Chronic activation of the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS) promotes and perpetuates the syndromes of congestive heart failure, systemic hypertension, and chronic kidney disease. Excessive circulating and tissue angiotensin II (AngII) and aldosterone levels lead to a pro-fibrotic, -inflammatory, and -hypertrophic milieu that causes remodeling and dysfunction in cardiovascular and renal tissues. Understanding of the role of the RAAS in this abnormal pathologic remodeling has grown over the past few decades and numerous medical therapies aimed at suppressing the RAAS have been developed. Despite this, morbidity from these diseases remains high. Continued investigation into the complexities of the RAAS should help clinicians modulate (suppress or enhance) components of this system and improve quality of life and survival. This review focuses on updates in our understanding of the RAAS and the pathophysiology of AngII and aldosterone excess, reviewing what is known about its suppression in cardiovascular and renal diseases, especially in the cat and dog.

BACKGROUND: In the Studies of Left Ventricular Dysfunction (SOLVD) treatment trial, similar clinical benefits were observed between starting doses of enalapril and the target dose achieved by postrandomization up-titration. In our current analysis, protecting the randomization, we examined the early effects of starting doses of enalapril. METHODS: There were 2569 patients with mild-to-moderate chronic heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (ejection fraction ≤35%) randomized to receive starting doses (5-10 mg/day) of placebo (n = 1284) or enalapril (n = 1285). At day 14, both study drugs were blindly up-titrated to the target dose (20 mg/day). Overall, 96% (2458/2569) of the patients returned for dose up-titration, which was achieved in 59% (1444/2458), 48% (696/1444) of whom were in the enalapril group. Hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for outcomes in the enalapril group were estimated. RESULTS: HRs (95% CIs) for all-cause mortality, heart failure hospitalization, and the combined endpoint of heart failure hospitalization or all-cause mortality at 14 days after randomization were 0.80 (0.32-2.03), 0.63 (0.35-1.12), and 0.65 (0.39-1.06), respectively. Corresponding HRs (95% CIs) at 30 days were 0.82 (0.41-1.67), 0.43 (0.27-0.68), and 0.43 (0.27-0.68), respectively. The magnitude of these early effects of starting doses of enalapril is similar to its previously reported long-term effects at the target dose. CONCLUSION: These data suggest that in stable ambulatory patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, the magnitude of the early effect of starting doses of enalapril is similar to that observed during longer-term therapy with the target doses of the drug.

Background and objective

Certain patients with heart failure (HF) are unable to tolerate spironolactone therapy due to hyperkalemia. Patiromer is a novel agent used to treat hyperkalemia and has been shown to be efficacious, safe, and well-tolerated. The potential clinical outcomes and economic value of using patiromer and spironolactone in patients with HF unable to otherwise tolerate spironolactone due to hyperkalemia are unclear. The objective of this analysis was to model the potential pharmacoeconomic value of using patiromer and spironolactone in patients with a history of hyperkalemia that prevents them from utilizing spironolactone.

Methods

We performed a cost-effectiveness analysis of treatment with patiromer, spironolactone, and an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor (ACEI) in patients with New York Heart Association (NYHA) class III-IV HF compared with ACEI alone. A Markov model was constructed to simulate a cohort of 65-year-old patients diagnosed with HF from the payer perspective across the lifetime horizon. Clinical inputs were derived from the RALES and OPAL-HK randomized trials of spironolactone and patiromer, respectively. Utility estimates and costs were derived from the literature and list prices. Outcomes assessed included hospitalization, life expectancy, and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), costs, and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). One-way and probability sensitivity analyses were performed to test the robustness of the model findings.

Results

Treatment with patiromer-spironolactone-ACEI was projected to increase longevity compared with ACEI alone (5.29 vs. 4.62 life-years gained, respectively), greater QALYs (2.79 vs. 2.60), and costs (US$28,200 vs. US$18,200), giving an ICER of US$52,700 per QALY gained. The ICERs ranged from US$40,000 to US$85,800 per QALY gained in 1-way sensitivity analyses.

Conclusion

Our results suggest that the use of spironolactone-patiromer-ACEI may provide clinical benefit and good economic value in patients with NYHA class III-IV HF unable to tolerate spironolactone due to hyperkalemia.

BACKGROUND: The deleterious effects of discontinuation of digoxin on outcomes in ambulatory patients with chronic heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) receiving angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors are well-documented. OBJECTIVES: The authors sought to determine the relationship between digoxin discontinuation and outcomes in hospitalized patients with HFrEF receiving more contemporary guideline-directed medical therapies including beta-blockers and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists. METHODS: Of the 11,900 hospitalized patients with HFrEF (EF ≤45%) in the Medicare-linked OPTIMIZE-HF (Organized Program to Initiate Lifesaving Treatment in Hospitalized Patients with Heart Failure) registry, 3,499 received pre-admission digoxin, which was discontinued in 721 patients. Using propensity scores for digoxin discontinuation, estimated for each of the 3,499 patients, a matched cohort of 698 pairs of patients, balanced on 50 baseline characteristics (mean age 76 years; mean EF 28%; 41% women; 13% African American; 65% on beta-blockers) was assembled. RESULTS: Four-year post-discharge, digoxin discontinuation was associated with significantly higher risks of HF readmission (hazard ratio [HR]: 1.21; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.05 to 1.39; p = 0.007), all-cause readmission (HR: 1.16; 95% CI: 1.04 to 1.31; p = 0.010), and the combined endpoint of HF readmission or all-cause mortality (HR: 1.20; 95% CI: 1.07 to 1.34; p = 0.002), but not all-cause mortality (HR: 1.09; 95% CI: 0.97 to 1.24; p = 0.163). Discontinuation of digoxin was associated with a significantly higher risk of all 4 outcomes at 6 months and 1 year post-discharge. At 30 days, digoxin discontinuation was associated with higher risks of all-cause mortality (HR: 1.80; 95% CI: 1.26 to 2.57; p = 0.001) and the combined endpoint (HR: 1.36; 95% CI: 1.09 to 1.71; p = 0.007), but not of HF readmission (HR: 1.19; 95% CI: 0.90 to 1.59; p = 0.226) or all-cause readmission (HR: 1.03; 95% CI: 0.84 to 1.26; p = 0.778). CONCLUSIONS: Among hospitalized older patients with HFrEF on more contemporary guideline-directed medical therapies, discontinuation of pre-admission digoxin therapy was associated with poor outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Beta-blockers in high target doses are recommended for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) but not for preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). Treatment benefits are often more pronounced in high-risk subgroups, and patients with HFpEF with heart rate ≥70 beats per minute have emerged as such a high-risk subgroup. We examined the associations of high-dose beta-blocker use with outcomes in these patients. METHODS: Of the 8462 hospitalized patients with heart failure with ejection fraction ≥50% in the Medicare-linked Organized Program to Initiate Lifesaving Treatment in Hospitalized Patients with Heart Failure (OPTIMIZE-HF) registry, 5422 had a discharge heart rate ≥70 beats per minute. Of these, 4537 had no contraindications to beta-blocker use, of which 2797 (2592 with dose data) received prescriptions for beta-blockers. Of the 2592, 730 received high-dose beta-blockers, defined as atenolol ≥100 mg/day, carvedilol ≥50 mg/day, metoprolol tartrate or succinate ≥200 mg/day, or bisoprolol ≥10 mg/day, and 1740 received no beta-blockers. Using propensity scores for the receipt of high-dose beta-blockers, we assembled a matched cohort of 1280 patients, balanced on 58 characteristics. RESULTS: All-cause mortality occurred in 63% and 68% of matched patients receiving high-dose beta-blocker vs no beta-blocker, respectively, during 6 years (median, 2.8) of follow-up (hazard ratio, 0.86; 95% confidence interval, 0.75-0.98; P = .027). The hazard ratios (95% confidence intervals) for all-cause readmission and the combined endpoint of all-cause readmission or all-cause mortality associated with high-dose beta-blocker use were 0.90 (0.81-1.02) and 0.89 (0.80-1.00), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with HFpEF and heart rate ≥70 beats per minute, high-dose beta-blocker use was associated with a significantly lower risk of death. Future randomized controlled trials are needed to examine this association.

Background

The efficacy of mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists or aldosterone antagonists in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) is well known. Less is known about their effectiveness in real-world older patients with HFrEF.

Methods

Of the 8206 patients with heart failure and ejection fraction ≤35% without prior spironolactone use in the Medicare-linked OPTIMIZE-HF registry, 6986 were eligible for spironolactone therapy based on serum creatinine criteria (men ≤2.5 mg/dL, women ≤2.0 mg/dL) and 865 received a discharge prescription for spironolactone. Using propensity scores for spironolactone use, we assembled a matched cohort of 1724 (862 pairs) patients receiving and not receiving spironolactone, balanced on 58 baseline characteristics (Creatinine Cohort: mean age, 75 years, 42% women, 17% African American). We repeated the above process to assemble a secondary matched cohort of 1638 (819 pairs) patients with estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) ≥30 mL/min/1.73 m² (eGFR Cohort: mean age, 75 years, 42% women, 17% African American).

Results

In the matched Creatinine Cohort, spironolactone-associated hazard ratios (95% confidence intervals) for all-cause mortality, heart failure readmission, and combined endpoint of heart failure readmission or all-cause mortality were 0.92 (0.81-1.03), 0.87 (0.77-0.99), and 0.87 (0.79-0.97), respectively. Respective hazard ratios (95% confidence intervals) in the matched eGFR Cohort were 0.87 (0.77-0.98), 0.92 (0.80-1.05), and 0.91 (0.82-1.02).

Conclusions

These findings provide evidence of consistent, albeit modest, clinical effectiveness of spironolactone in older patients with HFrEF regardless of renal eligibility criteria used. Additional strategies are needed to improve the effectiveness of aldosterone antagonists in clinical practice.

Heart failure (HF) is a major and increasing global public health problem. In Asia, aging populations and recent increases in cardiovascular risk factors have contributed to a particularly high burden of HF, with outcomes that are poorer than those in the rest of the world. Representation of Asians in landmark HF trials has been variable. In addition, HF patients from Asia demonstrate clinical differences from patients in other geographic regions. Thus, the generalizability of some clinical trial results to the Asian population remains uncertain. In this article, we review differences in HF phenotype, HF management, and outcomes in patients from East and Southeast Asia. We describe lessons learned in Asia from recent HF registries and clinical trial databases and outline strategies to improve the potential for success in future trials. This review is based on discussions among scientists, clinical trialists, industry representatives, and regulatory representatives at the CardioVascular Clinical Trialist Asia Forum in Singapore on July 4, 2014.

AIMS: Finerenone reduces the risk of cardiovascular events in patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) and type 2 diabetes (T2D). We investigated the causes of mortality in the FIDELITY population. METHODS AND RESULTS: The FIDELITY prespecified pooled data analysis from FIDELIO-DKD and FIGARO-DKD excluded patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction. Outcomes included intention-to-treat and prespecified on-treatment analyses of the risk of all-cause and cardiovascular mortality. Of 13 026 patients [mean age, 64.8 years; mean estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), 57.6 mL/min/1.73 m2], 99.8% were on renin-angiotensin system inhibitors. Finerenone reduced the incidence of all-cause and cardiovascular mortality vs. placebo (8.5% vs. 9.4% and 4.9% vs. 5.6%, respectively) and demonstrated significant on-treatment reductions [hazard ratio (HR), 0.82; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.70-0.96; P = 0.014 and HR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.67-0.99; P = 0.040, respectively]. Cardiovascular-related mortality was most common, and finerenone lowered the incidence of sudden cardiac death vs. placebo [1.3% (incidence rate 0.44/100 patient-years) vs. 1.8% (0.58/100 patient-years), respectively; HR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.57-0.996; P = 0.046]. The effects of finerenone on mortality were similar across all Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes risk groups. Event probability with finerenone at 4 years was consistent irrespective of baseline urine albumin-to-creatinine ratio, but seemingly more pronounced in patients with higher baseline eGFR. CONCLUSION: In FIDELITY, finerenone significantly reduced the risk of all-cause and cardiovascular mortality vs. placebo in patients with T2D across a broad spectrum of CKD stages while on treatment, as well as sudden cardiac death in the intention-to-treat population. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION: FIDELIO-DKD and FIGARO-DKD are registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, numbers NCT02540993 and NCT02545049, respectively (funded by Bayer AG).

Aims

To examine associations of below-target and target dose of enalapril, an angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor, with outcomes in patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) in the Studies of Left Ventricular Dysfunction (SOLVD) Treatment trial.

Methods and results

Two thousand five hundred and sixty-nine patients with HFrEF (ejection fraction ≤35%) were randomized to below-target (5-10 mg/day) dose placebo (n = 1284) or enalapril (n = 1285). One month post-randomization, blind up-titration to target (20 mg/day) dose was attempted for both study drugs in 2458 patients. Among the 1444 patients who achieved dose up-titration (placebo, n = 748; enalapril, n = 696; mean dose for both groups, 20.0 mg/day), target dose enalapril (vs. target dose placebo) was associated with a 9% absolute lower risk of the combined endpoint of heart failure hospitalization or all-cause mortality [adjusted hazard ratio (HR) 0.70; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.60-0.81; P < 0.001] during 4 years of follow-up. Among the 1014 patients who could not achieve target dose (placebo, n = 486; enalapril, n = 528; mean dose for both groups, 8.8 mg/day), below-target dose enalapril (vs. below-target dose placebo) was associated with a 12% absolute lower risk of the combined endpoint of heart failure hospitalization or all-cause mortality (adjusted HR 0.68; 95% CI 0.57-0.81; P < 0.001). Among the 1224 patients receiving enalapril, target (vs. below-target) dose had no association with the combined endpoint of heart failure hospitalization or all-cause mortality (adjusted HR 1.04; 95% CI 0.87-1.23; P = 0.695).

Conclusion

In patients with HFrEF, the clinical benefits of ACE inhibitors appear to be similar at both below-target and target doses.

The burden of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) is considerable and is projected to worsen. To date, there are no approved therapies available for reducing mortality or hospitalizations for these patients. The pathophysiology of HFpEF is complex and includes alterations in cardiac structure and function, systemic and pulmonary vascular abnormalities, end-organ involvement, and comorbidities. There remain major gaps in our understanding of HFpEF pathophysiology. To facilitate a discussion of how to proceed effectively in future with development of therapies for HFpEF, a meeting was facilitated by the Food and Drug Administration and included representatives from academia, industry, and regulatory agencies. This document summarizes the proceedings from this meeting.