Natriuretic Peptide-Based Inclusion Criteria in Heart Failure with Preserved Ejection Fraction Clinical Trials: Insights from PARAGON-HF

The roles of exercise stress echocardiography for the evaluation of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction in the heart failure pandemic era

Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) accounts for nearly 70% of all HF and has become the dominant form of HF. The increased prevalence of HFpEF has contributed to a rise in the number of HF patients, known as the "heart failure pandemic". In addition to the fact that HF is a progressive disease and a delayed diagnosis may worsen clinical outcomes, the emergence of disease-modifying treatments such as sodium-glucose transporter 2 inhibitors and glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists has made appropriate and timely identification of HFpEF even more important. However, diagnosis of HFpEF remains challenging in patients with a lower degree of congestion. In addition to normal EF, this is related to the fact that left ventricular (LV) filling pressures are often normal at rest but become abnormal during exercise. Exercise stress echocardiography can identify such exercise-induced elevations in LV filling pressures and facilitate the diagnosis of HFpEF. Exercise stress echocardiography may also be useful for risk stratification and assessment of exercise tolerance as well as cardiovascular responses to exercise. Recent attention has focused on dedicated dyspnea clinics to identify early HFpEF among patients with unexplained dyspnea and to investigate the causes of dyspnea. This review discusses the role of exercise stress echocardiography in the diagnosis and evaluation of HFpEF.

The current best drug treatment for hypertensive heart failure with preserved ejection fraction

More than 90 % of patients developing heart failure (HF) have hypertension. The most frequent concomitant conditions are type-2 diabetes mellitus, obesity, atrial fibrillation, and coronary disease. HF outcome research focuses on decreasing mortality and preventing hospitalization for worsening HF syndrome. All drugs that decrease these HF endpoints lower blood pressure. Current drug treatments for HF are (i) angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, angiotensin receptor blockers or angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitors, (ii) selected beta-blockers, (iii) steroidal and non-steroidal mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists, and (iv) sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors. For various reasons, these drug treatments were first studied in HF patients with a reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). Subsequently, they have been investigated in HF patients with a preserved left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF, HFpEF) of mostly hypertensive etiology, and with modest benefits largely assessed on top of background treatment with the drugs already proven effective in HFrEF. Additionally, diuretics are given on symptomatic indications. Patients with HFpEF may have diastolic dysfunction but also systolic dysfunction visualized by lack of longitudinal shortening. Considering the totality of evidence and the overall need for antihypertensive treatment and/or treatment of hypertensive complications in almost all HF patients, the principal drug treatment of HF appears to be the same regardless of LVEF. Rather than LVEF-guided treatment of HF, treatment of HF should be directed by symptoms (related to the level of fluid retention), signs (tachycardia), severity (NYHA functional class), and concomitant diseases and conditions. All HF patients should be given all the drug classes mentioned above if well tolerated.

Diagnosis of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: a systematic narrative review of the evidence

Heart failure (HF) with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) is a common condition in clinical practice, affecting more than half of patients with HF. HFpEF is associated with morbidity and mortality and with considerable healthcare resource utilization and costs. Therefore, early diagnosis is crucial to facilitate prompt management, particularly initiation of sodium-glucose co-transporter 2 inhibitors. Although European guidelines define HFpEF as the presence of symptoms with or without signs of HF, left ventricular EF ≥ 50%, and objective evidence of cardiac structural and/or functional abnormalities, together with elevated natriuretic peptide levels, the diagnosis of HFpEF remains challenging. First, there is no clear consensus on how HFpEF should be defined. Furthermore, diagnostic tools, such as natriuretic peptide levels and resting echocardiogram findings, are significantly limited in the diagnosis of HFpEF. As a result, some patients are overdiagnosed (i.e., elderly people with comorbidities that mimic HF), although in other cases, HFpEF is overlooked. In this manuscript, we perform a systematic narrative review of the diagnostic approach to patients with HFpEF. We also propose a comprehensible algorithm that can be easily applied in daily clinical practice and could prove useful for confirming or ruling out a diagnosis of HFpEF.

What Is the Current Best Drug Treatment for Hypertensive Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction? Review of the Totality of Evidence

BACKGROUND

More than 90% of patients developing heart failure (HF) have an epidemiological background of hypertension. The most frequent concomitant conditions are type 2 diabetes mellitus, obesity, atrial fibrillation, and coronary disease, all disorders/diseases closely related to hypertension.

METHODS

HF outcome research focuses on decreasing mortality and preventing hospitalization for worsening HF syndrome. All drugs that decrease these HF endpoints lower blood pressure. Current drug treatments for HF are (i) angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, angiotensin receptor blockers, or angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitors, (ii) selected beta-blockers, (iii) steroidal and nonsteroidal mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists, and (iv) sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors.

RESULTS

For various reasons, these drug treatments were first studied in HF patients with a reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). However, subsequently, they have been investigated and, as we see it, documented as beneficial in HF patients with a preserved left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF, HFpEF) and mostly hypertensive etiology, with effect estimates assessed partly on top of background treatment with the drugs already proven effective in HFrEF. Additionally, diuretics are given on symptomatic indications.

CONCLUSIONS

Considering the totality of evidence and the overall need for antihypertensive treatment and/or treatment of hypertensive complications in almost all HF patients, the principal drug treatment of HF appears to be the same regardless of LVEF. Rather than LVEF-guided treatment of HF, treatment of HF should be directed by symptoms (related to the level of fluid retention), signs (tachycardia), severity (NYHA functional class), and concomitant diseases and conditions. All HF patients should be given all the drug classes mentioned above if well tolerated.

Biomarkers in heart failure clinical trials. A review from the Biomarkers Working Group of the Heart Failure Association of the European Society of Cardiology

The approval of new heart failure (HF) therapies has slowed over the past two decades in part due to the high costs of conducting large randomized clinical trials that are needed to adequately power major clinical endpoint studies. Several biomarkers have been identified reflecting different elements of HF pathophysiology, with possible applications in diagnosis, risk stratification, treatment monitoring, and even in the design of clinical trials. Biomarkers could potentially be used to refine study inclusion criteria to enable enrolment of patients who are more likely to respond to a therapeutic intervention, despite being at sufficient risk to meet pre-determined study endpoint rates. When there is a close relationship between biomarker levels and clinical endpoints, changes in biomarker levels after a given treatment can act as a surrogate endpoint, potentially reducing the duration and cost of a clinical trial. Natriuretic peptides have been widely used in clinical trials with a variable amount of added value, which such variation being probably due to the absence of a close pathophysiological connection to the study drug. Notable exceptions to this include sacubitril/valsartan and vericiguat. Future studies should seek to adopt unbiased approaches for discovery of true companion diagnostics; with -omics-based tools, biomarkers might be more precisely selected for use in clinical trials to identify responses that closely reflect the biological effects of the drug under investigation. Finally, biomarkers associated with cardiac damage and remodelling, such as cardiac troponin, could be employed as safety endpoints provided that standardization between different assays is achieved.