Petrie, Mark C

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 We hypothesized that targeting interleukin-6—a cytokine central to NOD-like receptor protein 3 (NLRP3) inflammasome activation that is associated with both the onset and progression of heart failure (HF)—may be beneficial in patients with HF and circulating evidence of cardiovascular inflammation but without overtly reduced ejection fraction (EF). We describe the rationale and design of two clinical trials (ATHENA and HERMES) investigating ziltivekimab, a human monoclonal antibody directed against the interleukin-6 ligand, in patients with HF and mildly reduced or preserved EF (HFmrEF/HFpEF) and cardiovascular inflammation. Methods ATHENA (n = 673) and HERMES (n = 4900) are international, multi-centre, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials randomizing adults with HFpEF/HFmrEF and cardiovascular inflammation (high-sensitivity C-reactive protein ≥2 mg/l) to ziltivekimab 15 mg or placebo, administered subcutaneously once monthly on top of standard of care. Eligible participants have a left ventricular EF >40%, elevated N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP), and serum high-sensitivity C-reactive protein ≥2 mg/l. The primary endpoint in ATHENA is the change in Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire—Clinical Summary Score at 12 months. The primary endpoint in HERMES is time to first composite of cardiovascular death, hospitalization for HF, or urgent HF visit. ATHENA has a fixed duration of 12 months, whereas the HERMES trial is event driven (∼845 adjudicated primary events) with a minimum exposure of 6 months from randomization to the last treatment visit. Conclusion ATHENA and HERMES will investigate the effect of ziltivekimab in HFpEF/HFmrEF and cardiovascular inflammation. ATHENA will determine the effect of ziltivekimab on health status. HERMES will determine the efficacy and safety of ziltivekimab on morbidity and mortality.

Abstract Background and Aims In the STEP-HFpEF trial programme, treatment with semaglutide resulted in multiple beneficial effects in patients with obesity-related heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). Efficacy may vary according to baseline diuretic use, and semaglutide treatment could modify diuretic dose. Methods In this pre-specified analysis of pooled data from the STEP-HFpEF and STEP-HFpEF-DM trials (n = 1145), which randomized participants with HFpEF and body mass index ≥ 30 kg/m2 to once weekly semaglutide 2.4 mg or placebo for 52 weeks, we examined whether efficacy and safety endpoints differed by baseline diuretic use, as well as the effect of semaglutide on loop diuretic use and dose changes over the 52-week treatment period. Results At baseline, across no diuretic (n = 220), non-loop diuretic only (n = 223), and loop diuretic [<40 (n = 219), 40 (n = 309), and >40 (n = 174) mg/day furosemide equivalents] groups, there was progressively higher prevalence of hypertension and atrial fibrillation; and greater severity of obesity and heart failure. Over 52 weeks of treatment, semaglutide had a consistent beneficial effect on change in body weight across diuretic use categories (adjusted mean difference vs. placebo ranged from −8.8% [95% confidence interval (CI) −10.3, −6.3] to −6.9% [95% CI −9.1, −4.7] from no diuretics to the highest loop diuretic dose category; interaction P = .39). Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire clinical summary score improvement was greater in patients on loop diuretics compared to those not on loop diuretics (adjusted mean difference vs. placebo: +9.3 [6.5; 12.1] vs. +4.7 points [1.3, 8.2]; P = .042). Semaglutide had consistent beneficial effects on all secondary efficacy endpoints (including 6 min walk distance) across diuretic subgroups (interaction P = .24–.92). Safety also favoured semaglutide vs. placebo across the diuretic subgroups. From baseline to 52 weeks, loop diuretic dose decreased by 17% in the semaglutide group vs. a 2.4% increase in the placebo group (P < .0001). Semaglutide (vs. placebo) was more likely to result in loop diuretic dose reduction (odds ratio [OR] 2.67 [95% CI 1.70, 4.18]) and less likely dose increase (OR 0.35 [95% CI 0.23, 0.53]; P < .001 for both) from baseline to 52 weeks. Conclusions In patients with obesity-related HFpEF, semaglutide improved heart failure-related symptoms and physical limitations across diuretic use subgroups, with more pronounced benefits among patients receiving loop diuretics at baseline. Reductions in weight and improvements in exercise function with semaglutide vs. placebo were consistent in all diuretic use categories. Semaglutide also led to a reduction in loop diuretic use and dose between baseline and 52 weeks. Clinical Trial Registration NCT04788511 and NCT04916470.

BACKGROUND: Patients with heart failure (HF) with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) and obesity experience a high burden of symptoms and functional impairment, and a poor quality of life. In the STEP-HFpEF trial (Research Study to Investigate How Well Semaglutide Works in People Living With Heart Failure and Obesity), once-weekly semaglutide 2.4 mg improved symptoms, physical limitations, and exercise function, and reduced inflammation and body weight. This prespecified analysis investigated the effects of semaglutide on the primary and confirmatory secondary end points across the range of the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ) scores at baseline and on all key summary and individual KCCQ domains. METHODS: STEP-HFpEF randomly assigned 529 participants with symptomatic HF, an ejection fraction of ≥45%, and a body mass index of ≥30 kg/m 2 to once-weekly semaglutide 2.4 mg or placebo for 52 weeks. Dual primary end points change in KCCQ-Clinical Summary Score (CSS) and body weight. Confirmatory secondary end points included change in 6-minute walk distance, a hierarchical composite end point (death, HF events, and change in KCCQ-CSS and 6-minute walk distance) and change in C-reactive protein. Patients were stratified by KCCQ-CSS tertiles at baseline. Semaglutide effects on the primary, confirmatory secondary, and select exploratory end points (N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide) were examined across these subgroups. Semaglutide effects on additional KCCQ domains (Total Symptom Score [including symptom burden and frequency], Physical Limitations Score, Social Limitations Score, Quality of Life Score, and Overall Summary Score) were also evaluated. RESULTS: Baseline median KCCQ-CSS across tertiles was 37, 59, and 77 points, respectively. Semaglutide consistently improved primary end points across KCCQ tertiles 1 to 3 (estimated treatment differences [95% CI]: for KCCQ-CSS, 10.7 [5.4 to 16.1], 8.1 [2.7 to 13.4], and 4.6 [–0.6 to 9.9] points; for body weight, –11 [–13.2 to –8.8], –9.4 [–11.5 to –7.2], and –11.8 [–14.0 to –9.6], respectively; P interaction =0.28 and 0.29, respectively); the same was observed for confirmatory secondary and exploratory end points ( P interaction >0.1 for all). Semaglutide-treated patients experienced improvements in all key KCCQ domains (estimated treatment differences, 6.7–9.6 points across domains; P ≤0.001 for all). Greater proportion of semaglutide-treated versus placebo-treated patients experienced at least 5-, 10-, 15-, and 20-point improvements in all KCCQ domains (odds ratios, 1.6–2.9 across domains; P <0.05 for all). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with HFpEF and obesity, semaglutide produced large improvements in HF-related symptoms, physical limitations, exercise function, inflammation, body weight, and N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide, regardless of baseline health status. The benefits of semaglutide extended to all key KCCQ domains. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov ; Unique identifier: NCT04788511.

BACKGROUND: The rate of stroke in patients with heart failure (HF) and preserved ejection fraction but without atrial fibrillation (AF), is uncertain as is whether it is possible to reliably predict the risk of stroke in these patients. METHODS: We validated a previously developed simple risk model for stroke among patients enrolled in the I-Preserve trial (Irbesartan in Heart Failure With Preserved Systolic Function) and PARAGON-HF trial (Efficacy and Safety of LCZ696 Compared to Valsartan, on Morbidity and Mortality in Heart Failure Patients With Preserved Ejection Fraction). The risk model consisted of 3 variables: history of previous stroke, insulin-treated diabetes, and plasma N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide level. RESULTS: Of the 8924 patients included in the pooled trial dataset, 5126 patients did not have AF at baseline. Among patients without AF, 190 (3.7%) experienced a stroke over a median follow-up of 3.6 years (rate 10.5 per 1000 patient-years). The risk for stroke increased with increasing risk score: second tertile hazard ratio, 1.78 (95% CI, 1.17–2.71); third tertile hazard ratio, 3.03 (95% CI, 2.06–4.47), with the first tertile as reference. For patients in the third tertile, the occurrence rate of stroke was 17.7 per 1000 patient-years, similar to that in patients with AF not receiving anticoagulation (20.7 per 1000 patient-years), and those with AF who were receiving anticoagulation (14.5 per 1000 patient-years). Model discrimination was good with a C index of 0.81 (0.68–0.91) and a simple score could be created from the model. CONCLUSIONS: A simple risk model can detect a subset of HF and preserved ejection fraction patients without AF who have a higher risk for stroke. The balance of risk-to-benefit in these individuals may justify the use of prophylactic anticoagulation, but this hypothesis needs to be prospectively evaluated. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov ; Unique identifiers: NCT00095238 and NCT01920711.

Background: In REDUCE LAP-HF II (A Study to Evaluate the Corvia Medical, Inc IASD System II to Reduce Elevated Left Atrial Pressure in Patients With Heart Failure), implantation of an atrial shunt device did not provide overall clinical benefit for patients with heart failure with preserved or mildly reduced ejection fraction. However, prespecified analyses identified differences in response in subgroups defined by pulmonary artery systolic pressure during submaximal exercise, right atrial volume, and sex. Shunt implantation reduces left atrial pressures but increases pulmonary blood flow, which may be poorly tolerated in patients with pulmonary vascular disease (PVD). On the basis of these results, we hypothesized that patients with latent PVD, defined as elevated pulmonary vascular resistance during exercise, might be harmed by shunt implantation, and conversely that patients without PVD might benefit. Methods: REDUCE LAP-HF II enrolled 626 patients with heart failure, ejection fraction ≥40%, exercise pulmonary capillary wedge pressure ≥25 mm Hg, and resting pulmonary vascular resistance <3.5 Wood units who were randomized 1:1 to atrial shunt device or sham control. The primary outcome—a hierarchical composite of cardiovascular death, nonfatal ischemic stroke, recurrent HF events, and change in health status—was analyzed using the win ratio. Latent PVD was defined as pulmonary vascular resistance ≥1.74 Wood units (highest tertile) at peak exercise, measured before randomization. Results: Compared with patients without PVD (n=382), those with latent PVD (n=188) were older, had more atrial fibrillation and right heart dysfunction, and were more likely to have elevated left atrial pressure at rest. Shunt treatment was associated with worse outcomes in patients with PVD (win ratio, 0.60 [95% CI, 0.42, 0.86]; P =0.005) and signal of clinical benefit in patients without PVD (win ratio, 1.31 [95% CI, 1.02, 1.68]; P =0.038). Patients with larger right atrial volumes and men had worse outcomes with the device and both groups were more likely to have pacemakers, heart failure with mildly reduced ejection fraction, and increased left atrial volume. For patients without latent PVD or pacemaker (n=313; 50% of randomized patients), shunt treatment resulted in more robust signal of clinical benefit (win ratio, 1.51 [95% CI, 1.14, 2.00]; P =0.004). Conclusions: In patients with heart failure with preserved or mildly reduced ejection fraction, the presence of latent PVD uncovered by invasive hemodynamic exercise testing identifies patients who may worsen with atrial shunt therapy, whereas those without latent PVD may benefit.

Aim There is an association between heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) and insulin resistance, but less is known about the diabetic continuum, and in particular about pre‐diabetes, in HFpEF. We examined characteristics and outcomes of participants with diabetes or pre‐diabetes in PARAGON‐HF. Methods and results Patients aged ≥50 years with left ventricular ejection fraction ≥45%, structural heart disease and elevated N‐terminal pro‐B‐type natriuretic peptide (NT‐proBNP) were eligible. Patients were classified according to glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c): (i) normal HbA1c, <6.0%; (ii) pre‐diabetes, 6.0%–6.4%; (iii) diabetes, ≥6.5% or history of diabetes. The primary outcome was a composite of cardiovascular (CV) death and total heart failure hospitalizations (HFH). Of 4796 patients, 50% had diabetes and 18% had pre‐diabetes. Compared to patients with normal HbA1c, patients with pre‐diabetes and diabetes more often were obese, had a history of myocardial infarction and had lower Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire scores, while patients with diabetes had more clinical evidence of congestion, but similar NT‐proBNP concentrations. The risks of the primary composite outcome (rate ratio [RR] 1.59, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.35–1.88), total HFH (RR 1.67, 95% CI 1.39–2.02) and CV death (hazard ratio [HR] 1.35, 95% CI 1.07–1.71) were higher among patients with diabetes, compared to those with normal HbA1c. Patients with pre‐diabetes had a higher risk (which was intermediate between that of patients with diabetes and those with normal HbA1c) of the primary outcome (HR 1.27, 95% CI 1.00–1.60) and HFH (HR 1.35, 95% CI 1.03–1.77), but not of CV death (HR 1.02, 95% CI 0.75–1.40). Patients with diabetes treated with insulin had worse outcomes than those not, and those with ‘lean diabetes’ had similar mortality rates to those with a higher body mass index, but lower rates of HFH. Conclusion Pre‐diabetes is common in patients with HFpEF and is associated with worse clinical status and greater risk of HFH. Clinical Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier NCT01920711.