Search

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

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

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

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

Objective: Chronic heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HF-REF) represents a major public health issue and is associated with considerable morbidity and mortality. We evaluated the cost-effectiveness of sacubitril/valsartan (formerly LCZ696) compared with an ACE inhibitor (ACEI) (enalapril) in the treatment of HF-REF from the perspective of healthcare providers in the UK, Denmark and Colombia.Methods: A cost-utility analysis was performed based on data from a multinational, Phase III randomised controlled trial. A decision-analytic model was developed based on a series of regression models, which extrapolated health-related quality of life, hospitalisation rates and survival over a lifetime horizon. The primary outcome was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER).Results: In the UK, the cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained for sacubitril/valsartan (using cardiovascular mortality) was £17 100 (€20 400) versus enalapril. In Denmark, the ICER for sacubitril/valsartan was Kr 174 000 (€22 600). In Colombia, the ICER was COP$39.5 million (€11 200) per QALY gained. Deterministic sensitivity analysis showed that results were most sensitive to the extrapolation of mortality, duration of treatment effect and time horizon, but were robust to other structural changes, with most scenarios associated with ICERs below the willingness-to-pay threshold for all three country settings. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis suggested the probability that sacubitril/valsartan was cost-effective at conventional willingness-to-pay thresholds was 68%-94% in the UK, 84% in Denmark and 95% in Colombia.Conclusions: Our analysis suggests that, in all three countries, sacubitril/valsartan is likely to be cost-effective compared with an ACEI (the current standard of care) in patients with HF-REF. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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

Background: Comorbidities are common in patients with heart failure (HF) and complicate treatment and outcomes. We identified patterns of multimorbidity in Asian patients with HF and their association with patients' quality of life (QoL) and health outcomes.Methods and Findings: We used data on 6,480 patients with chronic HF (1,204 with preserved ejection fraction) enrolled between 1 October 2012 and 6 October 2016 in the Asian Sudden Cardiac Death in Heart Failure (ASIAN-HF) registry. The ASIAN-HF registry is a prospective cohort study, with patients prospectively enrolled from in- and outpatient clinics from 11 Asian regions (Hong Kong, Taiwan, China, Japan, Korea, India, Malaysia, Thailand, Singapore, Indonesia, and Philippines). Latent class analysis was used to identify patterns of multimorbidity. The primary outcome was defined as a composite of all-cause mortality or HF hospitalization within 1 year. To assess differences in QoL, we used the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire. We identified 5 distinct multimorbidity groups: elderly/atrial fibrillation (AF) (N = 1,048; oldest, more AF), metabolic (N = 1,129; obesity, diabetes, hypertension), young (N = 1,759; youngest, low comorbidity rates, non-ischemic etiology), ischemic (N = 1,261; ischemic etiology), and lean diabetic (N = 1,283; diabetic, hypertensive, low prevalence of obesity, high prevalence of chronic kidney disease). Patients in the lean diabetic group had the worst QoL, more severe signs and symptoms of HF, and the highest rate of the primary combined outcome within 1 year (29% versus 11% in the young group) (p for all <0.001). Adjusting for confounders (demographics, New York Heart Association class, and medication) the lean diabetic (hazard ratio [HR] 1.79, 95% CI 1.46-2.22), elderly/AF (HR 1.57, 95% CI 1.26-1.96), ischemic (HR 1.51, 95% CI 1.22-1.88), and metabolic (HR 1.28, 95% CI 1.02-1.60) groups had higher rates of the primary combined outcome compared to the young group. Potential limitations include site selection and participation bias.Conclusions: Among Asian patients with HF, comorbidities naturally clustered in 5 distinct patterns, each differentially impacting patients' QoL and health outcomes. These data underscore the importance of studying multimorbidity in HF and the need for more comprehensive approaches in phenotyping patients with HF and multimorbidity.Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01633398. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The effect of a sodium glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor (SGLT2i) in reducing heart failure hospitalization in the EMPA‐REG OUTCOMES trial has raised the possibility of using these agents to treat established heart failure. We hypothesize that osmotic diuresis induced by SGLT2 inhibition, a distinctly different diuretic mechanism than that of other diuretic classes, results in greater electrolyte‐free water clearance and, ultimately, in greater fluid clearance from the interstitial fluid (IF) space than from the circulation, potentially resulting in congestion relief with minimal impact on blood volume, arterial filling and organ perfusion. We utilize a mathematical model to illustrate that electrolyte‐free water clearance results in a greater reduction in IF volume compared to blood volume, and that this difference may be mediated by peripheral sequestration of osmotically inactive sodium. By coupling the model with data on plasma and urinary sodium and water in healthy subjects who received either the SGLT2i dapagliflozin or loop diuretic bumetanide, we predict that dapagliflozin produces a 2‐fold greater reduction in IF volume compared to blood volume, while the reduction in IF volume with bumetanide is only 78% of the reduction in blood volume. Heart failure is characterized by excess fluid accumulation, in both the vascular compartment and interstitial space, yet many heart failure patients have arterial underfilling because of low cardiac output, which may be aggravated by conventional diuretic treatment. Thus, we hypothesize that, by reducing IF volume to a greater extent than blood volume, SGLT2 inhibitors might provide better control of congestion without reducing arterial filling and perfusion. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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

The magnitude of the clinical benefits produced by inhibitors of the renin-angiotensin system in heart failure has been modest, possibly because of the ability of renin-angiotensin activity to escape from suppression during long-term treatment. Efforts to intensify pharmacological blockade by use of dual inhibitors that interfere with the renin-angiotensin system at multiple sites have not yielded consistent incremental clinical benefits, but have been associated with serious adverse reactions. By contrast, potentiation of endogenous compensatory vasoactive peptides can act to enhance the survival effects of inhibitors of the renin-angiotensin system, as evidenced by trials that have compared angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors with drugs that inhibit both the renin-angiotensin system and neprilysin. Several endogenous vasoactive peptides act as adaptive mechanisms, and their augmentation could help to broaden the benefits of renin-angiotensin system inhibitors for patients with heart failure. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Investigation of variations in provider performance and its determinants may help inform strategies for improving patient outcomes.Methods: We used the National Heart Failure Audit comprising 68 772 patients with heart failure with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (HFREF), admitted to 185 hospitals in England and Wales (2007-2013). We investigated hospital adherence to three recommended key performance measures (KPMs) for inhospital care (ACE inhibitors (ACE-Is) or angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) on discharge, β-blockers on discharge and referral to specialist follow-up) individually and as a composite performance score. Hierarchical regression models were used to investigate hospital-level variation.Results: Hospital-level variation in adherence to composite KPM ranged from 50% to 97% (median 79%), but after adjustments for patient characteristics and year of admission, only 8% (95% CI 7% to 10%) of this variation was attributable to variations in hospital features. Similarly, hospital prescription rates for ACE-I/ARB and β-blocker showed low adjusted hospital-attributable variations (7% CI 6% to 9% and 6% CI 5% to 8%, for ACE-I/ARB and β-blocker, respectively). Referral to specialist follow-up, however, showed larger variations (median 81%; range; 20%, 100%) with 26% of this being attributable to hospital-level differences (CI 22% to 31%).Conclusion: Only a small proportion of hospital variation in medication prescription after discharge was attributable to hospital-level features. This suggests that differences in hospital practices are not a major determinant of observed variations in prescription of investigated medications and outcomes. Future healthcare delivery efforts should consider evaluation and improvement of more ambitious KPMs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Data on the occurrence times of multiple outcomes, reflecting the temporal profile of disease burden/progression, have been used to estimate treatment effects in various recent randomized trials. Most procedures for analyzing these data require specific model assumptions. When the assumptions are not met, the results may be misleading. Robust, model-free procedures for study design and analysis that enable clinically meaningful interpretations are warranted. Methods: For each treatment group, we constructed and summarized the estimated mean cumulative count of events over time by the area under the curve (AUC), which can be interpreted as the mean total event-free time lost from multiple undesirable outcomes. A higher curve, and resulting larger AUC, implies a worse treatment. The treatment effect is quantified by the ratio and/or difference of AUCs. The timing and occurrence of recurrent heart failure hospitalizations (HFHs) and cardiovascular (CV) death from Prospective Comparison of ARNI with ARB Global Outcomes in HF with Preserved Ejection Fraction (PARAGON-HF), comparing sacubitril/valsartan with valsartan, are presented for illustration. We also discuss the design of future studies on the basis of the proposed method. Results: With 48 months of follow-up, estimated AUCs, representing the total event-free time lost to HFHs and CV death, were 11.3 and 13.1 event-months for sacubitril/valsartan and valsartan, respectively. The ratio of these AUCs was 0.86 (95% confidence interval, 0.75 to 1.00; P=0.049), a 14% reduction of disease burden favoring combination therapy. A future study, similar to PARAGON-HF, designed using the new proposal would require fewer patients would than a conventional time-to-first-event analysis. Conclusions: The proposed method is robust and model-free and provides a clinically interpretable, time-scale summary of the treatment effect. (Funded by National Institutes of Health.) [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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

Aim To describe the baseline characteristics and treatment of the patients randomized in the PARADIGM-HF (Prospective comparison of ARNi with ACEi to Determine Impact on Global Mortality and morbidity in Heart Failure) trial, testing the hypothesis that the strategy of simultaneously blocking the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system and augmenting natriuretic peptides with LCZ696 200 mg b.i.d. is superior to enalapril 10 mg b.i.d. in reducing mortality and morbidity in patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction. Methods Key demographic, clinical and laboratory findings, along with baseline treatment, are reported and compared with those of patients in the treatment arm of the Studies Of Left Ventricular Dysfunction ( SOLVD-T) and more contemporary drug and device trials in heart failure and reduced ejection fraction. Results The mean age of the 8442 patients in PARADIGM-HF is 64 ( SD 11) years and 78% are male, which is similar to SOLVD-T and more recent trials. Despite extensive background therapy with beta-blockers (93% patients) and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (60%), patients in PARADIGM-HF have persisting symptoms and signs, reduced health related quality of life, a low LVEF (mean 29 ± SD 6%) and elevated N-terminal- proB type-natriuretic peptide levels (median 1608 inter-quartile range 886-3221 pg/ mL). Conclusion PARADIGM-HF will determine whether LCZ696 is more beneficial than enalapril when added to other disease-modifying therapies and if further augmentation of endogenous natriuretic peptides will reduce morbidity and mortality in heart failure and reduced ejection fraction. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Conclusions: Specially trained nurses can improve the outcome of patients admitted to hospital with heart failure. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The author discusses a study held by Dipak Kotecha and colleagues regarding the effectiveness of β blockers in treating patients with atrial fibrillation and heart failure. Topics discussed include the response of cardiac rhythm on the potential drug, the adverse drug interaction of β blocker and digoxin, and the result of a meta-analysis which revealed that β blockers are harmful on patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction.

In this article the authors discuss the study by Tibaldi and colleagues on the effectiveness of hospital-at-home (HAH) care for elderly patients with chronic heart failure (HF). They argue that its finding, which revealed that patients under HAH care had received longer period of care, had better nutritional scores and quality of life and were less depressed, is not yet proven and the trial should be considered as pilot. They say that the finding is opposite to the reports of other studies.

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

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

The article presents a phase-2 study that examines the effect of cardiac myosin activator, omecamtiv mecarbil on cardiac function in systolic heart failure. It outlines the method of the double-blind placebo-controlled study in which the patients with stable heart failure and left ventricular systolic dysfunction were given with omecamtiv mecarbil. The study found out that omecamtiv mecarbil can improve cardiac function in patients with heart failure.