Is the PARADIGM-HF cohort representative of the real-world heart failure patient population?

Short-term efficacy of angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor treatment in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction with reduced ejection fraction after primary percutaneous coronary intervention: a propensity score matching study

Background

Acute myocardial infarction (AMI) causes a series of pathophysiological changes, including myocardial necrosis, myocardial edema, and microvascular damage. These changes eventually lead to severe cardiovascular events, such as ventricular remodeling, heart failure, and papillary dysfunction. Impaired cardiac function after ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) often manifests as a decrease in left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). Clinical trials have shown that angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI) treatment has the potential to improve LVEF in patients with STEMI after primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI).

Objective

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the short-term efficacy of ARNI versus angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor (ACEI) treatment in patients with STEMI who exhibit reduced LVEF after PPCI.

Methods

A total of 169 patients with STEMI exhibiting post-PPCI LVEF below 50% who were orally treated with ARNI between December 2017 and August 2020 were selected as the experimental group. A total of 136 patients with STEMI exhibiting post-PPCI LVEF below 50% who were orally treated with an ACEI between January 2016 and August 2020 were selected as the control group. LVEF was measured using cardiac ultrasonography during hospitalization and 3 months after discharge. Linear and logistic regression analyses were performed to compare patient demographics and hospitalization variables to evaluate the risk factors for change and rate of improvement in LVEF. Propensity score matching (PSM) was used to account for confounding factors.

Results

After PSM, the study cohort consisted of 81 patients in the ARNI group and 123 in the ACEI group. After an average follow-up period of 3 months, no significant difference was noted in the LVEF improvement rate between the experimental and control groups (P = 0.475, 95% CI: -0.062 to 0.134). Multivariate logistic regression analysis also indicated no significant correlation between the change in LVEF and oral ARNI treatment in patients with STEMI exhibiting reduced LVEF after PPCI (P > 0.05).

Conclusion

The short-term effect of ARNI treatment on the cardiac function of patients with STEMI and reduced LVEF after PPCI is not superior to that of ACEI treatment.

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.

Generalisability of Randomised Controlled Trials in Heart Failure with Reduced Ejection Fraction

Background

Heart failure (HF) trials have stringent inclusion and exclusion criteria, but limited data exist regarding generalizability of trials. We compared patient characteristics and outcomes between patients with HF and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) in trials and observational registries.

Methods and Results

Individual patient data for 16 922 patients from five randomized clinical trials and 46 914 patients from two HF registries were included. The registry patients were categorized into trial-eligible and non-eligible groups using the most commonly used inclusion and exclusion criteria. A total of 26 104 (56%) registry patients fulfilled the eligibility criteria. Unadjusted all-cause mortality rates at 1 year were lowest in the trial population (7%), followed by trial-eligible patients (12%) and trial-non-eligible registry patients (26%). After adjustment for age and sex, all-cause mortality rates were similar between trial participants and trial-eligible registry patients [standardized mortality ratio (SMR) 0.97; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.92–1.03] but cardiovascular mortality was higher in trial participants (SMR 1.19; 1.12–1.27). After full case-mix adjustment, the SMR for cardiovascular mortality remained higher in the trials at 1.28 (1.20–1.37) compared to RCT-eligible registry patients.

Conclusion

In contemporary HF registries, over half of HFrEF patients would have been eligible for trial enrolment. Crude clinical event rates were lower in the trials, but, after adjustment for case-mix, trial participants had similar rates of survival as registries. Despite this, they had about 30% higher cardiovascular mortality rates. Age and sex were the main drivers of differences in clinical outcomes between HF trials and observational HF registries.

Hospitalization and Mortality in Patients With Heart Failure Treated With Sacubitril/Valsartan vs. Enalapril: A Real-World, Population-Based Study

Background: The effect of sacubitril/valsartan on survival and hospitalization risk in older patients with heart failure has not been explored. We aimed to investigate the risk of hospitalization and mortality with the use of sacubitril/valsartan vs. enalapril in patients with heart failure.

Methods: This was a population-based cohort study using the Hong Kong-wide electronic healthcare database. Patients diagnosed with heart failure and newly prescribed sacubitril/valsartan or enalapril between July 2016 and June 2019 were included. The risk of primary composite outcome of cardiovascular mortality or heart failure-related hospitalization, all-cause hospitalization, heart failure-related hospitalization, cardiovascular mortality and all-cause mortality were compared using Cox regression with inverse probability treatment weighting. Additional analysis was conducted by age stratification.

Results: Of the 44,503 patients who received sacubitril/valsartan or enalapril, 3,237 new users (sacubitril/valsartan, n = 1,056; enalapril, n = 2,181) with a diagnosis of heart failure were identified. Compared with enalapril, sacubitril/valsartan users were associated with a lower risk of primary composite outcome [hazard ratio (HR) 0.58; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.45–0.75], heart failure-related hospitalization (HR 0.59; 95% CI, 0.45–0.77), all-cause mortality (HR 0.51; 95% CI, 0.36–0.74) and borderline non-significant reductions in all-cause hospitalization (HR 0.85; 95% CI, 0.70–1.04) and cardiovascular mortality (HR 0.63; 95% CI, 0.39–1.02). The treatment effect of sacubitril/valsartan remains unaltered in the patient subgroup age ≥ 65 years (73%).

Conclusions: In real-world settings, sacubitril/valsartan was associated with improved survival and reduced heart failure-related hospitalization compared to enalapril in Asian patients with heart failure. The effectiveness remains consistent in the older population.

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.

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.

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.