Assessment Of Reduction In Mortality Research Articles

Achieved dose and treatment discontinuation of candesartan in men and women with chronic heart failure: data from CHARM.

Angiotensin receptor blockers have been shown to reduce heart failure hospitalization and cardiovascular mortality in men and women with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). It is unknown whether there are differences between men and women in achieved dose and treatment discontinuation due to adverse events of candesartan. We conducted a post hoc analysis of the Candesartan in Heart failure: Assessment of Reduction in Mortality and morbidity (CHARM) programme. A total of 3172 men and 1106 women with HFrEF [left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF)≤40%] in New York Heart Association class II-IV were randomized to candesartan or placebo. Every 2weeks, patients were up-titrated from 4 or 8, to16, to 32mg once daily, unless a higher dose was contraindicated or not tolerated. Women were older (66 vs. 64years), had a higher LVEF (29.9% vs. 28.6%), and had more hypertension (54% vs. 47%) than men. The mean achieved dose of candesartan was 21.5±12.6mg in men and 20.7±12.9mg in women (P=0.19). In both the candesartan and placebo groups, cardiovascular death and heart failure hospitalizations were higher in men and women who achieved lower dose levels. Event rates for achieved dose levels of 0, 4 or 8, 16, and 32mg candesartan were 20.8, 17.2, 14.0, and 10.1 per 100 person-years in men, respectively, and 23.6, 13.7, 14.0, and 9.1 per 100 person-years in women, respectively. In each of the achieved dose levels, there was no sex difference in the proportion of patients with an event, neither in the candesartan group nor in the placebo group (P-value for all>0.05). There was no significant interaction between sex and treatment-related discontinuation for hypotension (P=0.520), an increase in creatinine (P=0.102), and hyperkalaemia (P=0.905). In a randomized clinical trial in patients with HFrEF, men and women achieved similar doses of candesartan. Primary event rates and treatment-related discontinuation due to adverse events were also similar between men and women.

Pharmacogenomic study of heart failure and candesartan response from the CHARM programme.

The Candesartan in Heart failure Assessment of Reduction in Mortality and morbidity (CHARM) programme consisted of three parallel, randomized, double-blind clinical trials comparing candesartan with placebo in patients with heart failure (HF) categorized according to left ventricular ejection fraction and tolerability to an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor. We conducted a pharmacogenomic study of the CHARM trials with the objective of identifying genetic predictors of HF progression and of the efficacy and safety of treatment with candesartan. We performed genome-wide association studies in 2727 patients of European ancestry from CHARM-Overall and stratified by CHARM study according to preserved and reduced ejection fraction and according to assignment to the interventional treatment with candesartan. We tested genetic association with the composite endpoint of cardiovascular death or hospitalization for heart failure for drug efficacy in candesartan-treated patients and for HF progression using patients from both candesartan and placebo arms. The safety endpoints for response to candesartan were hyperkalaemia, renal dysfunction, hypotension, and change in systolic blood pressure between baseline and 6weeks of treatment. To support our observations, we conducted a genome-wide gene-level collapsing analysis from whole-exome sequencing data with the composite cardiovascular endpoint. We found that the A allele (14% allele frequency) of the genetic variant rs66886237 at 8p21.3 near the gene GFRA2 was associated with the composite cardiovascular endpoint in 1029 HF patients with preserved ejection fraction from the CHARM-Preserved study (hazard ratio: 1.91, 95% confidence interval: 1.55-2.35; P=1.7×10-9 ). The association was independent of candesartan treatment, and the genetic variant was not associated with the cardiovascular endpoint in patients with reduced ejection fraction. None of the genome-wide association studies for candesartan safety or efficacy conducted in patients treated with candesartan passed the significance threshold. We found no significant association from the gene-level collapsing analysis. We have identified a candidate genetic variant potentially predictive of the progression of heart failure in patients with preserved ejection fraction. The findings require further replication, and we cannot exclude the possibility that the results may be chance findings.

Developing and validating models to predict sudden death and pump failure death in patients with heart failure and preserved ejection fraction

BackgroundSudden death (SD) and pump failure death (PFD) are leading modes of death in heart failure and preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). Risk stratification for mode-specific death may aid in patient enrichment for new device trials in HFpEF.MethodsModels were derived in 4116 patients in the Irbesartan in Heart Failure with Preserved Ejection Fraction trial (I-Preserve), using competing risks regression analysis. A series of models were built in a stepwise manner, and were validated in the Candesartan in Heart failure: Assessment of Reduction in Mortality and morbidity (CHARM)-Preserved and Treatment of Preserved Cardiac Function Heart Failure with an Aldosterone Antagonist (TOPCAT) trials.ResultsThe clinical model for SD included older age, men, lower LVEF, higher heart rate, history of diabetes or myocardial infarction, and HF hospitalization within previous 6 months, all of which were associated with a higher SD risk. The clinical model predicting PFD included older age, men, lower LVEF or diastolic blood pressure, higher heart rate, and history of diabetes or atrial fibrillation, all for a higher PFD risk, and dyslipidaemia for a lower risk of PFD. In each model, the observed and predicted incidences were similar in each risk subgroup, suggesting good calibration. Model discrimination was good for SD and excellent for PFD with Harrell’s C of 0.71 (95% CI 0.68–0.75) and 0.78 (95% CI 0.75–0.82), respectively. Both models were robust in external validation. Adding ECG and biochemical parameters, model performance improved little in the derivation cohort but decreased in validation. Including NT-proBNP substantially increased discrimination of the SD model, and simplified the PFD model with marginal increase in discrimination.ConclusionsThe clinical models can predict risks for SD and PFD separately with good discrimination and calibration in HFpEF and are robust in external validation. Adding NT-proBNP further improved model performance. These models may help to identify high-risk individuals for device intervention in future trials.Clinical trial registrationI-Preserve: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00095238; TOPCAT: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00094302; CHARM-Preserved: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00634712.Graphic abstract

Myocardial Infarction in Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction: Pooled Analysis of 3 Clinical Trials

ObjectivesThe authors investigated the relationship between past or incident myocardial infarction (MI) and cardiovascular (CV) events in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). BackgroundMI and HFpEF share some common risk factors. The prognostic significance of MI in patients with HFpEF is uncertain. MethodsThe authors pooled data from 3 trials—CHARM Preserved (Candesartan Cilexietil in Heart Failure Assessment of Reduction in Mortality and Morbidity), I-Preserve (Irbesartan in Heart Failure With Preserved Systolic Function), and the Americas region of TOPCAT (Treatment of Preserved Cardiac Function Heart Failure With an Aldosterone Antagonist) (N = 8,916)—and examined whether MI before or following enrollment independently predicted CV death and heart failure (HF) hospitalization. ResultsAt baseline, 2,668 patients (30%) had history of MI. Prior MI was independently associated with greater risk of CV death (4.7 vs. 3.5 events/100 patient-years [py], adjusted hazard ratio [HR]: 1.42 [95% confidence interval (CI): 1.23 to 1.64]; p < 0.001). Excess sudden death drove this difference (1.9 vs. 1.2 events/100 py, adjusted HR: 1.55 [95% CI: 1.23 to 1.97]; p < 0.001). There was no difference in HF hospitalization (5.9 vs. 5.5 events/100 py, adjusted HR: 1.05, 95% CI: 0.92 to 1.19) or HF death by prior MI. During follow-up, MI occurred in 336 patients (3.8%). Risk of CV death increased 31-fold in the first 30 days after first post-enrollment MI, and remained 58% higher beyond 1 year after MI. Risk of first or recurrent HF hospitalization increased 2.4-fold after MI. ConclusionsPrior MI in HFpEF is associated with greater CV and sudden death but similar risk of HF outcomes. Patients with HFpEF who experience MI are at high risk of subsequent CV death and HF hospitalization. These data highlight the importance of primary and secondary prevention of MI in patients with HFpEF. (Candesartan Cilexietil in Heart Failure Assessment of Reduction in Mortality and Morbidity [CHARM Preserved]; NCT00634712; Irbesartan in Heart Failure With Preserved Systolic Function [I-Preserve]; NCT00095238; and Treatment of Preserved Cardiac Function Heart Failure With an Aldosterone Antagonist [TOPCAT]; NCT00094302)

Study protocol for a randomized controlled trial: Qiliqiangxin in heart failUre: assESsment of reduction in morTality (QUEST)

BackgroundQiliqiangxin (QLQX) capsule is a Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) that has been approved in China for the treatment of chronic heart failure (CHF). Our previous study showed with a background of standard HF treatment, QLQX capsules further reduced the levels of NT-proBNP and the incidence of composite cardiac events (CCEs) in CHF patients. This study aims to further assess the reduction in mortality when using QLQX compared with placebo for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) patients.MethodsThis study is a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group, multi-center, event-driven clinical study of approximately 3080 patients for a targeted 620 events. Patients must have a diagnosis of heart failure for at least 3 months prior to screening. Patients will be randomized 1:1 to receive the placebo or QLQX in addition to their standard medications of CHF. The primary efficacy outcome event is a composite cardiovascular death and re-hospitalization due to the worsening of heart failure.DiscussionThe QUEST study is a randomized control study of TCM in chronic heart failure. It will determine the place of QLQX as an new treatment approach and provide additional and innovative information regarding TCM - and the specific used of QLQX in HFrEF.Trial registrationThe trial was registered at http://www.chictr.org.cn. ( Registration No.: ChiCTR1900021929); Date: 2019-03-16.

Highlights From the Circulation Family of Journals.

Highlights From the Circulation Family of Journals.

Adherence-adjustment in placebo-controlled randomized trials: An application to the candesartan in heart failure randomized trial

BackgroundThe per-protocol effect provides important information in randomized trials with incomplete adherence. Yet, because valid estimation typically requires adjustment for prognostic factors that predict adherence, per-protocol effect estimates are often met with skepticism. In placebo-controlled trials, however, the validity of adjustment can be indirectly verified by demonstrating no association between adherence and the outcome among the placebo arm. Here, we describe a two-stage procedure in which we first adjust for time-varying adherence in the placebo arm and then use a similar procedure to estimate the per-protocol effect. MethodsWe use the Candesartan in Heart Failure: Assessment of Reduction in Mortality and Morbidity (CHARM) randomized trial. First, we compare adherers versus non-adherers in the placebo arm, adjusting for pre- and post-randomization variables. Second, we use models validated in the placebo arm to estimate the per-protocol effect of adherence to candesartan versus placebo in the full trial. FindingsWe successfully estimated no association between adherence and mortality in the placebo arm; hazard ratio: 0.91 (95% CI: 0.51, 2.52). We then estimated the per-protocol effect under two sets of protocol-defined stopping criteria after adjustment for post-randomization confounders. The mortality hazard ratio estimates ranged from 0.91 to 0.93 for the per-protocol effect estimates, similar to the intention-to-treat effect estimates. InterpretationAdherence adjustment in the CHARM trial is feasible when appropriate assumptions about missing data and confounding are made. These assumptions cannot be verified but can be supported through the use of placebo-arm adherence assessment.

Age-Related Characteristics and Outcomes of Patients With Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction

BackgroundAlthough heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) is considered a disease of the elderly, younger patients are not spared from this syndrome. ObjectivesThis study therefore investigated the associations among age, clinical characteristics, and outcomes in patients with HFpEF. MethodsUsing data on patients with left ventricular ejection fraction ≥45% from 3 large HFpEF trials (TOPCAT [Aldosterone Antagonist Therapy for Adults With Heart Failure and Preserved Systolic Function], I-PRESERVE [Irbesartan in Heart Failure With Preserved Systolic Function], and CHARM Preserved [Candesartan Cilexetil in Heart Failure Assessment of Reduction in Mortality and Morbidity]), patients were categorized according to age: ≤55 years (n = 522), 56 to 64 years (n = 1,679), 65 to 74 years (n = 3,405), 75 to 84 years (n = 2,464), and ≥85 years (n = 398). This study compared clinical and echocardiographic characteristics, as well as mortality and hospitalization rates, mode of death, and quality of life across age categories. ResultsYounger patients (age ≤55 years) with HFpEF were more often obese, nonwhite men, whereas older patients with HFpEF were more often white women with a higher prevalence of atrial fibrillation, hypertension, and chronic kidney disease (eGFR <60 ml/min/1.73 m2). Despite fewer comorbidities, younger patients had worse quality of life compared with older patients (age ≥85 years). Compared with patients age ≤55 years, patients age ≥85 years had higher mortality (hazard ratio: 6.9; 95% confidence interval: 4.2 to 11.4). However, among patients who died, sudden death was, proportionally, the most common mode of death (p < 0.001) in patients age ≤55 years. In contrast, older patients (age ≥85 years) died more often from noncardiovascular causes (34% vs. 20% in patients age ≤55 years; p < 0.001). ConclusionsCompared with the elderly, younger patients with HFpEF were less likely to be white, were more frequently obese men, and died more often of cardiovascular causes, particularly sudden death. In contrast, elderly patients with HFpEF had more comorbidities and died more often from noncardiovascular causes. (Aldosterone Antagonist Therapy for Adults With Heart Failure and Preserved Systolic Function [TOPCAT]; NCT00094302; Irbesartan in Heart Failure With Preserved Systolic Function [I-PRESERVE]; NCT00095238; Candesartan Cilexetil in Heart Failure Assessment of Reduction in Mortality and Morbidity [CHARM Preserved]; NCT00634712)

Marginal hazard ratio estimates in joint frailty models for heart failure trials.

This work is motivated by clinical trials in chronic heart failure disease, where treatment has effects both on morbidity (assessed as recurrent non‐fatal hospitalisations) and on mortality (assessed as cardiovascular death, CV death). Recently, a joint frailty proportional hazards model has been proposed for these kind of efficacy outcomes to account for a potential association between the risk rates for hospital admissions and CV death. However, more often clinical trial results are presented by treatment effect estimates that have been derived from marginal proportional hazards models, that is, a Cox model for mortality and an Andersen–Gill model for recurrent hospitalisations. We show how these marginal hazard ratios and their estimates depend on the association between the risk processes, when these are actually linked by shared or dependent frailty terms. First we derive the marginal hazard ratios as a function of time. Then, applying least false parameter theory, we show that the marginal hazard ratio estimate for the hospitalisation rate depends on study duration and on parameters of the underlying joint frailty model. In particular, we identify parameters, for example the treatment effect on mortality, that determine if the marginal hazard ratio estimate for hospitalisations is smaller, equal or larger than the conditional one. How this affects rejection probabilities is further investigated in simulation studies. Our findings can be used to interpret marginal hazard ratio estimates in heart failure trials and are illustrated by the results of the CHARM‐Preserved trial (where CHARM is the ‘Candesartan in Heart failure Assessment of Reduction in Mortality and morbidity’ programme).

Prior Pacemaker Implantation and Clinical Outcomes in Patients With Heart Failure and Preserved Ejection Fraction

ObjectivesThis study examined the relationship between prior pacemaker implantation and clinical outcomes in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). BackgroundConventional right ventricular pacing causes electrical and mechanical left ventricular dyssynchrony and may worsen left ventricular systolic dysfunction and HF. Whether conventional pacing is also associated with worse outcomes in HFpEF is unknown. MethodsPatient data were pooled from the CHARM-Preserved (Candesartan in Heart failure: Assessment of Reduction in Mortality and morbidity), I-PRESERVE (Irbesartan in Heart Failure with Preserved Ejection Fraction), and TOPCAT (Treatment of Preserved Cardiac Function Heart Failure with an Aldosterone Antagonist trial) studies and were examined for the association between having a pacemaker and the risk of the primary composite of cardiovascular death or HF hospitalization, the individual components of the composite, the 2 main modes of cardiovascular death (i.e., sudden death and pump failure death), and all-cause death in unadjusted and adjusted analyses. ResultsOf the 8,466 patients included, 682 patients (8%) had a pacemaker. Pacemaker patients were older and more often men and had lower body mass indexes, estimated glomerular filtration rates, and blood pressures but higher concentrations of N-terminal pro–B-type natriuretic peptide than those without a pacemaker. The rate of the primary composite outcome in pacemaker patients was almost twice that in patients without a pacemaker (13.6 vs. 7.6 per 100 patient-years of follow up, respectively), with a similar finding for HF hospitalizations (10.8 vs. 5.1 per 100 patient-years, respectively). This risk rate persisted after adjusting for other prognostic variables (hazard ratio [HR] for the composite outcome: 1.17; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.02 to 1.33; p = 0.026), driven mainly by HF hospitalization (HR: 1.37; 95% CI: 1.17 to 1.60; p < 0.001). The risk of death was not significantly higher in pacemaker patients in the adjusted analyses. ConclusionsThese findings raise the possibility that right ventricular pacing-induced left ventricular dyssynchrony may be detrimental in HFpEF patients.

Prevalence of Prediabetes and Undiagnosed Diabetes in Patients with HFpEF and HFrEF and Associated Clinical Outcomes

PurposeThe prevalence and consequences of prediabetic dysglycemia and undiagnosed diabetes is unknown in patients with heart failure (HF) and preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) and has not been compared to heart failure and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF).MethodsWe examined the prevalence and outcomes associated with normoglycemia, prediabetic dysglycemia and diabetes (diagnosed and undiagnosed) among individuals with a baseline glycated hemoglobin (hemoglobin A1c, HbA1c) measurement stratified by HFrEF or HFpEF in the Candesartan in Heart failure Assessment of Reduction in Mortality and morbidity programme (CHARM). We studied the primary outcome of HF hospitalization or cardiovascular (CV) death, and all-cause death, and estimated hazard ratios (HR) by use of multivariable Cox regression models.ResultsHbA1c was measured at baseline in CHARM patients enrolled in the USA and Canada and was available in 1072/3023 (35%) of patients with HFpEF and 1578/4576 (34%) patients with HFrEF. 18 and 16% had normoglycemia (HbA1c < 6.0), 20 and 22% had prediabetes (HbA1c 6.0–6.4), respectively. Finally among patients with HFpEF 22% had undiagnosed diabetes (HbA1c > 6.4), and 40% had known diabetes (any HbA1c), with corresponding prevalence among HFrEF patients being 26 and 35%. The rates of both clinical outcomes of interest were higher in patients with undiagnosed diabetes and prediabetes, compared to normoglycemic patients, irrespective of HF subtype, and in general higher among HFrEF patients. For the primary composite outcome among HFpEF patients, the HRs were 1.02 (95% CI 0.63–1.65) for prediabetes, HR 1.18 (0.75–1.86) for undiagnosed diabetes and 2.75 (1.83–4.11) for known diabetes, respectively, p value for trend across groups < 0.001. Dysglycemia was also associated with worse outcomes in HFrEF.ConclusionsThese findings confirm the remarkably high prevalence of dysglycemia in heart failure irrespective of ejection fraction phenotype, and demonstrate that dysglycemia is associated with a higher risk of adverse clinical outcomes, even before the diagnosis of diabetes and institution of glucose lowering therapy in patients with HFpEF as well as HFrEF.

Prevalence and prognostic importance of precipitating factors leading to heart failure hospitalization: recurrent hospitalizations and mortality.

Hospitalizations for heart failure (HF) are common and are associated with significant morbidity, mortality and cost. However, precipitating factors leading to HF hospitalization and their importance with respect to subsequent outcomes are not well understood. The symptoms and signs present at admission and investigator-identified factors thought to have contributed to the first adjudicated HF hospitalization in the Candesartan in Heart Failure: Assessment of Reduction in Mortality and Morbidity (CHARM) programme were prospectively collected and stratified by ejection fraction (EF). Potential precipitants were collected using a specifically designed case report form and categorized according to the presence of cardiovascular (CV), non-CV and unknown factors. Associations between these factors and subsequent rehospitalization and mortality rates were examined. Of 1668 patients who experienced HF hospitalization, 1152 had reduced EF (≤40%, HFrEF) and 516 had preserved EF (HFpEF). Overall, 54% had CV, 32% had non-CV and 14% had unknown factors thought to have precipitated HF, with similar proportions in the HFrEF and HFpEF groups. The most common precipitants were arrhythmia (15%), other non-CV factors (11%) and respiratory infection (10%). Subsequent CV readmission rates were highest in those whose initial HF hospitalization was precipitated by CV factors. However, mortality rates were similar among patients with any of the three categories of precipitating factors. Results were similar in HFrEF and HFpEF. Among chronic HF patients hospitalized for decompensation, the investigator-reported precipitating factor was not associated with the subsequent mortality rate, but was associated with type of readmission: readmissions for CV reasons were more likely when the index precipitant was CV.

Severity of renal impairment in patients with heart failure and atrial fibrillation: implications for non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulant dose adjustment.

The non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs) have varying degrees of renal elimination which may be challenging in patients with heart failure (HF) and atrial fibrillation (AF). We examined the severity and variation in renal impairment, and the proportion of patients requiring NOAC cessation or dose reduction. A retrospective analysis of patients with HF and AF in the Candesartan in Heart failure Assessment of Reduction in Mortality and Morbidity programme was carried out. Trends in renal impairment over 26 months were defined using Cockcroft-Gault (CG), simplified Modification of Diet in Renal Disease (MDRD), and Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration (CKD-EPI) equations. Mean estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) was worse at every time point in patients with AF compared with those without AF, the difference being ∼11 mL/min (CG), 9 mL/min (CKD-EPI), and 7 mL/min (MDRD). As renal function declined, CG classified a greater proportion of patients as having moderate or severe CKD and agreement with MDRD/CKD-EPI declined. At least moderate renal impairment was present in a quarter of patients with AF at baseline, a third by study completion, and approaching a half at least once during follow-up. The projected need for NOAC dose reduction was accordingly high, though it varied between individual NOACs due to different criteria for adjustment. Renal impairment in patients with HF and AF is common, fluctuates, progresses, and frequently mandates NOAC dose reduction, though the need for cessation is rare. Baseline renal function, the method of estimating GFR, and intensity of monitoring should be considered when commencing oral anticoagulation.

Baseline Hemodynamics and Response to Contrast Media During Diagnostic Cardiac Catheterization Predict Adverse Events in Heart Failure Patients.

Contrast media administered during cardiac catheterization can affect hemodynamic variables. However, little is documented about the effects of contrast on hemodynamics in heart failure patients or the prognostic value of baseline and changes in hemodynamics for predicting subsequent adverse events. In this prospective study of 150 heart failure patients, we measured hemodynamics at baseline and after administration of iodixanol or iopamidol contrast. One-year Kaplan-Meier estimates of adverse event-free survival (death, heart failure hospitalization, and rehospitalization) were generated, grouping patients by baseline measures of pulmonary capillary wedge pressure (PCWP) and cardiac index (CI), and by changes in those measures after contrast administration. We used Cox proportional hazards modeling to assess sequentially adding baseline PCWP and change in CI to 5 validated risk models (Seattle Heart Failure Score, ESCAPE [Evaluation Study of Congestive Heart Failure and Pulmonary Artery Catheterization Effectiveness], CHARM [Candesartan in Heart Failure: Assessment of Reduction in Mortality and Morbidity], CORONA [Controlled Rosuvastatin Multinational Trial in Heart Failure], and MAGGIC [Meta-Analysis Global Group in Chronic Heart Failure]). Median contrast volume was 109 mL. Both contrast media caused similarly small but statistically significant changes in most hemodynamic variables. There were 39 adverse events (26.0%). Adverse event rates increased using the composite metric of baseline PCWP and change in CI (P<0.01); elevated baseline PCWP and decreased CI after contrast correlated with the poorest prognosis. Adding both baseline PCWP and change in CI to the 5 risk models universally improved their predictive value (P≤0.02). In heart failure patients, the administration of contrast causes small but significant changes in hemodynamics. Calculating baseline PCWP with change in CI after contrast predicts adverse events and increases the predictive value of existing models. Patients with elevated baseline PCWP and decreased CI after contrast merit greatest concern.

Analysis of recurrent events with an associated informative dropout time: Application of the joint frailty model

This paper considers the analysis of a repeat event outcome in clinical trials of chronic diseases in the context of dependent censoring (e.g. mortality). It has particular application in the context of recurrent heart failure hospitalisations in trials of heart failure. Semi‐parametric joint frailty models (JFMs) simultaneously analyse recurrent heart failure hospitalisations and time to cardiovascular death, estimating distinct hazard ratios whilst individual‐specific latent variables induce associations between the two processes. A simulation study was carried out to assess the suitability of the JFM versus marginal analyses of recurrent events and cardiovascular death using standard methods. Hazard ratios were consistently overestimated when marginal models were used, whilst the JFM produced good, well‐estimated results. An application to the Candesartan in Heart failure: Assessment of Reduction in Mortality and morbidity programme was considered. The JFM gave unbiased estimates of treatment effects in the presence of dependent censoring. We advocate the use of the JFM for future trials that consider recurrent events as the primary outcome. © 2016 The Authors. Statistics in Medicine Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Characterization of subgroups of heart failure patients with preserved ejection fraction with possible implications for prognosis and treatment response.

Patients with heart failure and preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) have a poor prognosis, and no therapies have been proven to improve outcomes. It has been proposed that heart failure, including HFpEF, represents overlapping syndromes that may have different prognoses. We present an exploratory study of patients enrolled in the Irbesartan in Heart Failure with Preserved Ejection Fraction Study (I-PRESERVE) using latent class analysis (LCA) with validation using the Candesartan in Heart failure: Assessment of Reduction in Mortality and morbidity (CHARM)-Preserved study to identify HFpEF subgroups. In total, 4113 HFpEF patients randomized to irbesartan or placebo were characterized according to 11 clinical features. The HFpEF subgroups were identified using LCA. Event-free survival and effect of irbesartan on the composite of all-cause mortality and cardiovascular hospitalization were determined for each subgroup. Subgroup definitions were applied to 3203 patients enrolled in CHARM-Preserved to validate observations regarding prognosis and treatment response. Six subgroups were identified with significant differences in event-free survival (P < 0.001). Clinical profiles and prognoses of the six subgroups were similar in CHARM-Preserved. The two subgroups with the worst event-free survival in both studies were characterized by a high prevalence of obesity, hyperlipidaemia, diabetes mellitus, anaemia, and renal insufficiency (Subgroup C) and by female predominance, advanced age, lower body mass index, and high rates of atrial fibrillation, valvular disease, renal insufficiency, and anaemia (Subgroup F). Using a data-driven approach, we identified HFpEF subgroups with significantly different prognoses. Further development of this approach for characterizing HFpEF subgroups is warranted.

International geographic variation in event rates in trials of heart failure with preserved and reduced ejection fraction.

International geographic differences in outcomes may exist for clinical trials of heart failure and reduced ejection fraction (HF-REF), but there are few data for those with preserved ejection fraction (HF-PEF). We analyzed outcomes by international geographic region in the Irbesartan in Heart Failure with Preserved systolic function trial (I-Preserve), the Candesartan in Heart failure Assessment of Reduction in Mortality and morbidity (CHARM)-Preserved trial, the CHARM-Alternative and CHARM-Added HF-REF trials, and the Controlled Rosuvastatin Multinational Trial in HF-REF (CORONA). Crude rates of heart failure hospitalization varied by geographic region, and more so for HF-PEF than for HF-REF. Rates in patients with HF-PEF were highest in the United States/Canada (HF hospitalization rate 7.6 per 100 patient-years in I-Preserve; 8.8 in CHARM-Preserved), intermediate in Western Europe (4.8/100 and 4.7/100), and lowest in Eastern Europe/Russia (3.3/100 and 2.8/100). The difference between the United States/Canada versus Eastern Europe/Russia persisted after adjustment for key prognostic variables: adjusted hazard ratios 1.34 (95% confidence interval, 1.01-1.74; P=0.04) in I-Preserve and 1.85 (95% confidence interval, 1.17-2.91; P=0.01) in CHARM-Preserved. In HF-REF, rates of HF hospitalization were slightly lower in Western Europe compared with other regions. For both HF-REF and HF-PEF, there were few regional differences in rates of all-cause or cardiovascular mortality. The differences in event rates observed suggest there is international geographic variation in 1 or more of the definition and diagnosis of HF-PEF, the risk profile of patients enrolled, and the threshold for hospitalization, which has implications for the conduct of future global trials.

Prognostic importance of temporal changes in resting heart rate in heart failure patients: an analysis of the CHARM program.

Resting heart rate (HR) is a predictor of adverse outcome in patients with heart failure (HF). Whether changes in HR over time in patients with chronic HF are also associated with adverse outcome is unknown. We explored the relationship between changes in HR from a preceding visit, time-updated HR (i.e. most recent available HR value from a clinic visit) and subsequent outcomes in patients with chronic HF. We studied 7599 patients enrolled in the candesartan in heart failure: assessment of reduction in mortality and morbidity program. We calculated change in HR from the preceding visit and explored its association with outcomes in Cox proportional hazards models, as well the association between time-updated HR and outcome. An increase in HR from preceding visit was associated with a higher risk of all-cause mortality and the composite endpoint of cardiovascular death or hospitalization for HF (adjusted hazard ratio 1.06, 95% confidence intervals, CI: 1.05-1.08, P < 0.001, per 5 b.p.m. higher HR), with lowering of HR being associated with lower risk, adjusting for covariates, including time-updated β-blocker dose and baseline HR. Time-updated resting HR at each visit was also associated with risk (adjusted hazard ratio 1.07, 95% CI: 1.06-1.09; P < 0.001, per 5 b.p.m. higher HR). Change in HR over time predicts outcome in patients with chronic HF, as does time-updated HR during follow-up. These data suggest that frequent outpatient monitoring of HR, and identification of changes over time, possibly with remote technologies, may identify patients with HF who may be at increased risk of rehospitalization or death.

Alpha-1 Adrenoceptor–Angiotensin II Type 1 Receptor Cross-Talk and Its Relevance in Clinical Medicine

The two most relevant clinical trials investigating the efficacy of multiple neurohormonal drug combinations in the treatment of chronic congestive heart failure are the Valsartan Heart Failure Trial and the Candesartan in Heart Failure Assessment of Reduction in Mortality and Morbidity-added studies. The Valsartan Heart Failure Trial study randomized patients with congestive heart failure to the angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) valsartan versus placebo, in addition to baseline angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor (ACE-I) therapy. Overall, valsartan was found to significantly reduce the combined morbidity and mortality end point compared with placebo, mainly due to a reduction in heart failure admissions. However, a subgroup analysis showed that patients receiving triple therapy with valsartan, an ACE-I and a β-adrenoceptor blocker, appeared to do worse. These findings led to speculation that "triple therapy" with ARB, ACE-I, and nonselective β-blocker might be harmful, possibly due to excessive neurohormonal inhibition. In contrast, in the Candesartan in Heart Failure Assessment of Reduction in Mortality and Morbidity-added study, the "triple therapy" combination of ARB, ACE-I, and β-adrenoceptor blocker was proven safe and beneficial. We propose that the discrepancy in outcomes observed in these two trials is related to the interaction between the α1-adrenoceptor and the angiotensin II type-1 receptor, and it is not just an inherent adverse event related to "triple therapy."

Analysing recurrent hospitalizations in heart failure: a review of statistical methodology, with application to CHARM-Preserved.

Heart failure is characterized by recurrent hospitalizations, but often only the first event is considered in clinical trial reports. In chronic diseases, such as heart failure, analysing all events gives a more complete picture of treatment benefit. We describe methods of analysing repeat hospitalizations, and illustrate their value in one major trial. The Candesartan in Heart failure Assessment of Reduction in Mortality and morbidity (CHARM)-Preserved study compared candesartan with placebo in 3023 patients with heart failure and preserved systolic function. The heart failure hospitalization rates were 12.5 and 8.9 per 100 patient-years in the placebo and candesartan groups, respectively. The repeat hospitalizations were analysed using the Andersen-Gill, Poisson, and negative binomial methods. Death was incorporated into analyses by treating it as an additional event. The win ratio method and a method that jointly models hospitalizations and mortality were also considered. Using repeat events gave larger treatment benefits than time to first event analysis. The negative binomial method for the composite of recurrent heart failure hospitalizations and cardiovascular death gave a rate ratio of 0.75 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.62-0.91, P = 0.003], whereas the hazard ratio for time to first heart failure hospitalization or cardiovascular death was 0.86 (95% CI 0.74-1.00, P = 0.050). In patients with preserved EF, candesartan reduces the rate of admissions for worsening heart failure, to a greater extent than apparent from analysing only first hospitalizations. Recurrent events should be routinely incorporated into the analysis of future clinical trials in heart failure.