What proportion of patients with chronic heart failure are eligible for sacubitril-valsartan?

Which frailty tool best predicts morbidity and mortality in ambulatory patients with heart failure? A prospective study

BACKGROUND

Frailty is common in patients with heart failure (HF) and is associated with adverse outcome, but it is uncertain how frailty should best be measured.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the prognostic value of commonly-used frailty tools in ambulatory patients with HF.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We assessed, simultaneously, three screening tools [clinical frailty scale (CFS); Derby frailty index (DFI); acute frailty network (AFN) frailty criteria), three assessment tools (Fried criteria; Edmonton frailty score (EFS); deficit index (DI)) and three physical tests (handgrip strength, timed get-up-and-go test (TUGT), 5-metre walk test (5MWT)] in consecutive patients with HF attending a routine follow-up visit. 467 patients (67% male, median age = 76 years, median NT-proBNP = 1156 ng/L) were enrolled. During a median follow-up of 554 days, 82 (18%) patients died and 201 (43%) patients were either hospitalised or died. In models corrected for age, Charlson score, haemoglobin, renal function, sodium, NYHA, atrial fibrillation (AF), and body mass index, only log[NT-proBNP] and frailty were independently associated with all-cause death. A base model for predicting mortality at 1 year including NYHA, log[NT-proBNP], sodium and AF, had a C-statistic = 0.75. Amongst screening tools: CFS (C-statistic = 0.84); amongst assessment tools: DI (C-statistic = 0.83) and amongst physical test: 5MWT (C-statistic = 0.80), increased model performance most compared with base model (P <0.05 for all).

CONCLUSION

Frailty is strongly associated with adverse outcomes in ambulatory patients with HF. When added to a base model for predicting mortality at 1 year including NYHA, NT-proBNP, sodium, and AF, CFS provides comparable prognostic information with assessment tools taking longer to perform.

Effects of Angiotensin Receptor-Neprilysin Inhibitors Versus Enalapril or Valsartan on Patients With Heart Failure: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Recent studies have focused on treating heart failure, primarily mitigating symptoms and reducing the risk of mortality and other cardiovascular complications. A promising new treatment approach involves using LCZ696, an angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI) comprising sacubitril and valsartan. This treatment is superior to the conventional drugs enalapril or valsartan in patients diagnosed with heart failure. A systematic search was conducted on PubMed, the Cochrane Library, and Elsevier's ScienceDirect databases to identify studies comparing sacubitril/valsartan with other drugs in heart failure patients with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). The analyses were conducted using the random-effects model. The study's primary outcomes included all-cause mortality, death from cardiovascular causes, first hospitalization for heart failure, congestive heart failure, and changes in the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ) clinical score. The pooled analysis showed that treatment with the sacubitril/valsartan combination was associated with a significantly decreased rate of first hospitalization for heart failure (RR: 0.86; 95% CI: 0.79, 0.98, p: 0.03; I2: 57%) and significantly increased KCCQ clinical score (WMD: 2.20; 95% CI: 0.33, 4.06, p: 0.02; I2: 100%). However, the two groups had no significant difference in all-cause mortality (RR: 0.90; 95% CI: 0.80, 1.01, p: 0.08; I2: 20%), death from cardiovascular causes (RR: 0.96; 95% CI: 0.87, 1.05, p: 0.34; I2: 0%), or congestive heart failure (RR: 0.97; 95% CI: 0.75, 1.25, p: 0.19; I2: 38%). The research findings suggest that sacubitril/valsartan (LCZ696) reduces hospitalizations due to heart failure and improves KCCQ clinical scores. This treatment also reduces the decline in renal function and side effects associated with enalapril or valsartan. Nonetheless, further high-quality randomized controlled trials with large sample sizes are needed to assess other impacts of this therapy on heart failure patients. Overall, the use of LCZ696 represents a promising new approach to the treatment of heart failure.

Brain Natriuretic Peptide Biomarkers in Current Clinical and Therapeutic Scenarios of Heart Failure

Brain natriuretic peptide (BNP) and its inactive N-terminal fragment, NT-proBNP, are serum biomarkers with key roles in the management of heart failure (HF). An increase in the serum levels of these peptides is closely associated with the pathophysiological mechanisms underlying HF such as the presence of structural and functional cardiac abnormalities, myocardial stretch associated with a high filling pressure and neuro-hormonal activation. As BNP and NT-proBNP measurements are possible, several studies have investigated their clinical utility in the diagnosis, prognostic stratification, monitoring and guiding therapy of patients with HF. BNP and NT-proBNP have also been used as criteria for enrollment in randomized trials evaluating the efficacy of new therapeutic strategies for HF. Nevertheless, the use of natriuretic peptides is still limited in clinical practice due to the controversial aspect of their use in different clinical settings. The purpose of this review is to discuss the main issues associated with using BNP and NT-proBNP serum levels in the management of patients with HF under current clinical and therapeutic scenarios.

Diabetes and treatment of chronic heart failure in a large real-world heart failure population

AIMS

Although diabetes mellitus (DM) is a common co-morbidity in chronic heart failure (HF) patients, European data on concurrent HF and DM treatment are lacking. Therefore, we have studied the HF treatment of patients with and without DM. Additionally, with the recent breakthrough of sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors in the field of HF, we studied the potential impact of this new drug in a large cohort of HF patients.

METHODS AND RESULTS

A total of 7488 patients with chronic HF with a left ventricular ejection fraction <50% from 34 Dutch outpatient HF clinics between 2013 and 2016 were analysed on diabetic status and background HF therapy. Average age of the total population was 72.8 years (±11.7 years), and 64% of the patients were male. Diabetes was present in 29% of the patients (N = 2174). Diabetics had a worse renal function (mean estimated glomerular filtration rate 56 vs. 61 mL/min/1.73 m2 , P < 0.001). Renin-angiotensin system inhibitors were less often prescribed in diabetics compared with non-diabetics (79% vs. 82%, P = 0.001), while no significant differences regarding other guideline-recommended HF drugs were found. Target doses of beta-blockers (23% vs. 16%, P < 0.001), renin-angiotensin system inhibitors (47% vs. 43%, P = 0.009), and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (57% vs. 51%, P = 0.005) were more often prescribed in diabetics than non-diabetics. Based on the latest trials on SGLT2 inhibitors, 31-64% of all HF patients would fulfil the eligibility or enrichment criteria (with vs. without N-terminal prohormone BNP criterion).

CONCLUSIONS

In this large real-world HF registry, a high prevalence of DM was observed and diabetics more often received guideline-recommended target doses. Based on current evidence, the majority of patients would fulfil the enrichment criteria of SGLT2 trials in HF and the impact of this new drug class will be large.

Sacubitril/valsartan in everyday clinical practice: an observational study based on the experience of a heart failure clinic

BACKGROUND

Heart failure (HF) is a growing public health problem. Sacubitril/valsartan is now recommended to be used in persistently symptomatic patients with left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) <40%, replacing angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEis)/angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs). In the present study, we aimed to characterise the challenges of sacubitril/valsartan use in everyday clinical practice.

METHODS

We assessed the medical records of patients with HF and reduced ejection fraction eligible for sacubitril/valsartan attending a HF clinic at a Portuguese University Hospital during 2018 (n=152). The number of eligible patients receiving the drug and the reasons for not prescribing sacubitril/valsartan were evaluated. Additionally, we assessed the tolerability of maximal doses of sacubitril/valsartan. New York Heart Association functional class (NYHA class) and LVEF before and after up-titration to maximal tolerated sacubitril/valsartan dose were compared. Median follow-up was 41 months.

RESULTS

Of the 152 included patients, 75 (49%) were prescribed the drug. The two main reasons for non-prescription were patient financial barriers (31%) and hypotension (27%). Only 33% of patients on sacubitril/valsartan did reach maximal dose. Hypotension was the main limiting factor for dose optimisation. Duration of sacubitril/valsartan treatment showed a positive association with LVEF improvement during follow-up (6.6% absolute LVEF increase/year). NYHA functional class improved significantly from baseline through the end of follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

In every-day clinical practice, although sacubitril/valsartan was associated with a marked improvement in NYHA class and in LVEF, important financial and clinical barriers to the implementation of this therapy were identified.

Long-Term Pharmacological Management of Reduced Ejection Fraction Following Acute Myocardial Infarction: Current Status and Future Prospects

Heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction is common following acute myocardial infarction (MI), and active medical management can have a profound impact on prognosis. Reviewing relevant clinical trials, we focus on the pharmacological management of left ventricular systolic dysfunction (LVSD) following an acute MI, although there is overlap with the pharmacological management of chronic HF due to reduced ejection fraction. Angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors, beta-blockers, and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists are the mainstay of medical management in patients with LVSD post MI; there may also be a role for anticoagulation. Sacubitril-valsartan (angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor) has not yet been shown to be superior to an ACE inhibitor in reducing cardiovascular mortality and HF events in patients with LVSD post MI. Large randomised trials evaluating sodium glucose transporter 2 (SGLT-2) inhibitors in LVSD post MI are ongoing.

Sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 inhibitors eligibility in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction

BACKGROUND

The sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitors dapagliflozin and empagliflozin have been demonstrated to reduce adverse cardiovascular outcomes in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). Limited data are available characterizing the generalizability of SGLT2 inhibitors treatment in the clinical practice. The aim of the study was to evaluate the proportion of outpatients with HFrEF that would be eligible for SGLT2 inhibitors in a contemporary real-world population.

METHODS

We retrospectively evaluated patients with chronic stable HFrEF followed-up at the HF outpatient clinic of our institution. Patients' eligibility was assessed according to the entry criteria of DAPA-HF (dapagliflozin) and EMPEROR-Reduced (empagliflozin) trials and to US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) label criteria (only dapagliflozin).

RESULTS

A total of 441 HFrEF patients was enrolled. According to the major inclusion and exclusion criteria from DAPA-HF and EMPEROR-Reduced trials, 198 (45%) patients would be candidates for initiation of both dapagliflozin and empagliflozin, 61 (14%) would be eligible only to dapagliflozin and 23 (5%) only to empagliflozin, without significant differences between diabetic and non-diabetic patients (p = 0.23). Among patients not suitable for gliflozins treatment (159 patients; 36%), the major determinant of ineligibility was the failure to achieve the predefined NT-proBNP inclusion threshold. Excluding NTproBNP as per FDA label criteria, dapagliflozin eligibility increased to 86%.

CONCLUSIONS

In our real-world analysis a large proportion of HFrEF patients would be candidates for initiation of SGLT2 inhibitors, supporting its broad generalizability in clinical practice. This would be expected to reduce morbidity and mortality in eligible patients.

Sacubitril/valsartan in real-life European patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction: a systematic review and meta-analysis

AIMS

We systematically reviewed the European real-world evidence (RWE) about sacubitril-valsartan for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Twenty-one articles, including 16 952 subjects, were identified until 31 October 2020. Taking as reference the PARADIGM-HF cohort, few baseline characteristics were presented in >80% of these studies, most often with high heterogeneity. In random-effects model meta-analysis, age was higher (mean difference +3.84, 95% CI 1.92-5.76), ischaemic aetiology (OR 0.76, 95% CI 0.64-0.91), hypertension (OR 0.55, 95% CI 0.37-0.82), and diabetes (OR 0.77, 95% CI 0.64-0.92) were less common, and the use of mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists was more frequent (OR 3.54, 95% CI 2.27-5.53) in real-life than in PARADIGM-HF. Other clinical and medical features were presented in 19-76% of the selected publications and suggested more severe heart failure with reduced ejection fraction. Sacubitril-valsartan was titrated to 97/103 mg b.i.d. in 35% (95% CI 23-47) and discontinued in 12.8% (95% CI 7.4-18.3) patients. When reported, the incidence of hyperkalaemia (six studies, no. 1076), all-cause mortality (five studies, no. 684), and any hospitalization (three studies, no. 390) was 12 (95% CI 5-19)/100 person-year, 8 (95% CI 4-12)/100 person-year, and 24 (95% CI 5-42)/100 person-year, respectively. Knowledge contribution, a metric measuring the proportion of RWE provided by each article based on the number of reported variables and the sample size, was 58.8% and 13.6% for the two biggest investigations (12 082 and 2037 patients), and <5% for all others (most with <100 subjects).

CONCLUSIONS

Limited-quality RWE indicates that there are important differences between European patients prescribed sacubitril-valsartan and the PARADIGM-HF population, including the frequency of target dose achievement.

The Heart Failure Association Atlas: Heart Failure Epidemiology and Management Statistics 2019

AIMS

The Heart Failure Association (HFA) of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) developed the HFA Atlas to provide a contemporary description of heart failure (HF) epidemiology, resources, reimbursement of guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) and activities of the National Heart Failure Societies (NHFS) in ESC member countries.

METHODS AND RESULTS

The HFA Atlas survey was conducted in 2018-2019 in 42 ESC countries. The quality and completeness of source data varied across countries. The median incidence of HF was 3.20 [interquartile range (IQR) 2.66-4.17] cases per 1000 person-years, ranging from ≤2 in Italy and Denmark to >6 in Germany. The median HF prevalence was 17.20 (IQR 14.30-21) cases per 1000 people, ranging from ≤12 in Greece and Spain to >30 in Lithuania and Germany. The median number of HF hospitalizations was 2671 (IQR 1771-4317) per million people annually, ranging from <1000 in Latvia and North Macedonia to >6000 in Romania, Germany and Norway. The median length of hospital stay for an admission with HF was 8.50 (IQR 7.38-10) days. Diagnostic and management resources for HF varied, with high-income ESC member countries having substantially more resources compared with middle-income countries. The median number of hospitals with dedicated HF centres was 1.16 (IQR 0.51-2.97) per million people, ranging from <0.10 in Russian Federation and Ukraine to >7 in Norway and Italy. Nearly all countries reported full or partial reimbursement of standard GDMT, except ivabradine and sacubitril/valsartan. Almost all countries reported having NHFS or working groups and nearly half had HF patient organizations.

CONCLUSIONS

The first report from the HFA Atlas has shown considerable heterogeneity in HF disease burden, the resources available for its management and data quality across ESC member countries. The findings emphasize the need for a systematic approach to the capture of HF statistics so that inequalities and improvements in care may be quantified and addressed.

A Simple Score to Identify Super-Responders to Sacubitril/Valsartan in Ambulatory Patients With Heart Failure

INTRODUCTION

Sacubitril/valsartan (SV) promotes cardiac remodeling and improves prognosis in patients with heart failure (HF). However, the response to the drug may vary between patients and its implementation in daily clinical practice has been slower than expected. Our objective was to develop a score predicting the super-response to SV in HF outpatients.

METHODS

This is a retrospective analysis of 185 consecutive patients prescribed SV from two tertiary hospitals between September 2016 and February 2018. Super-responder was defined as a patient taking the drug and (i) without HF admissions, death, or heart transplant, and (ii) with a ≥50% reduction in NT-proBNP levels and/or an increase of ≥10 points in LVEF in a 12-month follow-up period after starting SV. Clinical, echocardiographic, ECG, and biochemical variables were used in a logistic regression analysis to construct a score for super-response to SV which was internally validated using bootstrap method.

RESULTS

Out of 185 patients, 65 (35%) fulfilled the super-responder criteria. Predictors for super-response to SV were absence of both previous aldosterone antagonist and diuretic treatment, NYHA I-II class, female gender, previous 1-year HF admission, and sinus rhythm. An integrating score distinguished a low- (<25%), intermediate- (∼46%), and high-probability (>80%) for 1-year super-response to SV. The AUC for the model was 0.72 (95%CI: 0.64-0.80), remaining consistent after internal validation.

CONCLUSION

One-third of our patients presented a super-response to SV. We propose an easy-to-calculate score to predict super-response to SV after 1-year initiation based on variables that are currently assessed in clinical practice.

Effect of frailty on treatment, hospitalisation and death in patients with chronic heart failure

BACKGROUND

Frailty is common in patients with chronic heart failure (CHF) and is associated with poor outcomes. The natural history of frail patients with CHF is unknown.

METHODS

Frailty was assessed using the clinical frailty scale (CFS) in 467 consecutive patients with CHF (67% male, median age 76 years, median NT-proBNP 1156 ng/L) attending a routine follow-up visit. Those with CFS > 4 were classified as frail. We investigated the relation between frailty and treatments, hospitalisation and death in patients with CHF.

RESULTS

206 patients (44%) were frail. Of 291 patients with HF with reduced ejection fraction (HeFREF), those who were frail (N = 117; 40%) were less likely to receive optimal treatment, with many not receiving a renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system inhibitor (frail: 25% vs. non-frail: 4%), a beta-blocker (16% vs. 8%) or a mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist (50% vs 41%). By 1 year, there were 56 deaths and 322 hospitalisations, of which 25 (45%) and 198 (61%), respectively, were due to non-cardiovascular (non-CV) causes. Most deaths (N = 46, 82%) and hospitalisations (N = 215, 67%) occurred in frail patients. Amongst frail patients, 43% of deaths and 64% of hospitalisations were for non-CV causes; 58% of cardiovascular (CV) deaths were due to advancing HF. Among non-frail patients, 50% of deaths and 57% of hospitalisations were for non-CV causes; all CV deaths were due to advancing HF.

CONCLUSION

Frailty in patients with HeFREF is associated with sub-optimal medical treatment. Frail patients are more likely to die or be admitted to hospital, but whether frail or not, many events are non-CV.

Implementation of sacubitril/valsartan in Sweden: clinical characteristics, titration patterns, and determinants

AIMS

The aim of this study is to study the introduction of sacubitril/valsartan (sac/val) in Sweden with regards to regional differences, clinical characteristics, titration patterns, and determinants of use and discontinuation.

METHODS AND RESULTS

A national cohort of heart failure was defined from the Swedish Prescribed Drug Register and National Patient Register. A subcohort with additional data from the Swedish Heart Failure Registry (SwedeHF) was also studied. Cohorts were subdivided as per sac/val prescription and registration in SwedeHF. Median sac/val prescription rate was 20 per 100 000 inhabitants. Between April 2016 and December 2017, we identified 2037 patients with ≥1 sac/val prescription, of which 1144 (56%) were registered in SwedeHF. Overall, patients prescribed with sac/val were younger, more frequently male, and had less prior cardiovascular disease than non-sac/val patients. In SwedeHF subcohort, patients prescribed with sac/val had lower ejection fraction. Overall, younger age [hazard ratio 2.81 (95% confidence interval 2.45-3.22)], registration in SwedeHF [1.97 (1.83-2.12)], male gender [1.50 (1.37-1.64)], ischaemic heart disease [1.50 (1.39-1.62)], lower left ventricular ejection fraction [3.06 (2.18-4.31)], and New York Heart Association IV [1.50 (1.22-1.84)] were predictors for sac/val use. As initiation dose in the sac/val cohort, 38% received 24/26 mg, 54% 49/51 mg, and 9% 97/103 mg. Up-titration to the target dose was achieved in 57% of the overall cohort over a median follow-up of 6 months. The estimated treatment persistence for any dose at 360 days was 82%.

CONCLUSIONS

Implementation of sac/val in Sweden was slow and varied five-fold across different regions; younger age, male, SwedeHF registration, and ischaemic heart disease were among the independent predictors of receiving sac/val. Overall, treatment persistence and tolerability was high.

High-sensitivity C-reactive protein in chronic heart failure: patient characteristics, phenotypes, and mode of death

AIMS

Plasma concentrations of high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hsCRP) are often raised in chronic heart failure (CHF) and might indicate inflammatory processes that could be a therapeutic target. We aimed to study the associations between hsCRP, mode and cause of death in patients with CHF.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We enrolled 4423 patients referred to a heart failure clinic serving a local population. CHF was defined as relevant symptoms or signs with either a reduced left ventricular ejection fraction <40% or raised plasma concentrations of amino-terminal pro-B type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP >125 pg/mL). The median [interquartile range (IQR)] plasma hsCRP for patients diagnosed with CHF (n = 3756) was 3.9 (1.6-8.5) mg/L and 2.7 (1.3-5.1) mg/L for those who were not (n = 667; P < 0.001). Patients with hsCRP ≥10 mg/L (N = 809; 22%) were older and more congested than those with hsCRP <2 mg/L (N = 1117, 30%). During a median follow-up of 53 (IQR 28-93) months, 1784 (48%) patients with CHF died. Higher plasma hsCRP was associated with greater mortality, independent of age, symptom severity, creatinine, and NT-proBNP. Comparing a hsCRP ≥10 mg/L to <2 mg/L, the hazard ratio for all-cause mortality was 2.49 (95% confidence interval 2.19-2.84; P < 0.001), for cardiovascular (CV) mortality was 2.26 (1.91-2.68; P < 0.001), and for non-CV mortality was 2.96 (2.40-3.65; P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

In patients with CHF, a raised plasma hsCRP is associated with more congestion and a worse prognosis. The proportion of deaths that are non-CV also increases with higher hsCRP.

Cardiovascular Outcomes with Sacubitril-Valsartan in Heart Failure: Emerging Clinical Data

One of the defining features of heart failure (HF) is neurohormonal activation. The renin-angiotensin-aldosterone-system (RAAS) and sympathetic nervous system (SNS) cause vasoconstriction and fluid retention and, in response, the secretion of natriuretic peptides (NPs) from volume and pressure-overloaded myocardium promotes vasodilation and diuresis. Inhibition of the RAAS with either angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEI) or angiotensin receptor blockers (ARB) has been the cornerstone of medical treatment for HF with a reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) but, until recently, it was unclear how the beneficial effects of NPs may be augmented in patients with HF. Neprilysin, a metalloproteinase widely distributed throughout the body, plays a role in degrading the gross excess of circulating NPs in patients with HF. Early studies of neprilysin inhibition suggested possible physiological benefits. In 2014, the PARADIGM-HF trial found that sacubitril-valsartan, a combination of the ARB valsartan, and the neprilysin inhibitor sacubitril, was superior to enalapril in patients with HFrEF, reducing the relative risk of cardiovascular (CV) death or first hospitalisation with HF by 20%. Almost half of the patients with HF symptoms have a “preserved” ejection fraction (HFpEF); however, the PARAGON-HF study found that sacubitril-valsartan in patients with LVEF ≥45% had no effect on CV death or first and recurrent hospitalisations with HF compared to valsartan. Guidelines across the world have changed to include sacubitril-valsartan for patients with HFrEF yet, nearly 6 years after PARADIGM-HF, there is still uncertainty as to when and in whom sacubitril-valsartan should be started. Furthermore, there may yet be subsets of patients with HFpEF who might benefit from treatment with sacubitril-valsartan. This review will describe the mechanisms behind the outcome benefit of sacubitril-valsartan in patients with HFrEF and to consider its future role in the management of patients with HF.

Current evidence of sacubitril/valsartan in the treatment of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction

Heart failure (HF) is one of the most common reasons for hospital admission in western countries. The measurement of the left ventricular ejection fraction is essential for the classification of HF and deciding on HF treatment. The treatment of HF has been improved in both diagnostic and therapeutic fields over the past two decades. The angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor decreased the cardiovascular mortality in patients with chronic HF with reduced ejection fraction. Sacubitril/valsartan (LCZ696) improves the imbalance between the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone and natriuretic peptide systems. We present the clinical efficacy, real-world experience, safety and tolerability, the relevance of etiology of cardiomyopathy, and gender differences and regulatory affairs of LCZ696 in the treatment of patients with HF with reduced ejection fraction.

Sacubitril/valsartan (Entresto) utilisation and prescribing patterns in the context of a reimbursement application system

AIMS

Entresto (sacubitril/valsartan) is used to treat symptomatic chronic heart failure with reduced ejection fraction. Given its high potential budget impact, the Health Services Executive introduced a reimbursement application system (RAS) to ensure its appropriate use. The aim of this study was to evaluate the utilisation of Entresto in Ireland and compare patient characteristics to those of the pivotal PARADIGM-HF trial.

METHODS

We used dispensed claims data from the Primary Care Reimbursement Services, clinical data obtained from the RAS, and data from published studies of Entresto utilisation. Differences in the baseline characteristics in the study populations vs the Entresto arm of the PARADIGM-HF trial were analysed. We also investigated cardiovascular medication use in the 6 months pre- and post-Entresto initiation.

RESULTS

In 2018, there were 1043 individuals receiving Entresto, corresponding to an expenditure of €1.2 million. Patients prescribed Entresto in Ireland were older, had lower left ventricular ejection fraction and were more symptomatic than those in the PARADIGM-HF trial. Irish patient characteristics were reflective of Entresto-treated populations in other real-world studies. More than 63% of patients were commenced on the lowest Entresto dose. Entresto initiation was associated with a reduction in the use of other medications for heart failure.

CONCLUSION

The utilisation of Entresto has been steadily increasing in Ireland since its reimbursement approval. The expenditure in the first year was substantially lower than predicted, and the RAS is an example of how health technology management can facilitate appropriate and cost-effective use of medicines.

Prognosis of patients eligible for dapagliflozin in acute heart failure

BACKGROUND

Dapagliflozin, a sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor, was shown in the DAPA-HF study to reduce the risk of worsening heart failure or death in symptomatic patients with left ejection fraction <40%, irrespective of diabetes. The aim of this study was to evaluate eligibility status for dapagliflozin in non-selected patients hospitalized for acute decompensated heart failure (ADHF), as well as prognostic implications of this status.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Analysis of 815 patients recruited in a prospective cohort of acute heart failure at the University Hospitals of Geneva, consisting of consecutive patients admitted with ADHF. Eligibility for dapagliflozin was determined using criteria described DAPA-HF.

RESULTS

Of 815 patients, 220 (27%) were eligible for dapagliflozin treatment. In survival analysis, patients who were eligible for dapagliflozin had better clinical outcomes with respect to all-cause mortality and rehospitalization as compared to those who were not eligible. In multivariate analysis, the hazard ratio for all-cause mortality or readmission in patients eligible for dapagliflozin was 0.82 (95% CI 0.68-0.999, P = .049) as compared to the non-eligible.

CONCLUSIONS

Using DAPA-HF criteria, only 27% of non-selected patients admitted for ADHF are theoretically eligible for dapagliflozin. This eligibility for dapagliflozin is associated with better outcomes. Further evaluation of the benefits of dapagliflozin in selected HF patients may be of interest. This may have implications for selection criteria in future randomized effectiveness studies.

Real-Life Indications to Sacubitril/Valsartan Treatment in Patients With Chronic Systolic Heart Failure

OBJECTIVE

International guidelines recommend the introduction of sacubitril/valsartan (Entresto) in patients with heart failure (HF) and reduced ejection fraction (EF), who remain symptomatic, despite optimal uptitrated therapy. The purpose of the following analysis is to verify the real-life eligibility for sacubitril/valsartan in a population of patients suffering from chronic HF, regularly monitored in a single HF clinic and treated according to guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT).

METHODS

From a total of 1070 patients regularly monitored in our HF Clinic between January 2011 and September 2017, the clinical records of 224 patients with HF and reduced EF on optimized GDMT were retrospectively analyzed.

RESULTS

Of 224 analyzed patients, 75 improved their EF or were asymptomatic after uptitration of GDMT during follow-up; 50 were not on angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker for different reasons; 13 patients had systolic blood pressure ≤100 mm Hg, so they were not eligible for sacubitril/valsartan introduction. The remaining patients were still symptomatic (NYHA ≥2), and therefore, sacubitril/valsartan introduction was indicated in these 86 patients (38.4%) of 224 enrolled.

CONCLUSION

In patients with HF and reduced EF, where GDMT is appropriately achieved, indication to sacubitril/valsartan treatment is around 38%.

Sacubitril/Valsartan in Real-Life Practice: Experience in Patients with Advanced Heart Failure and Systematic Review

PURPOSE

Sacubitril/valsartan reduced heart failure (HF) admissions and cardiovascular mortality in the PARADIGM-HF trial. However, real-life studies are scarce comparing daily practice patients with those of the trial. The aim of our study was to analyze the efficacy and safety of the drug in an advanced heart failure cohort and to review systematically the previous real-life studies published to date.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective analysis of consecutive patients prescribed sacubitril/valsartan in a single tertiary HF clinic between September 2016 and February 2018. HF admissions before and after the initiation of the drug were assessed in a paired fashion. A systematic review of real-life studies published to date was also conducted.

RESULTS

Sacubitril/valsartan was started in 108 patients who were in a more advanced NYHA class and more frequently treated with mineral receptor antagonists, internal cardiac defibrillator, and cardiac resynchronization therapy than in the PARADIGM-HF trial. After a 6-month follow-up, we observed a significant reduction in the HF hospitalizations, median levels of NT-proBNP, and need for levosimendan ambulatory perfusion. Likewise, we found a significant improvement in mean LVEF and end diastolic left ventricle diameter. Regarding safety, sacubitril/valsartan was well-tolerated without any severe adverse effect.

CONCLUSION

Sacubitril/valsartan in real-life is prescribed to a more advanced HF population, which could be responsible for the difficulties in reaching high doses of the drug. However, after a 6-month follow-up, sacubitril/valsartan significantly reduces HF hospitalization and induces cardiac reverse remodeling, without remarkable adverse events.

"Real World" Eligibility for Sacubitril/Valsartan in Unselected Heart Failure Patients: Data from the Swedish Heart Failure Registry

PURPOSE

PARADIGM-HF demonstrated the superiority of sacubitril/valsartan over enalapril in patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction (HF-REF). How widely applicable sacubitril/valsartan treatment is in unselected patients with HF-REF is not known. We examined eligibility of patients with HF-REF for treatment with sacubitril/valsartan, according to the criteria used in PARADIGM-HF, in the Swedish Heart Failure Registry (SwedeHF).

METHODS

Patients were considered potentially eligible if they were not hospitalized, had symptoms (NYHA class II-IV) and a reduced LVEF (≤ 40%), and were prescribed an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor (ACEI) or angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) at a dose equivalent to enalapril ≥ 10 mg daily. In these patients, we evaluated further eligibility according to the main additional PARADIGM-HF inclusion criteria.

RESULTS

Of 12,866 outpatients in NYHA functional class II-IV with an LVEF ≤ 40%, 9577 were prescribed at least 10 mg of enalapril (or equivalent) daily. Complete additional data were available for 3099 of these patients (32.4%) and of them 75.5% were potentially eligible for treatment with sacubitril/valsartan. The most common reason for ineligibility was a low natriuretic peptide level (n = 462, 14.9%). Only a small proportion of patients were ineligible due to low eGFR or serum potassium level. Because only 78% of patients were taking ≥ 10 mg enalapril or equivalent daily, only 58.9% of all patients (75.5% of 78%) were eligible for sacubitril/valsartan.

CONCLUSIONS

Between 34 and 76% of symptomatic patients with HF-REF in a 'real world' population are eligible for treatment with sacubitril/valsartan, depending on background ACEI/ARB dose. The most common reason for ineligibility is a low natriuretic peptide level.

Eligibility for sacubitril-valsartan in patients with acute decompensated heart failure

Aims

Large‐scale clinical trials have demonstrated clinical benefits of sacubitril–valsartan in symptomatic heart failure with reduced ejection fraction patients (PARADIGM‐HF), with potential benefits in patients hospitalized for acute decompensated heart failure (ADHF) (PIONEER‐HF) and fewer benefits in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (PARAGON‐HF). The aim of this study was to evaluate eligibility for sacubitril–valsartan using criteria described in PIONNER‐HF in non‐selected patients hospitalized for ADHF.

Methods and results

Between November 2014 and May 2019, 799 patients were recruited in a prospective registry of acute heart failure at the University Hospitals of Geneva (http://ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02444416). The cohort consists of consecutive patients admitted to the Department of Medicine with ADHF. Eligibility for sacubitril–valsartan was determined using criteria described in PIONEER‐HF, including left ventricular ejection fraction, clinical parameters, and co‐morbidities. Of 799 patients, 123 (15.39%) were eligible for sacubitril–valsartan treatment. Clinical outcomes including all‐cause mortality and readmission were similar in eligible and non‐eligible groups, hazard ratio 1.02 (95% confidence interval 0.81–1.29, P = 083).

Conclusions

Using current criteria from randomized controlled trials, only 15% of non‐selected patients admitted for ADHF are theoretically eligible for sacubitril–valsartan. Eligibility for sacubitril–valsartan using published criteria is not associated with worse outcome, suggesting that further evaluation of benefits of sacubitril–valsartan in heart failure patients based on parameters other than left ventricular ejection fraction may be of interest.

Early experience of Sacubitril-Valsartan in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction in real-world clinical setting

Aims

Sacubitril/Valsartan (Sac/Val) was proven more effective than enalapril for symptomatic patients with heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). This study aimed to investigate eligibility, titration, and tolerability for Sac/Val in a real‐world clinical setting.

Methods and results

This retrospective cohort study consists of two parts. In Part 1 (eligibility study), all patients discharged from Sahlgrenska University Hospital due to HF were consecutively included during 1 year. Data from the patients' medical records were collected. Patients were adjudicated to be eligible based on European Society of Cardiology (ESC) criteria for angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI) with the exception of N‐terminal (NT)‐proBNP levels. Patients who received <50% of target dose angiotensin‐converting enzyme/angiotensin receptor blocker and otherwise fulfilled ESC criteria were adjudicated to be potentially eligible. In Part 2 (tolerability study), all patients receiving Sac/Val during the same period were included. Medical data regarding dose, titration, and adverse effects and events were registered. A total of 1355 patients (mean age 78 ± 13 years) were hospitalized for HF and 619 patients had an EF ≤40%. Twenty percent were eligible for initiation of ARNI, and additionally 8% were potentially eligible. In all 95 patients (mean age 65 ± 12 years) were initiated with Sac/Val, which correlates to 13%. The patients who were initiated were younger (65 years), more often had dilated cardiomyopathy (31%), more often were on guideline‐directed medical therapy, and had a higher frequency of cardiac resynchronization therapy and implantable cardioverter–defibrillator compared with the patients who did not receive Sac/Val. Of the initiated patients, 59% reached target dose of Sac/Val, and 15% discontinued due to adverse effects. The most common cause of discontinuation was benign gastrointestinal adverse effects, followed by elevated creatinine, malaise, and vertigo. Female gender [odds ratio (OR) 3.58; 95% CI 1.07–2.00; P = 0.038] and NT‐proBNP ≥ median level (OR 0.48; 95% CI 0.26–0.90; P = 0.021) was associated with termination of the medication.

Conclusions

Among HFrEF patients in this real‐world cohort, 20% were eligible for ARNI; however, only 13% received the treatment. Sac/Val was well tolerated, but 41% of the patients did not reach target dose. How this affects outcome is not known and needs further investigation.

Sacubitril-Valsartan in a routine community population: attention to volume status critical to achieving target dose

AIMS

In the PARADIGM-heart failure trial, sacubitril-valsartan demonstrated a reduction in heart failure admissions and reduced all-cause mortality in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction. Although real world data have shown similar benefits regarding efficacy and safety, there has been difficulty in achieving the target dose (TD). The factors preventing the achievement of TD remains unclear. This study assesses the tolerability, ability to achieve, and factors linked to attaining TD in a routine clinical population.

METHODS AND RESULTS

This is a retrospective single-centre review of patients switched from angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors/angiotensin receptor blockers to sacubitril-valsartan between May 2016 and August 2018. Baseline and follow-up clinical characteristics and biomarker profiles were collected. Univariate and multivariate analyses were used to analyse predictors of achieving TD. Clinical response to sacubitril-valsartan was defined as a reduction in N terminal pro BNP of ≥30%, or an increase in left ventricular ejection fraction of ≥5% compared with baseline values. To date, a total of 322 patients (75% male patients) have been switched to sacubitril-valsartan. Those still in the titration phase were excluded (n = 25). Sacubitril-valsartan was not tolerated in 40 patients (12.4%). Those intolerant were older (73.4 years [68.3, 80.6] vs. 69.1 years [61.2, 76]; P = 0.003) and had worse renal function with estimated glomerular filtration rate (53.5 mL/min/1.72 m² [36.8, 60.2] vs 60 mL/min/1.72 m² [47, 77]; P ≤ 0.001). Of the remaining 257 patients, TD (97/103 mg BD) was achieved in 194 patients (75.5%), while 37 patients (11.4%) were maintained on 49/51 mg BD and 26 patients (8.1%) remained on 24/26 mg BD. Symptomatic hypotension (74.6%) was the main impediment to attaining TD, followed by renal deterioration (12.7%), and to a lesser extent hyperkalaemia and gastrointestinal symptoms (4.8% each). Diuretic dose decrease was achieved in 37.2% of patients, and this was the strongest independent predictor of achieving TD (odds ratio = 2.1; 95% confidence interval [1.16, 3.8]; P = 0.014). Responder status by N terminal pro BNP criterion was observed in 99 of 214 patients (46.3%) while 70 of 142 (49.3%) attained the left ventricular ejection fraction response status. Achieving this response was independently linked to achieving TD.

CONCLUSIONS

Sacubitril-valsartan was well tolerated. Achievement of TD was possible in the majority of the cohort and was linked to response metrics. Reduction in diuretic was required in a large percentage of the population and was the strongest predictor of attaining TD. Therefore, careful clinical attention to volume status assessment is essential to maximising the benefits of sacubitril-valsartan.

Differences in medical treatment and clinical characteristics between men and women with heart failure – a single-centre multivariable analysis

Purpose

The aims of this study were to examine sex differences in a heart failure population with regards to treatment and patient characteristics and to investigate the impact of sex on achieved doses of heart failure medications.

Methods and results

A total of 1924 patients with heart failure in a regional hospital were analysed, 622 patients had ejection fraction ≤ 40% of which 30% were women. In patients with reduced ejection fraction, women were older (79 ± 11 vs. 74 ± 12 years, P < 0.001), had lower body weight (70 ± 17 vs. 86 ± 18 kg, P < 0.001), lower estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) (49 ± 24 vs. 71 ± 30 ml/min, P < 0.001) and received lower doses of heart failure medications than men. Multivariable linear regression on patients with reduced ejection fraction showed that sex was not associated with achieved dose of any heart failure medication. For angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers associated factors were eGFR, systolic blood pressure, age, ejection fraction, and heart rate. For beta-blockers associated factors were body weight, atrial fibrillation and age. For mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists associated factors were eGFR, serum potassium, age, systolic blood pressure, ejection fraction and heart rate.

Conclusion

Women with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction were prescribed lower doses of heart failure medications, were older, had worse renal function, and lower body weight than men. Sex was not independently associated with achieved doses of heart failure medications, instead age, renal function and body weight explained the differences in treatment.

New perspectives and future directions in the treatment of heart failure

The management of heart failure has changed significantly over the last 30 years, leading to improvements in the quality of life and outcomes, at least for patients with a substantially reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (HFrEF). This has been made possible by the identification of various pathways leading to the development and progression of heart failure, which have been successfully targeted with effective therapies. Meanwhile, many other potential targets of treatment have been identified, and the list is constantly expanding. In this review, we summarise planned and ongoing trials exploring the potential benefit, or harm, of old and new pharmacological interventions that might offer further improvements in treatment for those with HFrEF and extend success to the treatment of patients with heart failure with preserved left ventricular ejection fraction (HFpEF) and other heart failure phenotypes.

The eligible population of the PARADIGM-HF trial in a real-world outpatient clinic and its cardiovascular risk between 2005 and 2016

BACKGROUND

The PARADIGM-HF trial showed that sacubitril-valsartan - an angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI) - is more effective than enalapril for some patients with heart failure. However, the eligibility of the PARADIGM-HF study to a real-world heart failure population was not well established.

METHODS

We made secondary analysis of patients (n = 4872) with heart failure prospectively enrolled in the Swedish Heart Failure Registry from Sahlgrenska University Hospital/Östra Hospital, Sweden during 2005-2016. The eligibility of the PARADIGM-HF trial in the real world was studied based on patients whether they were either fully or partially compatible with the PARADIGM-HF population. Patients were judged to be fully eligible for the PARADIGM-HF trial if they completely met the inclusion and exclusion criteria, and partially eligible if they did not stay on target dose of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor (ACEI)/angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB), despite their having been treated with ACEI/ARB for at least 6 months.

RESULTS

Among patients who had heart failure with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (≤40%) (HFrEF) (n = 2165), 653 (30%) and 958 (44%) patients were fully and partially compatible with PARADIGM-HF criteria, respectively. In both fully and partially eligible groups, patients were more male. Despite those fully eligible patients being younger (77.6 ± 12.7 vs. 84.0 ± 13.7 years) than noneligible patients, they were much older than in the PARADIGM-HF trial. Moreover, those fully eligible patients had lower all-cause mortality compared with both partially and noneligible patients. However, both fully and partially eligible patients had higher all-cause mortality than that in the PARADIGM-HF trial.

CONCLUSION

In a real-world outpatient clinical setting, around 1/3-1/2 of HFrEF were eligible for treatment of Sac/Val except that they are older, sicker, and carry higher risk for all-cause mortality than the PARADIGM-HF trial population.

Highlights in heart failure

Heart failure (HF) remains a major cause of mortality, morbidity, and poor quality of life. It is an area of active research. This article is aimed to give an update on recent advances in all aspects of this syndrome. Major changes occurred in drug treatment of HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). Sacubitril/valsartan is indicated as a substitute to ACEi/ARBs after PARADIGM-HF (hazard ratio [HR], 0.80; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.73 to 0.87 for sacubitril/valsartan vs. enalapril for the primary endpoint and Wei, Lin and Weissfeld HR 0.79, 95% CI 0.71-0.89 for recurrent events). Its initiation was then shown as safe and potentially useful in recent studies in patients hospitalized for acute HF. More recently, dapagliflozin and prevention of adverse-outcomes in DAPA-HF trial showed the beneficial effects of the sodium-glucose transporter type 2 inhibitor dapaglifozin vs. placebo, added to optimal standard therapy [HR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.65 to 0.85;0.74; 95% CI, 0.65 to 0.85 for the primary endpoint]. Trials with other SGLT 2 inhibitors and in other patients, such as those with HF with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) or with recent decompensation, are ongoing. Multiple studies showed the unfavourable prognostic significance of abnormalities in serum potassium levels. Potassium lowering agents may allow initiation and titration of mineralocorticoid antagonists in a larger proportion of patients. Meta-analyses suggest better outcomes with ferric carboxymaltose in patients with iron deficiency. Drugs effective in HFrEF may be useful also in HF with mid-range ejection fraction. Better diagnosis and phenotype characterization seem warranted in HF with preserved ejection fraction. These and other burning aspects of HF research are summarized and reviewed in this article.

Safety of sacubitril/valsartan initiated during hospitalization: data from a non-selected cohort

Aims

Sacubitril/valsartan is safe when initiated during hospitalization in a clinical trial setting. Its safety in real‐life population is not stablished. We compared the initiation of sacubitril/valsartan during hospitalization in a non‐selected population, in the PIONEER‐HF trial, and in non‐selected outpatients.

Methods and results

Multicentre registry included 527 patients: 100 were started on sacubitril/valsartan during hospitalization (19.0%) and 427 as outpatients (81.0%). Compared with those in the pivotal trial, inpatients in our cohort were older (71 ± 12 vs. 61 ± 14 years; P < 0.001); had more frequently Functional Class II (41 [41.0%] vs. 100 [22.7%]; P < 0.001), higher levels of N‐terminal pro‐B type natriuretic peptide (4044 [1630–8680] vs. 2013 [1002–4132] pg/mL; P < 0.001), better glomerular filtration rate (63.5 [51.0–80.0] vs. 58.4 [47.5–71.5] mL/min; P = 0.01), and higher systolic blood pressure (121 [110–136] vs. 118 [110–133] mmHg; P = 0.03); and received angiotensin‐converting enzyme inhibitors/angiotensin receptor blockers more frequently (92 [92.0%] vs. 208 [52.7%]; P < 0.001). Compared with non‐selected outpatients, inpatients were older (71 ± 12 vs. 68 ± 12 years, P = 0.02), had more frequent Functional Class III–IV (58 [58.0%] vs. 129 [30.3%], P < 0.001), had higher levels of N‐terminal pro‐B type natriuretic peptide (4044 [1630–8680] vs. 2182 [1134–4172]; P < 0.001), and were receiving angiotensin‐converting enzyme inhibitors/angiotensin receptor blockers target dose less frequently (55 [55.0%] vs. 335 [78.5%]; P < 0.001). They also started sacubitril/valsartan with a low dose (50 mg/12 h) more frequently (80 [80.0%] vs. 209 [48.8%], P < 0.001). The initiation of sacubitril/valsartan in outpatients was an independent predictor of high‐dose use (OR 3.1; 95% confidence interval 1.7–5.6, P < 0.001). The follow‐up time in both cohorts, including all patients enrolled, was similar (7.0 ± 0.1 vs. 7.2 ± 2.6 months, P = 0.72). All‐cause admissions during follow‐up were more frequent in inpatients (30 [30.0%] vs. 68 outpatients [15.9%], P = 0.001), with no relevant differences in all‐cause mortality. There was no significant difference in sacubitril/valsartan withdrawal rate (17 inpatients [17.0%] vs. 49 outpatients [11.5%], P = 0.13). The incidence of adverse effects was also similar: hypotension (16 inpatients [16.0%] vs. 71 outpatients [16.7%], P = 0.88), worsening renal function (7 inpatients [7.0%] vs. 29 outpatients [6.8%], P = 0.94), and hyperkalaemia (1 inpatient [1.0%] vs. 21 outpatients [4.9%], P = 0.09). We did not register any case of angioedema.

Conclusions

It is safe to initiate sacubitril/valsartan during hospitalization in daily clinical practice. Inpatients have a higher risk profile and receive low starting doses more frequently than outpatients.

Efficacy of sacubitril valsartan sodium tablet for the treatment of chronic heart failure: A systematic review protocol of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

This study aims to systematically explore the efficacy of sacubitril valsartan sodium tablet (SVST) for the treatment of chronic heart failure (CHF).

METHODS

Nine electronic databases, including PUBMED, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, PsycINFO, Web of Science, Allied and Complementary Medicine Database, WANGFANG, Chinese Biomedical Literature Database, and China National Knowledge Infrastructure will be searched. Randomized controlled trials on SVST in the treatment of CHF will be collected. The search time limit will be from the establishment of each electronic database until June 1, 2019. Two authors will independently select the literature, carry out the data, and assess the methodological quality.

RESULTS

This study will systematically investigate the efficacy and safety of SVST for CHF. The outcomes consist of all-cause mortality, change in body weight, urine output, change in serum sodium; and incidence of any expected and unexpected adverse events.

CONCLUSION

The findings of this study will summarize from evidence-based medicine and a scientific basis for the efficacy and safety of SVST in the clinical treatment of CHF.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

PROSPERO CRD42019138882.

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.

Clinical practice update on heart failure 2019: pharmacotherapy, procedures, devices and patient management. An expert consensus meeting report of the Heart Failure Association of the European Society of Cardiology

The European Society of Cardiology (ESC) has published a series of guidelines on heart failure (HF) over the last 25 years, most recently in 2016. Given the amount of new information that has become available since then, the Heart Failure Association (HFA) of the ESC recognized the need to review and summarise recent developments in a consensus document. Here we report from the HFA workshop that was held in January 2019 in Frankfurt, Germany. This expert consensus report is neither a guideline update nor a position statement, but rather a summary and consensus view in the form of consensus recommendations. The report describes how these guidance statements are supported by evidence, it makes some practical comments, and it highlights new research areas and how progress might change the clinical management of HF. We have avoided re-interpretation of information already considered in the 2016 ESC/HFA guidelines. Specific new recommendations have been made based on the evidence from major trials published since 2016, including sodium-glucose co-transporter 2 inhibitors in type 2 diabetes mellitus, MitraClip for functional mitral regurgitation, atrial fibrillation ablation in HF, tafamidis in cardiac transthyretin amyloidosis, rivaroxaban in HF, implantable cardioverter-defibrillators in non-ischaemic HF, and telemedicine for HF. In addition, new trial evidence from smaller trials and updated meta-analyses have given us the chance to provide refined recommendations in selected other areas. Further, new trial evidence is due in many of these areas and others over the next 2 years, in time for the planned 2021 ESC guidelines on the diagnosis and treatment of acute and chronic heart failure.

Sacubitril/valsartan eligibility and outcomes in the ESC-EORP-HFA Heart Failure Long-Term Registry: bridging between European Medicines Agency/Food and Drug Administration label, the PARADIGM-HF trial, ESC guidelines, and real world

AIMS

To assess the proportion of patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) who are eligible for sacubitril/valsartan (LCZ696) based on the European Medicines Agency/Food and Drug Administration (EMA/FDA) label, the PARADIGM-HF trial and the 2016 ESC guidelines, and the association between eligibility and outcomes.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Outpatients with HFrEF in the ESC-EORP-HFA Long-Term Heart Failure (HF-LT) Registry between March 2011 and November 2013 were considered. Criteria for LCZ696 based on EMA/FDA label, PARADIGM-HF and ESC guidelines were applied. Of 5443 patients, 2197 and 2373 had complete information for trial and guideline eligibility assessment, and 84%, 12% and 12% met EMA/FDA label, PARADIGM-HF and guideline criteria, respectively. Absent PARADIGM-HF criteria were low natriuretic peptides (21%), hyperkalemia (4%), hypotension (7%) and sub-optimal pharmacotherapy (74%); absent Guidelines criteria were LVEF>35% (23%), insufficient NP levels (30%) and sub-optimal pharmacotherapy (82%); absent label criteria were absence of symptoms (New York Heart Association class I). When a daily requirement of ACEi/ARB ≥ 10 mg enalapril (instead of ≥ 20 mg) was used, eligibility rose from 12% to 28% based on both PARADIGM-HF and guidelines. One-year heart failure hospitalization was higher (12% and 17% vs. 12%) and all-cause mortality lower (5.3% and 6.5% vs. 7.7%) in registry eligible patients compared to the enalapril arm of PARADIGM-HF.

CONCLUSIONS

Among outpatients with HFrEF in the ESC-EORP-HFA HF-LT Registry, 84% met label criteria, while only 12% and 28% met PARADIGM-HF and guideline criteria for LCZ696 if requiring ≥ 20 mg and ≥ 10 mg enalapril, respectively. Registry patients eligible for LCZ696 had greater heart failure hospitalization but lower mortality rates than the PARADIGM-HF enalapril group.

Sacubitril/valsartan: from a large clinical trial to clinical practice

: The Prospective Comparison of Angiotensin Receptor Antagonist and Neprilysin Inhibitor with Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitor to Determine Impact on Global Mortality and Morbidity in Heart Failure Trial (PARADIGM-HF) has shown a reduction in the risk of death and heart failure hospitalizations with sacubitril/valsartan, compared with enalapril, in patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction. Guidelines now recommend the substitution of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors or AT1 blockers with sacubitril/valsartan in patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction. The aim of this review is to discuss factors that may have an impact on the implementation of these guidelines into clinical practice. The main limitation is that, based on the inclusion criteria of PARADIGM-HF, sacubitril/valsartan is not indicated in patients with heart failure and preserved ejection fraction, although they may be the majority of the patients with heart failure. The trial enrolled ambulatory patients and thus start of sacubitril/valsartan is not indicated in those hospitalized for heart failure. A drug's tolerability may be limited by hypotension with, however, a lower rate of renal dysfunction, compared with enalapril. The cost of the new treatment is also an issue. Similarly to what occurred when other neurohormonal antagonists have been introduced in clinical practice, increased awareness of poor heart failure outcomes and better patients' management programs may be of utmost importance for the implementation of this new agent.

Neprilysin Inhibitors: Filling a Gap in Heart Failure Management, Albeit Amidst Controversy and at a Significant Cost

Dual angiotensin and neprilysin inhibition using the combination drug sacubitril-valsartan has ushered in a new era in the treatment of heart failure (HF). The randomized controlled PARADIGM-HF trial, which randomized 8399 patients with HF to enalapril or sacubitril-valsartan, showed a 20% reduction in mortality and HF hospitalization with the new drug. This has been heralded as a step toward filling a crucial gap in HF management by providing strong evidence that combined inhibition of the angiotensin receptor and neprilysin is superior to inhibition of the renin-angiotensin system alone in stable patients with chronic HF as it negates the deleterious effects of angiotensin while concomitantly augmenting the beneficial effects of the endogenous natriuretic peptide system. This new therapy is costly, and other confirmatory studies have been lacking for over 2 years since its approval by major regulatory authorities. As such, controversy and heated discussions have amassed, as has detailed information from a plethora of secondary analyses of this pivotal trial about the pros and cons of this promising new therapeutic strategy in HF management. The aim of this review was to provide a critical assessment of all these aspects.

Prevalence, pattern and clinical relevance of ultrasound indices of congestion in outpatients with heart failure

AIMS

Even if treatment controls symptoms, patients with heart failure may still be congested. We aimed at assessing the prevalence and clinical relevance of congestion in outpatients with chronic heart failure.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We recorded clinical and ultrasound [lung B-lines; inferior vena cava (IVC) diameter; internal jugular vein diameter before and after a Valsalva manoeuvre (JVD ratio)] features of congestion in heart failure patients during a routine check-up. Of 342 patients who attended, predominantly in New York Heart Association class I or II (n = 257; 75%), 242 (71%) had at least one feature of congestion, either clinical (n = 139; 41%) or by ultrasound (n = 199; 58%). Amongst patients (n = 203, 59%) clinically free of congestion, 31 (15%) had ≥ 14 B-lines, 57 (29%) had a dilated IVC (> 2.0 cm), 38 (20%) had an abnormal JVD ratio (< 4), 87 (43%) had at least one of these, and 27 (13%) had two or more. During a median follow-up of 234 (interquartile range 136-351) days, 60 patients (18%) died or were hospitalized for heart failure. In univariable analysis, each clinical and ultrasound measure of congestion was associated with increased risk but, in multivariable models, only higher N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide and IVC, and lower JVD ratio, were associated with the composite outcome.

CONCLUSIONS

Many patients with chronic heart failure with few symptoms have objective evidence of congestion and this is associated with an adverse prognosis. Whether using these measures of congestion to guide management improves outcomes requires investigation.

Real-World Eligibility for Sacubitril/Valsartan in Heart Failure with Reduced Ejection Fraction Patients in Korea: Data from the Korean Acute Heart Failure (KorAHF) Registry

Background and Objectives

Sacubitril/valsartan (SV, LCZ696), the first in class drug, called as angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI) can reduce heart failure (HF) hospitalization and cardiovascular mortality. However, SV prescription rate remains still low despite current HF guideline recommendations. Considering the complex inclusion criteria of Prospective Comparison of ARNI with ACEI to Determine Impact on Global Mortality and Morbidity in Heart Failure (PARADIGM-HF) trial, the real-world eligibility for SV remains uncertain in Asian heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) patients. Therefore, we aimed to assess real-world HF population eligibility for SV in a large Korean acute HF registry.

Methods

From March 2011 to February 2014, a total of 5,625 patients who were admitted for HF were enrolled in Korea. After excluding HF patients with left ventricular ejection fraction > 40% and in-hospital death, 2,941 patients were analyzed. Criteria for SV based on Korean Food and Drug Administration (KFDA) label and PARADIGM-HF were applied.

Results

Of 2,941 patients, KFDA label criteria excludes the absence of symptoms (New York Heart Association class I, 20%); PARADIGM-HF criteria excludes chronic kidney disease stage IV (9%), hyperkalemia (1%), hypotension (6%), and sub-optimal pharmacotherapy (52%, e.g. lower dose use of angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor/angiotensin receptor blocker [ACEI/ARB], beta blocker use). When a daily requirement of ACEI/ARB ≥5 mg enalapril (instead of ≥10 mg) was used, the percent of eligibility for SV rose from 12% to 30% based on the PARADIGM-HF criteria.

Conclusions

Among the Korean hospitalized HFrEF patients, 80% met KFDA label criteria, while only 12% met the inclusion criteria of PARADIGM-HF trial for SV if requiring ≥10 mg enalapril. Sub-optimal pharmacotherapy could be the main reason for ineligible SV use based on the PARADIGM-HF criteria.