Efficacy and safety of ivabradine in chronic heart failure across the age spectrum: insights from the SHIFT study

Ivabradine in patients with heart failure: a systematic literature review

Background: Heart failure is a chronic disease linked with significant morbidity and mortality, and uncontrolled resting heart rate is a risk factor for adverse outcomes. This systematic literature review aimed to assess the efficacy, safety, and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) of ivabradine in patients with heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies. Methods: We searched electronic databases from their inception to July 2021 to include studies that reported on efficacy, safety, or PROs of ivabradine in patients with HFrEF. Results: Of 1947 records screened, 51 RCTs and 6 observational studies were identified. Ivabradine on top of background therapy demonstrated a significant reduction in composite outcomes including hospitalization for HF or cardiovascular death. In addition, observational studies suggested that ivabradine was associated with a significant reduction in mortality. Across all studies, ivabradine use on top of background therapy was associated with greater reductions in heart rate, improved EF, and improved health-related quality of life (QoL) and comparable risk of total adverse events compared to those treated with background therapy alone. Conclusions: Ivabradine on top of background therapy is beneficial for heart rate, hospitalization risk for HF, mortality, EF, and patients' QoL. Moreover, these benefits were achieved with no significant increase in the overall risk of total adverse events.

Effects of empagliflozin on cardiovascular and renal outcomes in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction according to age: a secondary analysis of EMPEROR-Reduced

AIMS

Empagliflozin improves cardiovascular and renal outcomes in patients with heart failure (HF) and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), but its efficacy and safety across patient's age is not well established.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We assessed the effects of empagliflozin (10 mg daily) versus placebo, on top of standard HF therapy, in symptomatic HFrEF patients with a left ventricular ejection fraction ≤40% and increased natriuretic peptides stratified by age (<65, 65-74, ≥75 years). The primary endpoint was a composite of cardiovascular death or HF hospitalization. Key secondary endpoints included first and recurrent HF hospitalizations and slope of change in estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR); the latter was supported by an analysis of a renal composite endpoint (chronic dialysis or renal transplantation or profound and sustained reduction in eGFR). Of 3730 patients, 38% were <65 years, 35% were 65-74 years and 27% were ≥75 years. Compared with placebo, empagliflozin reduced the primary endpoint consistently across the three age groups (hazard ratio 0.71 [95% confidence interval 0.57-0.89] for <65 years, 0.72 [0.57-0.93] for 65-74 years, 0.86 [0.67-1.10] for ≥75 years, interaction p-trend test = 0.24). The effects of empagliflozin were also consistent across age groups for key secondary endpoints of first and recurrent HF hospitalization (p-trend = 0.30), the rate of decline in eGFR (p-trend = 0.78) and the renal composite (p-trend = 0.94). Adverse events (AEs), serious AEs and AEs leading to drug discontinuation increased with age in both treatment arms, but empagliflozin did not increase their incidence over placebo within each age group.

CONCLUSION

The efficacy and safety of empagliflozin in improving cardiovascular and renal outcomes in HFrEF was consistent across the spectrum of age, including older patients (aged ≥75).

Empagliflozin Improves Outcomes in Patients With Heart Failure and Preserved Ejection Fraction Irrespective of Age

BACKGROUND

Empagliflozin reduces cardiovascular death (CVD) or heart failure (HF) hospitalization (HFH) in patients with HF and preserved ejection fraction. Treatment effects and safety in relation to age have not been studied.

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the interplay of age and empagliflozin effects in EMPEROR-Preserved (Empagliflozin Outcome Trial in Patients With Chronic Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction).

METHODS

We grouped patients (n = 5,988) according to their baseline age (<65 years [n = 1,199], 65-74 years [n = 2,214], 75-79 years [n = 1,276], ≥80 years [n = 1,299]). We explored the influence of age on empagliflozin effects on CVD or HFH (primary outcome), total HFH, rate of decline in estimated glomerular filtration rate, health-related quality of life with the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire-Clinical Summary Score, and frequency of adverse events.

RESULTS

Considering only patients on placebo, the incidence of primary outcomes (P trend = 0.02) and CVD (P trend = 0.003) increased with age. Empagliflozin reduced primary outcomes (P trend = 0.33), first HFH (P trend = 0.22), and first and recurrent HFH (P trend = 0.11) across all age groups with an effect being similar at ≥75 years (P interaction = 0.22) or >80 years (P interaction = 0.51). Empagliflozin improved Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire-Clinical Summary Score at week 52 and attenuated the decline of estimated glomerular filtration rate without age interaction (P = 0.48 and P = 0.32, respectively). There were no clinically relevant differences in adverse events between empagliflozin and placebo across the age groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Empagliflozin reduced primary outcomes and first and recurrent HFH and improved symptoms across a broad age spectrum. High age was not associated with reduced efficacy or meaningful intolerability. (Empagliflozin Outcome Trial in Patients With Chronic Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction [EMPEROR-Preserved]; NCT0305951).

Chinese expert consensus on the diagnosis and treatment of chronic heart failure in elderly patients (2021)

Heart failure is a clinical syndrome caused by ventricular insufficiency, which results in decreased activity tolerance and repeated hospitalization, seriously affecting quality of life, and it is the main cause of death in elderly people. In recent years, great progress has been made in the treatment of heart failure, but the prevalence, mortality, and readmission rate among elderly patients with heart failure remain high. Because elderly patients have multiple cardiovascular disease risk factors, coexistence of multiple diseases accompanied by multiple syndromes, multiple medications, and natural decline of body functions, the clinical diagnosis, treatment, rehabilitation, and long‐term management of these patients differ from those in other populations. To facilitate clinical practice and application of clinical geriatric medicine, especially among community physicians, experts from the Cardiovascular Group, Geriatrics Branch of the Chinese Medical Association have drafted this consensus to summarize the diagnosis and treatment regimens for elderly patients with chronic heart failure and provide guidance for its clinical diagnosis and treatment in China.

Medical Treatment of Heart Failure with Reduced Ejection Fraction in the Elderly

The aging population, higher burden of predisposing conditions and comorbidities along with improvements in therapy all contribute to the growing prevalence of heart failure (HF). Although the majority of trials have not demonstrated age-dependent heterogeneity in the efficacy or safety of medical treatment for HF, the latest trials demonstrate that older participants are less likely to receive established drug therapies for HF with reduced ejection fraction. There remains reluctance in real-world clinical practice to prescribe and up-titrate these medications in older people, possibly because of (mis)understanding about lower tolerance and greater propensity for developing adverse drug reactions. This is compounded by difficulties in the management of multiple medications, patient preferences and other non-medical considerations. Future research should provide a more granular analysis on how to approach medical and device therapies in elderly patients, with consideration of biological differences, difficulties in care delivery and issues relevant to patients’ values and perspectives. A variety of approaches are needed, with the central principle being to ‘add years to life – and life to years’. These include broader representation of elderly HF patients in clinical trials, improved education of healthcare professionals, wider provision of specialised centres for multidisciplinary HF management and stronger implementation of HF medical treatment in vulnerable patient groups.

Ivabradine in Cardiovascular Disease Management Revisited: a Review

Ivabradine is a unique agent that is distinct from beta-blockers and calcium channel blockers as it reduces heart rate without affecting myocardial contractility or vascular tone. Ivabradine is a use-dependent inhibitor targeting the sinoatrial node. It is approved for use in the United States as an adjunct therapy for heart rate reduction in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction. In this scenario, ivabradine has demonstrated improved clinical outcomes due to reduction in heart failure readmissions. However, there has been conflicting evidence from prospective studies and randomized controlled trials for its use in stable ischemic heart disease regarding efficacy in symptom reduction and mortality benefit. Ivabradine may also play a role in the treatment of patients with inappropriate sinus tachycardia, who often cannot tolerate beta-blockers and/or calcium channel blockers. In this review, we highlight the evidence for the nuances of using ivabradine in heart failure, stable ischemic heart disease, and inappropriate sinus tachycardia to raise awareness for its vital role in the treatment of select populations.

Ivabradine as adjuvant treatment for chronic heart failure

BACKGROUND

Chronic heart failure is one of the most common medical conditions, affecting more than 23 million people worldwide. Despite established guideline-based, multidrug pharmacotherapy, chronic heart failure is still the cause of frequent hospitalisation, and about 50% die within five years of diagnosis.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness and safety of ivabradine in individuals with chronic heart failure.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and CPCI-S Web of Science in March 2020. We also searched ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO ICTRP. We checked reference lists of included studies. We did not apply any time or language restrictions.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials in which adult participants diagnosed with chronic heart failure were randomly assigned to receive either ivabradine or placebo/usual care/no treatment. We distinguished between type of heart failure (heart failure with a reduced ejection fraction or heart failure with a preserved ejection fraction) as well as between duration of ivabradine treatment (short term (< 6 months) or long term (≥ 6 months)).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion, extracted data, and checked data for accuracy. We calculated risk ratios (RR) using a random-effects model. We completed a comprehensive 'Risk of bias' assessment for all studies. We contacted authors for missing data. Our primary endpoints were: mortality from cardiovascular causes; quality of life; time to first hospitalisation for heart failure during follow-up; and number of days spent in hospital due to heart failure during follow-up. Our secondary endpoints were: rate of serious adverse events; exercise capacity; and economic costs (narrative report). We assessed the certainty of the evidence applying the GRADE methodology.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 19 studies (76 reports) involving a total of 19,628 participants (mean age 60.76 years, 69% male). However, few studies contributed data to meta-analyses due to inconsistency in trial design (type of heart failure) and outcome reporting and measurement. In general, risk of bias varied from low to high across the included studies, with insufficient detail provided to inform judgement in several cases. We were able to perform two meta-analyses focusing on participants with heart failure with a reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and long-term ivabradine treatment. There was evidence of no difference between ivabradine and placebo/usual care/no treatment for mortality from cardiovascular causes (RR 0.99, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.88 to 1.11; 3 studies; 17,676 participants; I² = 33%; moderate-certainty evidence). Furthermore, we found evidence of no difference in rate of serious adverse events amongst HFrEF participants randomised to receive long-term ivabradine compared with those randomised to placebo, usual care, or no treatment (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.00; 2 studies; 17,399 participants; I² = 12%; moderate-certainty evidence). We were not able to perform meta-analysis for all other outcomes, and have low confidence in the findings based on the individual studies.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found evidence of no difference in cardiovascular mortality and serious adverse events between long-term treatment with ivabradine and placebo/usual care/no treatment in participants with heart failure with HFrEF. Nevertheless, due to indirectness (male predominance), the certainty of the available evidence is rated as moderate.

Efficacy and Safety of Ivabradine Once-Daily Prolonged-Release versus Twice-Daily Immediate-Release Formulation in Patients with Stable Chronic Heart Failure with Systolic Dysfunction: A Randomized, Double-Blind, Phase 3 Non-Inferiority (PROFICIENT) Study

Introduction

Dosing frequency is an important factor influencing medication compliance in patients with heart failure (HF), which in turn is imperative in achieving the desired therapeutic outcome. Here we assessed the efficacy and safety of ivabradine prolonged-release (PR) once-daily (test) vs. ivabradine immediate-release (IR) twice-daily (reference) formulations in patients with stable chronic HF with systolic dysfunction.

Methods

Patients with sinus rhythm and heart rate (HR) ≥ 50 bpm, left ventricular ejection fraction ≤ 40% (HF with reduced ejection fraction), on guideline-based standard care, receiving a stable dose of ivabradine IR 5/7.5 mg twice daily for ≥ 1 month were enrolled in this randomized, double-blind, phase 3 non-inferiority study. Patients were randomly assigned 1:1 to ivabradine PR (10 mg/15 mg) based on the ivabradine IR dosage or continued ivabradine IR (5 mg/7.5 mg). The primary endpoint was change in resting ECG HR from baseline to the end of 3 months, assessed by 12-lead ECG. Safety assessments and 24-h Holter HR monitoring (in a subgroup of patients) were also performed. Non-inferiority was concluded if the upper limit of the 95% CI of the difference between the test and reference was less than the margin of 6.5 bpm in the per-protocol set.

Results

A total of 169 out of 180 randomized patients (93.9%) completed the study (PR = 84; IR = 85). The least-square mean (standard error [SE]) for change in HR from baseline to 3 months was 0.76 (1.188; 95% CI −1.59:3.11) in ivabradine PR vs. ivabradine IR, which was within the pre-specified margin of 6.5 bpm, confirming the non-inferiority of ivabradine PR. The change from baseline to 3 months was comparable between the treatment groups for 24-h Holter ECG monitoring (p = 0.3701), mean HR awake (p = 0.3423), and mean HR asleep (p = 0.1501). Thirty-nine treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were reported; the majority in both groups were of mild or moderate severity and were subsequently resolved. Seven serious adverse events were reported (ivabradine PR = 2; ivabradine IR = 5), of which one was fatal (ivabradine IR group). The bradycardia events reported were comparable between groups.

Conclusion

Ivabradine PR was found to be non-inferior to ivabradine IR in the management of patients with stable CHF, with a comparable safety profile. Once-daily ivabradine PR effectively maintained the HR in patients shifted from the ivabradine IR twice-daily regimen, and thus may aid in improving treatment compliance.

Trial Registration

CTRI/2018/04/013464 (Trial Registered Prospectively on 24/04/2018)

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.

Pharmacological interventions for heart failure in people with chronic kidney disease

BACKGROUND

Approximately half of people with heart failure have chronic kidney disease (CKD). Pharmacological interventions for heart failure in people with CKD have the potential to reduce death (any cause) or hospitalisations for decompensated heart failure. However, these interventions are of uncertain benefit and may increase the risk of harm, such as hypotension and electrolyte abnormalities, in those with CKD.

OBJECTIVES

This review aims to look at the benefits and harms of pharmacological interventions for HF (i.e., antihypertensive agents, inotropes, and agents that may improve the heart performance indirectly) in people with HF and CKD.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Kidney and Transplant Register of Studies through 12 September 2019 in consultation with an Information Specialist and using search terms relevant to this review. Studies in the Register are identified through searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and EMBASE, conference proceedings, the International Clinical Trials Register (ICTRP) Search Portal and ClinicalTrials.gov.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials of any pharmacological intervention for acute or chronic heart failure, among people of any age with chronic kidney disease of at least three months duration.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently screened the records to identify eligible studies and extracted data on the following dichotomous outcomes: death, hospitalisations, worsening heart failure, worsening kidney function, hyperkalaemia, and hypotension. We used random effects meta-analysis to estimate treatment effects, which we expressed as a risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). We assessed the risk of bias using the Cochrane tool. We applied the GRADE methodology to rate the certainty of evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

One hundred and twelve studies met our selection criteria: 15 were studies of adults with CKD; 16 studies were conducted in the general population but provided subgroup data for people with CKD; and 81 studies included individuals with CKD, however, data for this subgroup were not provided. The risk of bias in all 112 studies was frequently high or unclear. Of the 31 studies (23,762 participants) with data on CKD patients, follow-up ranged from three months to five years, and study size ranged from 16 to 2916 participants. In total, 26 studies (19,612 participants) reported disaggregated and extractable data on at least one outcome of interest for our review and were included in our meta-analyses. In acute heart failure, the effects of adenosine A1-receptor antagonists, dopamine, nesiritide, or serelaxin on death, hospitalisations, worsening heart failure or kidney function, hyperkalaemia, hypotension or quality of life were uncertain due to sparse data or were not reported. In chronic heart failure, the effects of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEi) or angiotensin receptor blockers (ARB) (4 studies, 5003 participants: RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.02; I² = 78%; low certainty evidence), aldosterone antagonists (2 studies, 34 participants: RR 0.61 95% CI 0.06 to 6.59; very low certainty evidence), and vasopressin receptor antagonists (RR 1.26, 95% CI 0.55 to 2.89; 2 studies, 1840 participants; low certainty evidence) on death (any cause) were uncertain. Treatment with beta-blockers may reduce the risk of death (any cause) (4 studies, 3136 participants: RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.60 to 0.79; I² = 0%; moderate certainty evidence). Treatment with ACEi or ARB (2 studies, 1368 participants: RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.43 to 1.90; I² = 97%; very low certainty evidence) had uncertain effects on hospitalisation for heart failure, as treatment estimates were consistent with either benefit or harm. Treatment with beta-blockers may decrease hospitalisation for heart failure (3 studies, 2287 participants: RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.43 to 1.05; I² = 87%; low certainty evidence). Aldosterone antagonists may increase the risk of hyperkalaemia compared to placebo or no treatment (3 studies, 826 participants: RR 2.91, 95% CI 2.03 to 4.17; I² = 0%; low certainty evidence). Renin inhibitors had uncertain risks of hyperkalaemia (2 studies, 142 participants: RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.49 to 1.49; I² = 0%; very low certainty). We were unable to estimate whether treatment with sinus node inhibitors affects the risk of hyperkalaemia, as there were few studies and meta-analysis was not possible. Hyperkalaemia was not reported for the CKD subgroup in studies investigating other therapies. The effects of ACEi or ARB, or aldosterone antagonists on worsening heart failure or kidney function, hypotension, or quality of life were uncertain due to sparse data or were not reported. Effects of anti-arrhythmic agents, digoxin, phosphodiesterase inhibitors, renin inhibitors, sinus node inhibitors, vasodilators, and vasopressin receptor antagonists were very uncertain due to the paucity of studies.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The effects of pharmacological interventions for heart failure in people with CKD are uncertain and there is insufficient evidence to inform clinical practice. Study data for treatment outcomes in patients with heart failure and CKD are sparse despite the potential impact of kidney impairment on the benefits and harms of treatment. Future research aimed at analysing existing data in general population HF studies to explore the effect in subgroups of patients with CKD, considering stage of disease, may yield valuable insights for the management of people with HF and CKD.

Optimization of Heart Failure Treatment by Heart Rate Reduction

Heart failure (HF) treatment should be optimized in addition to guideline-directed and recommended drugs to achieve an appropriate heart rate (i.e. 50−60 bpm) by ivabradine in patients with a heart rate >70 bpm in sinus rhythm and with an ejection fraction ≤35%. Heart rate reduction was to reduce cardiovascular death and HF hospitalization dependent on baseline resting heart rate. In particular in patients at a heart rate >75 bpm, a reduction in cardiovascular death, all-cause death, HF death, HF hospitalization and all-cause hospitalization has been observed. The optimal heart rate achieved appears to be between 50−60 bpm, if well tolerated as in these patients the lowest event rate is observed on treatment. Heart rate reduction is, therefore, a treatable risk factor in chronic HF. Observational studies support the concept that it is a risk indicator in other cardiovascular and non-cardiovascular conditions. Whether heart rate reduction is also modifying risk in other conditions than chronic HF should be explored in prospective clinical trials.

Application of self-care based on full-course individualized health education in patients with chronic heart failure and its influencing factors

BACKGROUND

The treatment of heart failure not only needs to relieve the clinical symptoms and improve the quality of life for patients but also needs to select scientific and reasonable ways to prevent or delay the progression of the disease, thus reducing the mortality and hospitalization rate. Although the previous regimen can effectively relieve symptoms in the early stage of treatment, long-term use may cause adverse events, such as arrhythmia, and even increase mortality. Therefore, conventional treatment cannot meet the actual health needs of patients, and scientific nursing intervention is very necessary.

AIM

To investigate the application of self-care based on full-course individualized health education (FCIHE) and its influencing factors in patients with chronic heart failure (CHF).

METHODS

We enrolled CHF patients who were admitted to our center between September 2015 and June 2016 and divided them into an intervention group (n = 50) and control group (n = 50) using a random number table. Routine nursing care was applied to the control group, and FCIHE was offered to the intervention group. The self-care behavior, 6-min walking distance (6MWD), and 36-item short form health survey (SF-36) scores were compared between the two groups. The influencing factors of the self-care were also analyzed.

RESULTS

The 6MWD was not significantly different between the two groups at admission (P > 0.05); however, at 3 and 6 mo after discharge, 6MWD was significantly increased, and it was significantly longer in the intervention group (P < 0.05). The scores for self-care behavior showed no significant difference at admission between the two groups (P > 0.05); however, at 3 and 6 mo after discharge, the total scores for self-care maintenance, management, confidence, and behavior of the intervention group were significantly higher than those of the control group (P < 0.05). There were no significant differences in the SF-36 scores at admission (P > 0.05); however, at 3 mo and 6 mo after discharge, the scores for all eight subscales, including physical functioning, role limitations due to physical problems, bodily pain, general health perceptions, vitality, social functioning, role-limitations due to emotional problems, and mental health, were significantly higher in the intervention group (P < 0.05). As shown by logistic regression analysis, the influencing factors of self-care mainly included age, cardiac function class, and education background (odds ratio > 1; all P < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

FCIHE improved self-care behavior and cardiac function in CHF patients. Age, cardiac function, and education level affected the implementation of self-care among CHF patients.

Current drug therapy for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction

The prevalence of heart failure has been steadily increasing during the past few years, with a further increase predicted in the years to come. Without treatment, the syndrome of heart failure has a very poor prognosis. Advances in drug treatments and the consequent implementation of a guideline-recommended drug therapy have significantly improved the prognosis in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). Besides angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors (ACEi) or angiotensin receptor blockers, beta-blockers and diuretics treatment with mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists and ivabradine have become standard in the therapy of symptomatic patients with HFrEF. Recently, the impact of the adequate dosage of ACEi and beta-blockers was emphasized again. Angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibition is an auspicious new therapeutic approach and is predicted to play a crucial role in heart failure treatment in the coming years. The role of cardiac glycosides in the modern era of heart failure therapy is the focus of a current randomized controlled trial. Last but not least, potassium binders such as the new substance patiromer might help in overcoming the problem of hyperkalemia, which frequently limits the dosing of vital heart failure drugs. These advances offer optimism for further improvements in the prognosis and quality of life of HFrEF patients.

Drug treatment of heart failure in the elderly

The prevalence of heart failure increases with age. Changes in the age distribution and growing life expectancy will lead to a further rise. However, data concerning drug treatment of heart failure especially in the elderly are scarce. Subgroup analyses of the heart failure trials suggest that drug therapy in older patients should follow the recommendations in the current guidelines. In doing so, several common comorbidities in these patients (e. g., impaired renal function) have to be considered and may have an influence on the therapy (e. g., drug dose, choice of active pharmaceutical ingredient, etc.). Especially in old, multimorbid patients, possible interaction of drugs might play a substantial role. In many cases the main goal of the therapy, especially in the very elderly, is to improve symptoms and quality of life.

Cardiogenic shock during heart failure hospitalizations: Age-, sex-, and race-stratified trends in incidence and outcomes

The objectives were to study the overall and age-, sex-, and race-stratified incidence of cardiogenic shock (CS) during heart failure hospitalizations (HFHs) not complicated by acute coronary syndromes (ACS), utilization of short-term mechanical circulatory support (MCS) and in-hospital mortality with non-ACS-related CS, and respective temporal trends. Data are lacking regarding the epidemiology of non-ACS-related CS during HFHs.

METHODS

Retrospective observational analysis of the National Inpatient Sample 2005-2014 to identify all HFHs in adult patients without concomitant ACS.

RESULTS

Of 8,333,752 HFHs, incidence rate of non-ACS-related CS was 8.7 per thousand HFHs (N = 72,668), a 4-fold increase from 4.1 to 15.6 per thousand HFHs between 2005 and 2014 (P_trend < .001). Among those with non-ACS-related CS, utilization rates of intra-aortic balloon pump, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, and temporary ventricular assist devices were 12.8%, 1.4%, and 2.5%, respectively. Respective 2005 to 2014 trends were 14.2% to 10.7%, 0.6% to 1.8%, and 0.8% to 2.7% (P_trend for all, <.001). In-hospital mortality rate was 27.1%, with a substantial decrease from 42.4% in 2005 to 23.3% in 2014 (P_trend < .001). These temporal trends were largely consistent across age, sex, and race subgroups.

CONCLUSION

During HFHs in the United States, non-ACS-related CS occurred infrequently but was associated with substantial mortality. Non-ACS-related CS incidence and certain MCS utilization rates increased, and in-hospital mortality rate decreased between 2005 and 2014. These trends were generally homogenous across the age, sex, and race groups. The observed trends in incidence and mortality may be a reflection of increased identification of CS during HFHs, although further study is needed to assess whether temporal changes in care may have influenced outcomes.

Contemporary Management of Heart Failure in the Elderly

The foundation of the treatment of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction is a number of pharmacotherapies shown to reduce morbidity and mortality in large randomised multinational clinical trials. These include angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors, angiotensin receptor blockers, beta-blockers, mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists, and more recently, a combined angiotensin receptor blocker neprilysin inhibitor, sacubitril/valsartan. In select cases, digoxin, ivabradine and hydralazine with isosorbide dinitrate have a role to play in the treatment of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction. On this foundation, other more advanced treatments such as implantable cardioverter defibrillators and cardiac resynchronisation therapy are recommended in guidelines for the treatment of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (i.e. an ejection fraction of ≤ 40%) and for a select few there remains the option of mechanical circulatory support and cardiac transplantation. The efficacy of pharmacotherapy does not vary by age and each of these therapies should be considered in all patients, irrespective of age. Other factors such as co-morbidities like renal dysfunction may limit the use of some of these drugs in the elderly. Decision making with regard to device therapy is more complex; the likelihood of competing non-cardiovascular causes of death and life expectancy need to be considered. Despite multiple treatment options for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, the options for heart failure with preserved ejection fraction are limited. In the absence of robust outcomes data from a large randomised trial, a mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist is a reasonable therapy to reduce the risk of hospitalisation for heart failure in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction.

Ivabradine for the Treatment of Cardiovascular Diseases

Higher heart rate (HR) is independently related to worse outcomes in various cardiac diseases, including hypertension, coronary artery disease, and heart failure (HF). HR is determined by the pacemaker activity of cells within the sinoatrial node. The hyperpolarization-activated cyclic nucleotide-gated (HCN) 4 channel, one of 4 HCN isoforms, generates the I_f current and plays an important role in the regulation of pacemaker activity in the sinoatrial node. Ivabradine is a novel and only available HCN inhibitor, which can reduce HR and has been approved for stable angina and chronic HF in many countries other than Japan. In this review, we summarize the current knowledge of the HCN4 channel and ivabradine, including the function of HCN4 in cardiac pacemaking, the mechanism of action of I_f inhibition by ivabradine, and the pharmacological and clinical effects of ivabradine in cardiac diseases as HF, coronary artery disease, and atrial fibrillation.

Prognosis of heart failure treated with digoxin or with ivabradine: A cohort study in the community

BACKGROUND

Resting heart rate (HR) reduction with ivabradine (IVA) improves outcomes of patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). Nevertheless, the best option to slow HR in patients with HFrEF treated with beta-blockers and a HR >70 bpm is unsettled.

AIMS

To evaluate whether, in patients with HFrEF, commencing therapy with digoxin (CT-DIG) is associated to a worse prognosis than commencing treatment with ivabradine (CT-IVA).

METHODS

Observational study over 10 years on 2364 patients with HFrEF in sinus rhythm and a HR >70 bpm. Main outcomes were mortality, hospitalisations and visits. We analyse the independent relationship of CT-DIG or CT-IVA with the prognosis, stratifying patients for cardiovascular comorbidity, and for other potential confounders (378 patients who CT-DIG vs another 355 patients who CT-IVA vs another 1631 patients non-exposed to IVA or DIG).

RESULTS

During a median follow-up of 57.5 months, 1751 patients (74.1%) died, and 2151 (91.0%) were hospitalised for HF. CT-DIG or CT-IVA was associated with a lower all-cause mortality (DIG: HR = 0.86 [95% CI, 0.82-0.90], and IVA: HR = 0.88 [0.83-0.93]), cardiovascular mortality (DIG: HR = 0.84 [0.80-0.89] and IVA: HR = 0.83 [0.78-0.89]), hospitalisation (DIG: HR = 0.86 [0.83-0.89] and IVA: HR = 0.87 [0.83-0.91]) and 30-day readmission (DIG: HR = 0.84 [0.79-0.90] and IVA: HR = 0.88 [0.79-0.95]), after adjustment for cardiovascular comorbidity, and other potential confounders. These associations with the prognosis of HFrEF did not differ between patients who CT-DIG and those who CT-IVA.

CONCLUSION

Commencing therapy with digoxin or with ivabradine is associated with an improved prognosis of patients with HFrEF.

Quality of life improvement in older patients with heart failure initiated on ivabradine: Results from the UK multi-centre LIVE:LIFE prospective cohort study

AIMS

LIVE:LIFE is a multi-centre, open-label, prospective observational cohort study assessing health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in older patients with chronic heart failure (CHF) following initiation of ivabradine. The primary endpoint is change in Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire (MLWHFQ) total score after 6months.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Consenting patients aged ≥70years with CHF, in whom ivabradine was initiated within its licensed indication, were enrolled. Demographic, clinical and HRQoL (MLWHFQ, SF-12) data were collected at baseline (V1), 2 (V2) and 6months (V3). Over 14months, 240 patients were recruited from 44 UK centres. Ninety-nine (41%) were female and 28% aged ≥80years. Aetiology was ischaemic in 152 (63%) and 59% had been diagnosed with CHF for ≤2yrs. 52% of patients were New York Heart Association (NYHA) Class III and 57% had left ventricular ejection fraction <35%. 57% received beta-blockers. Patients had multiple comorbidities (144 (60%) hypertension, 105 (44%) asthma/COPD, 80 (33%) diabetes) and were prescribed a mean of 9±3 daily medications. Resting heart rate was 83bpm at baseline and fell 13bpm by V3. In patients completing both visits (n=187), comparing V3 to baseline: MLWHFQ total score improved by 9 points (p<0.0001, 95% CI: 7-12); 30% of patients improved ≥1 NYHA class and global assessment improved from patient (59%) and physician (60%) perspectives. 88% of patients completing V3 were still taking ivabradine.

CONCLUSIONS

These contemporary prospective UK data demonstrate improvements in HRQoL and functional status with ivabradine therapy in typical older CHF patients. Despite comorbidities and polypharmacy, ivabradine was well tolerated.

Role of ivabradine and heart rate lowering in chronic heart failure: guideline update

INTRODUCTION

This review summarizes the current management of heart failure (HF) in patients with reduced ejection fraction and the potential role of heart rate lowering agents in select populations, as recommended in the updated guidelines. Areas covered: PubMed was searched for studies that evaluated the role of heart rate lowering or ivabradine in HF management. Expert commentary: Targeting heart rate may offer benefit when added to renin-angiotensin aldosterone antagonists, and beta-blockers. Ivabradine is a heart rate lowering agent that acts on the funny current (I_f) in the sinoatrial node, thereby reducing heart rate without directly affecting cardiac contraction and relaxation. Clinical data from a phase III trial demonstrated that ivabradine reduced the composite end point of cardiovascular death or hospital admission for worsening systolic HF, while maintaining an acceptable safety profile in patients receiving standard of care therapy. These data, in addition to more recently published guidelines, suggest ivabradine as a promising new treatment option for lowering heart rate after optimizing standard therapy in select patients with chronic HF.

Management of heart failure in the elderly

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Heart failure is a major chronic illness with no definitive cure. With improving healthcare and with an aging population in many countries, heart failure has become a common disease of the elderly. Pharmacological management of heart failure in the elderly remains a challenge. The syndrome of heart failure cannot be isolated from other comorbidities, which are very common in this population. The purpose of this review is to assist practicing clinicians to more effectively make decisions about management of heart failure in the elderly.

RECENT FINDINGS

In this review, we will try to integrate recent research studies, recent guidelines, and new treatment modalities, and discuss some controversies.

SUMMARY

In general, the elderly patient with heart failure should be treated according to current heart failure guidelines; however, untailored heart failure management may cause untoward effects in this age group and may worsen clinical outcome.

Current Therapeutic Options for Heart Failure in Elderly Patients

Heart failure (HF) is a major and growing public health problem with high morbidity and mortality (Ponikowski et al., 2016). It affects 1-2% of the general population in developed countries, and the average age at diagnosis is 76 years. Because of a better management of acute phase and comorbidities, HF incidence is increasing in elderly patients, with a prevalence rising to 10% among people aged 65 years or older (Mozaffarian et al., 2014). Therefore, a substantial number of elderly patients need to be treated. However, because of clinical trial exclusion criteria or coexisting comorbidities, currently recommended therapies are widely based on younger population with a much lower mean age. In this review, we will focus on available pharmacological, electrical, and mechanical therapies, underlining pros, cons, and practical considerations of their use in this specific patient population.

Duration of chronic heart failure affects outcomes with preserved effects of heart rate reduction with ivabradine: findings from SHIFT

AIMS

In heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction and sinus rhythm, heart rate reduction with ivabradine reduces the composite incidence of cardiovascular death and HF hospitalization.

METHODS AND RESULTS

It is unclear whether the duration of HF prior to therapy independently affects outcomes and whether it modifies the effect of heart rate reduction. In SHIFT, 6505 patients with chronic HF (left ventricular ejection fraction of ≤35%), in sinus rhythm, heart rate of ≥70 b.p.m., treated with guideline-recommended therapies, were randomized to placebo or ivabradine. Outcomes and the treatment effect of ivabradine in patients with different durations of HF were examined. Prior to randomization, 1416 ivabradine and 1459 placebo patients had HF duration of ≥4 weeks and <1.5 years; 836 ivabradine and 806 placebo patients had HF duration of 1.5 years to <4 years, and 989 ivabradine and 999 placebo patients had HF duration of ≥4 years. Patients with longer duration of HF were older (62.5 years vs. 59.0 years; P < 0.0001), had more severe disease (New York Heart Association classes III/IV in 56% vs. 44.9%; P < 0.0001) and greater incidences of co-morbidities [myocardial infarction: 62.9% vs. 49.4% (P < 0.0001); renal dysfunction: 31.5% vs. 21.5% (P < 0.0001); peripheral artery disease: 7.0% vs. 4.8% (P < 0.0001)] compared with patients with a more recent diagnosis. After adjustments, longer HF duration was independently associated with poorer outcome. Effects of ivabradine were independent of HF duration.

CONCLUSIONS

Duration of HF predicts outcome independently of risk indicators such as higher age, greater severity and more co-morbidities. Heart rate reduction with ivabradine improved outcomes independently of HF duration. Thus, HF treatments should be initiated early and it is important to characterize HF populations according to the chronicity of HF in future trials.

Benefits of Heart Rate Slowing With Ivabradine in Patients With Systolic Heart Failure and Coronary Artery Disease

Heart rate (HR) is a risk factor in patients with chronic systolic heart failure (HF) that, when reduced, provides outcome benefits. It is also a target for angina pectoris prevention and a risk marker in chronic coronary artery disease without HF. HR can be reduced by drugs; however, among those used clinically, only ivabradine reduces HR directly in the sinoatrial nodal cells without other known effects on the cardiovascular system. This review provides current information regarding the safety and efficacy of HR reduction with ivabradine in clinical studies involving >36,000 patients with chronic stable coronary artery disease and >6,500 patients with systolic HF. The largest trials, Morbidity-Mortality Evaluation of the I_f Inhibitor Ivabradine in Patients With Coronary Disease and Left Ventricular Dysfunction and Study Assessing the Morbidity-Mortality Benefits of the I_f Inhibitor Ivabradine in Patients With Coronary Artery Disease, showed no effect on outcomes. The Systolic Heart Failure Treatment With the I_f Inhibitor Ivabradine Trial, a randomized controlled trial in >6,500 patients with HF, revealed marked and significant HR-mediated reduction in cardiovascular mortality or HF hospitalizations while improving quality of life and left ventricular mechanical function after treatment with ivabradine. The adverse effects of ivabradine predominantly included bradycardia and atrial fibrillation (both uncommon) and ocular flashing scotomata (phosphenes) but otherwise were similar to placebo. In conclusion, ivabradine improves outcomes in patients with systolic HF; rates of overall adverse events are similar to placebo.

Kupffer cells-dependent inflammation in the injured liver increases recruitment of mesenchymal stem cells in aging mice

Mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) repair tissue injury and may be used to treat immune associated diseases. In carbon tetrachloride (CCl4)-induced liver injury murine model, we administered MSCs. When MSCs were transmitted to young and old mice with liver injury, more MSCs were recruited in old mice. In old mice, inflammation, characterized by TNF-α and IL-6, was increased due to hyper-activation and hyper-function of Kupffer cells. Blocking Kupffer cells decreased MSCs migration in old mice. In vitro, Kupffer cells isolated from old mice secreted more inflammatory cytokines and chemokines. Thus, hyper-activation of Kupffer cells in old mice increased recruitment of MSCs after their therapeutic administration.

Heart failure management in the elderly - a public health challenge

Heart failure (HF) is a rapidly growing public health problem and the leading cause of morbidity, mortality, and hospitalization in populations > 65 years. The elderly HF patients have an increased prevalence of HF with preserved ejection fraction and comorbidities, may present with atypical symptoms and signs, have a higher risk for adverse drug reactions, and worse prognosis as compared with younger patients. Moreover, there is a lack of evidence-based therapies for this population because they are underrepresented in the clinical trials. The elderly are less likely to be evaluated by a cardiologist and to be treated in accordance with recommendations of the current HF guidelines. Although the treatment is improving, it is still suboptimal; therefore, HF in elderly patients requires mobilization of public health services and improvement of treatment strategies.

Psychocardiology in the elderly

The population is rapidly aging worldwide and the burden of chronic disease follows along. Frequently, diseases go hand in hand and cardiovascular disease and mental health problems are no exception. Symptoms of depression in the elderly are often overlooked and untreated because they coincide with other problems encountered by the elderly. Older adults with depressive symptoms have poorer functioning compared to those with chronic medical conditions. The burden of cardiovascular disease also remains a leading cause of morbidity and mortality. Bidirectional associations between depression and cardiovascular diseases are described with a focus on psychosocial factors affecting cardiac functioning and disease outcome.

Advances in the management of heart failure: the role of ivabradine

A high resting heart rate (≥70–75 b.p.m.) is a risk factor for patients with heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction (EF), probably in the sense of accelerated atherosclerosis, with an increased morbidity and mortality. Beta-blockers not only reduce heart rate but also have negative inotropic and blood pressure-lowering effects, and therefore, in many patients, they cannot be given in the recommended dose. Ivabradine specifically inhibits the pacemaker current (funny current, I_f) of the sinoatrial node cells, resulting in therapeutic heart rate lowering without any negative inotropic and blood pressure-lowering effect. According to the European Society of Cardiology guidelines, ivabradine should be considered to reduce the risk of HF hospitalization and cardiovascular death in symptomatic patients with a reduced left ventricular EF ≤35% and sinus rhythm ≥70 b.p.m. despite treatment with an evidence-based dose of beta-blocker or a dose below the recommended dose (recommendation class “IIa” = weight of evidence/opinion is in favor of usefulness/efficacy: “should be considered”; level of evidence “B” = data derived from a single randomized clinical trial or large nonrandomized studies). Using a heart rate cutoff of ≥ 75 b.p.m., as licensed by the European Medicines Agency, treatment with ivabradine 5–7.5 mg b.i.d. reduces cardiovascular mortality by 17%, HF mortality by 39% and HF hospitalization rate by 30%. A high resting heart rate is not only a risk factor in HF with reduced EF but also at least a risk marker in HF with preserved EF, in acute HF and also in special forms of HF. In this review, we discuss the proven role of ivabradine in the validated indication “HF with reduced EF” together with interesting preliminary findings, and the potential role of ivabradine in further, specific forms of HF.

Ivabradine, a novel medication for treatment of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction

PURPOSE

To critically evaluate current literature, review pharmacology, and discuss clinical role of ivabradine for patients with heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction.

DATA SOURCES

A PubMed search was conducted using the search terms ivabradine and HF. All human studies analyzing the use of ivabradine in patients with HF with reduced ejection fraction and prescribing information were evaluated.

CONCLUSIONS

Greater benefit was seen in the prespecified subgroup with heart rate (HR) > 70 beats per minute (bpm) in the BEAUTIFUL study. Therefore, SHIFT examined the effect of ivabradine on patients with higher resting HR, lower ejection fraction, who had been hospitalized for HF within the previous year. A significant difference was found in the composite primary endpoint of cardiovascular death and hospitalizations for worsening HF in patients with HF and left ventricular systolic dysfunction, driven primarily by reduction in hospitalizations for worsening HF. The most common adverse effect was bradycardia.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

Ivabradine is a safe and effective medication for HR reduction to reduce hospitalizations in patients with stable, symptomatic HF (ejection fraction < 35%), in sinus rhythm, and HR > 70 bpm.

Addressing Major Unmet Needs in Patients with Systolic Heart Failure: The Role of Ivabradine

We reviewed clinical evidence for the use of ivabradine in systolic heart failure (HF), in which it appears to improve symptoms, improve quality of life, prevent hospitalization, and prolong survival, thereby addressing unmet needs in the management of HF. Ivabradine provides symptomatic benefits in HF on top of standard therapies, in terms of functional parameters and exercise capacity, and there is some evidence that this leads to improvements in quality of life in symptomatic HF patients, who may have dyspnea, altered exercise capacity, and fatigue. The SHIFT trial demonstrated that ivabradine has significant beneficial effects on major outcomes in HF. Ivabradine had a significant effect on pump failure death, which was reduced by 26 % (p = 0.014), with no effect on sudden cardiac death. This is an important result since pump failure death is currently the main cause of death in HF, and also because the reductions in mortality obtained with beta-blockers and spironolactone in the last 20 years appear to be mainly due to reduction in sudden death rather than reduction in pump failure death. Ivabradine also has a beneficial effect on hospital admissions (-26 %, p < 0.0001), which is clinically relevant since a quarter of HF patients can expect to be readmitted to hospital for HF within 1 month of discharge. Ivabradine-treated patients are also at significantly lower risk of experiencing a second or third hospitalization for worsening HF. Ivabradine clearly has a key role to play in the management of HF by covering the main therapeutic objectives of symptoms, quality of life, and outcomes.

Update on ivabradine for heart failure

Despite dramatic advances in therapy for heart failure (HF) during the past 3 decades, hospitalization and mortality rates remain relatively high. In recent decades, it has become apparent that HF is divisible into two equally lethal but pathophysiologically different sub-classes, the first comprising patients with LV systolic dysfunction [heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF)] and the other, approximately equal in size, involving patients with "preserved" systolic function [heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF)]. Evidence-based event reducing therapy currently is available only for HFrEF. With the completion of seminal trials of beta blockers, now part of standard therapy for HFrEF, it was apparent that heart rate slowing is an underlying basis of clinical effectiveness of HFrEF therapy. With the discovery of the "f current" that modulates the slope of spontaneous diastolic depolarization of the sino-atrial node, a non-beta blockade approach to heart rate slowing became available. Ivabradine, the first FDA-approved f-current blocker for HFrEF, markedly reduces hospitalizations for worsening heart failure, while also progressively reducing mortality as pre-therapy heart rate increases, and also promotes beneficial left ventricular remodeling, improves health-related quality of life and is effective despite a wide range of comorbidities. The drug is well tolerated and adverse effects are relatively few. Ivabradine represents an important addition to the armamentarium for mitigation of HFrEF.

Heart Rate Control With If Inhibitor, Ivabradine, in Japanese Patients With Chronic Heart Failure - A Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Phase II Study

BACKGROUND

Elevated heart rate (HR) is an independent risk factor for cardiovascular outcomes in various cardiac diseases, including heart failure (HF).

METHODS AND RESULTS

Randomized placebo-controlled study was conducted to evaluate the effects of ivabradine, an Ifinhibitor, on the resting HR in 126 Japanese symptomatic HF patients with left ventricular ejection fraction ≤35%, resting HR ≥75 beats/min in sinus rhythm, and stable, optimal background treatment. Patients were randomly allocated into 3 groups: placebo; starting dose of ivabradine 2.5 mg twice daily (BID; 2.5 mg group); 5 mg BID group. The dose was increased up to 7.5 mg BID according to dose-adjustment criteria. After the 6-week treatment, the reductions in resting HR were significant in both the 2.5-mg (16.6±8.1 beats/min) and 5-mg (16.4±9.6 beats/min) groups (P<0.0001 for both groups) compared with placebo (1.7±8.7 beats/min). The most frequent side effect of ivabradine was phosphenes, but all were mild. Treatment was discontinued in 1 patient due to HF in the 5 mg group.

CONCLUSIONS

Ivabradine starting at 2.5 or 5 mg BID effectively reduced resting HR in Japanese HF patients. Ivabradine at the starting dose of 2.5 mg BID could be safer than 5 mg BID. (Circ J 2016; 80: 668-676).

The Role of Ivabradine and Trimetazidine in the New ESC HF Guidelines

The prevalence of heart failure (HF) is increasing, representing a major cause of death and disability, and a growing financial burden on healthcare systems. Despite the use of effective treatments with both drugs and devices, mortality remains high. There is therefore a need for new and effective therapeutic agents. Ivabradine is a specific sinus node inhibiting agent that was approved in 2005 by the European Medicines Agency, alone or in combination with a beta-blocker. Trimetazidine is a cytoprotective, anti-ischaemic agent established in the treatment of angina pectoris. In the 2012 European Society of Cardiology (ESC) guidelines for diagnosis and treatment of HF, ivabradine was recommended in symptomatic HF patients who are in sinus rhythm with left ventricular ejection fraction ≤35 % and heart rate higher than 70 beats per minute, despite optimal medical therapy, including maximally tolerated dose of beta-blocker. The role of trimetazidine in this setting was not mentioned. In the 2016 ESC guidelines, recommendations for ivabradine are unchanged but trimetazidine is included for the treatment of angina pectoris with HF. This article discusses the need for new therapeutic options in HF and reviews clinical evidence in support of these two therapeutic options.

A Review of New Pharmacologic Treatments for Patients With Chronic Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction

Heart failure (HF) impacts an estimated 5.7 million Americans, and its prevalence is projected to increase to more than 8 million Americans in the next 15 years. Key clinical trials have established an evidence-based foundation for treatment of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). Ivabradine and sacubitril/valsartan, which inhibit the f-channel and the angiotensin receptor and neprilysin, respectively, were recently approved by the Food and Drug Administration for HFrEF. In systolic heart failure, treatment with the If inhibitor ivabradine significantly reduced the combined endpoint of cardiovascular mortality or heart failure hospital admission vs placebo (P < .05). In the Prospective Comparison of angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI) with angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor (ACEI) to Determine Impact on Global Mortality and Morbidity in Heart Failure trial, sacubitril/valsartan significantly reduced the combined endpoint of cardiovascular death or heart failure hospitalization vs enalapril (P < .001). The place of therapy with ivabradine and sacubitril/valsartan is defined by these trials and their interplay with guideline-directed medical therapy. Ivabradine and sacubitril/valsartan increase pharmacotherapy options for the treatment of HFrEF but are not yet first-line agents. Clinical application will be better defined in the coming years as practitioners increase their familiarity with ivabradine and sacubitril/valsartan.

Influence of Cardiovascular and Noncardiovascular Co-morbidities on Outcomes and Treatment Effect of Heart Rate Reduction With Ivabradine in Stable Heart Failure (from the SHIFT Trial)

Incidence of chronic heart failure (HF) increases with age and cardiovascular (CV) morbidity. Co-morbidities increase hospitalization and mortality in HF, and non-CV co-morbidities may lead to preventable hospitalizations. We studied the impact of co-morbidities on mortality and morbidity in Systolic Heart Failure Treatment with the I(f) Inhibitor Ivabradine Trial, and investigated whether the impact of ivabradine was affected by co-morbidities. We analyzed the Systolic Heart Failure Treatment with the I(f) Inhibitor Ivabradine Trialpopulation, with moderate-to-severe HF and left ventricular dysfunction (in sinus rhythm with heart rate at rest ≥70 beats/min), according to co-morbidity: chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, diabetes mellitus, anemia, stroke, impaired renal function, myocardial infarction, hypertension, and peripheral artery disease. Co-morbidity load was classed as 0, 1, 2, 3, 4+ or 1 to 2 co-morbidities, or 3+ co-morbidities. Co-morbidities were evenly distributed between the placebo and ivabradine groups. Patients with more co-morbidities were likely to be older, women, had more advanced HF, were less likely to be on β blockers, with an even distribution on ivabradine 2.5, 5, or 7.5 mg bid and placebo at all co-morbidity loads. Number of co-morbidities was related to outcomes. Cardiovascular death or HF hospitalization events significantly increased (p <0.0001) with co-morbidity load, with the most events in patients with >3 co-morbidities for both, ivabradine and placebo. There was no interaction between co-morbidity load and the treatment effects of ivabradine. Hospitalization rate was lower at all co-morbidity loads for ivabradine. In conclusion, cardiac and noncardiac co-morbidities significantly affect CV outcomes, particularly if there are >3 co-morbidities. The effect of heart rate reduction with ivabradine is maintained at all co-morbidity loads.

Ivadradine

Each month, subscribers to The Formulary Monograph Service receive 5 to 6 well-documented monographs on drugs that are newly released or are in late phase 3 trials. The monographs are targeted to Pharmacy & Therapeutics Committees. Subscribers also receive monthly 1-page summary monographs on agents that are useful for agendas and pharmacy/nursing in-services. A comprehensive target drug utilization evaluation/medication use evaluation (DUE/MUE) is also provided each month. With a subscription, the monographs are sent in print and are also available on-line. Monographs can be customized to meet the needs of a facility. A drug class review is now published monthly with The Formulary Monograph Service. Through the cooperation of The Formulary, Hospital Pharmacy publishes selected reviews in this column. For more information about The Formulary Monograph Service, call The Formulary at 800-322-4349. The October 2015 monograph topics are sacubitril/valsartan, daclatasvir, sonidegib, alirocumab, and sodium zirconium cyclosilicate. The Safety MUE is on sacubitril/valsartan.

[Chronic heart failure in the elderly patient]

The prevalence and incidence of heart failure (HF) is increasing, especially in the elderly population, and is becoming a major geriatric problem. Elderly patients with HF usually show etiopathogenic, epidemiological, and even clinical characteristics significantly different from those present in younger patients. Their treatment, however, derives from clinical trials performed with only a few elderly subjects. Moreover, beyond the cardiovascular disease itself, it is essential to evaluate the patient as a whole, given the interrelationship between HF and the characteristic geriatric syndromes of the elderly patient. This review examines the peculiarities in the most prevalent "real world" HF patient.

Efficacy and safety of LCZ696 (sacubitril-valsartan) according to age: insights from PARADIGM-HF

Background

The age at which heart failure develops varies widely between countries and drug tolerance and outcomes also vary by age. We have examined the efficacy and safety of LCZ696 according to age in the Prospective comparison of angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor with angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor to Determine Impact on Global Mortality and Morbidity in Heart Failure trial (PARADIGM-HF).

Methods

In PARADIGM-HF, 8399 patients aged 18–96 years and in New York Heart Association functional class II–IV with an LVEF ≤40% were randomized to either enalapril or LCZ696. We examined the pre-specified efficacy and safety outcomes according to age category (years): <55 (n = 1624), 55–64 (n = 2655), 65–74 (n = 2557), and ≥75 (n = 1563).

Findings

The rate (per 100 patient-years) of the primary outcome of cardiovascular (CV) death or heart failure hospitalization (HFH) increased from 13.4 to 14.8 across the age categories. The LCZ696:enalapril hazard ratio (HR) was <1.0 in all categories (P for interaction between age category and treatment = 0.94) with an overall HR of 0.80 (0.73, 0.87), P < 0.001. The findings for HFH were similar for CV and all-cause mortality and the age category by treatment interactions were not significant. The pre-specified safety outcomes of hypotension, renal impairment and hyperkalaemia increased in both treatment groups with age, although the differences between treatment (more hypotension but less renal impairment and hyperkalaemia with LCZ696) were consistent across age categories.

Interpretation

LCZ696 was more beneficial than enalapril across the spectrum of age in PARADIGM-HF with a favourable benefit–risk profile in all age groups.

Drug therapy for heart failure in older patients-what do they want?

Chronic heart failure (CHF) is predominantly seen in older patients, and therefore real life medicine often requires the extrapolation of findings from trials conducted in much younger populations. Prescribing patterns and potential benefits in the elderly are heavily influenced by polypharmacy and co-morbid pathologies. Increasing longevity may become less relevant in the frail elderly, whereas improving quality of life (QoL) often becomes priority; the onus being on improving wellbeing, maintaining independence for longer, and delaying institutionalisation. Specific studies evaluating elderly patients with CHF are lacking and little is known regarding the tolerability and side-effect profile of evidence based drug therapies in this population. There has been recent interest on the impact of heart rate in patients with symptomatic CHF. Ivabradine, with selective heart rate lowering capabilities, is of benefit in patients with CHF and left ventricular systolic dysfunction in sinus rhythm, resulting in reduction of heart failure hospitalisation and cardiovascular death. This manuscript will focus on CHF and the older patient and will discuss the impact of heart rate, drug therapies and tolerability. It will also highlight the unmet need for specific studies that focus on patient-centred study end points rather than mortality targets that characterise most therapeutic trials. An on-going study evaluating the impact of ivabradine on QoL that presents a unique opportunity to evaluate the tolerability and impact of an established therapy on a wide range of real life, older patients with CHF will be discussed.

Drug therapies in older adults (part 2)

In this, the second of two articles, we continue our evaluation of drug therapies in older adults. Having previously described the pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic consequences of physiological ageing, along with the challenge of appropriate prescribing, we proposed four key questions which should be considered when prescribing for this cohort of the population. Does this agent reflect the priorities of the patient? Are there alternatives - with greater efficacy, effectiveness or tolerability - that might be considered? Are the dose, frequency and formulation appropriate? How does this prescription relate to concurrent medication? We also highlighted the reliance on subgroup analysis to demonstrate the efficacy of drug therapies for older adults in osteoporosis and the underutilisation of appropriate treatments for patients with Alzheimer's disease as a result of flawed guidelines. Here we describe current drug therapies in systolic heart failure, noting the limited inclusion of older adults in key trials, while also reviewing the pharmacological treatment of orthostatic hypotension. In doing so, we advocate the intermittent use of midodrine as a first-line treatment for orthostasis in older adults, counter to the generic guidelines produced by various learned societies, but in keeping with the scant trial data available.