What Type of Patients Did PARAGON-HF Select? Insights from a Real-World Prospective Cohort of Patients with Heart Failure and Preserved Ejection Fraction

Comparative effectiveness of sacubitril/valsartan versus angiotensin receptor blockers in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: A real-world study

PURPOSE

Sacubitril/valsartan (SAC/VAL) or angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) are recommended therapy for heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), but little is known about their real-world comparative effectiveness among patients with HFpEF. The objective of this study was to determine the comparative effectiveness of SAC/VAL vs ARBs in preventing HF-related hospitalization or all-cause hospitalization among patients with HFpEF.

METHODS

We conducted a cohort study using IBM MarketScan commercial and Medicare supplemental databases to identify patients aged 18 years or older with a diagnosis of HFpEF and initiation of SAC/VAL (2015-2020) or ARB (2009-2014) therapy. The index date was the date of the first SAC/VAL or ARB prescription fill. After propensity score (PS) matching with a ratio of 1 up to 3, Cox proportional hazards regression was used with robust variance estimators to compare the risks of HF-related hospitalization and all-cause hospitalization between the 2 therapies. Several subgroup and sensitivity analyses were conducted to check the robustness of the main analysis.

RESULTS

After PS matching, 2,520 patients (846 receiving SAC/VAL and 1,674 receiving an ARB) were included in the final analyses. After controlling for covariates, there was no difference in the risk of HF-related hospitalization between SAC/VAL and ARB recipients (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 1.33; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.99-1.77). There was also no difference in the risk of all-cause hospitalization between SAC/VAL and ARB recipients (aHR, 1.06; 95% CI, 0.91-1.24).

CONCLUSION

Among individuals with private or Medicare Advantage insurance plans, there was no significant difference in the risk of HF-related hospitalization or all-cause hospitalization between adults with HFpEF who received SAC/VAL and those who received ARB therapy.

Non-eligibility for pivotal HFpEF/HFmrEF outcome trials and mortality in a contemporary heart failure cohort

Pivotal outcome trials targeting heart failure with preserved (HFpEF) and mildly-reduced ejection fraction (HFmrEF) may have excluded patients at highest risk of poor outcomes. We aimed to assess eligibility for HFpEF/HFmrEF outcome trials in an unselected heart failure cohort and its association with all-cause mortality. Among 32.028 patients presenting to a tertiary care center emergency unit for any reason between August 2018 and July 2019, we identified 407 admissions with evident HFpEF and HFmrEF. Eligibility criteria for pivotal trials CHARM-Preserved, I-PRESERVE, TOPCAT, PARAGON-HF, EMPEROR-Preserved and DELIVER were assessed by chart review. The proportions of admissions fulfilling HFpEF/HFmrEF trial eligibility criteria were 88% for CHARM-Preserved, 40% for I-PRESERVE, 35% for TOPCAT, 28% for PARAGON-HF, 51% for EMPEROR-Preserved, and 49% for DELIVER. During a median follow-up of 1.9 years, death-from-any-cause occurred in 121 cases (30%). Twenty-four-month overall survival estimates for non-eligible and eligible admissions were 53% vs. 76% for CHARM-Preserved (HR=2.32, 95% CI: 1.47-3.67, p<0.001), 62% vs. 87% for I-PRESERVE (HR=2.97, 1.85-4.77, p<0.001), 67% vs. 84% for TOPCAT (HR=2.04, 1.29-3.24, p = 0.002), 68% vs. 85% for PARAGONHF (HR=2.28, 1.33-3.90, p = 0.003), 64% vs. 81% for EMPEROR-Preserved (HR=1.90, 1.27-2.84, p = 0.002), and 65% vs. 80% for DELIVER (HR=1.71, 1.14-2.57, p = 0.010). Exclusion criteria independently predicting death were eGFR <20 ml/min/1.73 m2, COPD with home oxygen therapy, and severe valvular heart disease. Conclusively, in a contemporary HFpEF/HFmrEF cohort, non-eligibility for outcome trials predicted for strongly increased mortality. HFpEF/HFmrEF patients at highest mortality risk were likely underrepresented in previous outcome trials and their treatment remains an unmet medical need.

From Primary to Tertiary Care: Expert Position Statements to Guide Heart Failure with Preserved Ejection Fraction Diagnosis

Globally, heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) is quickly becoming the dominant form of heart failure (HF) in ageing populations. However, there are still multiple gaps and challenges in making a firm diagnosis of HFpEF in many low-to-middle income Asian countries. In response to this unmet need, the Malaysian HFpEF Working Group (MY-HPWG) gathered and reviewed evidence surrounding the use of different diagnostic modalities indicated for patients with HFpEF to identify diagnostic tools that could be conveniently accessed across different healthcare settings. As a result, five recommendation statements were proposed and an accompanying algorithm was developed, with the aim of improving the diagnostic rate of HFpEF. The MY-HPWG recommends using more easily accessible and non-invasive tools, such as natriuretic peptide (NP) biomarkers and basic echocardiogram (ECHO), to ensure timely HFpEF diagnosis in the primary and secondary care settings, and prompt referral to a tertiary care centre for more comprehensive assessments in uncertain cases.

Eligibility of patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction for sacubitril/valsartan according to the PARAGON-HF trial

Aims

In the heart failure (HF) with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) PARAGON‐HF trial, sacubitril/valsartan vs. valsartan improved mortality/morbidity in patients with left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) below median (57%). We assessed eligibility for sacubitril/valsartan based on four scenarios.

Methods and results

Eligibility was assessed in the Karolinska‐Rennes study (acute HFpEF, LVEF ≥ 45%, and N‐terminal pro‐B‐type natriuretic peptide ≥300 pg/mL subsequently assessed as outpatients including echocardiography) in (i) a trial scenario (all trial criteria); (ii) a pragmatic scenario (selected trial criteria); (iii) LVEF below lower limit of normal range (<54% in women and <52% in men); and (iv) LVEF below mean of normal range (<64% in women and <62% in men). Among 425 patients [age 78 (72–83) years, 57% women, 28% LVEF ≤ 57% (median in PARAGON‐HF), the trial scenario, identified 34% as eligible. Left atrial enlargement and/or left ventricular hypertrophy were present in 99%. Inclusion criteria not met were diuretic treatment and New York Heart Association class. Important exclusion criteria were estimated glomerular filtration rate <30 mL/min/1.73 m², haemoglobin <10 g/day, and cancer. In the pragmatic scenario, 63% were eligible. In LVEF below lower limit of normal range, 5.4% were eligible, and in LVEF below mean of normal range, 41% were eligible. In patients with LVEF ≤ 57%, eligibility was 42%, 69%, 21%, and 91% according to the trial scenario, pragmatic scenario, LVEF below lower limit of normal range, and LVEF below mean of normal range, respectively.

Conclusions

In real‐world HFpEF (LVEF ≥ 45%) with N‐terminal pro‐B‐type natriuretic peptide and cardiac structure/function assessed, eligibility for sacubitril/valsartan was according to PARAGON‐HF complete criteria 34%, pragmatic criteria 63%, LVEF below lower limit of normal range 5.4%, and LVEF below mean of normal range 41%. Cardiac structural impairment was almost ubiquitous. Ineligibility was more due to exclusion criteria than failing to meet inclusion criteria.

Heart Failure Syndrome With Preserved Ejection Fraction Is a Metabolic Cluster of Non-resolving Inflammation in Obesity

Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) is an emerging disease with signs of nonresolving inflammation, endothelial dysfunction, and multiorgan defects. Moreover, based on the clinical signs and symptoms and the rise of the obesity epidemic, the number of patients developing HFpEF is increasing. From recent molecular and cellular studies, it becomes evident that HFpEF is not a single and homogenous disease but a cluster of heterogeneous pathophysiology with aging at the base of the pyramid. Obesity superimposed on aging drives the number of inflammatory pathways that intersect with metabolic dysfunction and suboptimal inflammation. Here, we compiled information on obesity-directed macrophage dysfunction that coincide with metabolic defects. Obesity-associated proinflammatory stimuli facilitates heart and interorgan inflammation in HFpEF. Furthermore, diversified mechanisms that drive heart failure urge the need of studying pervasive and unresolved inflammation in animal models to understand HFpEF. A broad and system-based approach will help to study major translational aspects of HFpEF, since no single animal model recapitulates all signs of differential HFpEF stages in the clinical setting. Here, we covered experimental models that target HFpEF and emphasized the advances observed with formyl peptide 2 (FPR2) receptor, a prime sensor that is important in inflammation-resolution signaling. Dysfunction of FPR2 led to the development of spontaneous obesity, impaired macrophage function, and triggered kidney fibrosis, providing evidence of multiorgan defects in HFpEF in an obesogenic aging experimental model.

Pleiotropic Properties of Valsartan: Do They Result from the Antiglycooxidant Activity? Literature Review and In Vitro Study

Valsartan belongs to angiotensin II type 1 (AT1) receptor blockers (ARB) used in cardiovascular diseases like heart failure and hypertension. Except for its AT1-antagonism, another mechanism of drug action has been suggested in recent research. One of the supposed actions refers to the positive impact on redox balance and reducing protein glycation. Our study is aimed at assessing the antiglycooxidant properties of valsartan in an in vitro model of oxidized bovine serum albumin (BSA). Glucose, fructose, ribose, glyoxal (GO), methylglyoxal (MGO), and chloramine T were used as glycation or oxidation agents. Protein oxidation products (total thiols, protein carbonyls (PC), and advanced oxidation protein products (AOPP)), glycooxidation products (tryptophan, kynurenine, N-formylkynurenine, and dityrosine), glycation products (amyloid-β structure, fructosamine, and advanced glycation end products (AGE)), and albumin antioxidant activity (total antioxidant capacity (TAC), DPPH assay, and ferric reducing antioxidant power (FRAP)) were measured in each sample. In the presence of valsartan, concentrations of protein oxidation and glycation products were significantly lower comparing to control. Moreover, albumin antioxidant activity was significantly higher in those samples. The drug's action was comparable to renowned antiglycation agents and antioxidants, e.g., aminoguanidine, metformin, Trolox, N-acetylcysteine, or alpha-lipoic acid. The conducted experiment proves that valsartan can ameliorate protein glycation and oxidation in vitro in various conditions. Available animal and clinical studies uphold this statement, but further research is needed to confirm it, as reduction of protein oxidation and glycation may prevent cardiovascular disease development.