In patients with heart failure and a preserved ejection fraction, treatment with spironolactone did not significantly reduce the incidence of the primary composite outcome of death from cardiovascular causes, aborted cardiac arrest, or hospitalization for the management of heart failure. (Funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; TOPCAT ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00094302.).

The angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor sacubitril-valsartan led to a reduced risk of hospitalization for heart failure or death from cardiovascular causes among patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction. The effect of angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibition in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction is unclear. METHODS We randomly assigned 4822 patients with New York Heart Association (NYHA) class II to IV heart failure, ejection fraction of 45% or higher, elevated level of natriuretic peptides, and structural heart disease to receive sacubitril-valsartan (target dose, 97 mg of sacubitril with 103 mg of valsartan twice daily) or valsartan (target dose, 160 mg twice daily). The primary outcome was a composite of total hospitalizations for heart failure and death from cardiovascular causes. Primary outcome components, secondary outcomes (including NYHA class change, worsening renal function, and change in Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire [KCCQ] clinical summary score [scale, 0 to 100, with higher scores indicating fewer symptoms and physical limitations]), and safety were also assessed. RESULTS There were 894 primary events in 526 patients in the sacubitril-valsartan group and 1009 primary events in 557 patients in the valsartan group (rate ratio, 0.87; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.75 to 1.01; P = 0.06). The incidence of death from cardiovascular causes was 8.5% in the sacubitril-valsartan group and 8.9% in the valsartan group (hazard ratio, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.79 to 1.16); there were 690 and 797 total hospitalizations for heart failure, respectively (rate ratio, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.72 to 1.00). NYHA class improved in 15.0% of the patients in the sacubitril-valsartan group and in 12.6% of those in the valsartan group (odds ratio, 1.45; 95% CI, 1.13 to 1.86); renal function worsened in 1.4% and 2.7%, respectively (hazard ratio, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.33 to 0.77). The mean change in the KCCQ clinical summary score at 8 months was 1.0 point (95% CI, 0.0 to 2.1) higher in the sacubitril-valsartan group. Patients in the sacubitril-valsartan group had a higher incidence of hypotension and angioedema and a lower incidence of hyperkalemia. Among 12 prespecified subgroups, there was suggestion of heterogeneity with possible benefit with sacubitril-valsartan in patients with lower ejection fraction and in women. CONCLUSIONS Sacubitril-valsartan did not result in a significantly lower rate of total hospitalizations for heart failure and death from cardiovascular causes among patients with heart failure and an ejection fraction of 45% or higher.

BACKGROUND: Cardiovascular morbidity and mortality are higher among patients with type 2 diabetes, particularly those with concomitant cardiovascular diseases, than in most other populations. We assessed the effects of lixisenatide, a glucagon-like peptide 1-receptor agonist, on cardiovascular outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes who had had a recent acute coronary event. METHODS: We randomly assigned patients with type 2 diabetes who had had a myocardial infarction or who had been hospitalized for unstable angina within the previous 180 days to receive lixisenatide or placebo in addition to locally determined standards of care. The trial was designed with adequate statistical power to assess whether lixisenatide was noninferior as well as superior to placebo, as defined by an upper boundary of the 95% confidence interval for the hazard ratio of less than 1.3 and 1.0, respectively, for the primary composite end point of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, stroke, or hospitalization for unstable angina. RESULTS: The 6068 patients who underwent randomization were followed for a median of 25 months. A primary end-point event occurred in 406 patients (13.4%) in the lixisenatide group and in 399 (13.2%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 1.02; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.89 to 1.17), which showed the noninferiority of lixisenatide to placebo (P<0.001) but did not show superiority (P=0.81). There were no significant between-group differences in the rate of hospitalization for heart failure (hazard ratio in the lixisenatide group, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.75 to 1.23) or the rate of death (hazard ratio, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.78 to 1.13). Lixisenatide was not associated with a higher rate of serious adverse events or severe hypoglycemia, pancreatitis, pancreatic neoplasms, or allergic reactions than was placebo. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with type 2 diabetes and a recent acute coronary syndrome, the addition of lixisenatide to usual care did not significantly alter the rate of major cardiovascular events or other serious adverse events. (Funded by Sanofi; ELIXA ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01147250.). Jean-Claude (2015). Lixisenatide in patients with type 2 diabetes and acute coronary syndrome.

No abstract

Background— Treatment of Preserved Cardiac Function Heart Failure With an Aldosterone Antagonist (TOPCAT) patients with heart failure and preserved left ventricular ejection fraction assigned to spironolactone did not achieve a significant reduction in the primary composite outcome (time to cardiovascular death, aborted cardiac arrest, or hospitalization for management of heart failure) compared with patients receiving placebo. In a post hoc analysis, an ≈4-fold difference was identified in this composite event rate between the 1678 patients randomized from Russia and Georgia compared with the 1767 enrolled from the United States, Canada, Brazil, and Argentina (the Americas). Methods and Results— To better understand this regional difference in clinical outcomes, demographic characteristics of these populations and their responses to spironolactone were explored. Patients from Russia/Georgia were younger, had less atrial fibrillation and diabetes mellitus, but were more likely to have had prior myocardial infarction or a hospitalization for heart failure. Russia/Georgia patients also had lower left ventricular ejection fraction and creatinine but higher diastolic blood pressure (all P <0.001). Hyperkalemia and doubling of creatinine were more likely and hypokalemia was less likely in patients receiving spironolactone in the Americas with no significant treatment effects in Russia/Georgia. All clinical event rates were markedly lower in Russia/Georgia, and there was no detectable impact of spironolactone on any outcomes. In contrast, in the Americas, the rates of the primary outcome, cardiovascular death, and hospitalization for heart failure were significantly reduced by spironolactone. Conclusions— This post hoc analysis demonstrated greater potassium and creatinine changes and possible clinical benefits with spironolactone in patients with heart failure and preserved ejection fraction from the Americas. Clinical Trial Registration— URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov . Unique identifier: NCT00094302.

In a longitudinal clinical study to compare two groups, the primary end point is often the time to a specific event (eg, disease progression, death). The hazard ratio estimate is routinely used to empirically quantify the between-group difference under the assumption that the ratio of the two hazard functions is approximately constant over time. When this assumption is plausible, such a ratio estimate may capture the relative difference between two survival curves. However, the clinical meaning of such a ratio estimate is difficult, if not impossible, to interpret when the underlying proportional hazards assumption is violated (ie, the hazard ratio is not constant over time). Although this issue has been studied extensively and various alternatives to the hazard ratio estimator have been discussed in the statistical literature, such crucial information does not seem to have reached the broader community of health science researchers. In this article, we summarize several critical concerns regarding this conventional practice and discuss various well-known alternatives for quantifying the underlying differences between groups with respect to a time-to-event end point. The data from three recent cancer clinical trials, which reflect a variety of scenarios, are used throughout to illustrate our discussions. When there is not sufficient information about the profile of the between-group difference at the design stage of the study, we encourage practitioners to consider a prespecified, clinically meaningful, model-free measure for quantifying the difference and to use robust estimation procedures to draw primary inferences.

Sodium-glucose co-transporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors, originally developed as glucose-lowering agents, have been shown to reduce heart failure hospitalizations in patients with type 2 diabetes without established heart failure, and in patients with heart failure with and without diabetes. Their role in patients with heart failure with preserved and mildly reduced ejection fraction remains unknown.

National Institutes of Health.