Packer, Milton

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 To evaluate clinical outcomes, echocardiographic features, and the efficacy and safety of sacubitril/valsartan compared to valsartan across age groups in the PARAGON-HF trial. Methods and results A total of 4796 participants ≥50 years of age with chronic heart failure (HF) and left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) ≥45% were divided into three age groups: <65 years (n = 825), 65–74 years (n = 1772), and ≥75 years (n = 2199). Echocardiograms of 1097 patients were analysed in a standardized fashion at a core imaging laboratory. The primary composite outcome was total HF hospitalizations and cardiovascular (CV) death. Older patients were more likely to experience primary composite outcomes (compared to patients <65 years, adjusted rate ratio [aRR] for ≥75 years: 1.39, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.21–1.61), total HF hospitalization (aRR 1.27, 95% CI 1.09–1.49), and CV death (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 2.04, 95% CI 1.44–2.87). Age did not modify the effect of sacubitril/valsartan compared to valsartan on primary composite endpoint (pinteraction = 0.79) in the overall population or in those with LVEF ≤57%. Older adults randomized to sacubitril/valsartan were more likely to develop hypotension compared to those receiving valsartan (pinteraction = 0.026). Older patients had smaller left ventricular chamber sizes, higher LVEF, and were more likely to have abnormal measures of diastolic function. Conclusion Older patients with HF with preserved ejection fraction had higher event rates than younger patients, more adverse events overall, and more hypotension when treated with sacubitril/valsartan; however, the treatment benefits of sacubitril/valsartan were retained in older patients.

BACKGROUND: Patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction and obesity have significant disability and frequent exacerbations of heart failure. We hypothesized that tirzepatide, a long-acting agonist of glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide and glucagon-like peptide-1 receptors, would improve a comprehensive suite of clinical end points, including measures of health status, functional capacity, quality of life, exercise tolerance, patient well-being, and medication burden, in these patients. METHODS: We randomized (double-blind) 731 patients with class II to IV heart failure, ejection fraction ≥50%, and body mass index ≥30 kg/m 2 to tirzepatide (titrated up to 15 mg SC weekly; n=364) or placebo (n=367) added to background therapy for a median of 104 weeks (quartile 1, 66; quartile 3, 126 weeks). The primary end points were whether tirzepatide reduced the combined risk of cardiovascular death or worsening heart failure and improved Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire Clinical Summary Score. The current expanded analysis included sensitivity analyses of the primary end points, 6-minute walk distance, EQ-5D-5L health state index, Patient Global Impression of Severity Overall Health score, New York Heart Association class, use of heart failure medications, and a hierarchical composite based on all-cause death, worsening heart failure, and 52-week changes in Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire Clinical Summary Score and 6-minute walk distance. RESULTS: Patients were 65.2±10.7 years of age; 53.8% (n=393) were female; body mass index was 38.2±6.7 kg/m 2 ; Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire Clinical Summary Score was 53.5±18.5; 6-minute walk distance was 302.8±81.7 m; and 53% (n=388) had a worsening heart failure event in the previous 12 months. Compared with placebo, tirzepatide produced a consistent beneficial effect across all composites of death and worsening heart failure events, analyzed as time to first event (hazard ratios, 0.41–0.67). At 52 weeks, tirzepatide increased the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire Clinical Summary Score by 6.9 points (95% CI, 3.3–10.6; P <0.001), 6-minute walk distance 18.3 meters (95% CI, 9.9–26.7; P <0.001), and EQ-5D-5L 0.06 (95% CI, 0.03–0.09; P <0.001). The tirzepatide group shifted to a more favorable Patient Global Impression of Severity Overall Health score (proportional odds ratio, 1.99 [95% CI, 1.44–2.76]) and New York Heart Association class (proportional odds ratio, 2.26 [95% CI, 1.54–3.31]; both P <0.001) and required fewer heart failure medications ( P =0.015). The broad spectrum of effects was reflected in benefits on the hierarchical composite (win ratio, 1.63 [95% CI, 1.17–2.28]; P =0.004). CONCLUSIONS: Tirzepatide produced a comprehensive, meaningful improvement in heart failure across multiple complementary domains; enhanced health status, quality of life, functional capacity, exercise tolerance, and well-being; and reduced symptoms and medication burden in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction and obesity. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov ; Unique identifier: NCT04847557.

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