Search

Aims: To assess the use and associations with outcomes of glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RA) in a real-world population with heart failure (HF) and type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM)., Methods and Results: The Swedish HF Registry was linked with the National Diabetes Registry and other national registries. Independent predictors of GLP-1 RA use were assessed by multivariable logistic regressions and associations with outcomes were assessed by Cox regressions in a 1:1 propensity score-matched cohort. Of 8188 patients enrolled in 2017-21, 9% received a GLP-1 RA. Independent predictors of GLP-1 RA use were age <75 years, worse glycaemic control, impaired renal function, obesity, and reduced ejection fraction (EF). GLP-1 RA use was not significantly associated with a composite of HF hospitalization (HHF) or cardiovascular (CV) death regardless of EF, but was associated with a lower risk of major adverse CV events (CV death, non-fatal stroke/transient ischaemic attack, or myocardial infarction), and CV and all-cause death. In patients with body mass index ≥30 kg/m2, GLP-1 RA use was also associated with a lower risk of HHF/CV death and HHF alone., Conclusions: In patients with HF and T2DM, GLP-1 RA use was independently associated with more severe T2DM, reduced EF, and obesity and was not associated with a higher risk of HHF/CV death but with longer survival and less major CV adverse events. An association with lower HHF/CV death and HHF was observed in obese patients. Our findings provide new insights into GLP-1 RA use and its safety in HF and T2DM., (© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology.)

Aims: Use of sodium-glucose co-transporter 2 inhibitors (SGLT2i) in real-world heart failure (HF) is poorly characterised. In contemporary patients with HF and type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) we assessed over time SGLT2i use, clinical characteristics and outcomes associated with SGLT2i use., Methods and Results: Type 2 diabetes patients enrolled in the Swedish HF Registry between 2016-2018 were considered. We performed multivariable logistic regression models to assess the independent predictors of SGLT2i use and Cox regression models in a 1:3 propensity score-matched cohort and relevant subgroups to investigate the association between SGLT2i use and outcomes. Of 6805 eligible HF patients with T2DM, 376 (5.5%) received SGLT2i, whose use increased over time with 12% of patients on treatment at the end of 2018. Independent predictors of SGLT2i use were younger age, HF specialty care, ischaemic heart disease, preserved kidney function, and absence of anaemia. Over a median follow-up of 256 days, SGLT2i use was associated with a 30% lower risk of cardiovascular (CV) death/first HF hospitalisation (hazard ratio 0.70, 95% confidence interval 0.52-0.95), which was consistent regardless of ejection fraction, background metformin treatment and kidney function. SGLT2i use was also associated with a lower risk of all-cause and CV death, HF and CV hospitalisation, and CV death/myocardial infarction/stroke., Conclusion: In a contemporary HF cohort with T2DM, SGLT2i use increased over time, was more common with specialist care, younger age, ischaemic heart disease, and preserved renal function, and was associated with lower mortality and morbidity., (© 2021 The Authors. European Journal of Heart Failure published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of European Society of Cardiology.)

Background: Comorbidities may differently affect treatment response and cause-specific outcomes in heart failure (HF) with preserved (HFpEF) vs. mid-range/mildly-reduced (HFmrEF) vs. reduced (HFrEF) ejection fraction (EF), complicating trial design. In patients with HF, we performed a comprehensive analysis of type 2 diabetes (T2DM), atrial fibrillation (AF) chronic kidney disease (CKD), and cause-specific outcomes., Methods and Results: Of 42,583 patients from the Swedish HF registry (23% HFpEF, 21% HFmrEF, 56% HFrEF), 24% had T2DM, 51% CKD, 56% AF, and 8% all three comorbidities. HFpEF had higher prevalence of CKD and AF, HFmrEF had intermediate prevalence of AF, and prevalence of T2DM was similar across the EF spectrum. Patients with T2DM, AF and/or CKD were more likely to have also other comorbidities and more severe HF. Risk of cardiovascular (CV) events was highest in HFrEF vs. HFpEF and HFmrEF; non-CV risk was highest in HFpEF vs. HFmrEF vs. HFrEF. T2DM increased CV and non-CV events similarly but less so in HFpEF. CKD increased CV events somewhat more than non-CV events and less so in HFpEF. AF increased CV events considerably more than non-CV events and more so in HFpEF and HFmrEF., Conclusion: HFpEF is distinguished from HFmrEF and HFrEF by more comorbidities, non-CV events, but lower effect of T2DM and CKD on events. CV events are most frequent in HFrEF. To enrich for CV vs. non-CV events, trialists should not exclude patients with lower EF, AF and/or CKD, who report higher CV risk., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest GS reports grants and personal fees from Vifor, non-financial support from Boehringer Ingelheim, personal fees from Societa´ Prodotti Antibiotici, grants from MSD, grants and personal fees from AstraZeneca, personal fees from Roche, personal fees from Servier, grants from Novartis, personal fees from GENESIS, personal fees from Medtronic, personal fees from Cytokinetics, outside the submitted work. LHL reports grants and personal fees from Boehringer Ingelheim, during the conduct of the study; personal fees from Merck, personal fees from Sanofi, grants and personal fees from Vifor-Fresenius, grants and personal fees from AstraZeneca, grants and personal fees from Relypsa, personal fees from Bayer, grants from Boston Scientific, grants and personal fees from Novartis, personal fees from Pharmacosmos, personal fees from Abbott, grants and personal fees from Mundipharma, personal fees from Medscape, outside the submitted work. CS, BS, TT, IL, US, LB, FC, FA: None related with the current study. AM, SFF, MB, KGB and OV are employed by Boehringer Ingelheim., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: The purpose of this study was to assess the association between N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) and cardiovascular (CV) versus non-CV events and between NT-proBNP and potential treatment effects in heart failure (HF) with preserved, mid-range, and reduced ejection fraction (HFpEF, HFmrEF, and HFrEF, respectively) and clinically relevant subgroups., Background: Optimizing patient eligibility criteria in HF trials requires biomarkers that enrich for CV but not for non-CV events and select patients most likely to respond to the tested intervention., Methods: In the Swedish HF registry population stratified by EF category, we used Kaplan-Meier curves to estimate unadjusted CV and non-CV risks (mortality or hospitalization); Poisson regressions to calculate crude event rates of CV and non-CV events according to NT-proBNP levels; and Cox regressions to calculate the adjusted hazard ratios for HF therapies according to NT-proBNP ≤ or > median., Results: In a cohort of 15,849 patients (23% HFpEF, 21% HFmrEF, 56% HFrEF), median NT-proBNP was 2,037, 2,192, and 3,141 pg/ml, respectively. With increasing NT-proBNP, CV event rates increased more steeply than non-CV rates (range 20 to 160 and 30 to 100 per 100 patient-years in HFpEF; 20 to 130 and 20 to 100 in HFmrEF; and 20 to 110 and 20 to 50 in HFrEF, respectively). The CV-to-non-CV ratio increased with increasing NT-proBNP in HFpEF and HFrEF, but only in the lower range in HFmrEF. The association between treatments (e.g., angiotensin-converting enzyme-inhibitor, angiotensin II receptor blockers, and beta-blockers) and outcomes was consistent in NT-proBNP ≤ and > median., Conclusions: In HF trial design in different EF categories, NT-proBNP may be a useful tool for eligibility and enrichment for CV events, but its role in predicting a potential treatment response remains unclear., (Copyright © 2018 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors (ACE-Is) and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) are recommended in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFREF), but there is limited data on ARB vs. ACE-I and their combination in unselected populations. The purpose of this study was to compare the associations between the use of ACE-I, ARB and their combination, and outcomes in HFREF., Methods and Results: We prospectively studied 22,947 patients with HFREF (ejection fraction<40%) enrolled in the Swedish Heart Failure Registry who received ACE-I but not ARB (n=15,801, 69%), ARB but not ACE-I (n=4335, 19%), their combination (n=571, 2%) or neither (n=2240, 10%). As compared with ACE-I alone, the hazard ratios (HRs) for ARB alone for all-cause mortality was 0.97 (95% CI=0.91-1.03; p=0.27), for HF hospitalization 1.08 (CI=1.02-1.15; p<0.01) and for the composite outcome 1.03 (CI=0.99-1.08; p=0.15). ACE-I and ARB combination had for death HR=0.98 (95% CI=0.84-1.14; p=0.76), for HF hospitalization HR=1.49 (CI=1.33-1.68; p<0.01) and for the composite outcome HR=1.35 (CI=1.21-1.50; p<0.01). Use of neither ACE-I nor ARB was associated with HR for death 1.41 (CI=1.33-1.50; p<0.01), for HF hospitalization 1.16 (CI=1.08-1.25; p<0.01) and for the composite outcome 1.28 (CI=1.21-1.35; p<0.01)., Conclusion: This large generalizable analysis confirms the current recommendation of using ACE-I as first choice in HFREF. ARB can be considered an alternative in patients who cannot use ACE-I but should not routinely replace ACE-I. The combination of ACE-I and ARB was not associated with additional benefit over either one alone, and may potentially be harmful., (Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.)