Multiple drug classes have shown incremental benefits in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction. Most of these trials were designed to achieve specific doses of the investigational agent. Clinical practice guidelines recommend using the same target dosing of therapies, as tolerated. However, with the increasing number of available therapies, clinicians face the challenge of simultaneously using several drugs, achieving target doses, and managing side effects that are often overlapping. Blood pressure, renal function, hyperkalaemia, and other factors may impede achieving target doses of all medications, leaving clinicians with dilemmas as to how to sequence and dose these various classes of drugs. The guideline-directed eligibility for certain drugs and devices requires stability on maximally tolerated doses of background therapies. However, significant variability exists in dosing achieved in clinical practice. We discuss the existing background data regarding the doses of heart failure medications in clinical trials and in practice, and provide recommendations on how to navigate this complex therapeutic decision-making.

Background

Tumor necrosis factor (TNF) levels are associated with risk for heart failure (HF). The soluble TNF type 1 (sTNF-R1) and type 2 (sTNF-R2) receptors are elevated in patients with manifest HF, but whether they are associated with risk for incident HF is unclear.

Methods and results

Using Cox proportional hazard models, we examined the association between baseline levels of sTNF-R1 and sTNF-R2 with incident HF risk among 1285 participants of the Health, Aging, and Body Composition Study (age, 74.0±2.9 years; 51.4% women; 41.1% black). At baseline, median (interquartile range) of TNF, sTNF-R1, and sTNF-R2 levels was 3.14 (2.42-4.06), 1.46 (1.25-1.76), and 3.43 (2.95-4.02) ng/mL, respectively. During a median follow-up of 11.4 (6.9-11.7) years, 233 (18.1%) participants developed HF. In models controlling for other HF risk factors, TNF (hazard ratio [HR], 1.28; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.02-1.61 per log2 increase) and sTNF-R1 (HR, 1.68; 95% CI, 1.15-2.46 per log2 increase), but not sTNF-R2 (HR, 1.15; 95% CI, 0.80-1.63 per log2 increase), were associated with a higher risk for HF. These associations were consistent across whites and blacks (TNF, sTNF-R1, sTNF-R2; interaction P=0.531, 0.091, and 0.795, respectively) and in both sexes (TNF, sTNF-R1, sTNF-R2; interaction P=0.491, 0.672, and 0.999, respectively). TNF-R1 was associated with a higher risk for HF with preserved versus reduced ejection fraction (HR, 1.81; 95% CI, 1.03-3.18; P=0.038 for preserved versus HR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.56-1.44; P=0.667 for reduced ejection fraction; interaction P=0.05).

Conclusions

In older adults, elevated levels of sTNF-R1 are associated with increased risk for incident HF. However, addition of TNF-R1 to the previously validated Health ABC HF risk model did not demonstrate material improvement in net discrimination or reclassification.

Aims

The contribution of heart failure (HF) unrelated to vascular disease to the overall HF burden in older adults is not well characterized. This was investigated in this study.

Methods and results

We assessed HF incidence and outcomes in 2895 participants of the Health ABC Study (age 74 ± 3 years, 48.4% men, 41.4% black) in relation to vascular disease (coronary, peripheral, or cerebrovascular disease) either present at baseline or developed prior to HF. During 11.4 years follow-up, 493 participants developed HF; 134 (27.2%) in participants without any prior vascular disease and 177 (36.8%) without coronary disease. Both baseline [hazard ratio (HR) 2.4, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.9-2.8] and incident vascular disease (HR 4.3, 95% CI 3.6-5.2) were associated with HF. During a median follow-up of 2.1 years after HF onset, 67.5% participants died. Annual mortality after HF development was 21.3% in those with compared with 24.6% in those without vascular disease (HR 1.11, 95% CI 0.87-1.43; P = 0.399). There were 658 all-cause (436.3/1000 person-years) and 523 HF-related (346.4/1000 person-years) hospitalizations after HF development. There was no significant difference in hospitalizations between those with and without vascular disease [rate ratio (RR) 1.04, 95% CI 0.86-1.24 for all-cause, and RR 0.84 95% CI 0.69-1.02 for HF hospitalization]. HF with preserved EF was more common in participants without vascular disease (67.0% vs. 55.0%, P = 0.040).

Conclusion

A significant proportion of HF in older adults develops without prior vascular disease. Outcomes for these patients are poor compared with those with preceding vascular disease. These data suggest the need for more targeted HF prediction and prevention efforts.

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.