Search

Certain antineoplastic therapies are associated with an increased risk of cardiomyopathy and heart failure (HF). Sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitors improve outcomes in patients with HF.This study aims to examine the efficacy of SGLT2 inhibitors in patients with cancer therapy-related cardiac dysfunction (CTRCD) or HF.The authors conducted a retrospective cohort analysis of deidentified, aggregate patient data from the TriNetX research network. Patients aged ≥18 years with a history of type 2 diabetes mellitus, cancer, and exposure to potentially cardiotoxic antineoplastic therapies, with a subsequent diagnosis of cardiomyopathy or HF between January 1, 2013, and April 30, 2020, were identified. Patients with ischemic heart disease were excluded. Patients receiving guideline-directed medical therapy were divided into 2 groups based on SGLT2 inhibitor use. After propensity score matching, odds ratios (ORs) and Cox proportional HRs were used to compare outcomes over a 2-year follow-up period.The study cohort included 1,280 patients with CTRCD/HF (n = 640 per group; mean age: 67.6 years; 41.6% female; 68% White). Patients on SGLT2 inhibitors in addition to conventional guideline-directed medical therapy had a lower risk of acute HF exacerbation (OR: 0.483 [95% CI: 0.36-0.65]; P < 0.001) and all-cause mortality (OR: 0.296 [95% CI: 0.22-0.40]; P = 0.001). All-cause hospitalizations or emergency department visits (OR: 0.479; 95% CI: 0.383-0.599; P < 0.001), atrial fibrillation/flutter (OR: 0.397 [95% CI: 0.213-0.737]; P = 0.003), acute kidney injury (OR: 0.486 [95% CI: 0.382-0.619]; P < 0.001), and need for renal replacement therapy (OR: 0.398 [95% CI: 0.189-0.839]; P = 0.012) were also less frequent in patients on SGLT2 inhibitors.SGLT2 inhibitor use is associated with improved outcomes in patients with CTRCD/HF.

BACKGROUND: Initiation and up-titration of guideline-directed medical therapies (GDMTs) for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) remains suboptimal, in part because of concerns regarding tolerability and adverse events (AEs). OBJECTIVES: The authors sought to compare rates of AE in patients randomized to GDMT medication vs placebo in a meta-analysis of landmark cardiovascular outcomes trials. METHODS: The authors assessed rates of reported AE in 17 landmark HFrEF clinical trials across each class of GDMT in the placebo and intervention arms. The overall rates of AE for each drug class, the absolute difference in frequency in AEs between the placebo and intervention arms, and the odds of each AE according based on randomization strata were calculated. RESULTS: AE were reported commonly in trials across each class of GDMT, with 75% to 85% of participants reporting at least 1 AE. There was no significant difference in the frequency of AE between the intervention and placebo arms, except for angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (87.0% [95% CI: 85.0%-88.8%] vs 82.0% [95% CI: 79.8%-84.0%], absolute difference: +5% with intervention; P < 0.001). There was no significant difference in drug discontinuation because of AE between placebo and intervention arms in angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists, sodium glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors, or angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor/angiotensin II receptor blocker trials. Patients randomized to beta-blocker were significantly less likely to stop study drug because of AE than placebo (11.3% [95% CI: 10.3%-12.3%] vs 13.7% [95% CI: 12.5%-14.9%], absolute difference: -1.1%; P = 0.015). When individual types of AE were assessed, the initiation of an intervention vs placebo resulted in small differences in absolute frequency of AE that were largely not statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: In clinical trials of GDMT for HFrEF, AEs are observed frequently. However, rates of AE are similar between active medication and control, suggesting these may reflect the high risk nature of the heart failure disease state rather than be attributive to a specific therapy.

AIMS: Although atrial fibrillation (AF) frequently coexists with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), few data are available evaluating AF-specific care patterns and post-discharge outcomes in patients hospitalized for HFpEF. We evaluated AF-specific medical therapies and post-discharge outcomes among patients hospitalized for heart failure with mildly reduced ejection fraction (HFmrEF) or HFpEF by AF history. METHODS AND RESULTS: Trends in AF prevalence were evaluated among patients hospitalized for HFmrEF or HFpEF in the Get With The Guidelines-Heart Failure Registry from 2014 to 2020. Among those with linked Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services post-discharge data, we assessed associations of AF with 12-month outcomes and determined trends in post-discharge prescriptions. Among 429 464 patients (median age 76 years [interquartile range 65-85], 57% women), 216 486 (50%) had a history of AF. Over time, the proportion of patients with AF increased slightly. Among the 79 895 patients with post-discharge data, AF was independently associated with higher risk of mortality and all-cause readmissions at 12 months, with stronger associations in HFpEF than in HFmrEF (mortality hazard ratio [HR] 1.13, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.09-1.16 vs. HR 1.03, 95% CI 0.97-1.10; pinteraction  = 0.009). Anti-arrhythmic drug use after heart failure hospitalization was low (18%) and increased modestly over time. Amiodarone accounted for 71% of total anti-arrhythmic drug prescriptions. Overall use of anticoagulants after heart failure hospitalization has significantly increased from 52% in 2014 to 61% in 2019, but remained modest. CONCLUSION: Prevalence of AF is rising among patients hospitalized with HFpEF. Those with comorbid AF face elevated post-discharge risks of death and rehospitalization. Current use of pharmacological rhythm control is low.

AimsTo describe clinical characteristics and outcomes for those with STEMI and reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs).Methods and resultsAdults presenting with STEMI to two government-owned tertiary care centres in Delhi, India were prospectively enrolled in the North India ST-elevation myocardial infarction (NORIN-STEMI) registry. LVEF was evaluated at presentation and clinical characteristics were compared across LVEF categories. Overall, 3597 patients were included, of whom 468 (13%) had LVEF >50%, 1482 (41%) had mildly reduced LVEF (40-49%), 1357 (38%) had moderately reduced LVEF (30-39%), and 290 (8%) had severely reduced LVEF (24 h, prior MI, and hyperlipidaemia were associated with decreasing LVEF category. Although most patients with reduced LVEF were discharged on appropriate guideline-directed therapies, adherence at 1 year was low (ACE inhibitor/ARB 91% to 41%, beta blocker 98% to 78%, aldosterone receptor antagonist 69% to 6%). After multivariable adjustment, a Cox regression model showed moderately reduced LVEF (HR 1.77, 95% CI 1.20, 2.60) and severely reduced LVEF (HR 3.63, 95% CI 2.41, 5.48) were associated with increased risk of all-cause mortality compared with LVEF ≥50%.ConclusionsOn presentation for STEMI, almost 90% of NORIN-STEMI participants had at least mildly reduced LVEF and almost half had LVEF

AimsRecent trials have evaluated sodium-glucose co-transporter 2 inhibitors in patients with heart failure (HF). We sought to assess the robustness of findings from these trials using the fragility index (FI).Methods and resultsFragility index is defined as the minimum number of patients that must be moved from the 'non-event' to the 'event' group to turn a statistically significant result to non-significant. In addition to FI, fragility quotient [(FQ); FI divided by the sample size] was calculated to assess the proportion of events that must be moved to change the significance. For statistically non-significant outcomes, reverse fragility index (RFI) and reverse fragility quotient (RFQ) were calculated. Robustness of findings after pooling data from all three trials was also assessed. A robust reduction in first HF hospitalization or cardiovascular mortality was seen with dapagliflozin (FI = 62 and FQ = 0.013), empagliflozin (FI = 50 and FQ = 0.013), and sotagliflozin (FI = 60 and FQ = 0.049). Dapagliflozin nominally improved all-cause and cardiovascular mortality, with modest FI (n = 8 and 5) and FQ (0.002 and 0.001). Empagliflozin and sotagliflozin did not demonstrate statistically significant reductions in all-cause mortality, with modest RFI (empagliflozin: RFI = 26 and RFQ = 0.007; sotagliflozin: RFI = 6 and RFQ = 0.005). A similar trend was seen with cardiovascular mortality (empagliflozin: RFI = 24 and RFQ = 0.006; sotagliflozin: RFI = 7 and RFQ = 0.006). Upon meta-analysis, the result for first HF hospitalization or cardiovascular mortality was robust (FI = 95 and FQ = 0.010). The reductions in all-cause (FI = 12 and FQ = 0.001) and cardiovascular mortality (FI = 9 and FQ = 0.001), while statistically significant, were fragile.ConclusionImprovement in the composite outcome of first HF hospitalization or cardiovascular death was highly concordant and robust across sodium-glucose co-transporter 2 inhibitor trials. In contrast, secondary endpoints of all-cause and cardiovascular mortality were statistically fragile, underscoring the need to power trials for mortality to fully understand the benefit of therapies on fatal events.

Sodium-glucose co-transporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors have recently been recommended as a foundational therapy for patients with heart failure (HF) and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) because of their favourable effects on mortality, clinical events and quality of life. While clinical practice guidelines have recommended dapagliflozin or empagliflozin in all patients with HFrEF, or sotagliflozin in those with HFrEF and concomitant diabetes, the timing and practical integration of these drugs in clinical practice is less well defined. We propose that these drugs are candidates for early, upfront administration to patients with newly diagnosed HFrEF and for patients hospitalized with HF. Growing evidence has established early benefits, with clinically meaningful reductions in clinical events that reach statistical significance within days to weeks, following dapagliflozin, empagliflozin or, in diabetic patients, sotagliflozin initiation. Secondly, although major clinical trials have tested these drugs in patients already receiving background HF therapy, secondary analyses showed that their efficacy is independent of that. Third, SGLT2 inhibitors are generally safe and well tolerated, with clinical trial data reporting minimal effects on blood pressure, glycaemia-related adverse events, and no excess in acute kidney injury. Rather, they exert renal protective effects and reduce risk of hyperkalaemia, properties that favour initiation, tolerance and persistence of renin-angiotensin system inhibitors and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists. This review supports the early initiation of dapagliflozin and empagliflozin (or sotagliflozin limited to patients with diabetes) to rapidly improve clinical outcome and quality of life of HFrEF patients.

Type 2 diabetes (T2D), chronic kidney disease (CKD), atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD), and heart failure (HF)-along with their associated risk factors-have overlapping etiologies, and two or more of these conditions frequently occur in the same patient. Many recent cardiovascular outcome trials (CVOTs) have demonstrated the benefits of agents originally developed to control T2D, ASCVD, or CKD risk factors, and these agents have transcended their primary indications to confer benefits across a range of conditions. This evolution in CVOT evidence calls for practice recommendations that are not constrained by a single discipline to help clinicians manage patients with complex conditions involving diabetes, cardiorenal, and/or metabolic (DCRM) diseases. The ultimate goal for these recommendations is to be comprehensive yet succinct and easy to follow by the nonexpert-whether a specialist or a primary care clinician. To meet this need, we formed a volunteer task force comprising leading cardiologists, nephrologists, endocrinologists, and primary care physicians to develop the DCRM Practice Recommendations, a multispecialty consensus on the comprehensive management of the patient with complicated metabolic disease. The task force recommendations are based on strong evidence and incorporate practical guidance that is clinically relevant and simple to implement, with the aim of improving outcomes in patients with DCRM. The recommendations are presented as 18 separate graphics covering lifestyle therapy, patient self-management education, technology for DCRM management, prediabetes, cognitive dysfunction, vaccinations, clinical tests, lipids, hypertension, anticoagulation and antiplatelet therapy, antihyperglycemic therapy, hypoglycemia, nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) and nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH), ASCVD, HF, CKD, and comorbid HF and CKD, as well as a graphical summary of medications used for DCRM.

With the current landscape of approved therapies for heart failure (HF), there is a need to determine the role of a standard background therapy against which novel therapies are studied. The Heart Failure Collaboratory convened a multistakeholder group of clinical investigators, clinicians, patients, government representatives including U.S. Food and Drug Administration and National Institutes of Health participants, payers, and industry in March 2021 to discuss whether standardization of background drug therapy is necessary in clinical trials in patients with HF. The current paper summarizes the discussion and provides potential conceptual approaches, with a focus on therapies indicated for HF with reduced ejection fraction.

AIMS: To evaluate the performance of the WATCH-DM risk score, a clinical risk score for heart failure (HF), in patients with dysglycaemia and in combination with natriuretic peptides (NPs). METHODS AND RESULTS: Adults with diabetes/pre-diabetes free of HF at baseline from four cohort studies (ARIC, CHS, FHS, and MESA) were included. The machine learning- [WATCH-DM(ml)] and integer-based [WATCH-DM(i)] scores were used to estimate the 5-year risk of incident HF. Discrimination was assessed by Harrells concordance index (C-index) and calibration by the Greenwood-Nam-DAgostino (GND) statistic. Improvement in model performance with the addition of NP levels was assessed by C-index and continuous net reclassification improvement (NRI). Of the 8938 participants included, 3554 (39.8%) had diabetes and 432 (4.8%) developed HF within 5 years. The WATCH-DM(ml) and WATCH-DM(i) scores demonstrated high discrimination for predicting HF risk among individuals with dysglycaemia (C-indices = 0.80 and 0.71, respectively), with no evidence of miscalibration (GND P ≥0.10). The C-index of elevated NP levels alone for predicting incident HF among individuals with dysglycaemia was significantly higher among participants with low/intermediate (

Sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitor therapy is well suited for initiation during the heart failure hospitalization, owing to clinical benefits that accrue rapidly within days to weeks, a strong safety and tolerability profile, minimal to no effects on blood pressure, and no excess risk of adverse kidney events. There is no evidence to suggest that deferring initiation to the outpatient setting accomplishes anything beneficial. Instead, there is compelling evidence that deferring in-hospital initiation exposes patients to excess risk of early postdischarge clinical worsening and death. Lessons from other heart failure with reduced ejection fraction therapies highlight that deferring initiation of guideline-recommended medications to the U.S. outpatient setting carries a >75% chance they will not be initiated within the next year. Recognizing that 1 in 4 patients hospitalized for worsening heart failure die or are readmitted within 30 days, clinicians should embrace the in-hospital period as an optimal time to initiate sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitor therapy and treat this population with the urgency it deserves.

BackgroundFew contemporary data exist evaluating care patterns and outcomes in heart failure (HF) across the spectrum of kidney function.ObjectivesThis study sought to characterize differences in quality of care and outcomes in patients hospitalized for HF by degree of kidney dysfunction.MethodsGuideline-directed medical therapies were evaluated among patients hospitalized with HF at 418 sites in the GWTG-HF (Get With The Guidelines-Heart Failure) registry from 2014 to 2019 by discharge CKD-EPI (Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration)-derived estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR). We additionally evaluated the risk-adjusted association of admission eGFR with in-hospital mortality.ResultsAmong 365,494 hospitalizations (age 72 ± 15 years, left ventricular ejection fraction [EF]: 43 ± 17%), median discharge eGFR was 51 ml/min/1.73 m2 (interquartile range: 34 to 72 ml/min/1.73 m2), 234,332 (64%) had eGFR

AimsThis study aimed to investigate the reporting of subgroup analyses in heart failure (HF) randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and to determine the strength and credibility of subgroup claims.Methods and resultsAll primary HF RCTs published in nine high-impact journals from 1 January 2008 to 31 December 2017 were included. Multivariable regression analysis was used to identify factors that may favour the reporting of results in specific subgroups. Strength of the subgroup effect claimed was classified into (i) strong, (ii) likely, or (iii) suggestive. Credibility of subgroup claim was scored using a pre-specified 10 pointer criteria. Of the 261 HF RCTs studied, 107 (41%) reported subgroup analyses. Twenty-five (23%) RCTs claimed a subgroup effect for the primary outcome of which six (24%) made a strong claim, eight (32%) claimed a likely effect, and 11 (44%) suggested a possible subgroup effect. Seven of the 25 RCTs did not employ interaction testing for subgroup claims of the primary outcome. Three out of 10 pre-specified credibility criteria were satisfied by half of the trials. Fourteen trials justified the choice of subgroups, and 10 explicitly stated they were underpowered to detect differences within subgroups. Source of funding did not influence the frequency of reporting subgroup analyses (OR 0.53, 95% CI 0.78-3.62, P = 0.52).ConclusionsAppropriate credibility criteria were rarely met even by HF RCTs that held strong subgroup claims. Subgroup analyses should be pre-specified, be adequately powered, present interaction terms, and be replicated in independent data before being integrated into clinical decision making.

BackgroundPostdischarge mortality following hospitalization for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) has remained high and unchanged over the past 2 decades, despite effective therapies for HFrEF. We aimed to explore whether these patterns could in part be explained by changes in longitudinal risk profile and HF severity over time.MethodsAmong patients hospitalized for HF in the GWTG-HF registry from January 2005 to December 2018 with available data, we evaluated GWTG-HF and ADHERE risk scores, observing in-hospital mortality per-year. The risk profiles and outcomes were described overall and by subgroups based on ejection fraction (EF), diabetes mellitus (DM), sex, and age.ResultsOverall, 335,735 patients were included (50% HFrEF, 46% DM, 48% female, mean age 74 years). In-hospital mortality increased by 2.0% per year from 2005 to 2018. There was no significant change in mean GWTG-HF risk score overall or when stratified by EF groups (P = 0.46 HFrEF, p = 0.26 HF mid-range EF [HFmrEF], and P = 0.72 HF preserved EF [HFpEF]), age, sex, or presence of DM. The observed/expected ratio based on the GWTG-HF risk score was 0.93 (0.91-0.96), 0.83 (0.77-0.90), 0.92 (0.89-95) for HFrEF, HFmrEF, and HFpEF, respectively. Similar findings were seen when risk was assessed using ADHERE risk score.ConclusionsThere were no significant changes in average risk profiles among hospitalized HF patients over the study duration. These data do not support the notion that worsening risk profile explains the lack of improved outcomes despite therapeutic advances, underscoring the importance of aggressive implementation of guideline-recommended therapies and investigation of novel treatments.