A Genome-Wide Association Study of Oxypurinol Concentrations in Patients Treated with Allopurinol.

Cohort studies have identified several genetic determinants that could predict the clinical response to allopurinol. However, they have not been commonly used for genome-wide investigations to identify genetic determinants on allopurinol metabolism and concentrations. We conducted a genome-wide association study of a prior cross-sectional investigation of patients from the Montreal Heart Institute Biobank undergoing allopurinol therapy. Four endpoints were investigated, namely plasma concentrations of oxypurinol, the active metabolite of allopurinol, allopurinol, and allopurinol-riboside, as well as allopurinol daily dosing. A total of 439 participants (mean age 69.4 years; 86.4% male) taking allopurinol (mean daily dose 194.5 mg) and who had quantifiable oxypurinol concentrations were included in the genome-wide analyses. Participants presented with multiple comorbidities and received concomitant cardiovascular medications. No association achieved the predefined genome-wide threshold values for any of the endpoints (all p > 5 × 10-8). Our results are consistent with prior findings regarding the difficulty in identifying genetic determinants of drug concentrations or pharmacokinetics of allopurinol and its metabolites, as well as allopurinol daily dosing. Given the size of this genome-wide study, collaborative investigations involving larger and diverse cohorts may be required to further identify pharmacogenomic determinants of allopurinol and measure their clinical relevance to personalize allopurinol therapy.

Effect of Sacubitril/Valsartan on Cognitive Function in Patients With Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction: A Prespecified Analysis of PARAGON-HF.

BACKGROUND: A hypothetical concern has been raised that sacubitril/valsartan might cause cognitive impairment because neprilysin is one of several enzymes degrading amyloid-ß peptides in the brain, some of which are neurotoxic and linked to Alzheimer-type dementia. To address this, we examined the effect of sacubitril/valsartan compared with valsartan on cognitive function in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction in a prespecified substudy of PARAGON-HF (Prospective Comparison of Angiotensin Receptor Neprilysin Inhibitor With Angiotensin Receptor Blocker Global Outcomes in Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction). METHODS: In PARAGON-HF, serial assessment of cognitive function was conducted in a subset of patients with the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE; score range, 0-30, with lower scores reflecting worse cognitive function). The prespecified primary analysis of this substudy was the change from baseline in MMSE score at 96 weeks. Other post hoc analyses included cognitive decline (fall in MMSE score of ≥3 points), cognitive impairment (MMSE score <24), or the occurrence of dementia-related adverse events. RESULTS: Among 2895 patients included in the MMSE substudy with baseline MMSE score measured, 1453 patients were assigned to sacubitril/valsartan and 1442 to valsartan. Their mean age was 73 years, and the median follow-up was 32 months. The mean±SD MMSE score at randomization was 27.4±3.0 in the sacubitril/valsartan group, with 10% having an MMSE score <24; the corresponding numbers were nearly identical in the valsartan group. The mean change from baseline to 96 weeks in the sacubitril/valsartan group was -0.05 (SE, 0.07); the corresponding change in the valsartan group was -0.04 (0.07). The mean between-treatment difference at week 96 was -0.01 (95% CI, -0.20 to 0.19; P=0.95). Analyses of a ≥3-point decline in MMSE, decrease to a score <24, dementia-related adverse events, and combinations of these showed no difference between sacubitril/valsartan and valsartan. No difference was found in the subgroup of patients tested for apolipoprotein E ε4 allele genotype. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction in PARAGON-HF had relatively low baseline MMSE scores. Cognitive change, measured by MMSE, did not differ between treatment with sacubitril/valsartan and treatment with valsartan in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT01920711.

Sacubitril/Valsartan in Patients With Heart Failure and Deterioration in eGFR to <30 mL/min/1.73 m2.

BACKGROUND: Sacubitril/valsartan is a foundational therapy for patients with heart failure. Although current U.S. Food and Drug Administration labeling does not provide guidance regarding initiation or continuation of sacubitril/valsartan in patients with worsening kidney function, guidelines identify estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) <30 mL/min/1.73 m2 as a contraindication to therapy. OBJECTIVES: This study aims to assess the safety and efficacy of continuing sacubitril/valsartan in patients with deterioration of kidney function below an eGFR of 30 mL/min/1.73 m2. METHODS: The association between a deterioration in eGFR <30 mL/min/1.73 m2, efficacy and safety outcomes, and treatment with sacubitril/valsartan vs renin-angiotensin system inhibitor were evaluated using time updated Cox models in a post hoc parallel trial analyses of PARADIGM-HF and PARAGON-HF. RESULTS: Among 8,346 randomized patients in PARADIGM-HF and 4,746 in PARAGON-HF, 691 (8.3%) and 613 (12.9%), respectively, had an eGFR <30 mL/min/1.73 m2 at least once in follow-up. Patients experiencing such deterioration were at higher risk of the primary outcome in both PARADIGM-HF and PARAGON-HF. However, the incidence of the primary outcome remained lower with sacubitril/valsartan vs renin-angiotensin system inhibitor, regardless of deterioration in kidney function in both PARADIGM-HF (Pinteraction = 0.50) and PARAGON-HF (Pinteraction = 0.64). Rates of key safety outcomes were higher among patients experiencing eGFR deterioration; however, rates were similar between treatment groups including among those who remained on treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Patients experiencing deterioration of kidney function to a value below eGFR 30 mL/min/1.73 m2 faced high risk of cardiovascular and kidney disease outcomes. Continuation of sacubitril/valsartan was associated with persistent clinical benefit and no incremental safety risk. These data support continuation of sacubitril/valsartan for heart failure treatment even when eGFR declines below this threshold (PARADIGM-HF [Prospective Comparison of ARNI with ACEI to Determine Impact on Global Mortality and Morbidity in Heart Failure], NCT01035255; and PARAGON-HF [Prospective Comparison of ARNI with ARB Global Outcomes in HF with Preserved Ejection Fraction], NCT01920711).

Aptamer Proteomics for Biomarker Discovery in Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction: The PARAGON-HF Proteomic Substudy.

BACKGROUND: Prognostic markers and biological pathways linked to detrimental clinical outcomes in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) remain incompletely defined. METHODS AND RESULTS: We measured serum levels of 4123 unique proteins in 1117 patients with HFpEF enrolled in the PARAGON-HF (Efficacy and Safety of LCZ696 Compared to Valsartan, on Morbidity and Mortality in Heart Failure Patients With Preserved Ejection Fraction) trial using a modified aptamer proteomic assay. Baseline circulating protein concentrations significantly associated with the primary end point and the timing and occurrence of total heart failure hospitalization and cardiovascular death were identified by recurrent events regression, accounting for multiple testing, adjusted for age, sex, treatment, and anticoagulant use, and compared with published analyses in 2515 patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction from the PARADIGM-HF (Prospective Comparison of ARNI With ACEI to Determine Impact on Global Mortality and Morbidity in Heart Failure) and ATMOSPHERE (Efficacy and Safety of Aliskiren and Aliskiren/Enalapril Combination on Morbidity-Mortality in Patients With Chronic Heart Failure) clinical trials. We identified 288 proteins that were robustly associated with the risk of heart failure hospitalization and cardiovascular death in patients with HFpEF. The baseline proteins most strongly related to outcomes included B2M (ß-2 microglobulin), TIMP1 (tissue inhibitor of matrix metalloproteinase 1), SERPINA4 (serpin family A member 4), and SVEP1 (sushi, von Willebrand factor type A, EGF, and pentraxin domain containing 1). Overall, the protein-outcome associations in patients with HFpEF did not markedly differ as compared with patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction. A proteomic risk score derived in patients with HFpEF was not superior to a previous proteomic score derived in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction nor to clinical risk factors, NT-proBNP (N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide), or high-sensitivity cardiac troponin. CONCLUSIONS: Numerous serum proteins linked to metabolic, coagulation, and extracellular matrix regulatory pathways were associated with worse HFpEF prognosis in the PARAGON-HF proteomic substudy. Our results demonstrate substantial similarities among serum proteomic risk markers for heart failure hospitalization and cardiovascular death when comparing clinical trial participants with heart failure across the ejection fraction spectrum. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique Identifiers: NCT01920711, NCT01035255, NCT00853658.

Effects of sacubitril/valsartan according to polypharmacy status in PARAGON-HF.

AIMS: Patients with heart failure (HF) and preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) have a particularly high prevalence of comorbidities, often necessitating treatment with many medications. The aim of this study was to evaluate the association between polypharmacy status and outcomes in PARAGON-HF. METHODS AND RESULTS: In this post hoc analysis, baseline medication status was available in 4793 of 4796 patients included in the primary analysis of PARAGON-HF. The effects of sacubitril/valsartan, compared with valsartan, were assessed according to the number of medications at baseline: 683 non-polypharmacy (<5 medications); 2750 polypharmacy (5-9 medications), and 1360 hyper-polypharmacy (≥10 medications). The primary outcome was total HF hospitalizations and cardiovascular deaths. Patients with hyper-polypharmacy were older, had more severe limitations due to HF (worse New York Heart Association class and Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire scores), and had greater comorbidity. The non-adjusted risk of the primary outcome was significantly higher in patients taking more medications, and similar trends were seen for HF hospitalization and cardiovascular and all-cause death. The effect of sacubitril/valsartan versus valsartan on the primary outcome from the lowest to highest polypharmacy category was (as a rate ratio): 1.19 (0.76-1.85), 0.94 (0.77-1.15), and 0.77 (0.61-0.96) (pinteraction = 0.16). Treatment-related adverse events were more common in patients in the higher polypharmacy categories but not more common with sacubitril/valsartan, versus valsartan, in any polypharmacy category. CONCLUSIONS: Polypharmacy is very common in patients with HFpEF, and those with polypharmacy have worse clinical status and a higher rate of non-fatal and fatal outcomes. The benefit of sacubitril/valsartan was not diminished in patients taking a larger number of medications at baseline.

Effects of Sacubitril/Valsartan Across the Spectrum of Renal Impairment in Patients With Heart Failure.

BACKGROUND: The Kidney Disease Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) classification integrates both estimated glomerular filtration rate and urine-albumin-creatinine ratio to stratify risk more comprehensively in patients with chronic kidney disease. There are limited data assessing whether this classification system is associated with prognosis and treatment response in heart failure populations. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to evaluate the relative treatment effects of sacubitril/valsartan across the KDIGO risk categories in patients with HFrEF. METHODS: PARADIGM-HF (Prospective Comparison of ARNI with ACEI to Determine Impact on Global Mortality and Morbidity in Heart Failure) was a global randomized controlled trial evaluating sacubitril/valsartan vs enalapril in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). Patients were classified according to low, moderate, and high/very high KDIGO risk. Treatment responses were assessed according to baseline KDIGO risk. The primary outcome was a composite of cardiovascular (CV) death or heart failure hospitalization. A renal composite outcome was defined as sustained decline in estimated glomerular filtration rate by ≥40% or end-stage kidney disease. RESULTS: Among 1,910 (23% of total) participants with available data, 42%, 32%, and 26% were classified as low, moderate, and high/very high KDIGO risk, respectively. Patients in the highest KDIGO risk categories experienced the highest rates of the primary composite outcome (7.6 per 100 person-years [95% CI: 6.5-9.0 per 100 person-years], 9.4 per 100 person-years [95% CI: 7.9-11.2 per 100 person-years], and 14.9 per 100 person-years [95% CI: 12.7-17.6 per 100 person-years]; P < 0.001). Sacubitril/valsartan had a similar safety profile and demonstrated consistent effects on the risk of both the primary outcome (PInteraction = 0.31) and the renal composite outcome (PInteraction = 0.50) across the spectrum of KDIGO risk. CONCLUSIONS: One in 4 patients with HFrEF were classified as at least high KDIGO kidney risk; these individuals faced concordantly the highest risks of CV events. Sacubitril/valsartan exhibited consistent CV and kidney protective benefits as well as safety across the spectrum of baseline kidney risk. These data further support initiation of sacubitril/valsartan in HFrEF across a broad range of kidney risk. (This Study Will Evaluate the Efficacy and Safety of LCZ696 Compared to Enalapril on Morbidity and Mortality of Patients With Chronic Heart Failure [PARADIGM-HF]; NCT01035255).

Sacubitril/Valsartan-Related Hypotension in Patients With Heart Failure and Preserved or Mildly Reduced Ejection Fraction.

BACKGROUND: Hypotension is a potential adverse effect of sacubitril/valsartan, but there are limited data regarding the predictors and implications of treatment-related hypotension in heart failure (HF) with mildly reduced and preserved ejection fraction. OBJECTIVES: We investigated predictors of treatment-associated hypotension, clinical outcomes after hypotension, and the relationship between left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and incidence of hypotension in the PARAGON-HF (Prospective Comparison of ARNI with ARB Global Outcomes in HF with Preserved Ejection Fraction) trial. METHODS: PARAGON-HF randomized patients with chronic HF (≥45%) to sacubitril/valsartan or valsartan. Following randomization, hypotension was defined as investigator-reported hypotension with a systolic blood pressure <100 mm Hg. Predictors of hypotension were assessed using multivariable Cox models. Associations between hypotension and clinical outcomes were evaluated in time-updated Cox models. The relationship among treatment, LVEF, and incident rates of hypotension and clinical outcomes was estimated using Poisson regression models. RESULTS: Of 4,796 patients in PARAGON-HF, 637 (13%) experienced hypotension, more frequently in the sacubitril/valsartan arm (P < 0.001). Following documented hypotension, patients had higher risk of cardiovascular death and total HF hospitalizations (adjusted RR: 1.63; 95% CI: 1.27-2.09; P < 0.001) and all-cause death (adjusted HR: 1.62; 95% CI: 1.28-2.05; P < 0.001). LVEF modified the association between sacubitril/valsartan and risk of hypotension (Pinteraction = 0.019) such that patients with LVEF ≥60% experienced substantially higher treatment-related risks of hypotension. CONCLUSIONS: In PARAGON-HF, a higher LVEF was associated with an increased risk of hypotension in patients treated with sacubitril/valsartan compared with valsartan. Because these subjects are also less likely to derive clinical benefit from sacubitril/valsartan, our data reinforce that the benefit/risk ratio favors the use of sacubitril/valsartan in patients with LVEF below normal, but not at higher LVEF. (Efficacy and Safety of LCZ696 Compared to Valsartan, on Morbidity and Mortality in Heart Failure Patients With Preserved Ejection Fraction [PARAGON-HF]; NCT01920711).

Angiotensin Receptor-Neprilysin Inhibition in Patients With STEMI vs NSTEMI.

BACKGROUND: Patients who sustain an acute myocardial infarction (AMI), including ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI), remain at high risk for heart failure (HF), coronary events, and death. Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors have been shown to significantly decrease the risk for cardiovascular events in both STEMI and NSTEMI patients. OBJECTIVES: The objectives were to determine whether angiotensin-receptor blockade and neprilysin inhibition with sacubitril/valsartan, compared with ramipril, has impact on reducing cardiovascular events according to the type of AMI. METHODS: The PARADISE-MI (Prospective ARNI versus ACE inhibitor trial to DetermIne Superiority in reducing heart failure Events after Myocardial Infarction) trial enrolled patients with AMI complicated by left ventricular dysfunction and/or pulmonary congestion and at least 1 risk-enhancing factor. Patients were randomized to either sacubitril/valsartan or ramipril. The primary endpoint was death from cardiovascular causes or incident HF. In this prespecified analysis, we stratified patients according to AMI type. RESULTS: Of 5,661 enrolled patients, 4,291 (75.8%) had STEMI. These patients were younger and had fewer comorbidities and cardiovascular risk factors than NSTEMI patients. After adjustment for potential confounders, the risk for the primary outcome was marginally higher in NSTEMI vs STEMI patients (adjusted HR: 1.19; 95% CI: 1.00-1.41), with borderline statistical significance (P = 0.05). The primary composite outcome occurred at similar rates in patients randomized to sacubitril/valsartan vs ramipril in STEMI (10% vs 12%; HR: 0.87; 95% CI: 0.73-1.04; P = 0.13) and NSTEMI patients (17% vs 17%; HR: 0.97; 95% CI: 0.75-1.25; P = 0.80; P interaction = 0.53). CONCLUSIONS: Compared with ramipril, sacubitril/valsartan did not significantly decrease the risk for cardiovascular death and HF in patients with AMI complicated by left ventricular dysfunction, irrespective of the type of AMI. (Prospective ARNI vs ACE Inhibitor Trial to Determine Superiority in Reducing Heart Failure Events After MI; NCT02924727).

High-sensitivity C-reactive protein in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: Findings from TOPCAT.

BACKGROUND: Inflammation plays a central role in the genesis and progression of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). C-reactive protein (CRP) is widely used as means to assess systemic inflammation, and elevated levels of CRP have been associated with poor HF prognosis. Identification of chronic low-grade inflammation in outpatients can be performed measuring high-sensitivity CRP (hsCRP). The clinical characteristics and outcome associations of a pro-inflammatory state among outpatients with HFpEF requires further study. AIMS: Using a biomarker subset of TOPCAT-Americas (NCT00094302), we aim to characterize HFpEF patients according to hsCRP levels and study the prognostic associations of hsCRP. METHODS: hsCRP was available in a subset of 232 participants. Comparisons were performed between patients with hsCRP <2 mg/L and ≥ 2 mg/L. Cox regression models were used to study the association between hsCRP and the study outcomes. RESULTS: Compared to patients with hsCRP <2 mg/L (n = 89, 38%), those with hsCRP ≥2 mg/L (n = 143, 62%) had more frequent HF hospitalizations prior to randomization, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, orthopnea, higher body mass index, and worse health-related quality-of-life. A hsCRP level ≥ 2 mg/L was associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular death and HF hospitalizations: hsCRP ≥2 mg/L vs <2 mg/L adjusted HR 2.36, 95%CI 1.27-4.38, P = 0.006. Spironolactone did not influence hsCRP levels from baseline to month 12: gMean ratio = 1.11, 95%CI 0.87-1.42, P = 0.39. CONCLUSIONS: A hsCRP ≥2 mg/L identified HFpEF patients with a high risk of HF events and cardiovascular mortality. Spironolactone did not influence hsCRP levels at 12 months.

Clinical Heart fAilure Management Program: Changing the practice by partnering primary care and specialists (CHAMP-HF).

Background: While significant gains were made in the management of heart failure (HF), most patients are still diagnosed when they are acutely ill in hospital, often with advanced disease. Earlier diagnosis in the community could lead to improved outcomes. Whether a partnership and an educational program for primary care providers (PCP) increase HF awareness and management is unknown. Methods: We conducted an observational study between March 2019 and June 2020 during which HF specialists gave monthly HF conferences to PCP. Using a pre-post design, medical charts and administrative databases were reviewed and a questionnaire was completed by participating PCP. Primary and secondary endpoints included: 1) the number of patients diagnosed with HF, 2) implementation of GDMT for patients with HFrEF; 3) PCPs' experience and confidence. Results: Six PCP agreed to participate. Amongst the 11,909 patients of the clinic, 70 (0.59 %) patients met the criteria for HF. This number increased by 28.6 % (n = 90) after intervention. Increased use of GDMT for HFrEF patients at baseline (n = 35) was observed for all class of agents, with doubling of patients on triple therapies, from 8 (22.9 %) to 16 (45.7 %), p = 0.0047. Self-confidence on HF management was low (1, 16.7 %) but increased after the educational intervention of physicians (3, 50 %). Conclusion: An educational and collaborative approach between HF specialists and community PCP increased the number of new HF cases diagnosed, enhanced implementation of GDMT in patients with HFrEF and increase PCPs' confidence in treating HF, despite being conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Long-Term Outcomes of Resynchronization-Defibrillation for Heart Failure.

BACKGROUND: The Resynchronization-Defibrillation for Ambulatory Heart Failure Trial (RAFT) showed a greater benefit with respect to mortality at 5 years among patients who received cardiac-resynchronization therapy (CRT) than among those who received implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs). However, the effect of CRT on long-term survival is not known. METHODS: We randomly assigned patients with New York Heart Association (NYHA) class II or III heart failure, a left ventricular ejection fraction of 30% or less, and an intrinsic QRS duration of 120 msec or more (or a paced QRS duration of 200 msec or more) to receive either an ICD alone or a CRT defibrillator (CRT-D). We assessed long-term outcomes among patients at the eight highest-enrolling participating sites. The primary outcome was death from any cause; the secondary outcome was a composite of death from any cause, heart transplantation, or implantation of a ventricular assist device. RESULTS: The trial enrolled 1798 patients, of whom 1050 were included in the long-term survival trial; the median duration of follow-up for the 1050 patients was 7.7 years (interquartile range, 3.9 to 12.8), and the median duration of follow-up for those who survived was 13.9 years (interquartile range, 12.8 to 15.7). Death occurred in 405 of 530 patients (76.4%) assigned to the ICD group and in 370 of 520 patients (71.2%) assigned to the CRT-D group. The time until death appeared to be longer for those assigned to receive a CRT-D than for those assigned to receive an ICD (acceleration factor, 0.80; 95% confidence interval, 0.69 to 0.92; P = 0.002). A secondary-outcome event occurred in 412 patients (77.7%) in the ICD group and in 392 (75.4%) in the CRT-D group. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with a reduced ejection fraction, a widened QRS complex, and NYHA class II or III heart failure, the survival benefit associated with receipt of a CRT-D as compared with ICD appeared to be sustained during a median of nearly 14 years of follow-up. (RAFT ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00251251.).

Pragmatic randomized controlled trials: strengthening the concept through a robust international collaborative network: PRIME-9-Pragmatic Research and Innovation through Multinational Experimentation.

In an era focused on value-based healthcare, the quality of healthcare and resource allocation should be underpinned by empirical evidence. Pragmatic clinical trials (pRCTs) are essential in this endeavor, providing randomized controlled trial (RCT) insights that encapsulate real-world effects of interventions. The rising popularity of pRCTs can be attributed to their ability to mirror real-world practices, accommodate larger sample sizes, and provide cost advantages over traditional RCTs. By harmonizing efficacy with effectiveness, pRCTs assist decision-makers in prioritizing interventions that have a substantial public health impact and align with the tenets of value-based health care. An international network for pRCT provides several advantages, including larger and diverse patient populations, access to a broader range of healthcare settings, sharing knowledge and expertise, and overcoming ethical and regulatory barriers. The hypothesis and study design of pRCT answers the decision-maker's questions. pRCT compares clinically relevant alternative interventions, recruits participants from diverse practice settings, and collects data on various health outcomes. They are scarce because the medical products industry typically does not fund pRCT. Prioritizing these studies by expanding the infrastructure to conduct clinical research within the healthcare delivery system and increasing public and private funding for these studies will be necessary to facilitate pRCTs. These changes require more clinical and health policy decision-makers in clinical research priority setting, infrastructure development, and funding. This paper presents a comprehensive overview of pRCTs, emphasizing their importance in evidence-based medicine and the advantages of an international collaborative network for their execution. It details the development of PRIME-9, an international initiative across nine countries to advance pRCTs, and explores various statistical approaches for these trials. The paper underscores the need to overcome current challenges, such as funding limitations and infrastructural constraints, to leverage the full potential of pRCTs in optimizing healthcare quality and resource utilization.

A follicular volume of >0.56 cm3 at trigger is the cutoff to predict oocyte maturity: a starting point for novel volume-based triggering criteria.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the minimum follicular volume on the day of trigger that will correspond to a mature oocyte at egg retrieval by individualized follicular puncture and to calculate the mean follicular growth from ovulation induction to egg retrieval using SonoAVCfollicle. DESIGN: A prospective observational study of 53 women undergoing in vitro fertilization, in which it was possible to identify unequivocally one or more follicles at trigger and egg retrieval using three-dimensional ultrasound. SETTING: University-affiliated private in vitro fertilization center. PATIENTS: The final sample included 206 follicles from 14 oocyte donors and 39 patients. INTERVENTIONS: A three-dimensional ultrasound with SonoAVCfollicle was performed at trigger and egg retrieval. The same operator selected follicles that were identified easily on both scans and verified that they were apt to be aspirated individually. Follicles were punctured individually, recording the real aspirated volume and the maturity stage of the oocyte. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was the relationship between follicular volume on the day of the trigger and the oocyte maturity stage. The secondary outcome was the rate of follicular growth from the day of trigger to the day of oocyte retrieval, as measured using SonoAVCfollicle. RESULTS: On the day of trigger 206, follicles were selected. Of these, 5 could not be identified on the day of oocyte retrieval, probably because of follicular rupture (mean volume: 4 cm3, range: 2-7 cm3), and in 48, an oocyte was not obtained. The relationship between follicular volume and oocyte maturity was studied in 153 follicles: 125 (82%) contained mature and 28 (18%) contained immature oocytes. Receiver operating characteristic curves showed an area under the curve value of 0.73 (95% confidence interval: 0.65-0.80). A follicular volume of >0.56 cm3 is the cutoff point, with the highest Youden index having a sensitivity of 85% and a specificity of 64% to predict oocyte maturity. The mean follicular growth from trigger to egg retrieval was 26%-50% in 53% of cases. CONCLUSION: A follicular volume of >0.56 cm3 at trigger is the cutoff point with the optimal balance between sensitivity and specificity for oocyte maturity. Follicles of >2-3 cm3 may undergo spontaneous rupture before egg retrieval. Given these findings, we propose new volume-based criteria for trigger: 70% of follicles of >0.6 cm3 and dominant follicles between 2 and 3 cm3. These findings need validation by randomized controlled trials.

Influence of Weight and Body Size on the Pharmacokinetics of Heart Failure Pharmacotherapy: A Systematic Review.

OBJECTIVE: To conduct a review of studies evaluating the influence of body size and weight (WT) on the pharmacokinetics (PK) of drugs recommended for heart failure (HF) treatment. DATA SOURCES: A systematic search of the MEDLINE (1946 to April 2023) and EMBASE (1974 to April 2023) databases was conducted for articles that focused on the impact of WT or body size on the PK of drugs of interest used in HF patients. STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION: Articles written in English or French related to the aim of our study were retained for analysis. DATA SYNTHESIS: Of 6493 articles, 20 were retained for analysis. Weight was associated with the clearance of digoxin, carvedilol, enalapril, and candesartan as well as the volume of distribution of eplerenone and bisoprolol. There was no documented direct impact of WT on the PK of furosemide, valsartan, and metoprolol, although these studies were limited or confounded by the small sample size, adjustment of PK factors by WT, or the use of the Cockroff-Gault equation for the evaluation of creatinine clearance, which includes WT. RELEVANCE TO PATIENT CARE AND CLINICAL PRACTICE: This review highlights and summarizes the available data on the importance of WT on the PK of HF treatment. CONCLUSION: Considering the significant impact of WT on most HF drugs in this review, it may be important to further investigate it in the context of personalized therapy, particularly in patients presenting extreme WTs.

Sacubitril/valsartan compared to ramipril in high-risk post-myocardial infarction patients stratified according to use of mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists: Insight from the PARADISE MI trial.

AIM: It is unknown whether safety and clinical endpoints by use of sacubitril/valsartan (an angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor [ARNI]) are affected by mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRA) in high-risk myocardial infarction (MI) patients. The aim of this study was to examine whether MRA modifies safety and clinical endpoints by use of sacubitril/valsartan in patients with a MI and left ventricular systolic dysfunction (LVSD) and/or pulmonary congestion. METHODS AND RESULTS: Patients (n = 5661) included in the PARADISE MI trial (Prospective ARNI vs. ACE Inhibitor Trial to Determine Superiority in Reducing Heart Failure Events After MI) were stratified according to MRA. Primary outcomes in this substudy were worsening heart failure or cardiovascular death. Safety was defined as symptomatic hypotension, hyperkalaemia >5.5 mmol/L, or permanent drug discontinuation. A total of 2338 patients (41%) were treated with MRA. Safety of ARNI compared to ramipril was not altered significantly by ± MRA, and both groups had similar increase in symptomatic hypotension with ARNI. In patients taking MRA, the risk of hyperkalaemia or permanent drug discontinuation was not significantly altered by ARNI (p > 0.05 for all comparisons). The effect of ARNI compared with ramipril was similar in those who were and were not taking MRA (hazard ratio [HR]MRA 0.96, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.77-1.19 and HRMRA- 0.87, 95% CI 0.71-1.05, for the primary endpoint; p = 0.51 for interaction [Clinical Endpoint Committee adjudicated]); similar findings were observed if investigator-reported endpoints were evaluated (p = 0.61 for interaction). CONCLUSIONS: Use of a MRA did not modify safety or clinical endpoints related to initiation of ARNI compared to ramipril in the post-MI setting in patients with LVSD and/or congestion.

Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction, red cell distribution width, and sacubitril/valsartan.

AIMS: Red cell distribution width (RDW) is a strong prognostic marker in patients with heart failure (HF) and reduced ejection fraction and other conditions. However, very little is known about its prognostic significance in HF with preserved ejection fraction. We examined the relationship between RDW and outcomes and the effect of sacubitril/valsartan, compared with valsartan, on RDW and clinical outcomes in PARAGON-HF. METHODS AND RESULTS: PARAGON-HF enrolled patients with a left ventricular ejection fraction of ≥45%, structural heart disease, and elevated N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP). The primary endpoint was a composite of total HF hospitalizations and cardiovascular deaths. Median RDW at randomization was 14.1% (interquartile range 13.5-15.0%). Patients with higher RDW levels were more often men and had more comorbidity, a higher heart rate and NT-proBNP concentration, more advanced New York Heart Association class, and worse Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire scores. There was a graded relationship between quartiles of RDW at randomization and the primary endpoint, with a significantly higher risk associated with increasing RDW, even after adjustment for NT-proBNP and other prognostic variables {Quartile 1, reference; Quartile 2, rate ratio 1.03 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.83 to 1.28]; Quartile 3, 1.25 [1.01 to 1.54]; Quartile 4, 1.70 [1.39 to 2.08]}. This association was seen for each of the secondary outcomes, including cardiovascular and all-cause death. Compared with valsartan, sacubitril/valsartan reduced RDW at 48 weeks [mean change -0.09 (95% CI -0.15 to -0.02)]. The effect of sacubitril/valsartan vs. valsartan was not significantly modified by RDW levels at randomization. CONCLUSIONS: RDW, a routinely available and inexpensive biomarker, provides incremental prognostic information when added to established predictors. Compared with valsartan, sacubitril/valsartan led to a small reduction in RDW.