Baseline kidney function and the effects of dapagliflozin on health status in heart failure in DEFINE‐HF and PRESERVED‐HF

Abstract

Aims

Sodium–glucose co‐transporter‐2 (SGLT2) inhibitors improve health status and outcomes in the setting of heart failure (HF) across the range of ejection fraction (EF). Baseline kidney disease is common in HF, complicates HF management and is strongly linked to worse health status. This study aimed to assess whether the treatment effects of dapagliflozin on health status vary based on estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR).

Methods and Results

We conducted a pooled participant‐level analysis of two double‐blind, randomized trials, DEFINE‐HF (n = 236) and PRESERVED‐HF (n = 324), which evaluated dapagliflozin versus placebo. Both multicentre studies enrolled adults with HF, New York Heart Association Class II or higher, elevated natriuretic peptides, and an EF < 40% in DEFINE‐HF or >45% in PRESERVED‐HF. The primary exposure was eGFR. The main outcome was the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire Clinical Summary Score (KCCQ‐CSS) at 12 weeks. Across both trials, there were 583 (99.3%) participants with a baseline eGFR. The median (25th, 75th) eGFR was 59 (46, 77) mL/min/1.73 m². Dapagliflozin improved KCCQ‐CSS at 12 weeks [placebo‐adjusted difference, +5.0 points, 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.6–7.5; P < 0.001], and this was consistent in participants with an eGFR ≥ 60 (+6.0 points, 95% CI 2.4–9.7; P = 0.001) and eGFR < 60 (+4.1 points, 95% CI 0.5–7.7; P = 0.025) (P interaction = 0.46). The benefits of dapagliflozin on KCCQ‐CSS remained robust across eGFR when modelled as a continuous variable (P interaction = 0.48).

Conclusions

Dapagliflozin led to early and clinically meaningful improvements in health status in HF patients, regardless of EF or baseline eGFR.

Background

Sodium–glucose co-transporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitors are now strongly endorsed by international guidelines^1,2 for heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), HF with mildly reduced ejection fraction (HFmrEF) and HF with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) based on multiple landmark clinical trials.^3–6 In contrast to other foundational pillars of guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) for HF, SGLT2 inhibitors have a significant benefit on short- and intermediate-term health status that appears consistent within different subgroups and robust across multiple domains.^7–10 However, baseline kidney disease is common in HF irrespective of ejection fraction (EF) and strongly linked to worse health status, functional capacity and adverse HF events.^11,12

Aims

The objective of this pooled analysis of the DEFINE-HF and PRESERVED-HF trials was to assess whether the treatment effects of dapagliflozin on health status vary based on estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR).

Methods

The methods and primary results of the DEFINE-HF (NCT02653482)⁹ and PRESERVED-HF (NCT03030235)¹⁰ trials have been previously reported. Briefly, both studies were double-blind, randomized trials of dapagliflozin versus matching placebo enrolling participants with HF, New York Heart Association (NYHA) Functional Class II or higher symptoms, elevated natriuretic peptides, and an EF ≤ 40% (DEFINE-HF) or an EF ≥ 45% (PRESERVED-HF). The eGFR cutoff for exclusion was <30 mL/min/1.73 m² in DEFINE-HF and <20 mL/min/1.73 m² in PRESERVED-HF.

For the purposes of this pooled participant-level analysis, the main outcome of interest was the change in Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ) Clinical Summary Score (KCCQ-CSS) at 12 weeks, which was a component of the primary endpoint in DEFINE-HF and the primary endpoint in PRESERVED-HF.¹³ The KCCQ is a standardized 23-item, self-administered instrument that quantifies HF-related symptoms, physical function, quality of life and social function.¹⁴ Scores range from 0 to 100, and higher scores reflect better health status. KCCQ-CSS includes the symptom and physical function domains.¹⁵

For the present analysis, participant-level data were pooled from both trials, and subjects were stratified by eGFR ≥ 60 versus <60 mL/min/1.73 m². Clinical characteristics were compared using the chi-squared test or Fisher's exact test for categorical variables and the Student's t test or Wilcoxon rank-sum test for continuous variables as appropriate. All outcomes were evaluated using the modified intention-to-treat data sets in both trials, which included all randomized subjects who received at least one dose of study medication and had KCCQ assessed at 12 weeks. Heterogeneity of treatment effect (i.e., dapagliflozin vs. placebo) by baseline eGFR was assessed as a categorical variable (i.e., eGFR ≥ 60 vs. <60) using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) and continuous variable using cubic splines adjusted for baseline KCCQ value, sex, left ventricular EF (LVEF), type 2 diabetes (T2D) status, atrial fibrillation (AF) status and baseline urine albumin/creatinine ratio (UACR). In the responder analysis, the proportion of dapagliflozin- and placebo-treated participants who had deterioration, as well as at least small (≥5 points), at least moderate (≥10 points) and large (≥20 points) improvements in KCCQ-CSS, was estimated using logistic regression models adjusted for the same variables as ANCOVA models.

Both DEFINE-HF and PRESERVED-HF were academically-led investigator-initiated studies funded by AstraZeneca (Cambridge, UK). Institutional review boards (IRBs) approved the study for all sites in both trials, and all subjects provided written informed consent for research participation. SP and MNK take full responsibility for the manuscript's integrity and had full access to source data, complete control and authority over its preparation and the decision to publish.

Results

Across both trials, there were 583 (99.3%) participants with an available eGFR (Table 1). The median (25th, 75th) eGFR was 59 (46, 77) mL/min/1.73 m², and there were 287 (49.2%) participants with an eGFR ≥ 60 and 296 (50.8%) participants with an eGFR < 60. Subjects with an eGFR < 60 were older (69.2 ± 10.0 vs. 62.6 ± 12.4 years, P < 0.001), were more likely to be female (47.6% vs. 39.0%, P = 0.035) and had a higher prevalence of type 2 diabetes mellitus (64.2% vs. 53.7%, P = 0.009). This subgroup also tended to have a higher EF (48.3 ± 17.8 vs. 41.1 ± 18.0, P < 0.001). Participants with a reduced eGFR were less likely to be prescribed with an angiotensin receptor–neprilysin inhibitor (ARNi) (11.8% vs. 18.5%, P = 0.025) or a mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist (MRA) (42.6% vs. 52.3%, P = 0.019). They also had a lower baseline KCCQ-CSS (64.4 ± 20.5 vs. 67.8 ± 21.6, P = 0.028), KCCQ-Physical Limitation Score (KCCQ-PLS) (61.4 ± 22.9 vs. 65.2 ± 24.8, P = 0.023) and 6 min walk distance (240.8 ± 111.6 vs. 295.9 ± 106.4, P < 0.001).

Table 1 Clinical characteristics of participants stratified by eGFR at baseline.

	eGFR ≥ 60 (N = 287)	eGFR < 60 (N = 296)	P value
Treatment group			0.968
Dapagliflozin	144 (50.2%)	149 (50.3%)
Placebo	143 (49.8%)	147 (49.7%)
Demographics
Age (years), mean ± SD	62.6 ± 12.4	69.2 ± 10.0	<0.001
Gender			0.035
Male	175 (61.0%)	155 (52.4%)
Female	112 (39.0%)	141 (47.6%)
Race			0.173
White	164 (59.9%)	193 (66.3%)
Black	102 (37.2%)	94 (32.3%)
Other	8 (2.9%)	4 (1.4%)
Unknown	13 (4.5%)	5 (1.7%)
Medical history
Duration of heart failure (years), median (25th, 75th)	3.9 (1.2, 8.2)	3.9 (1.5, 8.7)	0.719
Ejection fraction (%), mean ± SD	41.1 ± 18.0	48.3 ± 17.8	<0.001
Ischaemic heart disease			0.138
Yes	89 (31.0%)	109 (36.8%)
No	198 (69.0%)	187 (63.2%)
Type 2 diabetes mellitus			0.009
Yes	154 (53.7%)	190 (64.2%)
No	133 (46.3%)	106 (35.8%)
Atrial fibrillation			0.221
Yes	129 (44.9%)	148 (50.0%)
No	158 (55.1%)	148 (50.0%)
ICD			0.333
Yes	92 (32.1%)	84 (28.4%)
No	195 (67.9%)	212 (71.6%)
Baseline HF/CV medications
ACEi/ARB			0.493
Yes	169 (58.9%)	166 (56.1%)
No	118 (41.1%)	130 (43.9%)
ARNi			0.025
Yes	53 (18.5%)	35 (11.8%)
No	234 (81.5%)	261 (88.2%)
Beta-blocker			0.347
Yes	243 (84.7%)	242 (81.8%)
No	44 (15.3%)	54 (18.2%)
Hydralazine			0.090
Yes	36 (12.5%)	52 (17.6%)
No	251 (87.5%)	244 (82.4%)
Long-acting nitrates			0.029
Yes	60 (20.9%)	85 (28.7%)
No	227 (79.1%)	211 (71.3%)
MRA			0.019
Yes	150 (52.3%)	126 (42.6%)
No	137 (47.7%)	170 (57.4%)
Loop diuretics			0.789
Yes	249 (86.8%)	259 (87.5%)
No	38 (13.2%)	37 (12.5%)
Lipid-lowering agents			0.051
Yes	220 (76.7%)	246 (83.1%)
No	67 (23.3%)	50 (16.9%)
Anticoagulant agent			0.929
Yes	125 (43.6%)	130 (43.9%)
No	162 (56.4%)	166 (56.1%)
Glucose-lowering medications among participants with type 2 diabetes mellitus
Insulin			<0.001
Yes	65 (22.6%)	111 (37.5%)
No	222 (77.4%)	185 (62.5%)
GLP-1RA	0.0 ± 0.1	0.0 ± 0.2	0.098
DPP4 inhibitors			0.786
Yes	17 (5.9%)	16 (5.4%)
No	270 (94.1%)	280 (94.6%)
Sulfonylurea			0.792
Yes	32 (11.1%)	31 (10.5%)
No	255 (88.9%)	265 (89.5%)
Metformin			0.007
Yes	80 (27.9%)	55 (18.6%)
No	207 (72.1%)	241 (81.4%)
Physical exam
Body mass index (kg/m2), median (25th, 75th)	32.2 (27.5, 39.1)	34.0 (29.7, 39.1)	0.020
Heart rate (b.p.m.), mean ± SD	70.6 ± 11.6	69.0 ± 1.4	0.082
Systolic blood pressure (mmHg), mean ± SD	127.4 ± 22.5	130.8 ± 21.6	0.062
Baseline laboratory studies
NT-proBNP (pg/mL), median (25th, 75th)	788 (409, 1473)	871 (476, 1951)	0.042
BNP (pg/mL), median (25th, 75th)	192 (112, 354)	172 (104, 324)	0.137
Urine albumin/creatinine ratio (mg/g), median (25th, 75th)	17 (7, 68)	30 (8, 114)	0.025
Haemoglobin A1c (%), mean ± SD	6.8 ± 1.8	6.9 ± 1.7	0.072
Haemoglobin (g/dL), mean ± SD	13.3 ± 1.7	12.7 ± 1.9	<0.001
Functional measures
NYHA class			0.097
I	182 (63.4%)	164 (55.4%)
II	104 (36.2%)	130 (43.9%)
III	1 (0.3%)	2 (0.7%)
KCCQ Overall Summary Score, mean ± SD	65.4 ± 21.8	64.0 ± 20.3	0.263
KCCQ Clinical Summary Score, mean ± SD	67.8 ± 21.6	64.4 ± 20.5	0.028
KCCQ Total Symptom Score, mean ± SD	70.2 ± 23.1	67.3 ± 22.3	0.073
KCCQ Physical Limitation Score, mean ± SD	65.2 ± 24.8	61.4 ± 22.9	0.023
KCCQ Quality of Life Score, mean ± SD	61.3 ± 24.2	63.0 ± 24.1	0.362
KCCQ Social Limitation Score, mean ± SD	64.1 ± 28.8	63.9 ± 27.1	0.764
6 min walk distance, mean ± SD (m)	295.9 ± 106.4	240.8 ± 111.6	<0.001

Dapagliflozin improved KCCQ-CSS at 12 weeks [placebo-adjusted difference, +5.0 points, 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.6–7.5; P < 0.001], and this was consistent in participants with an eGFR ≥ 60 (+6.0 points, 95% CI 2.4–9.7; P = 0.001) and eGFR < 60 (+4.1 points, 95% CI 0.5–7.7; P = 0.025) (P interaction = 0.46). The benefits of dapagliflozin on KCCQ-CSS and other KCCQ domains were robust across eGFR modelled as a continuous variable (all P interaction = NS) (Figure 1). In the responder analysis, fewer dapagliflozin- versus placebo-treated subjects experienced worsening of KCCQ-CSS at 12 weeks, and greater proportions of dapagliflozin-treated individuals had at least small, at least moderate and large improvements, and these results remained consistent when stratified by eGFR categories (all P interaction = NS) (Figure 2).

[IMAGE OMITTED. SEE PDF]

[IMAGE OMITTED. SEE PDF]

Conclusions

In this pooled participant-level analysis, subjects with a reduced eGFR were older, were more likely to be female, had a higher EF, were less likely to be prescribed with an ARNi or MRA, and had greater impairments in health status and functional capacity. Despite baseline differences, dapagliflozin- versus placebo-treated participants experienced greater improvement in KCCQ-CSS and other KCCQ domains at 12 weeks irrespective of eGFR when analysed as a categorical (i.e., eGFR ≥ 60 vs. <60) or continuous variable. This finding is consistent with the known beneficial effects of SGLT2 inhibitors on clinical outcomes across the full range of kidney function.^3–6

The differences in clinical characteristics between participants with an eGFR ≥ 60 versus <60 mL/min/1.73 m² are likely driven by a significantly higher proportion with HFmrEF and HFpEF among those with a reduced eGFR.¹³ It is notable that there is a risk-treatment mismatch in the setting of chronic kidney disease even though ARNis and MRAs are recommended for symptomatic HFmrEF (IIa) and HFpEF (IIb) in this eGFR range.^1,2

The observed disparity in health status by baseline eGFR was relatively small in magnitude and limited to the KCCQ-CSS and KCCQ-PLS subscales. In contrast, the ~60 m between-group difference in 6 min walk distance suggests that participants with a reduced eGFR have severe functional impairments that may not be fully captured even using validated disease-specific questionnaires for health status.

Importantly, dapagliflozin led to short-term improvements in multiple domains of health status including symptom burden, physical functioning and quality of life. This is a clinically relevant finding as other GDMTs have had a minimal impact on health status, particularly in HF subgroups including those with chronic kidney disease and/or preserved EF.^1,2 The meaningful benefit seen in DEFINE-HF and PRESERVED-HF may in part be explained by a greater burden of symptoms at baseline compared with landmark approval studies^7,8 priming this at-risk cohort to experience a more robust response after implementing an efficacious therapy.

There are several limitations that should be acknowledged including the post hoc nature of this analysis, the limited number of participants with an eGFR < 30, the short duration of follow-up and insufficient statistical power to evaluate clinical outcomes.

In conclusion, among participants with HF across the range of EF, treatment with dapagliflozin led to early and clinically meaningful improvements in HF-related health status across a wide range of kidney function.

Conflict of interest statement

APA has received relevant research support through grants to his institution from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (K23HL150159), the American Heart Association (Second Century Early Faculty Independence Award), The Permanente Medical Group, Northern California Community Benefits Programs, Garfield Memorial Fund, Abbott Laboratories, Amarin Pharma, Inc., Edwards Lifesciences LLC, Esperion Therapeutics, Inc. and Novartis. AJS receives research funding and/or is a consultant for Bayer, CSL Vifor, Abbott, Impulse Dynamics, Boston Scientific, Medtronic, Edwards Lifesciences, Biotronik, Story Health, General Prognostics and Acorai and owns stock with ISHI. MNK receives research funding and/or is a consultant for Alnylam Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Amgen Inc., Applied Therapeutics, Inc., AstraZeneca, Bayer Inc., Boehringer Ingelheim Inc., Cytokinetics, Inc., Dexcom, Inc., Lilly, Esperion Therapeutics, Inc., Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Lexicon Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Merck & Co., Inc., Novo Nordisk, Pharmacosmos A/S, Pfizer Inc., Sanofi, Vifor Pharma Management Ltd. and Youngene Therapeutics. The other authors report no disclosures.

Funding

The DEFINE-HF and PRESERVED-HF studied were investigator-initiated trials funded by AstraZeneca and conducted by Saint Luke's Mid America Heart Institute independent of the funding source.

References

Heidenreich PA, Bozkurt B, Aguilar D, Allen LA, Byun JJ, Colvin MM, et al. AHA/ACC/HFSA guideline for the management of heart failure: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines. Circulation 2022;145:e895‐e1032. doi:10.1161/CIR.0000000000001063

Heidenreich PA, Bozkurt B, Aguilar D, Allen LA, Byun JJ, Colvin MM, et al. 2022 AHA/ACC/HFSA guideline for the management of heart failure: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines. J Am Coll Cardiol 79:e263‐e421. doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2021.12.012

Solomon SD, McMurray JJ, Claggett B, de boer RA, De Mets D, Hernandez AF, et al. Dapagliflozin in heart failure with mildly reduced or preserved ejection fraction. N Engl J Med 2022;387:1089‐1098. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa2206286

McMurray JJV, Solomon SD, Inzucchi SE, Køber L, Kosiborod MN, Martinez FA, et al. Dapagliflozin in patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction. N Engl J Med 2019;381:1995‐2008. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1911303

Packer M, Anker SD, Butler J, Filippatos G, Pocock SJ, Carson P, et al. Cardiovascular and renal outcomes with empagliflozin in heart failure. N Engl J Med 2020;383:1413‐1424. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa2022190

Anker SD, Butler J, Filippatos G, Ferreira JP, Bocchi E, Böhm M, et al. Empagliflozin in heart failure with a preserved ejection fraction. N Engl J Med 2021;385:1451‐1461. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa2107038

Kosiborod MN, Jhund PS, Docherty KF, Diez M, Petrie MC, Verma S, et al. Effects of dapagliflozin on symptoms, function, and quality of life in patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction: results from the DAPA‐HF trial. Circulation 2020;141:90‐99. doi:10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.119.044138

Kosiborod MN, Bhatt AS, Claggett BL, Vaduganathan M, Kulac IJ, Lam CSP, et al. Effect of dapagliflozin on health status in patients with preserved or mildly reduced ejection fraction. J Am Coll Cardiol 2023;81:460‐473. doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2022.11.006

Nassif ME, Windsor SL, Tang F, Khariton Y, Husain M, Inzucchi SE, et al. Dapagliflozin effects on biomarkers, symptoms, and functional status in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction: the DEFINE‐HF trial. Circulation 2019;140:1463‐1476. doi:10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.119.042929

Nassif ME, Windsor SL, Borlaug BA, Kitzman DW, Shah SJ, Tang F, et al. The SGLT2 inhibitor dapagliflozin in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: a multicenter randomized trial. Nat Med 2021;27:1954‐1960. doi:10.1038/s41591‐021‐01536‐x

Jhund PS, Solomon SD, Docherty KF, Heerspink HJL, Anand IS, Böhm M, et al. Efficacy of dapagliflozin on renal function and outcomes in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction: results of DAPA‐HF. Circulation 2021;143:298‐309. doi:10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.120.050391

Mc Causland FR, Claggett BL, Vaduganathan M, Desai AS, Jhund P, de boer RA, et al. Dapagliflozin and kidney outcomes in patients with heart failure with mildly reduced or preserved ejection fraction: a prespecified analysis of the DELIVER randomized clinical trial. JAMA Cardiol 2023;8:56‐65. doi:10.1001/jamacardio.2022.4210

Nassif ME, Windsor SL, Gosch K, Borlaug BA, Husain M, Inzucchi SE, et al. Dapagliflozin improves heart failure symptoms and physical limitations across the full range of ejection fraction: pooled patient‐level analysis from DEFINE‐HF and PRESERVED‐HF trials. Circ Heart Fail 2023;16: [eLocator: e009837]. doi:10.1161/CIRCHEARTFAILURE.122.009837

Green CP, Porter CB, Bresnahan DR, Spertus JA. Development and evaluation of the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire: a new health status measure for heart failure. J Am Coll Cardiol 2000;35:1245‐1255. doi:10.1016/s0735‐1097(00)00531‐3

Spertus JA, Jones PG, Sandhu AT, Arnold SV. Interpreting the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire in clinical trials and clinical care: JACC state‐of‐the‐art review. J Am Coll Cardiol 2020;76:2379‐2390. doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2020.09.542