Jonathan D. Davis

Heart failure (HF) affects 6 million people in the US, and type 2 diabetes (T2D) is a significant risk factor for HF. Since 2008, regulatory agencies have required cardiovascular safety trials for new T2D therapies, and these have consistently demonstrated the cardiovascular benefits of glucose-lowering drugs. Sodium–glucose cotransporter inhibitors (SGLTi) and glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists (RAs)/glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP) reduce major adverse cardiovascular events and deaths, regardless of diabetes status, and improve cardiorespiratory fitness. SGLTis, such as dapagliflozin and empagliflozin, benefit patients with reduced and preserved ejection fraction, significantly reducing HF hospitalizations and cardiovascular deaths. The DAPA-HF and EMPEROR-Reduced trials showed dapagliflozin and empagliflozin reduce worsening HF or cardiovascular death by 26%. GLP-1 RAs such as semaglutide and the dual GLP-1/GIP receptor agonist tirzepatide improve clinical symptoms, HF hospitalizations, major adverse cardiovascular events, exercise capacity, and quality of life in patients with HF. However, these agents have side effects that must be considered. This review examines the role and efficacy of SGLTis and GLP-1 RAs in established HF.

BACKGROUND: Ischemic cardiomyopathy is the leading cause of heart failure (HF). Most patients do not undergo coronary assessment after HF diagnosis. There are no randomized clinical trials of coronary assessment after HF diagnosis. METHODS: Using an electronic health record cohort of all individuals with HF within the San Francisco Health Network from 2001 to 2019, we identified factors associated with coronary assessment. Then, we studied the association of coronary assessment within 30 days of HF diagnosis with all-cause mortality and a composite of mortality and emergent angiography using a target trial emulation observational comparative-effectiveness approach. Target trial emulation is an approach to causal inference based on creating a hypothetical randomized clinical trial protocol and using observational data to emulate the protocol. We used propensity scores for covariate adjustment. We used national death records to improve the ascertainment of mortality and included falsification end points for the cause of death. RESULTS: Among 14 829 individuals with HF (median, 62 years old; 5855 [40%] women), 3987 (26.9%) ever completed coronary assessment, with 2467/13 301 (18.5%) with unknown coronary artery disease status at HF diagnosis assessed. Women, older individuals, and people without stable housing were less likely to complete coronary assessment. Among 5972 eligible persons of whom 627 underwent early elective coronary assessment, coronary assessment was associated with lower mortality (hazard ratio, 0.84 [95% CI, 0.72–0.97]; P =0.025), reduced risk of the composite outcome (hazard ratio, 0.86 [95% CI, 0.73–1.00]), higher rates of revascularization (odds ratio, 7.6 [95% CI, 5.4–10.6]), and higher use of medical therapy (odds ratio, 2.5 [95% CI, 1.7–3.6]), but not the falsification end points. CONCLUSIONS: In a safety-net population, disparities in coronary assessment after HF diagnosis are not fully explained by coronary artery disease risk factors. Early coronary assessment is associated with improved HF outcomes possibly related to higher rates of revascularization and guideline-directed medical therapy but with low certainty that this finding is not attributable to unmeasured confounding.

Background: Though ischemic cardiomyopathy is the leading cause of heart failure (HF), most patients do not undergo coronary assessment after heart failure diagnosis. In a safety-net population, referral patterns have not been studied, and it is unknown whether coronary assessment is associated with improved HF outcomes. Methods: Using an electronic health record cohort of all individuals with HF within San Francisco Health Network from 2001-2019, we identified factors associated with completion of coronary assessment (invasive coronary angiography, nuclear stress, or coronary computed tomographic angiography). Then we emulated a randomized clinical trial of elective coronary assessment with outcomes of all-cause mortality and a composite outcome of mortality and emergent angiography. We used propensity scores to account for differences between groups. We used national death records to improve ascertainment of mortality. Results: Among 14,829 individuals with HF (median 62 years old, 5,855 [40%] women), 3,987 (26.9%) ever completed coronary assessment, with 2,467 (18.5%) assessed out of 13,301 with unknown CAD status at HF diagnosis. Women and older individuals were less likely to complete coronary assessment, with differences by race/ethnicity, medical history, substance use, housing, and echocardiographic findings. Among 5,972 eligible for inclusion in the “target trial,” 627 underwent early elective coronary assessment and 5,345 did not. Coronary assessment was associated with lower mortality (HR 0.84; 95% CI 0.72-0.97; p=0.025), reduced risk of the composite outcome, higher rates of revascularization, and higher use of medical therapy. Conclusions: In a safety-net population, disparities in coronary assessment after HF diagnosis are not fully explained by CAD risk factors. Our target trial emulation suggests coronary assessment is associated with improved HF outcomes possibly related to higher rates of revascularization and GDMT use, but with low certainty that this is finding is not attributable to unmeasured confounding. Abstract Figure: Graphical