Heart failure (HF) represents a global public health and economic problem associated with unacceptable rates of death, hospitalization, and healthcare expenditure. Despite available therapy, HF carries a prognosis comparable to many forms of cancer with a 5-year survival rate of ~50%. The current treatment paradigm for HF with reduced ejection fraction (EF) centers on blocking maladaptive neurohormonal activation and decreasing cardiac workload with therapies that concurrently lower blood pressure and heart rate. Continued development of hemodynamically active medications for stepwise addition to existing therapies carries the risk of limited tolerability and safety. Moreover, this treatment paradigm has thus far failed for HF with preserved EF. Accordingly, development of hemodynamically neutral HF therapies targeting primary cardiac pathologies must be considered. In this context, a partial adenosine A1 receptor (A1R) agonist holds promise as a potentially hemodynamically neutral therapy for HF that could simultaneous improve cardiomyocyte energetics, calcium homeostasis, cardiac structure and function, and long-term clinical outcomes when added to background therapies. In this review, we describe the physiology and pathophysiology of HF as it relates to adenosine agonism, examine the existing body of evidence and biologic rationale for modulation of adenosine A1R activity, and review the current state of drug development of a partial A1R agonist for the treatment of HF.

No abstract

COPD is frequent among hospitalized patients with heart failure. Beta-blockers are largely underused, which is probably a major reason for the higher mortality observed in patients with concomitant chronic heart failure and COPD.

We studied safety and tolerability of neladenoson bialanate, a novel oral selective partial adenosine A1 receptor agonist that maintains the cardioprotective effects of adenosine without the undesired side effects of a full agonist, in 2 pilot studies in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). The β-blocker interaction study was a single-blind, placebo-controlled study on the effects of a 30-mg single dose of neladenoson bialanate on atrioventricular (AV) conduction in 11 patients with HFrEF treated with β-blockers. The PARSiFAL pilot study was a double-blind, placebo-controlled study on the effects of a 7-day treatment with 10 or 20 mg neladenoson bialanate or placebo in 31 patients with HFrEF on β-blocker therapy. In the β-blocker interaction study with 11 HFrEF patients, no second- or third-degree AV block was detected on 48-hour Holter monitoring. In the 31 HFrEF patients included in the PARSiFAL pilot study, no second- or third-degree AV blocks were observed during 24-hour Holter monitoring, and no effects were seen on heart rate and blood pressure. Median absolute changes in LVEF, measured by cardiac magnetic resonance, were 1.9% (interquartile range -1.1 to 4.3), 0.3% (-1.4 to 2.7), and 2.2% (0.4 to 4.5), in the placebo, 10-mg, and 20-mg groups, respectively. Treatment of HFrEF patients with the novel partial adenosine A1 agonist neladenoson bialanate appeared to be safe in 2 small pilot studies, and no atrioventricular conduction disorders or neurological side effects were observed. No significant early changes in cardiac function were detected.

Aims Insulin resistance (IR) is a characteristic feature of heart failure (HF) pathophysiology that affects symptoms and mortality. Differences in the pathophysiological profile of IR in HF with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) and HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) are not characterized in detail. The aim of this study was to evaluate features of IR in HFpEF vs. HFrEF. Methods and results We included 18 patients with HFrEF (EF 30 ± 11%, body mass index (BMI) 26.5 ± 3.3 kg/m2), 22 HFpEF patients (EF 63 ± 7%, BMI 28.6 ± 4.8 kg/m2), and 20 healthy controls of similar age, all without diabetes mellitus. Patients were in stable ambulatory condition and on stable medical regimens for HF. IR was assessed at fasting steady state by the homeostasis model assessment (HOMA) index and within the physiological range of insulin–glucose interactions by the short insulin sensitivity test (SIST). Fasting‐state IR was observed in HFpEF and in HFrEF in comparison with controls (HOMA 1.9, interquartile range (IQR) 1.5–3.6 vs. HOMA 3.1, IQR 1.4–3.7 vs. controls 1.2, IQR 1.8–0.9, respectively; analysis of variance P < 0.001), but no statistical difference was observed between HFpEF and HFrEF. The dynamic test over the physiological range of insulin–glucose interactions revealed a more severe IR in HFrEF as compared with HFpEF. Thus, glucose levels remained the highest in HFrEF (76 (64–89) mg/dL) at the end of the SIST compared with HFpEF and controls (68 (58–79) and 56 (44–66) mg/dL, respectively, P < 0.001). Conclusion IR is present in non‐diabetic patients with HFpEF and HFrEF. However, distinct differences in the insulin sensitivity characteristics in HFpEF and HFrEF become apparent by more advanced testing. Patients with HFrEF showed more severe IR.