Citations

Abstract Isolated/idiopathic rapid-eye-movement (REM)-Sleep Behavior Disorder (iRBD) is characterized by dream enactment behaviors associated with loss of REM atonia. iRBD is in most cases a prodromal synucleinopathy, and emerging evidence suggests associations between RBD and other neurological and psychiatric conditions. In this study, we performed pathway-based polygenic risk score (PRS) and rare variant burden analyses to examine these potential associations. Pathway-specific PRS were constructed from genome-wide association study summary statistics of five neurodegenerative and seven psychiatric traits across 10 biologically relevant pathway categories, including a total of 279 pathways, in 1,573 iRBD cases and 16,022 controls from the International RBD Study Group and UK Biobank. Rare variant burden tests were performed in 1,264 iRBD cases and 2,581 controls. We identified multiple potential pathways indicating shared polygenic risk between RBD and both neurodegenerative and psychiatric disorders. Lewy body diseases and post-traumatic stress disorder had the most shared polygenic risk pathways in neurological and psychiatric disorders, respectively. Two pathways, the serotonin transport pathway and the chaperone-mediated autophagy pathway, showed the strongest association with iRBD, and gene-based rare variants analyses revealed five genes associated with iRBD: GBA1 , PLEKHM1 , LRP2 , P2RX1 , and HAP1. Subsequent analysis of these genes in Parkinson’s disease and dementia with Lewy bodies replicated several associations. Together, these findings provide novel insights into the shared genetic architecture underlying iRBD, neurodegenerative disorders, and psychiatric traits, with implications for early identification and mechanistic understanding.

Abstract Two recent studies suggested that the APOE ε4 haplotype was associated with increased α-synuclein pathology in cell and mouse models. Genetic variants in the SNCA region have strong association with Parkinson’s disease (PD), dementia with Lewy bodies (DLB) and idiopathic REM sleep behaviour disorder (iRBD), while APOE is a genetic risk determinant for only DLB. To determine if genetic-level interactions between SNCA and APOE exists that can explain the protein-level association, we investigated the genotypic interaction of APOE and SNCA in cohorts of PD, DLB and iRBD. We analysed genome-wide association study (GWAS) data from 5229 PD patients and 5480 controls, 2610 DLB patients and 1920 controls, and 1055 iRBD patients and 3667 controls. We used logistic regression interaction models across all three cohorts independently between the (i) top GWAS signals of SNCA single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) and APOE haplotypes and (ii) SNP×SNP and three-way SNP interaction across the entire coding region plus 200 kb flanking each gene. No significant interactions were found to be associated with any of the synucleinopathies after correction for multiple testing. Our results do not support a role for genetic interactions between APOE and SNCA across PD, DLB and iRBD. Since the tested genetic variants affect the expression and function of these proteins, it is likely that any interactions between them do not affect the risk of PD, DLB and iRBD.

ABSTRACT Bipolar disorder’s (BD) clinical heterogeneity has an unresolved genetic basis. We meta-analyzed genome-wide association studies (GWAS) of 16 BD subphenotypes in 226,032 individuals from 57 cohorts (38,022 cases); 10 advanced to multivariate and multi-trait analyses. Four factors (compulsive, psychotic, dysregulated, internalizing) explained 82.8% of shared genetic variance. BD1 and BD2 loaded on distinct factors despite a high genetic correlation; 87.0% of common-factor loci were significant in neither subtype. Unipolar mania aligned with psychosis over internalizing, and was distinguishable from BD1, and rapid cycling showed heritable cross-domain liability. We identified 356 risk loci, 158 novel, including the first univariate-GWAS associations for psychosis, unipolar mania, rapid cycling and schizoaffective disorder—and 249 credible genes (89 high-confidence), 12 with approved-drug or clinical-phase annotations. Cell-type association showed a midbrain dopaminergic–GABAergic gradient along the psychotic factor. BD’s genetic architecture appears hierarchical—a general liability resolving into dimensions of course and comorbidity beyond diagnostic subtypes.

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.

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

BACKGROUND: Cognitive impairment is common in patients with heart failure and preserved ejection fraction but its clinical correlates and prognostic associations are poorly understood. METHODS: We analyzed cognitive function, using the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE), in patients with heart failure and preserved ejection fraction enrolled in a prespecified substudy of the PARAGON-HF trial (Prospective Comparison of Angiotensin Receptor Neprilysin Inhibitor With Angiotensin Receptor Blocker Global Outcomes in Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction). Logistic regression analyses were performed to determine the variables associated with lower MMSE scores at baseline and postbaseline decline in MMSE scores at 48 weeks. Cox proportional hazards regression and semiparametric proportional rates models were used to examine the risk of clinical outcomes related to baseline MMSE scores, and decline in MMSE scores during follow-up, adjusted for prognostic variables including NT-proBNP (N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide). RESULTS: At baseline, cognitive function was normal (MMSE score 28–30) in 1809 of 2895 patients (62.5%), borderline (score 24–27) in 794 (27.4%), and impaired (score <24) in 292 (10.1%). Variables associated with both a lower MMSE score at baseline and a decline in score from baseline included older age, a history of stroke or transient ischemic attack, and lower serum albumin. Compared with those with baseline MMSE scores of 28 to 30, patients in the lower MMSE score categories had a stepwise increase in the risk of the composite of time to first heart failure hospitalization or cardiovascular death, with an adjusted hazard ratio of 1.27 (95% CI, 1.06–1.53) for those with scores of 24 to 27 and 1.58 (95% CI, 1.21–2.06) for those with scores <24, respectively. These associations were also found for the individual components of the composite and all-cause death. Likewise, cognitive impairment was associated with a 50% higher risk of total (first and repeat) heart failure hospitalizations and cardiovascular deaths. Examining the change in MMSE score from baseline, a decrease in MMSE score during follow-up was associated with a higher risk of death. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with heart failure and preserved ejection fraction, even modest baseline impairment of cognitive function was associated with worse outcomes, including death. A decline in MMSE score during follow-up was a strong predictor of mortality, independent of other prognostic variables.

ABSTRACT Aims In the absence of randomized trial evidence, we performed a large observational analysis of the association between beta-blocker (BB) use and clinical outcomes in patients with heart failure (HF) and mildly reduced (HFmrEF) and preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). Methods and results We pooled individual patient data from four large HFmrEF/HFpEF trials (I-Preserve, TOPCAT, PARAGON-HF, and DELIVER). The primary outcome was the composite of cardiovascular death or HF hospitalization. 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 93.1% at 2 years (in survivors). The unadjusted hazard ratio (HR) for the primary outcome did not differ between BB users and non-users (HR 0.98, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.91–1.05), but the adjusted HR was lower in BB users than non-users (0.81, 95% CI 0.74–0.88), and this association was maintained across LVEF (pinteraction = 0.88). In subgroup analyses, the adjusted risk of the primary outcome was similar in BB users and non-users with or without a history of myocardial infarction, hypertension, or a baseline heart rate &lt;70 bpm. By contrast, a better outcome with BB use was seen in patients with atrial fibrillation compared to those without atrial fibrillation (pintreraction = 0.02). Conclusions In this observational analysis of non-randomized BB treatment, there was no suggestion that BB use was associated with worse HF outcomes in HFmrEF/HFpEF, even after extensive adjustment for other prognostic variables.