Zannad, Faı̈ez

At a time when there was no unifying hypothesis and no broadly effective treatments for heart failure with a preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), it was proposed that HFpEF represented a multitude of different disorders. Accordingly, characterization of phenotypic heterogeneity was envisioned as a means of identifying novel causal pathways that could lead to new treatments while simultaneously discerning patients who would selectively benefit from a specific therapy. However, efforts over the past decade to characterize phenotypic diversity in diverse and complex ways have not achieved these goals. Subgroup analyses of neutral HFpEF trials have failed to reliably identify responders to treatments. Neither proteomics nor unsupervised cluster analysis across multiple phenotypic domains has yielded reproducible results (even in the same dataset), elucidated novel mechanistic pathways for new drug development, or identified patients most likely to benefit from treatment. In marked contrast to these efforts to characterize phenotypic heterogeneity, large-scale trials in HFpEF enrolled patients using broad eligibility criteria, and they established the benefits of sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists without evidence for subgroup effects. However, it is noteworthy that patients enrolled in recent large-scale HFpEF trials were characterized by general uniformity with respect to the presence of excess adiposity, with central obesity being a feature of the vast majority of enrolled participants. Of note, patients with obesity showed particularly large benefits when treated with effective drugs for HFpEF. These observations raise the possibility that, if these trials had permitted the participation of patients with class III obesity or with lower natriuretic peptide levels, the magnitude of the observed treatment effects might have been greater than originally reported. These findings are consistent with a central role for visceral adiposity (and the secretion of an altered suite of adipokines) in the pathogenesis of HFpEF. Therefore, because the field of HFpEF has a unifying hypothesis (applicable to the large majority of patients), enrolled a broad population of patients in large-scale trials without subgroup interactions, and has several broadly applicable effective treatments (as is true for heart failure with a reduced ejection fraction), the motivation to characterize phenotypic heterogeneity in HFpEF in complex ways may no longer be supported or needed.

Abstract Aims The efficacy and safety of vericiguat in patients with chronic heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) on contemporary heart failure (HF) therapies and without recent worsening was investigated in the VICTOR trial, yet some subgroups may be more susceptible to symptomatic hypotension. Methods and results Among VICTOR trial participants that received at least one dose of study drug or placebo, we describe the systolic blood pressure (SBP) trajectories over time (mean change from baseline), symptomatic hypotension events and efficacy of vericiguat in potentially vulnerable patient subgroups: lower baseline blood pressure (SBP ≤110 mmHg), older patients (>75 years) and those taking angiotensin receptor–neprilysin inhibitors (ARNI) or sodium–glucose co-transporter 2 inhibitors (SGLT2i) at baseline. The efficacy outcomes of cardiovascular death and HF hospitalization and cardiovascular death alone across baseline SBP were examined using Cox proportional hazards models. Overall SBP trajectories showed a small initial decline from baseline in vericiguat-treated patients compared with placebo (placebo-corrected differences of −1.17 [−1.84, −0.50], p = 0.0007) that was relatively stable throughout follow-up. This trajectory was similar in those >75 years (vs. younger) as well as those receiving ARNI or SGLT2i (as compared with those not receiving these) or those with SBP ≤110 mmHg at baseline (compared with >110 mmHg). Symptomatic hypotension occurred in 11.3% of vericiguat-treated patients compared with 9.2% of placebo-treated patients with an adjusted hazard ratio of 1.24 (95% confidence interval 1.06–1.46), which was similar across age, SBP, SGLT2i and ARNI groups (all interaction p >0.05). The treatment effect of vericiguat compared with placebo on the efficacy outcomes was similar across the spectrum of baseline SBP (both interaction p >0.15). Conclusions Vericiguat showed a slight adjusted decrease in SBP and resulted in more symptomatic hypotension compared with placebo but was overall well-tolerated in a broad population with HFrEF on contemporary therapy even among those predisposed to hypotension. Treatment effects on efficacy outcomes were consistent regardless of baseline SBP.

Abstract Background and Aims In the VICTOR trial (NCT05093933), vericiguat was neutral for the primary composite endpoint of cardiovascular death or hospitalization for heart failure (HF). VICTOR was powered to independently assess cardiovascular death. This study reports detailed analysis on the effects of vericiguat on mortality. Methods VICTOR, a double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized trial, enrolled 6105 ambulatory patients with HF and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) without recent worsening and randomized them to vericiguat or placebo. The main outcome for this analysis was the pre-specified secondary endpoint of cardiovascular death. All-cause death, sudden cardiac death, and death related to HF were also assessed. Results Over a median of 19.7 months (inter-quartile range 14.6–25.4), cardiovascular deaths occurred in 292 patients (5.7 deaths per 100 patient-years) and 346 patients (6.8 deaths per 100 patient-years) in the vericiguat and placebo groups, respectively (hazard ratio [HR] 0.83, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.71–0.97; P = .020). Risk of death from any cause was lower with vericiguat vs placebo (377 [7.3 deaths per 100 patient-years] vs 440 [8.6 deaths per 100 patient-years]; HR 0.84, 95% CI 0.74–0.97; P = .015). Sudden cardiac death and HF-related deaths were lower with vericiguat vs placebo (1.6 vs 2.2 events per 100 patient-years; HR 0.75, 95% CI 0.56–0.99; P = .042 and 1.7 vs 2.4 events per 100 patient-years; HR 0.71, 95% CI 0.54–0.94; P = .016, respectively). Lower mortality rates were consistent across subgroups including baseline therapy. Consistent cardiovascular and all-cause mortality benefit was seen across baseline N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide levels. Conclusions In ambulatory well-treated participants with HFrEF, vericiguat was associated with clinically meaningful reductions in the key secondary outcome of cardiovascular death, as well as all-cause mortality.

BACKGROUND: Despite favorable hemodynamic and neurohormonal effects, endothelin receptor antagonists have not improved outcomes in patients with heart failure (HF), possibly because they cause fluid retention. METHODS: In this randomized, double-blind, multicenter trial (SERENADE [Macitentan in Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction and Pulmonary Vascular Disease]), we evaluated the effects of an endothelin receptor antagonist, macitentan, in patients with HF, left ventricular ejection fraction ≥40%, and pulmonary vascular disease. After a 4-week placebo run-in (to ensure clinical stability), followed by a 5-week single-blind macitentan run-in, patients who did not exhibit fluid retention were randomized to macitentan or placebo. The primary end point was change in NT-proBNP (N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide; baseline to 24 weeks); secondary end points included change in KCCQ (Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire) clinical summary score (baseline to 24 weeks) and time to worsening HF by 52 weeks. RESULTS: Of 230 patients enrolled, 28 were excluded during the placebo run-in, 60 excluded during the macitentan run-in, and 142 were randomized. Macitentan had no effect on change in NT-proBNP (geometric mean ratio [macitentan/placebo], 1.02 [90% CI, 0.88–1.19]; P =0.79) or on secondary end points (placebo-corrected change in KCCQ clinical summary score, −3.5 [90% CI, −8.2 to +1.2]; P =0.22). Worsening HF occurred in 20 (28%) patients assigned to macitentan and 13 (18%) assigned to placebo (hazard ratio, 1.48 [90% CI, 0.83–2.67]; P =0.24). More macitentan-treated patients developed fluid retention (16 [23%] versus 10 [14%]) and cardiac adverse events (33 [46%] versus 22 [31%]) versus placebo. CONCLUSIONS: Despite a novel enrichment trial design to target pulmonary vascular disease and exclude treatment-related fluid retention in patients with HF and preserved/mildly reduced left ventricular ejection fraction, macitentan neither lowered NT-proBNP nor improved HF outcomes. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov ; Unique identifiers: NCT03153111 and NCT03714815.

Abstract Aims To describe the baseline characteristics of the participants in the VICTOR (Vericiguat Global Study in Patients with Chronic Heart Failure; NCT05093933) trial and compare them to recent trials in patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). Methods and results Baseline characteristics were evaluated in 6105 patients randomized to vericiguat or placebo. The mean age of the participants was 67 ± 11 years, 23.6% were women, 64.4% were White, and 10.7% were self-identified Black. Overall, 29.1% of participants were enrolled in Latin and South America, 27.8% and 18.5% in Eastern and Western Europe, 14.0% in Asia-Pacific and 10.6% in North America. The mean left ventricular ejection fraction was 30 ± 7% and 79% had New York Heart Association class II symptoms. Mean estimated glomerular filtration rate was 70.9 ± 24.0 ml/min/1.73 m2. Median N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide level was 1476 (970–2495) pg/ml and 47.5% of participants had no prior hospitalization for heart failure. Baseline therapy included 94.4% beta-blockers, 94.3% renin–angiotensin system modulation (including 56.0% on an angiotensin receptor–neprilysin inhibitor), 77.7% mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists, 59.1% sodium–glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors, and 32.9% implantable cardioverter-defibrillators. Overall characteristics were relatively similar to other recent HFrEF trials but the VICTOR trial enrolled a higher proportion of participants receiving contemporary drug and device therapy. Conclusion The VICTOR trial enrolled the most optimally treated population in a phase III heart failure trial. These features will facilitate assessment of the benefit of vericiguat and elucidate the outcomes of patients on up-to-date medical therapy.

Abstract Aims In the VICTORIA (Vericiguat Global Study in Subjects with Heart Failure with Reduced Ejection Fraction) trial, the soluble guanylate cyclase stimulator vericiguat reduced the risk of hospitalization for heart failure (HHF) or cardiovascular death in patients with heart failure (HF) and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) with recent worsening HF. The effect of vericiguat in patients with HFrEF without recent worsening HF remains unknown. The VICTOR (Vericiguat Global Study in Participants with Chronic Heart Failure) trial was designed to assess the efficacy and safety of vericiguat in patients with ejection fraction ≤40% without recent worsening HF on a background of current foundational HFrEF therapy. Methods The primary endpoint for VICTOR is time to first event for the composite of HHF or cardiovascular death. The trial will also assess the effect of vericiguat on time to cardiovascular death, time to HHF, total HHF, and all-cause death. As an event-driven trial, at least 1080 primary events are expected, but follow-up will continue until the targeted number of at least 590 cardiovascular deaths has been reached. Approximately 6000 participants will be randomized to vericiguat or placebo. Conclusion VICTOR is the first large event-driven HFrEF trial performed in the contemporary era of quadruple foundational guideline-directed medical therapy, in a compensated ambulatory HF population. VICTOR will add important information to the evidence of the effects of vericiguat across the spectrum of patients with HFrEF.

Abstract Background Cognitive decline is common in patients with heart failure (HF), but its clinical correlates and prognostic impact are not well understood in this population. Purpose To examine the baseline variables associated with cognitive decline and the associations between cognitive decline and HF outcomes in patients with heart failure and preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). Methods We analyzed cognitive function, as measured by the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE), in 2895 patients with HFpEF enrolled in a pre-specified sub-study of PARAGON-HF. Logistic regression analysis was performed to determine the factors associated with cognitive decline i.e., a decrease in MMSE score of ≥3 points by 48 weeks. Time-updated Cox proportional hazards regressions and semiparametric proportional rates models were used to examine the subsequent risk of clinical outcomes after a decline in MMSE scores of ≥1-, 2- and 3-points during follow-up respectively, adjusted for known prognostic variables including NT-proBNP and baseline MMSE. Results A total of 450 (15.5% of the population) patients experienced a decrease in MMSE score of ≥3 points from baseline, at any follow-up visit. The corresponding number for a decrease in MMSE score of ≥2 points and ≥1 point was 755 (26.1%) and 1231 (42.5%), respectively. Independent predictors of cognitive decline at 48 weeks included older age, living in Latin America or the Asia/Pacific region, ischemic etiology, prior HF hospitalization, history of stroke/TIA, and lower serum albumin level (Figure 1). There was a graded relationship between the size of the decrease in MMSE score from baseline and the subsequent risk of mortality. Notably, a decrease of ≥3 points was associated with a 50% increase in the subsequent risk of death from any cause (adjusted HR 1.53, 95% CI 1.10-2.11) and a 90% elevation in risk of death from cardiovascular causes (1.89, 1.25-2.86), respectively, after extensive adjustment for known prognostic variables and baseline MMSE score. By contrast, cognitive decline during follow-up was not associated with a higher risk of HF hospitalization or the composite of HF hospitalization or CV death (Figure 2). Conclusions In patients with HFpEF, a decline in MMSE score during follow-up is independently associated with a graded increase in the risk for mortality, but not of HF hospitalization.The predictors for cognitive declineRisk of outcomes after a decline in MMSE

Abstract Background NT-proBNP levels are associated with disease severity and outcomes in patients with HF across the spectrum of LVEF. Recently, it has been suggested that the effectiveness of certain treatments may vary by NT-proBNP level with greater benefit from omecamtiv mecarbil, and smaller benefit from vericiguat, in patients with higher NT-proBNP levels. We examined the benefit of sacubitril/valsartan on outcomes across the range of NT-proBNP levels in patients with HFrEF/HFmrEF/HFpEF. Purpose To evaluate clinical outcomes, and the efficacy of sacubitril/valsartan, according to NT-proBNP levels, in patients with HFrEF/HFmrEF/HFpEF, using the pooled dataset of participants in the PARADIGM-HF and PARAGON-HF trials. Methods The PARADIGM-HF (n=8399) and PARAGON-HF (n=4822) trials enrolled patients with HF, functional limitation, and elevated NT-proBNP levels. Patients with LVEF ≤40% were randomized to sacubitril/valsartan 200 mg twice daily or enalapril 10mg twice daily in PARADIGM-HF, and those with LVEF ≥45% to sacubitril/valsartan 200 mg twice daily or valsartan 160mg twice daily in PARAGON-HF. Patients were categorized by quintiles of NT-proBNP level and using NT-proBNP as a continuous variable, analysed using restricted cubic splines. The primary outcome in the present study was the composite of cardiovascular death or HF hospitalization. Results Among the 13195 patients in the pooled PARADIGM-HF and PARAGON-HF dataset, 13142 (99.6%) patients with baseline NT-proBNP were analysed. Patients with higher NT-proBNP levels were more often male, had lower body mass index and LVEF, worse New York Heart Association functional class, worse kidney function, and more atrial fibrillation, while age was similar across NT-proBNP levels. The rate of the primary outcome (per 100 person-years) increased with NT-proBNP level: quintile 1, 5.9 (95%CI 5.3-6.5); quintile 2, 7.5 (95%CI 6.9-8.2); quintile 3, 9.0 (95%CI 8.2-9.7); quintile 4, 12.0 (95%CI 11.1-12.9); and quintile 5, 20.8 (95%CI 19.6-22.2) (Figure 1). Similar trends were observed for other outcomes. The benefit of sacubitril/valsartan was consistent across NT-proBNP levels: the hazard ratio for the primary outcome in NT-proBNP quintile 1 was 0.79 (95%CI 0.65-0.96); quintile 2, 0.87 (95%CI 0.72-1.04); quintile 3, 0.79 (95%CI 0.66-0.93); quintile 4, 0.85 (95%CI 0.73-0.99); and quintile 5, 0.86 (95%CI 0.76-0.97), P-interaction=0.86. The consistent benefit of sacubitril/valsartan was also seen when NT-proBNP was analysed as a continuous variable (Figure 2). The absolute benefit was greatest in quintile 5 of NT-proBNP; the number needed to treat for quintile 5 was 16 versus 37 for the quintile 1 for the primary endpoint. Conclusions Patients with higher NT-proBNP had worse outcomes, but the benefits of sacubitril valsartan were consistent across the range of NT-proBNP levels of participants in PARADIGM-HF and PARAGON-HF.Kaplan-Meier curvesEffect of sac/val across NT-proBNP range

Abstract Background Concerns have been raised about the appropriateness of use and safety of beta-blockers (BBs) in patients with heart failure and mildly reduced (HFmrEF) and preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). However, randomized trial evidence is still lacking. Purpose To perform an observational analysis of the association between BB use and clinical outcomes in a large dataset of patients with HFmrEF and HFpEF. Methods We pooled individual patient data from four large HFmrEF/HFpEF trials (I-Preserve, TOPCAT, PARAGON-HF, and DELIVER). The associations between baseline BB use and outcomes were analyzed. The primary outcome was the composite of cardiovascular death or HF hospitalization. Results Among the 16,951 patients included, the mean left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) was 56.8%, and 13,400 (79.1%) had HFpEF (LVEF ≥50%). Overall, 12,812 patients (75.6%) received a BB. The median bisoprolol-equivalent dose of BB was 5.0 (Q1-Q3: 2.5-5.0) mg with BB continuation rates of 95.1% at 1 year and 93.1% at 2 years (in patients who survived more than 1 and 2 years, respectively). Overall, the hazard ratio (HR) for the primary outcome did not differ between BB users and non-users (HR: 0.98 [95% CI: 0.91-1.05]) but among patients with HFmrEF, BB users had a lower HR (0.84 [95% CI 0.71-0.98]), whereas in HFpEF the HR was similar BB users and non-users (0.99 [95% CI 0.92-1.08]). However, after comprehensive adjustment for known prognostic variables, including NT-proBNP, BB use was associated with a better outcome in the overall cohort (HR 0.81 [0.74-0.88]), and this association was maintained across the range of LVEF (Figure 1). In subgroup analyses, the risk of the primary outcome was similar in BB users and non-users with or without a history of myocardial infarction, with or without a history of hypertension, or with or without a baseline heart rate <70 bpm. By contrast, a better outcome with BB use was seen in patients with atrial fibrillation compared to those without atrial fibrillation (Figure 2). Conclusions Although this is an observational analysis of non-randomized treatment, there was no suggestion that BB use was associated with worse HF outcomes even after extensive adjustment for other prognostic variables. Figure Legends Figure 1. Association between beta-blocker use and outcomes across the range of LVEF. Risk in beta-blocker users versus non-users is shown as an adjusted continuous hazard ratio Figure 2. Association between beta-blocker use and non-use in the overall population and clinically relevant patient subgroups, shown as an adjusted hazard ratio (HR). The outcome analyzed was the composite of CV death or HF hospitalization (primary outcome)Figure 1Figure 2