Health-Related Quality of Life Outcomes in PARADIGM-HF

The impact of pharmacist/physician care on quality of life in elderly heart failure patients: results of the PHARM-CHF randomized controlled trial

Aims

Patients with heart failure (HF) have impaired quality of life (QoL). The randomized controlled trial PHARM‐CHF investigated whether an interdisciplinary intervention consisting of regular contacts with the community pharmacy and weekly dosing aids improves medication adherence in patients with HF. It is unknown how an intervention involving frequent structured pharmacy visits affects QoL. Our aim was to explore adherence to the intervention and effects on QoL.

Methods and results

Among 237 patients, n = 110 were randomized to pharmacy care and n = 127 to usual care. The pharmacy care group received a medication review followed by (bi‐)weekly dose dispensing and counselling. The median follow‐up was 2.0 years [inter‐quartile range (IQR) 1.2–2.7]. Median interval between pharmacy visits was 8.4 days (IQR 8.0–10.3) and the visits lasted in median 14 min (IQR 10–15). Median adherence to the intervention was 96% (IQR 84–100). QoL at 365 days was predefined as a main secondary and at 730 days as another secondary endpoint in PHARM‐CHF. QoL was measured by the Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire; and for 111 patients (n = 47 in the pharmacy care group and n = 64 in the usual care group), data were available at baseline, and after 365 and 730 days (mean age 74 years; 41% female). Improvement in QoL was numerically higher in the pharmacy care group after 365 days and was significantly better after 730 days (difference in total scores −7.7 points [−14.5 to −1.0]; P = 0.026) compared to the usual care group. In all subgroups examined, this treatment effect was preserved. Improvements in the physical and emotional dimensions were numerically higher in the pharmacy care group after 365 days and were significantly better after 730 days: −4.0 points [−6.9 to −1.2]; P = 0.006, and −1.9 points [−3.7 to −0.1]; P = 0.039, respectively.

Conclusions

A pharmacy‐based interdisciplinary intervention was well received by the patients and suggests clinically important improvements in QoL.

Reappraisal on pharmacological and mechanical treatments of heart failure

Heart failure (HF) is a highly frequent disorder with considerable morbidity, hospitalization, and mortality; thus, it invariably places pressure on clinical and public health systems in the modern world. There have been notable advances in the definition, diagnosis, and treatment of HF, and newly developed agents and devices have been widely adopted in clinical practice. Here, this review first summarizes the current emerging therapeutic agents, including pharmacotherapy, device-based therapy, and the treatment of some common comorbidities, to improve the prognosis of HF patients. Then, we discuss and point out the commonalities and areas for improvement in current clinical studies of HF. Finally, we highlight the gaps in HF research. We are looking forward to a bright future with reduced morbidity and mortality from HF.

Transitional Care Interventions for Patients with Heart Failure: An Integrative Review

Heart failure (HF) is a life-limiting illness and presents as a gradual functional decline with intermittent episodes of acute deterioration and some recovery. In addition, HF often occurs in conjunction with other chronic diseases, resulting in complex comorbidities. Hospital readmissions for HF, including emergency department (ED) visits, are considered preventable. Majority of the patients with HF are often discharged early in the recovery period with inadequate self-care instructions. To address these issues, transitional care interventions have been implemented with the common objective of reducing the rate of hospital readmission, including ED visits. However, there is a lack of evidence regarding the benefits and adverse effects of transitional care interventions on clinical outcomes and patient-related outcomes of patients with HF. This integrative review aims to identify the components of transitional care interventions and the effectiveness of these interventions in improving health outcomes of patients with HF. Five databases were searched from January 2000 to December 2019, and 25 articles were included.

Health-related quality of life in patients with heart failure eligible for treatment with sacubitril-valsartan

Aim

To describe and compare self-reported health-related quality of life between younger and older patients with severe heart failure eligible for treatment with sacubitril-valsartan and to explore the association between health-related quality of life and age, NYHA classification, systolic blood pressure and NT-proBNP level.

Design

Cross-sectional study.

Methods

A total of 59 patients, eligible for treatment with sacubitril-valsartan were consecutively included and divided into a younger (≤75 years) and older group (>75 years). Health-related quality of life was assessed using the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire and the EuroQol 5-dimensions. Data were collected between June 2016 and January 2018. The STROBE checklist was used.

Results

There were no differences in overall health-related quality of life between the age groups. The older patients reported lower scores in two domains measured with the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire, namely self-efficacy (67.0 SD 22.1 vs. 78.8 SD 19.7) and physical limitation (75.6 SD 19.0 vs. 86.3 SD 14.4). Higher NYHA class was independently associated with lower Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire Overall Summary Score.

Sacubitril/Valsartan is useful and safe in elderly people with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction. Data from a real-word cohort

BACKGROUND

HF elderly patients are underrepresented in Sacubitril/Valsartan HF trials, and the effect of S/V in real-life patients with advanced age is unknown. The aim of this study was to evaluate the use and safety of S/V in a real-word cohort of elderly patients.

METHODS

We performed a prospective registry of patients who started S/V in clinical practice. We compared baseline characteristics, adverse events during follow-up and causes of S/V withdrawal according to age.

RESULTS

A total of 427 patients started treatment with S/V: 222 (52.0%)<70 years old, 140 (32.8%) between 70 and 79 and 65 (15.2%)≥80. During a mean follow-up of 7.0±0.1months S/V was well tolerated, with no age-related differences in adverse events (26.8%, 25.9%, 23.1% respectively; p=0.83). Symptomatic hypotension tended to be more frequent in the elderly (19.8%, 25.6%, 33.3% respectively; p=0.17). The withdrawal of S/V was more frequent in younger patients (14.4%, 10.0%, 4.6% respectively; p=0.05) and related to poor prognosis (HR 13.51, 95% CI 3.22-56.13, p<0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Sacubitril/Valsartan is useful and safe in elderly people with HF-rEF in real-life clinical practice, and withdrawal is associated to poor prognosis. The doses achieved are lower in elderly people.

Sacubitril/Valsartan: Updates and Clinical Evidence for a Disease-Modifying Approach

New therapeutic strategies aimed to tackle the rising socio-economic burden of heart failure (HF) have become an impelling priority. The new pharmacological class of angiotensin (Ang) receptor-neprilysin inhibitors (ARNI) prompted a real conceptual change in the treatment of HF moving from only the inhibition of the renin-Ang-aldosterone system and sympathetic nervous system to a strategy based on the concomitant pharmacological enhancement of endogenous natriuretic peptides. Sacubitril/valsartan, a first-in-class ARNI, has reduced the primary composite endpoint of cardiovascular death or HF hospitalisation, sudden cardiac death, disease progression and improved quality of life, compared with enalapril, in patients on evidence-based contemporary medical therapy. Our review underlines the increasing body of evidence supporting the efficacy of sacubitril/valsartan, which may be considered a new disease-modifying therapy and, after about 30 years of research, a real step forward in HF pharmacological therapy.

Study protocol of coaching end-of-life palliative care for advanced heart failure patients and their family caregivers in rural appalachia: a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Heart failure (HF) afflicts 6.5 million Americans with devastating consequences to patients and their family caregivers. Families are rarely prepared for worsening HF and are not informed about end-of-life and palliative care (EOLPC) conservative comfort options especially during the end stage. West Virginia (WV) has the highest rate of HF deaths in the U.S. where 14% of the population over 65 years have HF. Thus, there is a need to investigate a new family EOLPC intervention (FamPALcare), where nurses coach family-managed advanced HF care at home.

METHODS

This study uses a randomized controlled trial (RCT) design stratified by gender to determine any differences in the FamPALcare HF patients and their family caregiver outcomes versus standard care group outcomes (N = 72). Aim 1 is to test the FamPALcare nursing care intervention with patients and family members managing home supportive EOLPC for advanced HF. Aim 2 is to assess implementation of the FamPALcare intervention and research procedures for subsequent clinical trials. Intervention group will receive routine standard care, plus 5-weekly FamPALcare intervention delivered by community-based nurses. The intervention sessions involve coaching patients and family caregivers in advanced HF home care and supporting EOLPC discussions based on patients' preferences. Data are collected at baseline, 3, and 6 months. Recruitment is from sites affiliated with a large regional hospital in WV and community centers across the state.

DISCUSSION

The outcomes of this clinical trial will result in new knowledge on coaching techniques for EOLPC and approaches to palliative and end-of-life rural home care. The HF population in WV will benefit from a reduction in suffering from the most common advanced HF symptoms, selecting their preferred EOLPC care options, determining their advance directives, and increasing skills and resources for advanced HF home care. The study will provide a long-term collaboration with rural community leaders, and collection of data on the implementation and research procedures for a subsequent large multi-site clinical trial of the FamPALcare intervention. Multidisciplinary students have opportunity to engage in the research process.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04153890, Registered on 4 November 2019.

Effects of Dapagliflozin on Symptoms, Function, and Quality of Life in Patients With Heart Failure and Reduced Ejection Fraction: Results From the DAPA-HF Trial

Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text.

Background:

Goals of management in patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction include reducing death and hospitalizations, and improving health status (symptoms, physical function, and quality of life). In the DAPA-HF trial (Dapagliflozin and Prevention of Adverse-Outcomes in Heart Failure), sodium–glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitor, dapagliflozin, reduced death and hospitalizations, and improved symptoms in patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction. In this analysis, we examine the effects of dapagliflozin on a broad range of health status outcomes, using the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ).

Methods:

KCCQ was evaluated at randomization, 4 and 8 months. Patients were divided by baseline KCCQ total symptom score (TSS); Cox proportional hazards models examined the effects of dapagliflozin on clinical events across these subgroups. We also evaluated the effects of dapagliflozin on KCCQ-TSS, clinical summary score, and overall summary score. Responder analyses were performed to compare proportions of dapagliflozin versus placebo-treated patients with clinically meaningful changes in KCCQ at 8 months.

Results:

A total of 4443 patients had available KCCQ at baseline (median KCCQ-TSS, 77.1 [interquartile range, 58.3–91.7]). The effects of dapagliflozin vs placebo on reducing cardiovascular death or worsening heart failure were consistent across the range of KCCQ-TSS (lowest to highest tertile: hazard ratio, 0.70 [95% CI, 0.57–0.86]; hazard ratio, 0.77 [95% CI, 0.61–0.98]; hazard ratio, 0.62 [95% CI, 0.46–0.83]; P for heterogeneity=0.52). Patients treated with dapagliflozin had greater improvement in mean KCCQ-TSS, clinical summary score, and overall summary score at 8 months (2.8, 2.5 and 2.3 points higher versus placebo; P<0.0001 for all). Fewer patients treated with dapagliflozin had a deterioration in KCCQ-TSS (odds ratio, 0.84 [95% CI, 0.78–0.90]; P<0.0001); and more patients had at least small, moderate, and large improvements (odds ratio, 1.15 [95% CI, 1.08–1.23]; odds ratio, 1.15 [95% CI, 1.08–1.22]; odds ratio, 1.14 [95% CI, 1.07–1.22]; number needed to treat=14, 15, and 18, respectively; P<0.0001 for all; results consistent for KCCQ clinical summary score and overall summary score).

Conclusions:

Dapagliflozin reduced cardiovascular death and worsening heart failure across the range of baseline KCCQ, and improved symptoms, physical function, and quality of life in patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction. Furthermore, dapagliflozin increased the proportion of patients experiencing at least small, moderate, and large improvements in health status; these effects were clinically important.

Clinical Trial Registration:

URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT03036124.

Activity Sensors to Evaluate the Effect of Sacubitril/Valsartan on Quality-of-Life in Heart Failure: rational and design of the AWAKE-HF study

Aims

Limited data are available regarding the ability of sacubitril/valsartan to provide clinically meaningful health‐related quality of life (HRQoL) improvements among individuals with heart failure (HF). Objective measurement of physical activity and sleep using actigraphy can provide insight into daily functioning and HRQoL.

Methods and results

We designed an 18 week, multicenter, randomized, double‐blind, double‐dummy, parallel‐group study to objectively assess changes in function and HRQoL directly after initiating sacubitril/valsartan vs. enalapril in participants with HF in their home environments. A total of 136 outpatient, ambulatory participants with New York Heart Association Class II or III HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) will be included in the study. Patients will undergo a 2 week baseline observational phase (continuing current HF treatment); data from the second week of this phase will be the baseline value for comparison with those of subsequent periods. Patients will then enter an 8 week blinded‐treatment phase (randomly assigned 1:1 to sacubitril/valsartan or enalapril), followed by an 8 week open‐label extension phase (treatment with only sacubitril/valsartan). The primary efficacy endpoint is the change in mean activity counts during the most active 30 min of the participant's day between baseline and the final randomized treatment phase measurement. Secondary endpoints include the change in mean sleep activity during the randomized and open‐label phases; questionnaires will also assess HRQoL measures. Rather than analysing pooled actigraphy data, the researchers are considering each participant to be acting as his or her own control.

Conclusions

This will be the first study to assess the effects of sacubitril/valsartan on objective measures of sleep and activity in individuals with HFrEF within the context of their daily lives. Wearable accelerometer devices will be used to gain insight into how the medication affects physical activity and sleep.

Prognostic Implications of Congestion on Physical Examination Among Contemporary Patients With Heart Failure and Reduced Ejection Fraction

Background:

The contemporary prognostic value of the physical examination— beyond traditional risk factors including natriuretic peptides, risk scores, and symptoms—in heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction is unknown. We aimed to determine the association between physical signs of congestion at baseline and during study follow-up with quality of life and clinical outcomes and to assess the treatment effects of sacubitril/valsartan on congestion.

Methods:

We analyzed participants from PARADIGM-HF (Prospective Comparison of Angiotensin Receptor-Neprilysin Inhibitor With Angiotensin Converting Enzyme Inhibitor to Determine Impact on Global Mortality and Morbidity in HF) with an available physical examination at baseline. We examined the association of the number of signs of congestion (jugular venous distention, edema, rales, and third heart sound) with the primary outcome (cardiovascular death or HF hospitalization), its individual components, and all-cause mortality using time-updated, multivariable-adjusted Cox regression. We further evaluated whether sacubitril/valsartan reduced congestion during follow-up and whether improvement in congestion is related to changes in clinical outcomes and quality of life, assessed by Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire overall summary scores.

Results:

Among 8380 participants, 0, 1, 2, and 3+ signs of congestion were present in 70%, 21%, 7%, and 2% of patients, respectively. Patients with baseline congestion were older, more often female, had higher MAGGIC risk scores (Meta-Analysis Global Group in Chronic Heart Failure) and lower Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire overall summary scores ( P <0.05). After adjusting for baseline natriuretic peptides, time-updated Meta-Analysis Global Group in Chronic Heart Failure score, and time-updated New York Heart Association class, increasing time-updated congestion was associated with all outcomes ( P <0.001). Sacubitril/valsartan reduced the risk of the primary outcome irrespective of clinical signs of congestion at baseline ( P =0.16 for interaction), and treatment with the drug improved congestion to a greater extent than did enalapril ( P =0.011). Each 1-sign reduction was independently associated with a 5.1 (95% CI, 4.7–5.5) point improvement in Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire overall summary scores. Change in congestion strongly predicted outcomes even after adjusting for baseline congestion ( P <0.001).

Conclusions:

In HF with reduced ejection fraction, the physical exam continues to provide significant independent prognostic value even beyond symptoms, natriuretic peptides, and Meta-Analysis Global Group in Chronic Heart Failure risk score. Sacubitril/valsartan improved congestion to a greater extent than did enalapril. Reducing congestion in the outpatient setting is independently associated with improved quality of life and reduced cardiovascular events, including mortality.

Clinical Trial Registration:

https://www.clinicaltrials.gov . Unique identifier: NCT01035255.

Effects of sacubitril/valsartan on functional status and exercise capacity in real-world patients

Background: Sacubitril/valsartan significantly reduced heart failure(HF) hospitalisations and mortality in the PARADIGM-HF-trial. However real-world data on symptomatic and functional improvement are lacking. Methods: Between December 2016 and January 2018, we retrospectively collected baseline and follow-up data including New York Heart Association (NYHA)-functional class and Cardio-pulmonary exercise data(CPET) in all HF-patients receiving sacubitril/valsartan. Additionally, in patients with an implantable electric cardiovascular device (IECD) enrolled in remote telemonitoring, we quantified patient level activity before and after initiation. Results: A total of 201 patients (82% males) were identified. NYHA-functional class was reassessed after an average of 221 ± 114 days. Overall, 3.3% of patients improved 2 NYHA classes, 28.7% improved 1 NYHA class, 64% remained stable and 4% deteriorated 1 NYHA class. Patients with symptomatic improvement exhibited a larger reduction in Left Ventricular End Systolic Volume(LVESV) and a larger increase in Left Ventricular Ejection Fraction(LVEF[p-value both <.05]). In total, 110 patients (55%) were equipped with an IECD capable of quantifying outpatient activity-level. On an average of 364 days before sacubitril/valsartan, an activity expressed as %-of-the-day was 13 ± 2%, vs. 18 ± 3% the 364 days following sacubitril/valsartan initiation. Signifying a 38% improvement in the out-patient activity level. CPET-data was obtained in paired-fashion in 45 patients (22%). VO_2max at baseline (14.7 ± 3.8 mL/kg/min) did not significantly change at follow-up (14.1 ± 4.7 mL/min/kg; p = .237). Conclusion: Real-world patients exhibit significant symptomatic and functional improvement following the initiation of sacubitril/valsartan. However, larger prospective studies are necessary to assess the impact of sacubitril/valsartan on indices of maximal exercise performance measured during CPET.

Effects of Sacubitril/Valsartan on Physical and Social Activity Limitations in Patients With Heart Failure: A Secondary Analysis of the PARADIGM-HF Trial

Importance

Health-related quality of life (HRQL) of patients with heart failure is markedly reduced compared with that in patients with other chronic diseases, demonstrating substantial limitations in physical and social activities. In the Prospective Comparison of ARNI With an ACE-Inhibitor to Determine Impact on Global Mortality and Morbidity in Heart Failure (PARADIGM-HF) trial, sacubitril/valsartan improved overall HRQL compared with enalapril, as determined by the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ).

Objective

To examine the effects of sacubitril/valsartan on physical and social activities.

Design, Setting, and Participants

The PARADIGM-HF trial was a randomized, double-blind, active treatment-controlled clinical trial performed from December 8, 2009, to March 31, 2014, in 8399 patients with New York Heart Association class II to IV disease and a left ventricular ejection fraction of 40% or less at 1043 centers in 38 countries. Data analysis was performed from August 1, 2017, to December 25, 2017.

Interventions

Sacubitril/valsartan, 200 mg twice daily, or enalapril, 10 mg twice daily.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Patients completed HRQL assessments using the KCCQ at randomization, 4-month, 8-month, and annual visits. The effect of sacubitril/valsartan on components of the physical and social limitation sections of the KCCQ at 8 months and longitudinally and related biomarkers and clinical outcomes were studied.

Results

At baseline, 7618 of 8399 patients (90.7%) (mean [SD] age, 64 [11] years; 5987 [78.6%] male and 1631 [21.4%] female) completed the initial KCCQ assessment. Patients reported the greatest limitations at baseline in jogging and sexual relationships. Patients receiving sacubitril/valsartan had significantly better adjusted change scores in most physical and social activities at 8 months and during 36 months compared with those receiving enalapril. The largest improvement over enalapril was in household chores (adjusted change score difference, 2.35; 95% CI, 1.19-3.50; P < .001) and sexual relationships (adjusted change score difference, 2.72; 95% CI, 0.97-4.46; P = .002); both persisted through 36 months (overall change score difference, 1.69 [95% CI, 0.78-2.60], P < .001; and 2.36 [95% CI, 1.01-3.71], P = .001, respectively).

Conclusions and Relevance

In patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, sacubitril/valsartan significantly improved nearly all KCCQ physical and social activities compared with enalapril, with the largest responses in household chores and sexual relationships. In addition to reduced likelihood of cardiovascular death, all-cause mortality, and heart failure hospitalization, sacubitril/valsartan may improve limitations in common activities in these patients.

Trial Registration

clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01035255.

Interaction Between Sacubitril and Valsartan in Preventing Heart Failure Induced by Aortic Valve Insufficiency in Rats

BACKGROUND

Synergistic interactions between neprilysin inhibition (NEPi) with sacubitril and angiotensin receptor type1 blockade (ARB) with valsartan have been implicated in improvement of left ventricular (LV) contractility, relaxation, exercise tolerance, and fibrosis in preexisting heart failure (HF) induced by aortic valve insufficiency (AVI). It is not known whether this pharmacologic synergy can prevent cardiovascular pathology in a similar AVI model. Our aim was to investigate the pharmacology of sacubitril/valsartan in an experimental setting with therapy beginning immediately after creation of AVI.

METHODS

HF was induced through partial disruption of the aortic valve in rats. Therapy began 3 hours after valve disruption and lasted 8 weeks. Sacubitril/valsartan (68 mg/kg), valsartan (31 mg/kg), sacubitril (31 mg/kg), or vehicle were administered daily via oral gavage (N=8 in each group). Hemodynamic assessments were conducted using Millar technology, and an exercise tolerance test was conducted using a rodent treadmill.

RESULTS

Only sacubitril/valsartan increased total arterial compliance and ejection fraction (EF). Therapies with sacubitril/valsartan and valsartan similarly improved load-dependent (dP/dt_max) and load independent indices (Ees) of LV contractility, and exercise tolerance, whereas sacubitril did not. None of the therapies improved LV relaxation (dP/dt_min), whereas all reduced myocardial fibrosis.

CONCLUSIONS

1) The synergistic interaction between NEPi and ARB in early therapy with sacubitril/valsartan leads to increased total arterial compliance and EF. 2) Improvement in indices of LV contractility, and exercise tolerance with sacubitril/valsartan is likely because of ARB effect of valsartan. 3) All three therapies provided antifibrotic effects, suggesting both ARB and NEPi are capable of reducing myocardial fibrosis.

Effect of Sacubitril-Valsartan vs Enalapril on Aortic Stiffness in Patients With Heart Failure and Reduced Ejection Fraction: A Randomized Clinical Trial

IMPORTANCE

Compared with enalapril, sacubitril-valsartan reduces cardiovascular mortality and heart failure hospitalization in patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). These benefits may be related to effects on hemodynamics and cardiac remodeling.

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether treatment of HFrEF with sacubitril-valsartan improves central aortic stiffness and cardiac remodeling compared with enalapril.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

Randomized, double-blind clinical trial of 464 participants with heart failure and ejection fraction of 40% or less enrolled across 85 US sites between August 17, 2016, and June 28, 2018. Follow-up was completed on January 26, 2019.

INTERVENTIONS

Randomization (1:1) to sacubitril-valsartan (n = 231; target dosage, 97/103 mg twice daily) vs enalapril (n = 233; target dosage, 10 mg twice daily) for 12 weeks.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The primary outcome was change from baseline to week 12 in aortic characteristic impedance (Zc), a measure of central aortic stiffness. Prespecified secondary outcomes included change from baseline to week 12 in N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide, ejection fraction, global longitudinal strain, mitral annular relaxation velocity, mitral E/e' ratio, left ventricular end-systolic and end-diastolic volume indexes (LVESVI and LVEDVI), left atrial volume index, and ventricular-vascular coupling ratio.

RESULTS

Of 464 validly randomized participants (mean age, 67.3 [SD, 9.1] years; 23.5% women), 427 completed the study. At 12 weeks, Zc decreased from 223.8 to 218.9 dyne × s/cm5 in the sacubitril-valsartan group and increased from 213.2 to 214.4 dyne × s/cm5 in the enalapril group (treatment difference, -2.2 [95% CI, -17.6 to 13.2] dyne × s/cm5; P = .78). Of 9 prespecified secondary end points, no significant between-group difference in change from baseline was seen in 4, including left ventricular ejection fraction (34%-36% with sacubitril-valsartan vs 33 to 35% with enalapril; treatment difference, 0.6% [95% CI, -0.4% to 1.7%]; P = .24). However, greater reductions from baseline were seen with sacubitril-valsartan than with enalapril in all others, including left atrial volume (from 30.4 mL/m2 to 28.2 mL/m2 vs from 29.8 mL/m2 to 30.5 mL/m2; treatment difference, -2.8 mL/m2 [95% CI, -4.0 to -1.6 mL/m2]; P < .001), LVEDVI (from 75.1 mL/m2 to 70.3 mL/m2 vs from 79.1 mL/m2 to 75.6 mL/m2; treatment difference, -2.0 mL/m2 [95% CI, -3.7 to 0.3 mL/m2]; P = .02), LVESVI (from 50.8 mL/m2 to 46.3 mL/m2 vs from 54.1 to 50.6 mL/m2; treatment difference, -1.6 mL/m2 [95% CI, -3.1 to -0.03 mL/m2]; P = .045), and mitral E/e' ratio (from 13.8 to 12.3 vs from 13.4 to 13.8; treatment difference, -1.8 [95% CI, -2.8 to -0.8]; P = .001). Rates of adverse events including hypotension (1.7% vs 3.9%) were similar in both groups.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Treatment of HFrEF with sacubitril-valsartan, compared with enalapril, did not significantly reduce central aortic stiffness. The study findings may provide insight into mechanisms underlying the effects of sacubitril-valsartan in HFrEF.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02874794.

Dapagliflozin Effects on Biomarkers, Symptoms, and Functional Status in Patients With Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction: The DEFINE-HF Trial

BACKGROUND

Outcome trials in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus have demonstrated reduced hospitalizations for heart failure (HF) with sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 inhibitors. However, few of these patients had HF, and those that did were not well-characterized. Thus, the effects of sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 inhibitors in patients with established HF with reduced ejection fraction, including those with and without type 2 diabetes mellitus, remain unknown.

METHODS

DEFINE-HF (Dapagliflozin Effects on Biomarkers, Symptoms and Functional Status in Patients with HF with Reduced Ejection Fraction) was an investigator-initiated, multi-center, randomized controlled trial of HF patients with left ventricular ejection fraction ≤40%, New York Heart Association (NYHA) class II-III, estimated glomerular filtration rate ≥30 mL/min/1.73m², and elevated natriuretic peptides. In total, 263 patients were randomized to dapagliflozin 10 mg daily or placebo for 12 weeks. Dual primary outcomes were (1) mean NT-proBNP (N-terminal pro b-type natriuretic peptide) and (2) proportion of patients with ≥5-point increase in HF disease-specific health status on the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire overall summary score, or a ≥20% decrease in NT-proBNP.

RESULTS

Patient characteristics reflected stable, chronic HF with reduced ejection fraction with high use of optimal medical therapy. There was no significant difference in average 6- and 12-week adjusted NT-proBNP with dapagliflozin versus placebo (1133 pg/dL (95% CI 1036-1238) vs 1191 pg/dL (95% CI 1089-1304), P=0.43). For the second dual-primary outcome of a meaningful improvement in Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire overall summary score or NT-proBNP, 61.5% of dapagliflozin-treated patients met this end point versus 50.4% with placebo (adjusted OR 1.8, 95% CI 1.03-3.06, nominal P=0.039). This was attributable to both higher proportions of patients with ≥5-point improvement in Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire overall summary score (42.9 vs 32.5%, adjusted OR 1.73, 95% CI 0.98-3.05), and ≥20% reduction in NT-proBNP (44.0 vs 29.4%, adjusted OR 1.9, 95% CI 1.1-3.3) by 12 weeks. Results were consistent among patients with or without type 2 diabetes mellitus, and other prespecified subgroups (all P values for interaction=NS).

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction, use of dapagliflozin over 12 weeks did not affect mean NT-proBNP but increased the proportion of patients experiencing clinically meaningful improvements in HF-related health status or natriuretic peptides. Benefits of dapagliflozin on clinically meaningful HF measures appear to extend to patients without type 2 diabetes mellitus.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT02653482.

Association Between Sacubitril/Valsartan Initiation and Health Status Outcomes in Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction

OBJECTIVES

This study sought to describe the short-term health status benefits of angiotensin-neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI) therapy in patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF).

BACKGROUND

Although therapy with sacubitril/valsartan, a neprilysin inhibitor, improved patients' health status (compared with enalapril) at 8 months in the PARADIGM-HF (Prospective Comparison of ARNI with ACE inhibitor to Determine Impact on Global Mortality and Morbidity in Heart Failure) study, the early impact of ARNI on patients' symptoms, functions, and quality of life is unknown.

METHODS

Health status was assessed by using the 12-item Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ) in 3,918 outpatients with HFrEF and left ventricular ejection fraction ≤40% across 140 U.S. centers in the CHAMP-HF (Change the Management of Patients with Heart Failure) registry. ARNI therapy was initiated in 508 patients who were matched 1:2 to 1,016 patients who were not initiated on ARNI (no-ARNI), using a nonparsimonious time-dependent propensity score (6 sociodemographic factors, 23 clinical characteristics), prior KCCQ overall summary (KCCQ-OS) score, and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor/angiotensin receptor blocker status.

RESULTS

Multivariate linear regression demonstrated a greater mean improvement in KCCQ-OS in patients initiated on ARNI therapy (5.3 ± 19 vs. 2.5 ± 17.4, respectively; p < 0.001) over a median (interquartile range [IQR]) of 57 (32 to 104) days. The proportions of ARNI versus no-ARNI groups with ≥10-point (large) and ≥20-point (very large) improvements in KCCQ-OS were 32.7% versus 26.9%, respectively, and 20.5% versus 12.1%, respectively, consistent with numbers needed to treat of 18 and 12, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

In routine clinical care, ARNI therapy was associated with early improvements in health status, with 20% experiencing a very large health status benefit compared with 12% who were not started on ARNI therapy. These findings support the use of ARNI to improve patients' symptoms, functions, and quality of life.

Evolution of functional class, biochemical and echocardiographic parameters and clinical outcomes after sacubitril/valsartan initiation in daily practice

Aim: To analyze the impact of sacubitril/valsartan on functional class, surrogate parameters and clinical outcomes in clinical practice. Methods: Retrospective study of patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction that started treatment with sacubitril/valsartan. Results: 149 patients (70.7 ± 9.6 years) were included. At baseline, 83.9, 15.4 and 0.7% were taking sacubitril/valsartan 24/26, 49/51 and 97/103 mg, respectively. After 316.1 ± 155.9 days, these numbers moved to 38.9, 39.6, 12.8% (8.7% discontinued). Sacubitril/valsartan improved functional class (from 2.3 ± 0.6 to 1.8 ± 0.5; p < 0.001), increased ejection fraction (from 31.2 ± 7.0 to 37.3 ± 10.5%; p < 0.001) and reduced NT-proBNP (from 3884 ± 4871 to 1975.3 ± 3006.6 pg/ml; p = 0.0001). Rates of any event, cardiovascular death and heart failure hospitalization/decompensation were 13.2 events/100 patient-years. Conclusion: Sacubitril/valsartan is effective and safe in routine practice.

A trial to evaluate the effect of the sodium-glucose co-transporter 2 inhibitor dapagliflozin on morbidity and mortality in patients with heart failure and reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (DAPA-HF)

BACKGROUND

Sodium-glucose co-transporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors have been shown to reduce the risk of incident heart failure hospitalization in individuals with type 2 diabetes who have, or are at high risk of, cardiovascular disease. Most patients in these trials did not have heart failure at baseline and the effect of SGLT2 inhibitors on outcomes in individuals with established heart failure (with or without diabetes) is unknown.

DESIGN AND METHODS

The Dapagliflozin And Prevention of Adverse-outcomes in Heart Failure trial (DAPA-HF) is an international, multicentre, parallel group, randomized, double-blind, study in patients with chronic heart failure, evaluating the effect of dapagliflozin 10 mg, compared with placebo, given once daily, in addition to standard care, on the primary composite outcome of a worsening heart failure event (hospitalization or equivalent event, i.e. an urgent heart failure visit) or cardiovascular death. Patients with and without diabetes are eligible and must have a left ventricular ejection fraction ≤ 40%, a moderately elevated N-terminal pro B-type natriuretic peptide level, and an estimated glomerular filtration rate ≥ 30 mL/min/1.73 m2 . The trial is event-driven, with a target of 844 primary outcomes. Secondary outcomes include the composite of total heart failure hospitalizations (including repeat episodes), and cardiovascular death and patient-reported outcomes. A total of 4744 patients have been randomized.

CONCLUSIONS

DAPA-HF will determine the efficacy and safety of the SGLT2 inhibitor dapagliflozin, added to conventional therapy, in a broad spectrum of patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction.

Practical guidance on the use of sacubitril/valsartan for heart failure

Sacubitril/valsartan is a first-in-class angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI) that has been recommended in clinical practice guidelines to reduce morbidity and mortality in patients with chronic, symptomatic heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). This review provides an overview of ARNI therapy, proposes strategies to improve the implementation of sacubitril/valsartan in clinical practice, and provides clinicians with evidence-based, practical guidance on the use of sacubitril/valsartan in patients with HFrEF. Despite evidence demonstrating the benefits of ARNI therapy over standard of care, only a fraction of eligible patients takes sacubitril/valsartan. Barriers preventing the prescription of sacubitril/valsartan in eligible patients may include practitioners' unfamiliarity with ARNIs, safety concerns, and payer reimbursement issues. The optimal implementation of sacubitril/valsartan in clinical practice has the potential to reduce the overall burden of HF. Throughout this review, we describe our experience with sacubitril/valsartan, including strategies for the management of adverse events and common patient concerns. In addition, a strategy for the gradual introduction of sacubitril/valsartan using a treatment sequence scheme is proposed.

Reduced loop diuretic use in patients taking sacubitril/valsartan compared with enalapril: the PARADIGM-HF trial

Aims

To assess differences in diuretic dose requirements in patients treated with sacubitril/valsartan compared with enalapril in the Prospective comparison of ARNI with ACEI to Determine Impact on Global Mortality and morbidity in Heart Failure (PARADIGM‐HF) trial.

Methods and results

Overall, 8399 patients with New York Heart Association class II–IV heart failure and reduced LVEF were randomized to sacubitril/valsartan 200 mg bid or enalapril 10 mg twice daily. Loop diuretic doses were assessed at baseline, 6, 12, and 24 months, and furosemide dose equivalents were calculated via multiplication factors (2x for torsemide and 40x for bumetanide). Percentages of participants with reductions or increases in loop diuretic dose were determined. At baseline, 80.8% of participants were taking any diuretics (n = 6290 for loop diuretics, n = 496 for other diuretics); of those, recorded dosage data for loop diuretics were available on 5487 participants. Mean baseline furosemide equivalent doses were 48.2 mg for sacubitril/valsartan and 49.6 mg for enalapril (P = 0.25). Patients treated with sacubitril/valsartan were more likely to reduce diuretic dose and less likely to increase diuretic dose relative to those randomized to enalapril at 6, 12, 24 months post‐randomization, with an overall decreased diuretic use of 2.0% (P = 0.02), 4.1% (P < 0.001), and 6.1% (P < 0.001) at 6, 12, and 24 months, respectively, with similar findings in an on‐treatment analysis.

Conclusion

Treatment with sacubitril/valsartan was associated with more loop diuretic dose reductions and fewer dose increases compared with enalapril, suggesting that treatment with sacubitril/valsartan may reduce the requirement for loop diuretics relative to enalapril in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction.

Synergy between sacubitril and valsartan leads to hemodynamic, antifibrotic, and exercise tolerance benefits in rats with preexisting heart failure

Simultaneous neprilysin inhibition (NEPi) and angiotensin receptor blockade (ARB) with sacubitril/valsartan improves cardiac function and exercise tolerance in patients with heart failure. However, it is not known whether these therapeutic benefits are primarily due to NEPi with sacubitril or ARB with valsartan or their combination. Therefore, the aim of the present study was to investigate the potential contribution of sacubitril and valsartan to the benefits of the combination therapy on left ventricular (LV) function and exercise tolerance. Heart failure was induced by volume overload via partial disruption of the aortic valve in rats. Therapy began 4 wk after valve disruption and lasted through 8 wk. Drugs were administered daily via oral gavage [sacubitril/valsartan (68 mg/kg), valsartan (31 mg/kg), and sacubitril (31 mg/kg)]. Hemodynamic assessments were conducted using Millar technology, and an exercise tolerance test was conducted using a rodent treadmill. Therapy with sacubitril/valsartan improved load-dependent indexes of LV contractility (dP/d t_max) and relaxation (dP/d t_min), exercise tolerance, and mitigated myocardial fibrosis, whereas monotherapies with valsartan, or sacubitril did not. Both sacubitril/valsartan and valsartan similarly improved a load-independent index of contractility [slope of the end-systolic pressure-volume relationship ( E_es)]. Sacubitril did not improve E_es. First, synergy of NEPi with sacubitril and ARB with valsartan leads to the improvement of load-dependent LV contractility and relaxation, exercise tolerance, and reduction of myocardial collagen content. Second, the improvement in load-independent LV contractility with sacubitril/valsartan appears to be solely due to ARB with valsartan constituent. NEW & NOTEWORTHY Our data suggest the following explanation for the effects of sacubitril/valsartan: 1) synergy of sacubitril and valsartan leads to the improvement of load-dependent left ventricular contractility and relaxation, exercise tolerance, and reduction of myocardial fibrosis and 2) improvement in load-independent left ventricular contractility is solely due to the valsartan constituent. The findings offer a better understanding of the outcomes observed in clinical studies and might facilitate the continuing development of the next generations of angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitors.

A Novel Paradigm for Sacubitril/Valsartan: Beta-Endorphin Elevation as a Contributor to Exercise Tolerance Improvement in Rats With Preexisting Heart Failure Induced by Pressure Overload

BACKGROUND

Simultaneous angiotensin receptor (AT1) blockade and neprilysin inhibition with the use of sacubitril/valsartan has been recently approved to treat patients with heart failure (HF). Therapeutic benefits of this therapy have been attributed to natriuretic peptide elevation and AT1 receptor blockade. However, that pharmacologic picture may not be complete. The aims of this study were to investigate the pharmacology of sacubitril/valsartan compared with sacubitril and valsartan alone and to examine their impact on peptides up-regulated by neprilysin inhibition, such as beta-endorphin.

METHODS AND RESULTS

An HF model was induced by pressure overload via constriction of the suprarenal abdominal aorta in rats. Sacubitril/valsartan (68 mg/kg), valsartan (31 mg/kg), sacubitril (31 mg/kg), or placebo was administered by daily oral gavage (starting 4 weeks after pressure overload onset and continued for 4 additional weeks; n = 8 in each group). Exercise tolerance testing was conducted using a rodent treadmill and hemodynamic assessments were conducted under anesthesia with the use of Millar left ventricular (LV) conductance technology. Pressure overload led to exercise intolerance by 4 weeks and to hypertension and LV dysfunction and remodeling by 8 weeks. Both sacubitril/valsartan and sacubitril elevated beta-endorphin levels, by 40% and 54%, respectively, and improved exercise tolerance, by 93% and 112%, whereas valsartan did not. Indices of LV dysfunction persisted with the use of sacubitril/valsartan and valsartan therapies and even deteriorated in sacubitril group.

CONCLUSIONS

When added to valsartan, sacubitril increases beta-endorphin concentrations and improves exercise tolerance. These data suggest beta-endorphin elevation as a potential mechanism of action leading to improvement in exercise tolerance that is seen with sacubitril/valsartan. This therapeutic benefit is potentially independent from LV function.

Sacubitril/Valsartan: From Clinical Trials to Real-world Experience

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Compared to enalapril, use of angiotensin-receptor blocker and neprilysin inhibitor sacubitril/valsartan to treat patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) is associated with substantial reductions in both cardiovascular mortality and heart failure progression. The purpose of this review is to discuss the real-world experience of sacubitril/valsartan.

RECENT FINDINGS

In the years following the publication of the landmark PARADIGM-HF trial in 2014 and its subsequent FDA approval, a growing evidence base supports the safety and efficacy of sacubitril/valsartan in a broad spectrum of patients with HFrEF. Updated clinical practice guidelines have embraced the use of sacubitril/valsartan in preference to ACE inhibitors or ARBs in selected patients. In this review, we highlight the clinical trials that led to these key updates to clinical guidelines, offer practical strategies for patient selection and utilization in clinical practice, and identify important areas of uncertainty that require future research.

The role of angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitors in cardiovascular disease-existing evidence, knowledge gaps, and future directions

Although traditional renin-angiotensin system antagonists including angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers have revolutionized the treatment of cardiovascular disease (CVD), the pivotal PARADIGM-HF trial demonstrated that sacubitril/valsartan, an angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI), was superior to an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor in reducing cardiovascular morbidity and mortality in patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction. However, despite international regulatory approval and strong recommendations in the guidelines, uptake of sacubitril/valsartan has been disappointing. Sacubitril/valsartan is now the focus of a large programme of clinical trials testing the hypothesis that ARNIs may supplant conventional renin-angiotensin system inhibitors across the spectrum of CVD, including hypertension, secondary prevention after myocardial infarction, and heart failure with preserved ejection fraction. This review summarizes the existing evidence, knowledge gaps, and future directions of ARNIs in CVD based on discussions between clinical trialists, industry representatives, and regulatory authorities at the 2016 Global CardioVascular Clinical Trialists Forum in Washington, D.C.

The effect of intravenous ferric carboxymaltose on health-related quality of life in iron-deficient patients with acute heart failure: the results of the AFFIRM-AHF study

AIMS

Patients with heart failure (HF) and iron deficiency experience poor health-related quality of life (HRQoL). We evaluated the impact of intravenous (IV) ferric carboxymaltose (FCM) vs. placebo on HRQoL for the AFFIRM-AHF population.

METHODS AND RESULTS

The baseline 12-item Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ-12), which was completed for 1058 (535 and 523) patients in the FCM and placebo groups, respectively, was administered prior to randomization and at Weeks 2, 4, 6, 12, 24, 36, and 52. The baseline KCCQ-12 overall summary score (OSS) mean ± standard error was 38.7 ± 0.9 (FCM group) and 37.1 ± 0.8 (placebo group); corresponding values for the clinical summary score (CSS) were 40.9 ± 0.9 and 40.1 ± 0.9. At Week 2, changes in OSS and CSS were similar for FCM and placebo. From Week 4 to Week 24, patients assigned to FCM had significantly greater improvements in OSS and CSS scores vs. placebo [adjusted mean difference (95% confidence interval, CI) at Week 4: 2.9 (0.5-5.3, P = 0.018) for OSS and 2.8 (0.3-5.3, P = 0.029) for CSS; adjusted mean difference (95% CI) at Week 24: 3.0 (0.3-5.6, P = 0.028) for OSS and 2.9 (0.2-5.6, P = 0.035) for CSS]. At Week 52, the treatment effect had attenuated but remained in favour of FCM.

CONCLUSION

In iron-deficient patients with HF and left ventricular ejection fraction <50% who had stabilized after an episode of acute HF, treatment with IV FCM, compared with placebo, results in clinically meaningful beneficial effects on HRQoL as early as 4 weeks after treatment initiation, lasting up to Week 24.