European Society of Cardiology/Heart Failure Association position paper on the role and safety of new glucose‐lowering drugs in patients with heart failure

Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) is common in patients with heart failure (HF) and associated with considerable morbidity and mortality. Significant advances have recently occurred in the treatment of T2DM, with evidence of several new glucose‐lowering medications showing either neutral or beneficial cardiovascular effects. However, some of these agents have safety characteristics with strong practical implications in HF [i.e. dipeptidyl peptidase‐4 (DPP‐4) inhibitors, glucagon‐like peptide‐1 receptor agonists (GLP‐1 RA), and sodium–glucose co‐transporter type 2 (SGLT‐2) inhibitors]. Regarding safety of DPP‐4 inhibitors, saxagliptin is not recommended in HF because of a greater risk of HF hospitalisation. There is no compelling evidence of excess HF risk with the other DPP‐4 inhibitors. GLP‐1 RAs have an overall neutral effect on HF outcomes. However, a signal of harm suggested in two small trials of liraglutide in patients with reduced ejection fraction indicates that their role remains to be defined in established HF. SGLT‐2 inhibitors (empagliflozin, canagliflozin and dapagliflozin) have shown a consistent reduction in the risk of HF hospitalisation regardless of baseline cardiovascular risk or history of HF. Accordingly, SGLT‐2 inhibitors could be recommended to prevent HF hospitalisation in patients with T2DM and established cardiovascular disease or with multiple risk factors. The recently completed trial with dapagliflozin has shown a significant reduction in cardiovascular mortality and HF events in patients with HF and reduced ejection fraction, with or without T2DM. Several ongoing trials will assess whether the results observed with dapagliflozin could be extended to other SGLT‐2 inhibitors in the treatment of HF, with either preserved or reduced ejection fraction, regardless of the presence of T2DM. This position paper aims to summarise relevant clinical trial evidence concerning the role and safety of new glucose‐lowering therapies in patients with HF.     

Type 2 diabetes mellitus and heart failure: a position statement from the Heart Failure Association of the European Society of Cardiology

The coexistence of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and heart failure (HF), either with reduced (HFrEF) or preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), is frequent (30–40% of patients) and associated with a higher risk of HF hospitalization, all‐cause and cardiovascular (CV) mortality. The most important causes of HF in T2DM are coronary artery disease, arterial hypertension and a direct detrimental effect of T2DM on the myocardium. T2DM is often unrecognized in HF patients, and vice versa, which emphasizes the importance of an active search for both disorders in the clinical practice. There are no specific limitations to HF treatment in T2DM. Subanalyses of trials addressing HF treatment in the general population have shown that all HF therapies are similarly effective regardless of T2DM. Concerning T2DM treatment in HF patients, most guidelines currently recommend metformin as the first‐line choice. Sulphonylureas and insulin have been the traditional second‐ and third‐line therapies although their safety in HF is equivocal. Neither glucagon‐like preptide‐1 (GLP‐1) receptor agonists, nor dipeptidyl peptidase‐4 (DPP4) inhibitors reduce the risk for HF hospitalization. Indeed, a DPP4 inhibitor, saxagliptin, has been associated with a higher risk of HF hospitalization. Thiazolidinediones (pioglitazone and rosiglitazone) are contraindicated in patients with (or at risk of) HF. In recent trials, sodium–glucose co‐transporter‐2 (SGLT2) inhibitors, empagliflozin and canagliflozin, have both shown a significant reduction in HF hospitalization in patients with established CV disease or at risk of CV disease. Several ongoing trials should provide an insight into the effectiveness of SGLT2 inhibitors in patients with HFrEF and HFpEF in the absence of T2DM.     

Effects of sodium glucose cotransporter type 2 inhibitors on heart failure

Heart failure (HF) is emerging as one of the most common cardiovascular (CV) events in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D), and the one associated with the worst prognosis. T2D and insulin resistance are strong predictors of incident HF, especially HF with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). Recent data suggest that even when all traditional risk factors for ASCVD are well controlled, patients with T2D continue to have a substantially greater risk of developing HF—indicating that traditional risk factor control is insufficient from a HF prevention standpoint, and highlighting the need for novel, more effective strategies for both prevention and treatment of heart failure in patients with T2D. Until recently, medications developed for glucose-lowering had, at best, neutral effect on heart failure outcomes in patients with T2D, while several classes of T2D medications had little data in regards to HF risk, and others actually increased the risk of HF hospitalization. Sodium glucose cotransporter type 2 inhibitors (SGLT-2i) have a novel and unique mechanism of action. By inhibiting sodium and glucose reabsorption in the proximal tubule, SGLT-2i result in a number of downstream effects, including glucosuria, weight loss, osmotic diuresis and natriuresis, which should theoretically be beneficial in HF. Three CVOTs of various SGLT-2i (EMPA-REG OUTCOME, CANVAS and DECLARE-TIMI 58) enrolled markedly different patient populations in terms of ASCVD risk, but have demonstrated robust and consistent benefits in reduction of hospitalization for HF. In a meta-analysis of the three outcomes trials, SGLT-2i significantly reduced the risk of cardiovascular death or hospitalization for HF by 23% and hospitalization for HF by 31%. Although the declines in HF hospitalization with SGLT-2is are impressive, only a small proportion of patients with established HF were enrolled in these trials, and these benefits, therefore, represent primarily a HF prevention signal. Whether this prevention of HF benefit will translate to better outcomes for those patients with established HF (with or without diabetes), and whether it will extend across the spectrum of HF phenotypes (HFrEF and HFpEF) is yet to be determined, and is being actively investigated in several large ongoing trials.     

Sodium–glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors represent a paradigm shift in the prevention of heart failure in type 2 diabetes patients

Recent major clinical trials of the use of sodium–glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors in patients with type 2 diabetes have shown that they reduce three-point major adverse cardiovascular events, cardiovascular death, hospitalization for heart failure (HF) and a composite renal outcome. These beneficial effects of SGLT2 inhibitors are also evident in type 2 diabetes patients with a previous history of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease or advanced renal disease. HF is a major determinant of the prognosis of diabetes patients. Although HF with low ejection fraction can be effectively treated with antihypertensive drugs, these treatments do not reduce mortality in HF patients with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). HFpEF is clinically characterized by left ventricular diastolic dysfunction, perivascular fibrosis and stiffness of cardiomyocytes, defined as “cardiomyopathy”. Therefore, HFpEF is considered to be an entirely separate entity to HF with low ejection fraction. Recent studies have suggested that HFpEF might be treatable using SGLT2 inhibitors, which ameliorate visceral adiposity, insulin resistance, hyperglycemia, hyperlipidemia, volume overload, hypertension and cardiac inflammation. In the final part of the present review, we discuss the biochemical and molecular mechanisms of the effects of SGLT2 inhibitors in type 2 diabetes patients with HFpEF. These involve amelioration of the low nitric oxide production and oxidative stress, a reduction in cardiac inflammatory cytokine signaling, inhibition of Ca²⁺ overload, and an improvement in cardiac energy metabolism as a result of ketone body production. Investigations of the beneficial effects of SGLT2 inhibitors on cardiorenal outcomes, including hospitalization for HF, are now being carried out in preclinical and clinical studies.     

When and How to Use Sodium-Glucose Cotransporter 2 Inhibitors in Patients With Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction or Chronic Kidney Disease

The role of sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors in preventing heart failure (HF) in people with type 2 diabetes (T2DM) is now part of current treatment recommendations. Two large clinical trials (DAPA-HF and EMPEROR-Reduced) have recently highlighted the important impact of SGLT2 inhibitors in patients with HF and a reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), with significant outcome benefits on HF hospitalisations and cardiovascular mortality, and similar effects in patients with and without T2DM. These benefits were observed on top of excellent background HF therapy, and there were no treatment interactions between SGLT2 inhibitors and background HF therapy. There were no increases in adverse events of interest in the SGLT2 inhibitor arm, including volume depletion, adverse renal events, hypoglycemia, amputation, and ketoacidosis, demonstrating the favourable safety profile of this treatment in HFrEF. Approximately 40%-50% of patients with HFrEF have chronic kidney disease (CKD), and the recently reported results of the DAPA-CKD trial indicate that dapagliflozin can prevent renal and cardiovascular outcomes in patients with established CKD, whether diabetes is present or not. Although the mechanisms of action of SGLT2 inhibitors are not fully understood, the hypotheses that have been proposed for their HF outcome benefits include a reduction of preload via osmotic diuresis, lowering of afterload, reduction in myocardial mass, alteration of myocardial energy substrate toward a more efficient glucose metabolism, modulation of renal sympathetic afferent tone, and increased erythropoiesis. We here present a summary of the evidence as well as a practical perspective on prescribing SGLT2 inhibitors in patients with HFrEF, with or without diabetes.     

Reframing the association and significance of co‐morbidities in heart failure

Several co‐existing diseases and/or conditions (co‐morbidities) are present in patients with heart failure (HF), with diverse clinical relevance. Multiple mechanisms may underlie the co‐existence of HF and co‐morbidities, including direct causation, associated risk factors, heterogeneity, and independence. The complex inter‐relationship of co‐morbidities and their impact on the cardiovascular system contribute to the features of HF, both with reduced (HFrEF) and preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). The purpose of this work is to provide an overview of the contribution of major cardiac and non‐cardiac co‐morbidities to HF development and outcomes, in the context of both HFpEF and HFrEF. Accordingly, epidemiological evidence linking co‐morbidities to HF and the effect of prevalent and incident co‐morbidities on HF outcome will be reviewed.     

Contribution of cardiac and extra‐cardiac disease burden to risk of cardiovascular outcomes varies by ejection fraction in heart failure

Aims

Patients with heart failure (HF) often have multiple co‐morbidities that contribute to the risk of adverse cardiovascular (CV) and non‐CV outcomes. We assessed the relative contribution of cardiac and extra‐cardiac disease burden and demographic factors to CV outcomes in HF patients with reduced (HFrEF) or preserved (HFpEF) left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF).

Methods and results

We utilized data from the CHARM trial, which enrolled HF patients across the ejection fraction spectrum. We decomposed the previously validated MAGGIC risk score into cardiac (LVEF, New York Heart Association class, systolic blood pressure, time since HF diagnosis, HF medication use), extra‐cardiac (body mass index, creatinine, diabetes mellitus, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, smoker), and demographic (age, gender) categories, and calculated subscores for each patient representing the burden of each component. Cox proportional hazards models were used to estimate the population attributable risk (PAR) associated with each component to the outcomes of death, CV death, HF, myocardial infarction, and stroke relative to patients with the lowest risk score. PARs for each component were depicted across the spectrum of LVEF. in 2675 chronic HF patients from North America [HFrEF (LVEF ≤40%): n = 1589, HFpEF (LVEF >40%): n = 1086] with data available for calculation of the MAGGIC score, the highest risk of death and CV death was attributed to cardiac burden. This was especially evident in HFrEF patients (PAR: 76% cardiac disease vs. 58% extra‐cardiac disease, P < 0.05). Conversely, in HFpEF patients, extra‐cardiac burden accounted for a greater proportion of risk for death than cardiac burden (PAR: 15% cardiac disease vs. 49% extra‐cardiac disease, P < 0.05). For HF hospitalization, the contribution of both cardiac and extra‐cardiac burden was comparable in HFpEF patients (PAR: 42% cardiac disease vs. 53% extra‐cardiac disease, P = NS). In addition, demographic burden was especially high in HFpEF patients, with 62% of deaths attributable to demographic characteristics.

Conclusion

In North American HF patients enrolled in the CHARM trials, the relative contribution of cardiac and extra‐cardiac disease burden to CV outcomes and death differed depending on LVEF. The high risk of events attributable to non‐cardiac disease burden may help explain why cardiac disease‐modifying medication proven to be efficacious in HFrEF patients has not proven beneficial in HFpEF.

     

The cardiovascular outcomes,heart failure and kidney disease trials tell that the time to use Sodium Glucose Cotransporter 2 inhibitors is now

Sodium glucose contrasporter 2 inhibitors (SGLT2i) were initially introduced as a novel class of modestly effective antiglycemics. Over the last 5 years, multiple members of this class have been examined for their cardiovascular safety, effects on heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and chronic kidney disease (CKD) in diverse populations with or without diabetes type 2. The plethora of studies and outcomes examined make it difficult for the practitioner to track the entirety of the evidence. SGLT2i improve cardiorenal outcomes and have a beneficial risk benefit ratio across populations with cardiovascular disease, HFrEF and kidney disease. In this quantitative review, we synthesize the data from the large outcomes trials about the benefits and risks of SGLT2i. SGLT2i reduce all cause, cardiovascular mortality, heart failure hospitalizations, need for dialysis and acute kidney injury as a class effect across a broad range of populations with diabetes Type 2 at risk for cardiovascular disease, patients with HFrEF or CKD with or without diabetes. While certain adverse events for example, diabetic ketoacidosis and genital mycotic infections are reproducibly increased by SGLT2i, the absolute increase in the risk of these complications is smaller than the absolute risk reductions conferred by SGLT2i. Other complications such as amputations, fractures and urinary tract infections are increased to a lesser degree, or not at all (e.g., hypoglycemia). Overall, SGLT2is appear to have a favorable safety profile and thus should be used by cardiologists, nephrologists, endocrinologists, primary care physicians when managing the cardiorenal risk of their patients.     

Are the effects of drugs to prevent and to treat heart failure always concordant? The statin paradox and its implications for understanding the actions of antidiabetic medications

Most treatments for chronic heart failure are effective both in preventing its onset and reducing its progression. However, statins prevent the development of heart failure, but they do not decrease morbidity and mortality in those with established heart failure. This apparent discordance cannot be explained by an effect to prevent interval myocardial infarctions. Instead, it seems that the disease that statins were preventing in trials of patients with a metabolic disorder was different from the disease that they were treating in trials of chronic heart failure. The most common phenotype of heart failure in patients with obesity and diabetes is heart failure with a preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). In this disorder, the anti‐inflammatory effects of statins might ameliorate myocardial fibrosis and cardiac filling abnormalities, but these actions may have little relevance to patients with heart failure and a reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), whose primary derangement is cardiomyocyte loss and stretch. These distinctions may explain why statins were ineffective in trials that focused on HFrEF, but have been reported to produce favourable effects in observational studies of HFpEF. Similarly, selective cytokine antagonists were ineffective in HFrEF, but have been associated with benefits in HFpEF. These observations may have important implications for our understanding of the effects of antihyperglycaemic medications. Glucagon‐like peptide‐1 receptor agonists have had neutral effects on heart failure events in people at risk for HFpEF, but have exerted deleterious actions in HFrEF. Similarly, sodium–glucose co‐transporter 2 inhibitors, which exert anti‐inflammatory effects and reduce heart failure events in patients who are prone to HFpEF, may not be effective in HFrEF. The distinctions between HFrEF and HFpEF may explain why the effects of drugs on heart failure events in diabetes trials may not be relevant to their use in patients with systolic dysfunction.     

Pharmacologic strategies to reduce cardiovascular disease in type 2 diabetes mellitus: focus on SGLT‐2 inhibitors and GLP‐1 receptor agonists

Patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2D) present an increased risk for cardiovascular (CV) complications. In addition to improvement in glycaemic control, glucose‐lowering therapies, such as glucagon‐like peptide‐1 receptor agonists (GLP‐1RAs) and sodium‐dependent glucose cotransporter (SGLT)‐2 inhibitors, have been shown to significantly reduce CV events. In 2008, the US Food and Drug Administration mandated that all new glucose‐lowering drugs undergo CV outcomes trials (CVOTs) to determine their CV safety. These trials have largely demonstrated no major CV safety concerns. Most notably, the GLP‐1RAs and SGLT‐2 inhibitors have been found to be not only safe, but also cardioprotective compared to placebo. The SGLT‐2 inhibitors have opened a new perspective for clinicians treating patients with T2D and established CV disease in light of their ‘pleiotropic’ effects, specifically on heart failure, while GLP‐1RAs seem to present more favourable effects on atherosclerotic events. In this review, we discuss the role of GLP‐1RAs and SGLT‐2 inhibitors to reduce CV risk in T2D patients and suggest an individualized therapeutic approach in this population based on the presence of metabolic and CV comorbidities.     

Characteristics and outcomes of patients with a history of cancer recruited to heart failure trials

Aims

Heart failure (HF) therapy trials usually exclude cancer patients. We examined the association between cancer history and outcomes in trial participants with HF and reduced (HFrEF) or preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF).

Methods and results

We combined PARADIGM-HF and ATMOSPHERE, which enrolled HFrEF patients (n = 15 415) and we pooled HFpEF patients (ejection fraction ≥45%) enrolled in PARAGON-HF and CHARM-Preserved (n = 7363). The associations between cancer history, cardiovascular (CV) death, HF hospitalization, non-CV and all-cause death in these trials were examined. Incident cancer diagnoses during these trials were also measured. There were 658 (4.3%) and 624 (8.5%) patients with a cancer history in the HFrEF and HFpEF trials, respectively. HFrEF patients with a cancer history had a higher risk of HF hospitalization (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 1.28; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.07–1.52, p = 0.007) and non-CV death (adjusted HR 1.57; 95% CI 1.16–2.12, p = 0.003) than those without. The risks of other outcomes were similar. There were no differences in the risk of any outcome in HFpEF patients with and without a cancer history. Adjusting for age and sex, the incidence of new cancer in the HFrEF and HFpEF trials was 1.09 (95% CI 0.83–1.36) and 1.07 (95% CI 0.81–1.32) per 100 person-years, respectively.

Conclusions

Although participants in HFrEF trials with a cancer history had higher risks of HF hospitalization and non-CV death than those without, the risks of CV and all-cause death were similar. Outcomes in HFpEF patients with and without a cancer history were similar. Incident cancer diagnoses were similar in HFrEF and HFpEF trials.     

Current concept in the diagnosis,treatment and rehabilitation of patients with congestive heart failure

Heart failure(HF) is a major public health problem with a prevalence of 1%-2% in developed countries. The underlying pathophysiology of HF is complex and as a clinical syndrome is characterized by various symptoms and signs. HF is classified according to left ventricular ejection fraction(LVEF) and falls into three groups: LVEF ≥ 50%-HF with preserved ejection fraction(HFpEF), LVEF 40%-HF with reduced ejection fraction(HFrEF), LVEF 40%-49%-HF with mid-range ejection fraction. Diagnosing HF is primarily a clinical approach and it is based on anamnesis, physical examination, echocardiogram, radiological findings of the heart and lungs and laboratory tests, including a specific markers of HF-brain natriuretic peptide or N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide as well as other diagnostic tests in order to elucidate possible etiologies. Updated diagnostic algorithms for HFpEF have been recommended(H2 FPEF, HFA-PEFF). New therapeutic options improve clinical outcomes as well as functional status in patients with HFrEF(e.g., sodium-glucose cotransporter-2-SGLT2 inhibitors) and such progress in treatment of HFrEF patients resulted in new working definition of the term "HF with recovered left ventricular ejection fraction". In line with rapid development of HF treatment, cardiac rehabilitation becomes an increasingly important part of overall approach to patients with chronic HF for it has been proven that exercise training can relieve symptoms, improve exercise capacity and quality of life as well as reduce disability and hospitalization rates. We gave an overview of latest insights in HF diagnosis and treatment with special emphasize on the important role of cardiac rehabilitation in such patients.     

Effect of digoxin in patients with heart failure and mid‐range (borderline) left ventricular ejection fraction

Aims

To evaluate the effects of digoxin in patients with the newly described phenotype of heart failure (HF) and mid‐range ejection fraction (HFmrEF), attributed to mild left ventricular systolic dysfunction.

Methods and results

We carried out a retrospective analysis of the Digitalis Investigation Group (DIG) trial which had 7788 patients available for analysis with a left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) ranging between 3% and 85%. We compared the effect of digoxin to placebo in three mutually exclusive groups of patients defined by LVEF category: <40% (HF with reduced LVEF, HFrEF, n = 5874), 40–49% (HFmrEF, n = 1195) and ≥50% (HF with preserved LVEF, HFpEF, n = 719). The primary outcome was the composite of cardiovascular death or HF hospitalisation. Patients with HFmrEF resembled patients with HFrEF, more than those with HFpEF, with respect to age, sex and aetiology but were more like HFpEF patients with respect to blood pressure and the prevalence of hypertension. Event rates in patients with HFmrEF were similar to those in HFpEF and much lower than in HFrEF. Digoxin reduced the primary endpoint in patients with HFrEF, mainly due to reduced HF hospitalisation: the digoxin/placebo hazard ratio (HR) for HF hospitalisation was 0.71 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.65–0.77]. The digoxin/placebo HR for HF hospitalisation in patients with HFmrEF was 0.80 (95% CI 0.63–1.03) and 0.85 (95% CI 0.62–1.17) in those with HFpEF. The digoxin/placebo HR for the composite of HF death or HF hospitalisation was 0.74 (95% CI 0.68–0.81) in HFrEF, 0.83 (95% CI 0.66–1.05) in HFmrEF and 0.88 (95% CI 0.65–1.19) in HFpEF.

Conclusions

In this study, event rates in patients with HFmrEF were closer to those in HFpEF than HFrEF. Digoxin had most effect on HF hospitalisation in patients with HFrEF, an intermediate effect in HFmrEF, and the smallest effect in HFpEF.

     

Sodium‐glucose co‐transporter‐2 inhibitors and diabetic ketoacidosis: An updated review of the literature

Sodium‐glucose cotransporter‐2 inhibitors (SGLT2is) are increasingly used for the treatment of type 2 diabetes (T2D) and can improve glucose control also in type 1 diabetes (T1D). In May 2015, regulatory agencies issued a warning that SGLT2is may cause diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA). We report details on 2 new cases of SGLT2i‐associated DKA and review the literature for similar cases within randomized controlled trials (RCTs), cohort studies and single reports. We searched the medical literature for reports of SGLT2i‐associated DKA cases. A quantitative analysis of frequency and clinical characteristics is reported. The 2 narrative cases illustrate that SGLT2i‐associated DKA can occur in patients with T1D incorrectly diagnosed as T2D, perhaps without the presence of obvious DKA precipitating factors. The incidence of SGLT2i‐associated DKA was less than 1/1000 in randomized controlled trials and 1.6/1000 person‐years in cohort studies. We retrieved detailed data on 105 SGLT2i‐associated DKA case reports, wherein 35% showed glucose levels of less than 200 mg/dL and 22% were not associated with typical triggers. In case reports and in pharmacovigilance databases, duration of SGLT2i treatment before DKA onset was extremely variable. Fatal SGLT2i‐associated DKA episodes were found only in pharmacovigilance databases and represented 1.6% of all reported cases. DKA is a rare adverse event during SGLT2i therapy. Predisposing and precipitating factors are still incompletely understood, although a minority of cases lacked typical DKA triggers. More narrative case series and cohort studies are needed to better understand the true risk and the spectrum of this adverse event.     

Prevalence of heart failure and the diagnostic value of MR-proANP in outpatients with type 2 diabetes

The prevalence of heart failure (HF) in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2DM) is debatable and no data exist concerning the diagnostic value of mid-regional pro-atrial natriuretic peptide (MR-proANP). We aimed to identify HF prevalence and evaluate the diagnostic value of MR-proANP in outpatients followed in two specialized diabetes clinics. HF was pre-defined as HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and HF with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). The prevalence of HFrEF and HFpEF was 2.4% and 17.5%, respectively. An MR-proANP <60 pmol/L ruled out HFrEF in the total population (n = 806) and in patients reporting dyspnea (n = 311) with a sensitivity of 94.7% and 87.5%, a negative predictive value of 99.7% and 99.0%, a specificity of 39.5% and 33.0%, and a positive predictive value of 3.6% and 3.3%, respectively. In a multivariable model including age, sex, T2DM duration, albuminuria, uncontrolled systolic blood pressure, abnormal electrocardiogram and ischaemic heart disease for diagnosis of HF in patients reporting dyspnea, adding MR-proANP increased the area under the curve from 0.69 to 0.78 (P < 0.001). In conclusion, HFrEF was rare among outpatients with T2DM. MR-proANP rules out HFrEF and contributes independent information relevant to diagnosis of HF in patients reporting dyspnea.     

CCS/CHFS Heart Failure Guidelines: Clinical Trial Update on Functional Mitral Regurgitation,SGLT2 Inhibitors,ARNI in HFpEF,and Tafamidis in Amyloidosis

In this update, we focus on selected topics of high clinical relevance for health care providers who treat patients with heart failure (HF), on the basis of clinical trials published after 2017. Our objective was to review the evidence, and provide recommendations and practical tips regarding the management of candidates for the following HF therapies: (1) transcatheter mitral valve repair in HF with reduced ejection fraction; (2) a novel treatment for transthyretin amyloidosis or transthyretin cardiac amyloidosis; (3) angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibition in patients with HF and preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF); and (4) sodium glucose cotransport inhibitors for the prevention and treatment of HF in patients with and without type 2 diabetes. We emphasize the roles of optimal guideline-directed medical therapy and of multidisciplinary teams when considering transcatheter mitral valve repair, to ensure excellent evaluation and care of those patients. In the presence of suggestive clinical indices, health care providers should consider the possibility of cardiac amyloidosis and proceed with proper investigation. Tafamidis is the first agent shown in a prospective study to alter outcomes in patients with transthyretin cardiac amyloidosis. Patient subgroups with HFpEF might benefit from use of sacubitril/valsartan, however, further data are needed to clarify the effect of this therapy in patients with HFpEF. Sodium glucose cotransport inhibitors reduce the risk of incident HF, HF-related hospitalizations, and cardiovascular death in patients with type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease. A large clinical trial recently showed that dapagliflozin provides significant outcome benefits in well treated patients with HF with reduced ejection fraction (left ventricular ejection fraction ≤ 40%), with or without type 2 diabetes.     

Heart failure in the patient with diabetes: Epidemiology,aetiology, prognosis,therapy and the effect of glucose-lowering medications

In people with type 2 diabetes the frequency of heart failure (HF) is increased and mortality from HF is higher than with non-diabetic HF. The increased frequency of HF is attributable to the cardiotoxic tetrad of ischaemic heart disease, left ventricular hypertrophy, diabetic cardiomyopathy and an extracellular volume expansion resistant to atrial natriuretic peptides. Activation of the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system and sympathetic nervous systems results in cardiac remodelling, which worsens cardiac function. Reversal of remodelling can be achieved, and cardiac function improved in people with HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) by treatment with angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and β-blockers. However, with HF with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), only therapy for the underlying risk factors helps. Blockers of mineralocorticoid receptors may be beneficial in both HFrEF and HFpEF. Glucose-lowering drugs can have a negative effect (insulin, sulphonylureas, dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors and thiazolidinediones), a neutral effect (α-glucosidase inhibitors and glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists) or a positive effect (sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 inhibitors and metformin).     

Pharmacogenomics of angiotensin receptor/neprilysin inhibitor and its long‐term side effects

The development of the promising agent sacubitril/valsartan, known as an angiotensin receptor blocker‐neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI), to improve heart failure (HF) management, may benefit morbidity, mortality, and readmission rates in patients with HF. The PARADIGM‐HF trial demonstrated that the ARNI can reduce morbidity and mortality in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), while ongoing PARAMOUNT and PARAGON‐HF trials determined whether the ARNI has morbidity and mortality benefits in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). However, the risk of long‐term side effects of the ARNI such as cognitive dysfunction or Alzheimer's disease (AD) remains unknown. In fact, neprilysin (NEP), encoded by NEP or MME gene, is a principal peptidase involved in the degradation of β‐amyloid (Aβ) protein. Several studies have demonstrated that polymorphisms of the NEP gene may be associated with AD and cerebral amyloid angiopathy (CAA). Pharmacogenomics, the study of variability in drug response due to genetic polymorphisms, can potentially explain the variability in the effect of the ARNI and their side effects. Therefore, we have attempted to highlight pharmacogenomic factors and potential long‐term side effects of the ARNI. Physicians should carefully monitor elderly patients with genetic risk factors for AD and CAA. In the future, genetic testing and genomic testing for NEP polymorphisms may play an important role in monitoring long‐term side effects in ARNI‐treated HF patients.     

Heart failure with mid‐range ejection fraction in CHARM: characteristics,outcomes and effect of candesartan across the entire ejection fraction spectrum

Aims

We tested the hypothesis that candesartan improves outcomes in heart failure (HF) with mid‐range ejection fraction [HFmrEF; ejection fraction (EF) 40–49%].

Methods and results

In 7598 patients enrolled in the CHARM Programme (HF across the spectrum of EF), we assessed characteristics, outcomes and treatment effect of candesartan according to EF. Patients with HFmrEF (n = 1322, 17%) were similar to those with HF with reduced EF (HFrEF; n = 4323, 57%) with respect to some characteristics, and intermediate between HFrEF and HF with preserved EF (HFpEF; n = 1953, 26%) with respect to others. Over a mean follow‐up of 2.9 years, the incidence rates for the primary outcome of cardiovascular death or HF hospitalization were 15.9, 8.5 and 8.9 per 100 patient‐years in HFrEF, HFmrEF and HFpEF. In adjusted analyses, the rates of the primary outcome declined with increasing EF up to 50%. For treatment effect, the incidence rates for the primary outcome for candesartan vs. placebo were 14.4 vs. 17.5 per 100 patient‐years in HFrEF [hazard ratio (HR) 0.82, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.75–0.91; P < 0.001], 7.4 vs. 9.7 per 100 patient‐years in HFmrEF (HR 0.76, 95% CI 0.61–0.96; P = 0.02), and 8.6 vs. 9.1 per 100 patient‐years in HFpEF (HR 0.95, 95% CI 0.79–1.14; P = 0.57). For recurrent HF hospitalization, the incidence rate ratios were 0.68 in HFrEF (95% CI 0.58–0.80; P < 0.001), 0.48 in HFmrEF (95% CI 0.33–0.70; P < 0.001), and 0.78 in HFpEF (95% CI 0.59–1.03; P = 0.08). With EF as a continuous spline variable, candesartan significantly reduced the primary outcome until EF well over 50% and recurrent HF hospitalizations until EF well over 60%.

Conclusion

Candesartan improved outcomes in HFmrEF to a similar degree as in HFrEF. ClinicalTrials.gov : CHARM Alternative NCT00634400, CHARM Added NCT00634309, CHARM Preserved NCT00634712     

Management of heart failure and type 2 diabetes mellitus: Maximizing complementary drug therapy

Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) is a major risk factor for cardiovascular disease and occurs in ~25% of patients with heart failure (HF). Patients with co-morbid HF and T2DM are at elevated risk of adverse outcomes, making optimization of complementary drug therapies essential. While research is ongoing, recent advances in drug therapy, including the introduction of sacubitril/valsartan for HF with reduced ejection fraction and the finding of positive cardiovascular effects of glucose-lowering agents (particularly sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 [SGLT2] inhibitors) have the potential to transform pharmacologic management of co-morbid HF and T2DM. In this review, we provide a comprehensive overview of cardiovascular clinical trials of therapies for HF and diabetes mellitus to date and identify areas requiring further investigation. We also discuss the pathophysiologic overlap of the two diseases and explore the complementary therapeutic effects of HF and T2DM drugs, with a particular focus on sacubitril/valsartan and SGLT2 inhibitors.