebo arm of SAVOR-TIMI 53 (Saxagliptin Assessment of Vascular Outcomes Recorded in Patients With Diabetes Mellitus-Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction 53). Candidate variables were assessed using multivariable Cox regression, and independent clinical risk indicators achieving statistical significance of P <0.001 were included in the risk score. We externally validated the score in 8578 patients with T2DM in the placebo arm of DECLARE-TIMI 58 (Dapagliflozin Effect on Cardiovascular Events-Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction 58). The relative and absolute risk reductions in HHF with the sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitor dapagliflozin were assessed by baseline HHF risk., Results: Five clinical variables were independent risk predictors of HHF: prior heart failure, history of atrial fibrillation, coronary artery disease, estimated glomerular filtration rate, and urine albumin-to-creatinine ratio. A simple integer-based score (0-7 points) using these predictors identified a >20-fold gradient of HHF risk ( P for trend <0.001) in both the derivation and validation cohorts, with C indices of 0.81 and 0.78, respectively. Although relative risk reductions with dapagliflozin were similar for patients across the risk scores (25%-34%), absolute risk reductions were greater in those at higher baseline risk (1-sided P for trend=0.04), with high-risk (2 points) and very-high-risk (≥3 points) patients having 1.5% and 2.7% absolute reductions in Kaplan-Meier estimates of HHF risk at 4 years, respectively., Conclusions: Risk stratification using a novel clinical risk score for HHF in patients with T2DM identifies patients at higher risk for HHF who derive greater absolute benefit from sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibition., Clinical Trial Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifiers: NCT01107886 and NCT01730534.

Aims: Circulating high-sensitivity cardiac troponin (hsTn) and soluble ST2 (sST2) reflect myocardial stress in patients with heart failure (HF). Production of cyclic guanosine 3'5' monophosphate (cGMP) in response to activation of natriuretic peptide receptors reduces cardiac afterload and preload. We assessed the effects of sacubitril/valsartan on these biomarkers in patients with reduced ejection fraction and acute decompensated HF (ADHF)., Methods and Results: PIONEER-HF was a randomized, double-blind trial of sacubitril/valsartan vs. enalapril in hospitalized patients with ADHF following haemodynamic stabilization. We measured circulating hsTnT, sST2, and urinary cGMP at baseline, 1, 2 (sST2, cGMP), 4, and 8 weeks (n = 694 with all baseline biomarkers). Ratios of geometric means (timepoint/baseline) were determined and compared as a ratio for sacubitril/valsartan vs. enalapril. Compared with enalapril, sacubitril/valsartan led to a significantly greater decline in hsTnT and sST2. This effect emerged as early as 1 week for sST2 and was significant for both at 4 weeks with a 16% greater reduction in hsTnT (P < 0.001) and 9% greater reduction in sST2 (P = 0.0033). Serial urinary cGMP increased with sacubitril/valsartan compared with enalapril (P < 0.001, 1 week). The significant differences between treatment groups for each biomarker were sustained at 8 weeks. In an exploratory multivariable-adjusted analysis of cardiovascular death or HF-rehospitalization, the concentrations of hsTnT, sST2 at week 1 were significantly associated with subsequent outcome., Conclusion: Biomarkers of myocardial stress are elevated in patients with ADHF and associated with outcome. Compared with enalapril, sacubitril/valsartan reduces myocardial injury and haemodynamic stress as reflected by biomarkers, with an onset that is apparent within 1-4 weeks., Clinical Trials Registration: NCT02554890 clinical.trials.gov., (© The Author(s) 2019. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology.)

Background: Metformin is first-line therapy for type 2 diabetes mellitus, although its effects on the cardiovascular system are unproved., Methods: In this post hoc analysis, patients in SAVOR-TIMI 53 (Saxagliptin and Cardiovascular Outcomes in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus) with baseline biomarker samples (n=12 156) were classified as ever versus never taking metformin during the trial period. Associations between metformin exposure and outcomes were estimated with inverse probability of treatment weighting Cox modeling for the composite end point of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or ischemic stroke, as well as cardiovascular death and all-cause mortality, with biomarkers included as covariates. Additional sensitivity analyses included propensity score matching and Cox multivariable models., Results: Of the 12 156 patients with baseline biomarker samples, 8971 (74%) had metformin exposure, 1611 (13%) had prior heart failure, and 1332 (11%) had at least moderate chronic kidney disease (estimated glomerular filtration rate ≤45 mL·min -1 ·1.73 m -2 ). Metformin use was associated with no difference in risk for the composite end point (hazard ratio for inverse probability of treatment weighting, 0.92 [95% CI, 0.76-1.11]) but lower risk of all-cause mortality (hazard ratio for inverse probability of treatment weighting, 0.75 [95% CI, 0.59-0.95]). There was no significant relationship between metformin use and these end points in patients with prior heart failure or moderate to severe chronic kidney disease., Conclusions: In a cohort of 12 156 patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and high cardiovascular risk, metformin use was associated with lower rates of all-cause mortality, including after adjustment for clinical variables and biomarkers, but not lower rates of the composite end point of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or ischemic stroke. This association was most apparent in patients without prior heart failure or moderate to severe chronic kidney disease., Clinical Trial Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01107886.

The prevalence of Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) has reached pandemic proportions. T2DM frequently causes macrovascular and/or microvascular pathologic changes and thereby increases the risks for the development of myocardial infarction, heart failure, stroke, renal failure, and reduced survival. This article describes the important interactions between T2DM, heart failure, and renal dysfunction, forming vicious circles. The interruption of these circles represents important therapeutic goals., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Aims: Klotho, an essential co-receptor for fibroblast growth factor (FGF)-23, has potentially beneficial inhibitory effects on the renin-angiotensin system. Limited data exist on the prognostic value of Klotho and FGF-23 levels in combination or their ability to predict benefit from angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibition., Methods and Results: A total of 3555 patients with stable ischaemic heart disease and left ventricular ejection fraction > 40% enrolled in the PEACE trial of trandolapril vs. placebo had Klotho levels drawn at randomization. Patients were characterized by quartiles of Klotho and FGF-23 concentrations. Six-year Kaplan-Meier rates and adjusted risk were calculated in the placebo arm for the composite of cardiovascular (CV) death or hospitalization for heart failure and its components. Low [quartile (Q) 1-3] Klotho concentration was associated with an increased rate of CV death or hospitalization for heart failure as compared with Q4 (8.2% vs. 4.2%; P = 0.03). After multivariable adjustment for clinical variables and renal and CV biomarkers (estimated glomerular filtration rate, cystatin-C, urine albumin-to-creatinine ratio, FGF-23, high-sensitivity troponin T, N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide, and high-sensitivity C-reactive protein), low Klotho concentration remained strongly associated with increased risk of CV death or hospitalization for heart failure [adjusted hazard ratio (HR) 2.62; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.35-5.08; P < 0.01]. The combination of low Klotho and high (Q4) FGF-23 concentration identified patients at particularly elevated risk (adjusted HR 3.99; 95% CI 1.67-9.56; P < 0.01). This high-risk combination additionally predicted benefit from trandolapril (HR 0.39; 95% CI 0.23-0.68; P interaction  < 0.01)., Conclusions: Low Klotho concentration is associated with an increased risk of CV death or heart failure hospitalization in patients with stable ischaemic heart disease. The combination of low Klotho and high FGF-23 further identifies patients at distinctly elevated risk who derive clinical benefit from the ACE-inhibitor trandolapril., (© 2019 The Authors. European Journal of Heart Failure © 2019 European Society of Cardiology.)