ESC HEART FAILURE
ESC Heart Failure (2020)
ORIGINAL RESEARCH ARTICLE
Published online in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com) DOI: 10.1002/ehf2.12724
Leucocyte count predicts cardiovascular risk in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: insights from TOPCAT Americas
Navkaranbir S. Bajaj1,2,3, Rajat Kalra4, Kartik Gupta1, Sudeep Aryal1, Indranee Rajapreyar1, Steven G. Lloyd1, Jonathan McConathy2, Sanjiv J. Shah5 and Sumanth D. Prabhu1*
1Division of Cardiovascular Disease and Comprehensive Cardiovascular Center, Department of Internal Medicine, University of Alabama at Birmingham, USA; 2Division of Molecular Imaging and Therapeutics, Department of Radiology, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL, USA; 3Birmingham VA Medical Center, Departments of Internal Medicine and Radiology, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL, USA; 4Cardiology Division, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, USA; 5Division of Cardiology, Department of Medicine, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, IL, USA
Abstract
Keywords Leucocytes; Inflammation; HFpEF; Cardiovascular outcomes
Received: 23 October 2019; Revised: 29 March 2020; Accepted: 31 March 2020
*Correspondence to: Sumanth D. Prabhu, MD, Division of Cardiovascular Disease and Comprehensive Cardiovascular Center, University of Alabama at Birmingham, 311
Tinsley Harrison Tower, 1900 University Boulevard, Birmingham, AL 35294-0006, USA. Tel: 205-934-3624. Email: Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs License, which permits use and distribution in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non-commercial and no modifications or adaptations are made.
Heart failure (HF) is a complex disease composed of a broad array of pathophysiological perturbations, including sustained and inappropriate inflammation.1,2 In animal models of HF, chronic inflammation has been linked to the expansion of both myeloid (e.g. monocytes and macro- phages) and lymphoid (e.g. T-cells) immune cells,3–6 both systemically and in the failing myocardium. While most of- ten studied in models of HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), a mouse model of HF with preserved EF (HFpEF) exhibited augmented macrophage density in the failing heart, accompanied by increased haematopoiesis, and simi- lar haematopoietic activation (assessed by FDG-PET imag- ing) was also observed in a small cohort of humans with HFpEF.7 Such data are consistent with the proposed con- cept that myocardial structural and functional abnormalities in HFpEF are driven by a systemic pro-inflammatory state that ultimately results in altered endothelial/myocyte func- tion, myocyte survival, and myocardial fibrosis.8,9
Augmented haematopoiesis occurring with inflammatory activation is reflected in part by blood leucocyte count, par- ticularly those of myeloid immune cells, which have short lifespans.10 Several studies indicate that higher leucocyte and myeloid cell count in HF are negative prog- nostic markers. In middle-aged men, leucocyte count is as- sociated with long-term incidence of HF hospitalizations,11 and large population studies indicate that higher neutrophil count is associated with the development of incident HF.12 In subjects with ischaemic left ventricular (LV) dysfunction,
a leucocyte count of >7000 cells/μL is an independent predictor of all-cause mortality.13 In a prospective observa- tional study of a community-based cohort, elevated leuco-
cyte count was associated with an increased risk of incident HFpEF.14 Moreover, in acute HF, blood neutrophil count at hospital admissions was associated with long-term mortality,15 whereas total blood monocytes were increased but with a shift of the monocyte subset profile towards that of healthy control after standard HF treatment.16
Despite the growing evidence base linking HFpEF with chronic inflammation, the importance of blood leucocyte count as an immune activity index and its relationship to cardiovascular and mortality outcomes in HFpEF are poorly defined. We sought to evaluate the association between leucocyte count and clinical events in HFpEF patients and test the hypothesis that higher leucocyte count, reflective of heightened immune cell expansion, is associated with higher rates of adverse cardiovascular outcomes. We inves- tigated this hypothesis in a post hoc analysis of North and South American HFpEF patients enrolled in the treatment of preserved cardiac function heart failure with an aldoste- rone antagonist (TOPCAT) trial.
The analytical methods will be/have been made available to other researchers for purposes of reproducing the results or replicating the procedure. The study was conducted in accor- dance with the strengthening the reporting of observational studies in epidemiology (STROBE) guidelines (Supporting In- formation, Table SS1).
The TOPCAT study was a multicentre, double-blind, placebo- controlled, randomized trial that evaluated the utility of spironolactone treatment for preventing adverse clinical out- comes in patients with HFpEF.17,18 Patients were eligible for enrolment if they were age ≥50 years, had symptoms of HF, had an LV ejection fraction (LVEF) of ≥45% in the 6 months prior to randomization, had a systolic blood pressure
≤140 mmHg or << span="">160 mmHg with ≥3 anti-hypertensive med- ications, a serum potassium ≤5.0 mmol/L, and had either
been hospitalized in the 12 months prior to enrolment for management of HF or had elevated natriuretic peptides. Key exclusion criteria included severe systemic illness with a life expectancy of << span="">3 years from randomization; significant chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (on home oxygen, oral steroid therapy, or were hospitalized for exacerbation within 12 months, or had significant chronic pulmonary disease in the opinion of the investigator); haemodynamically significant valvular disease; severe renal dysfunction with an estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR, based on modification of diet in renal disease equation) << span="">30 mL/min/1.73 m2; percutane- ous coronary intervention in the 30 days preceding enrol- ment; and stroke, non-fatal myocardial infarction (MI), or coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) in the 90 days prior to trial enrolment.17,18 The primary outcome of the trial was a composite of cardiovascular mortality, aborted cardiac arrest, or hospitalization for the management of HF. The full details of the study population and outcomes have been pub- lished previously.17
The study protocol was approved by the University of Ala- bama at Birmingham Institutional Review Board and National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute Biologic Specimen and Data Repository Information Coordinating Center (NHLBI- BioLINCC) and does not necessarily reflect the opinions or views of TOPCAT or the NIH. No specific informed consent was needed for this current investigation. Due to prior con- cerns regarding the validation of the HFpEF diagnosis19 and treatment adherence20 for patients outside of North and South America, the analyses in this investigation were limited to patients that were enrolled from the Americas (『TOPCAT- Americas』) who had leucocyte count measured at the time
Figure 1 Flow diagram for subject selection. *TOPCAT-Americas included patients from the United States, Canada, Argentina, and Brazil.
of enrolment into the trial. The TOPCAT-Americas population included patients that were enrolled from the United States, Canada, Argentina, and Brazil. Figure 1 shows the inception of the study cohort. Twenty-one patients were excluded from our analysis due to non-availability (n = 20) of leucocyte count and one with a leucocyte count of 189200 cells/μL that was considered an outlier.
The leucocyte and platelet counts that were used in this in- vestigation were obtained at the time of the subject’s enrol- ment into TOPCAT. The other demographic and clinical characteristics were also collected by the TOPCAT investiga- tors into case report forms.17 Because the leucocyte count was non-normally distributed, a cut-off of 7100 cells/μL was used to divide the cohort at the median leucocyte count in the TOPCAT-Americas cohort. Analyses were subsequently
conducted to evaluate differences in the primary and second- ary outcomes based on leucocyte count >7100 cells/μL and
≤7100 cells/μL. The associations between absolute leucocyte
count, standard deviation rise in leucocyte count, and loga- rithmically transformed leucocyte count and the primary out- come were also examined.
The primary outcome for this investigation was a composite of cardiovascular mortality, aborted cardiac arrest, or HF hos- pitalization during the follow-up. Secondary outcomes were individual components of the primary outcome, all-cause mortality, non-cardiovascular mortality, non-fatal MI, and stroke during follow-up. All clinical outcomes in TOPCAT were
adjudicated by a blinded clinical events committee. The adju- dication process has been described previously.17,18
Continuous variables were represented as medians with in- terquartile ranges, and categorical variables were repre- sented as count with proportions. The Wilcoxon rank-sum test and chi-squared tests were used to identify the differ- ences in baseline characteristics in continuous and categorical variables, respectively.
The time-to-event analyses were conducted with Cox pro- portional hazards models to identify the risk of the chosen pri- mary and secondary outcomes in those with higher leucocyte count as compared to those with lower leucocyte count during the study follow-up period. The Cox proportional hazard as- sumption was checked using Schoenfeld residuals prior to reporting results of the model. The multivariable Cox propor- tional hazards model included the following clinically impor- tant covariates: age, gender, race, hypertension, diabetes, dyslipidaemia, coronary artery disease, estimated glomerular filtration rate, atrial fibrillation, body mass index (BMI), New York Heart Association (NYHA) class (III/IV vs. I/II), stroke, pe- ripheral arterial disease, smoking, haematocrit, LVEF, and treatment with spironolactone. The baseline characteristics of prior angina, prior myocardial infarction, prior percutane- ous coronary intervention, or prior CABG were combined to form the 『coronary artery disease』 covariate, which was in- cluded in the aforementioned modelling. All of the covariates were included due to their possible association with cardiovas- cular prognosis in HFpEF patients. Hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were reported for all primary and sec- ondary outcomes in the adjusted and unadjusted analyses. In- teractions between leucocyte count and treatment with
spironolactone, age, gender, race, hypertension, diabetes, coronary artery disease, BMI, NYHA class, and LVEF on the risk of the primary outcome were also evaluated. In addition, we estimated frailty index (FI) as previously described by Sanders et al.21 and introduced leucocyte count and FI in a separate Cox model to determine association between leucocyte count and primary outcome. Notably, the FI index we used from Sanders et al.21 incorporated ~40 variables and included most of the covariates in our multivariate Cox proportional hazards model described earlier.
Poisson regression analyses were also performed to esti- mate incidence rates (per 100 person-years) of primary and secondary outcomes. Finally, the associations between leu- cocyte count and incidence rates of primary and secondary outcomes that were statistically significant in Cox propor- tional hazard models were explored and plotted using re- stricted cubic spline Poisson models with the aforementioned clinically important variables. The number of knots was selected based on optimal values of the Akaike information criterion (AIC) to account for possible non-linearity in these associations.
E-values were estimated for HRs for significant associations between leucocyte count >7100 cells/μL and outcomes to assess the potential effect of unmeasured confounding on these associations.22 This method estimates the minimum strength of the association that would be required between an unmeasured confounder and both higher leucocyte count and risk of incident clinical outcome to overcome the statisti-
cally significant effect observed in a study. A large E-value im- plies that considerable unmeasured confounding would be needed to explain away an effect estimate. A small E-value implies little unmeasured confounding would be needed to explain away an effect estimate. The calculation was derived from the HR obtained from an adjusted analysis in our study. We also estimated sub-distributional hazard ratios for leuco- cyte categories and plotted cumulative incidence plots using competing risk regression in accordance with method de- scribed by Fine et al.23 for primary outcome, CV mortality, non-fatal MI, and HF hospitalizations.
Leucocyte differential count was not captured in the TOPCAT laboratory data set, and so we could not specifically assess the importance of myeloid (innate) vs. lymphoid (adaptive) im- mune populations. Instead, we performed an exploratory analysis of the association between augmented platelet count (also a marker of myeloid expansion24) and incidence rate of the primary outcome using restricted cubic spline Poisson
models with the aforementioned clinically important vari- ables. The number of knots was selected based on optimal values of the AIC to account for possible non-linearity in these associations. Given the presence of a V-shaped relationship between platelet count and the incidence rate of primary out- come, we explored the relationship between platelet count and risk of clinical outcomes in the second and the third tertiles of platelet count. The lower tertile was excluded from this exploratory analysis given that reduced platelet counts are often related to multiple factors that do not represent true myeloid contraction (e.g. immune and non-immune platelet destruction, sequestration, haemodilution, drugs, infections, and toxins),25 whereas platelet augmentation is usually associ- ated with myeloid expansion and hence can be a useful surro- gate for the same.26,27
To ascertain the nature of immune cell expansion as to whether myeloid or lymphoid cells were associated with risk of incident cardiovascular outcomes, we used Cox propor- tional hazards models to examine the association between covariates and primary efficacy events, sequentially adding demographic and clinical factors, followed by leucocyte count (as a marker of combined myeloid and lymphoid expansion) and then augmented platelet count (as a marker of myeloid expansion). We hypothesized that an isolated association with lymphoid expansion was possible if clinical outcomes
were associated with leucocyte count >7100 cells/μL but not associated with the addition of platelet count. However,
if clinical outcomes were associated with both the leucocyte and platelet count, this would suggest either a predominantly myeloid response or combined response to both myeloid and lymphoid expansion.
To test these hypotheses, four models were created for multivariate analyses to evaluate the relationship between leucocyte count, platelet count, and the primary efficacy outcome in TOPCAT-Americas enrolees. Model 1 included the demographic variables of age, gender, and race. Model
2 was adjusted for demographics and clinically important risk factors including diabetes mellitus, hypertension, dyslipidaemia, BMI, coronary artery disease, eGFR, atrial fi- brillation, NYHA class (III and IV vs. I and II), stroke, periph- eral arterial disease, and treatment with spironolactone. Model 3 included all of the demographic and clinical covar- iates in Model 2 along with leucocyte count (a marker of myeloid plus lymphoid expansion). Finally, Model 4 in- cluded all of the clinical covariates in Model 2 along with both leucocyte count and platelet count above median of
the top two tertiles (>246 × 103 cells/μL, n = 1156) as marker of myeloid expansion. The HR and 95% CI for leuco-
cyte and platelet count, model chi-square, AIC, and Bayes- ian information criterion were also calculated for each of the models. A P-value of less than 0.05 was used to define statistical significance. All statistical analyses were con- ducted in Stata Version 14.2 (StataCorp, College Station, TX, USA).
There was no funding source for the current investigation. The funders of TOPCAT had no role in study design, data col- lection, data analysis, data interpretation, or writing of the re- port. N. S. B., K. G., and S. D. P. had full access to all study data, and S. D. P. had final responsibility for the decision to submit for publication.
Of the 3445 patients with HFpEF enrolled in TOPCAT, 1767
(51%) were enrolled in the Americas. Within the
TOPCAT-Americas cohort, 1746 (99%) patients had leucocyte count available for the analyses (Figure 1). The characteristics of HFpEF patients in TOPCAT-Americas with available leuco- cyte count are presented in Table 1. The median age of the participants in this cohort was 72 years (interquartile range: 64–79) with equal representation of males and females. The majority of patients were non-blacks (1452, 83%). The me- dian BMI in the cohort was 32.8 kg/m2 (interquartile range: 27.9–38.4 kg/m2), and the majority of the cohort had hyper- tension (1571, 90%), obesity (1128, 65%), and dyslipidaemia
(1236, 71%). Coronary artery disease (46%), diabetes mellitus (45%), atrial fibrillation (42%), and peripheral artery disease (12%) were also prevalent in the overall cohort. The median leucocyte count for the entire cohort was 7100 cells/μL (Ta- ble 1).
The patients in the leucocyte count >7100 cells/μL stra-
tum were younger with a lower prevalence of black patients,
Table 1 Baseline characteristics stratified by leucocyte count group
Leucocyte count >7100 cells/μL
TOPCAT-Americas (n = 1746)
No
(n
= 900)
Yes (n
= 846)
P-value
Demographics
Age at randomization (years)
72 (64, 79)
74 (65, 80)
71 (63, 78)
<< span="">0.001
Female
872 (49.9%)
471 (52.3%)
410 (47.4%)
0.039
Black race
294 (16.8%)
168 (18.7%)
126 (14.9%)
0.035
Anthropometric parameters
Height (cm)
167.3 (157.5, 175.3)
167.3 (157.5, 175.3)
167.6 (157.5, 175.3)
0.900
Weight
Body mass index (kg/m2)
90.3 (75.7, 108.9)
32.8 (27.9, 38.4)
87.5 (75, 104.8)
31.9 (27, 37.1)
94.5 (77, 112.5)
33.9 (28.8, 39.7)
<< span="">0.001
<< span="">0.001
Clinical parameters
Atrial fibrillation
738 (42.3%)
404 (44.9%)
334 (39.5%)
0.023
Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease
288 (16.5%)
134 (14.9%)
154 (18.2%)
0.061
Coronary artery disease
807 (46.2%)
414 (46%)
393 (46.5%)
0.850
Angina pectoris
481 (27.5%)
247 (27.4%)
234 (27.7%)
0.910
Prior myocardial infarction
378 (21.6%)
167 (18.6%)
191 (22.6%)
0.036
Prior CABG
333 (19.1%)
164 (18.2%)
169 (20%)
0.340
Prior PCI
343 (19.7%)
170 (18.9%)
173 (20.5%)
0.410
Diabetes mellitus
779 (44.6%)
330 (36.7%)
449 (53.1%)
<< span="">0.001
Dyslipidaemia
1236 (70.8%)
621 (69%)
615 (72.8%)
0.082
Hypertension
1571 (90%)
794 (88.2%)
777 (92%)
0.009
Systolic blood pressure (mmHg)
129 (118, 138)
128 (118, 138)
129 (118, 139)
0.210
Diastolic blood pressure (mmHg)
70 (62, 80)
70 (62, 80)
70 (62, 80)
0.550
Obesity
1128 (64.6%)
545 (60.6%)
583 (68.9%)
<< span="">0.001
Peripheral arterial disease
205 (11.7%)
97 (10.8%)
108 (12.8%)
0.190
Smoking (current)
115 (6.6%)
46 (5.1%)
69 (8.2%)
0.010
Stroke
155 (8.9%)
80 (8.9%)
75 (8.9%)
0.990
Treatment with spironolactone
876 (50.2%)
451 (50.1%)
425 (50.2%)
0.960
Laboratory parameters
Leucocyte count (*1000 cells/μL)
7.1 (5.9, 8.5)
5.9 (5.2, 6.5)
8.6 (7.8, 9.7)
<< span="">0.001
Haematocrit (%)
Platelet count (*1000 cells/μL)
38.6 (35.5, 41.9)
219 (181, 265)
38.1 (35.2, 41.4)
202 (165, 241)
39 (35.7, 42.2)
237 (201,287)
0.002
<< span="">0.001
Estimated GFR (mL/min/1.73 m2)
61 (48.9, 76.5)
61.6 (50.7, 76.7)
59.71 (48.1, 76.3)
0.071
Left ventricular ejection fraction (%)
58% (52%, 64%)
60% (53%, 65%)
57 (51%, 63%)
0.028
Serum albumin (g/dL)
3.9 (3.6, 4.2)
3.9 (3.6, 4.2)
3.9 (3.6, 4.2)
0.300
Serum creatinine (mg/dL)
1.1 (0.9, 1.4)
1.1 (0.9, 1.3)
1.1 (0.9, 1.2)
0.015
Serum potassium (mEq/L)
4.2 (3.9, 4.5)
4.2 (3.9, 4.5)
4.2 (3.9, 4.5)
0.200
Glomerular filtration rate was estimated by the modification of diet in renal disease (MDRD) 4-component study equation. Coronary artery disease was defined as a composite of angina pectoris, previous MI, PCI, or CABG. Data are represented as median (25th to 75th percen- tile), number (percentage).
BMI, body mass index; CABG, coronary artery bypass grafting; GFR, glomerular filtration rate; MI, myocardial infarction; PCI, percutaneous coronary intervention; mEq = milliequivalents per litre.
*P-values are from chi-squared test for categorical comparisons and Wilcoxon rank rum test for continuous comparisons between patients with leucocyte count ≤7100 and >7100 cells/μL.
a greater prevalence of male patients, and a higher BMI. Pa- tients with leucocyte count >7100 cells/μL had a higher prev- alence of prior myocardial infarction, diabetes mellitus, hypertension, and obesity but a lower prevalence of atrial fi- brillation. Patients with leucocyte count >7100 cells/μL had higher mean haematocrit and platelet count compared to pa- tients with leucocyte count ≤7100 cells/μL. Patients with leu- cocyte count >7100 cells/μL had a marginally lower LVEF compared to patients with leucocyte count ≤7100 cells/μL (Table 1).
There were no differences in other haemodynamic param- eters, baseline comorbidities, or laboratory parameters be- tween the patients with leucocyte count >7100 cells/μL and patients with leucocyte count ≤7100 cells/μL. Impor- tantly, there were no differences in the proportions of pa- tients treated with spironolactone in the two arms (Table 1).
The patients in the assembled cohort were followed for a me- dian duration of 2.4 (25th–75th percentile 1.4–3.9) years for the occurrence of the primary outcome. During the follow-up period, 517 primary outcome events occurred at an annualized rate of 11.4% (95% CI: 10.5–12.4%) (Table 2). As depicted in the Kaplan–Meier curves in Figure 2, in the unadjusted analyses for either the Cox proportional hazard model or competing risk model (competing events of non-HF hospitalization and non-CV mortality), patients with
leucocyte count >7100 cells/μL were 35–36% more likely to experience the primary outcome than patients with leu- cocyte count ≤7100 cells/μL (HR: 1.36, 95% CI: 1.14–1.61). This association remained significant in fully adjusted analy-
ses after accounting for clinically important confounders such that patients with leucocyte count >7100 cells/μL were 27% more likely to experience the primary outcome than the patients with leucocyte count ≤7100 cells/μL (HR 1.27, 95% CI: 1.06–1.52) (Table 2). There was no evidence of interaction between total leucocyte count and clinically important variables on risk of primary outcome (Supporting Information, Table S2). Given the non-normal distribution of total leucocyte count, we checked the association between every unit rise in log-transformed leucocyte count and risk of the primary outcome (HR: 1.36, adjusted P = 0.039). We also estimated HRs for each standard deviation rise in leucocyte count and primary outcome (HR: 1.09, adjusted P = 0.026) (Supporting Information, Table S3). Also, leuco-
cyte count ≥7100 cells/μL remained significantly associated
with risk of primary outcome after introducing frailty index in a separate Cox model (HR:1.21, P = 0.031). All analyses indicated robustness of the association. There were no dif- ferences in the incidence of cardiovascular mortality, aborted cardiac arrest, stroke, or non-cardiovascular/other mortality between the patients with leucocyte count
>7100 cells/μL and with leucocyte count ≤7100 cells/μL in
the unadjusted and adjusted analyses (Table 2 and Figures 3
and 4).
Amongst the secondary outcomes, patients with leuco- cyte count >7100 cells/μL were more likely to be
Table 2 Hazard ratios for outcomes in the TOPCAT-Americas population stratified by median leucocyte count
Outcome
Events/total number event rate
(person-years)
Median time to event
Leucocyte count Hazard ratio for leucocyte below median count above median
Analysis (≤7100 cells/μL) (>7100 cells/μL)
P-value*
E-value
Primary outcome
517/1746
11.4 (10.5–12.4)
2.4
Unadjusted Reference Adjusted
1.36 (1.14–1.61)
1.27 (1.06–1.52)
0.001
0.010
—
1.86
Secondary outcomes
Heart failure admission
Cardiovascular mortality Aborted cardiac arrest All-cause mortality
Non-cardiovascular or other mortality Stroke
Non-fatal myocardial infarction
396/1746
2.4 Unadjusted Reference 1.41 (1.15–1.72) 0.001 —
Adjusted Reference 1.30 (1.06–1.60) 0.011 1.92
2.9 Unadjusted Reference 1.18 (0.90–1.53) 0.224 —
Adjusted Reference 1.16 (0.88–1.52) 0.291 —
2.9 Unadjusted Reference 1.12 (0.23–5.60) 0.886 —
Adjusted Reference 0.96 (0.12–7.63) 0.973 —
2.9 Unadjusted Reference 1.19 (0.97–1.45) 0.090 —
Adjusted Reference 1.16 (0.95–1.43) 0.152 —
2.9 Unadjusted Reference 1.20 (0.89–1.64) 0.235 —
Adjusted Reference 1.17 (0.85–1.61) 0.940 —
2.8 Unadjusted Reference 1.00 (0.64–1.56) 0.994 —
Adjusted Reference 1.01 (0.64–1.61) 0.950 —
2.6 Unadjusted Reference 1.70 (1.13–2.58) 0.012 —
Adjusted Reference 1.71 (1.11–2.62) 0.014 2.81
8.7 (7.9–9.6)
221/1746
4.2 (3.7–4.8)
6/1746
0.1 (0.1–0.3)
385/1746
7.4 (6.7–8.2)
164/1746
3.1 (2.7–3.7)
77/1746
1.5 (1.2, 1.9)
94/1746
1.9 (1.5–2.3)
The primary efficacy outcome was defined as the composite of death from cardiovascular causes, aborted cardiac arrest, or hospitalization for the management of heart failure. The covariates in the adjusted Cox proportional hazards model include age, sex, race, hypertension, diabetes, dyslipidaemia, coronary artery disease, smoking, body mass index, left ventricular ejection fraction, haematocrit, estimated glo- merular filtration rate, atrial fibrillation, New York Heart Association class (III and IV vs. I and II), stroke, peripheral arterial disease, and treatment with spironolactone.
*P-values are from Cox proportional hazards modelling and E-values were calculated only for statistically significant adjusted associations.
Figure 2 Cumulative proportion using Cox proportional hazard model (A) and cumulative incidence using competing risk regression (B) for primary end point stratified by median leucocyte count. Red represents patients with leucocyte count >7100 cells/μL, and blue represents patients with leucocyte count ≤7100 cells/μL. The primary endpoint was a composite of death from cardiovascular causes, aborted cardiac arrest, or hospitalization for heart failure. Non-CV mortality and non-HF hospitalizations were considered competing events in the competing risk model. The adjusted models for both analyses included age, gender, race, hypertension, diabetes, dyslipidaemia, coronary artery disease, estimated glomerular filtration rate, atrial fibrilla- tion, body mass index, New York Heart Association class (III/IV vs. I/II), stroke, peripheral arterial disease, smoking, haematocrit, LVEF, and treatment with spironolactone. HR, hazard ratio; sHR, sub-distributional hazard ratio.
hospitalized for HF than patients with leucocyte count
≤7100 cells/μL over the study follow-up in the unadjusted and adjusted analyses (HR 1.41 and HR 1.30, respectively) (Table 2). Patients with leucocyte count >7100 cells/μL were also more likely to experience non-fatal myocardial in- farction than patients with leucocyte count ≤7100 cells/μL in the unadjusted and adjusted analyses (HR 1.70 and HR 1.71, respectively) (Table 2). We also observed a significant linear relationship between increasing leucocyte count and higher incidence rates of the primary outcome, HF
hospitalization, and non-fatal MI (adjusted P-trends << span="">0.05; Figures 3 and 4). Interestingly, there was a numerical in- crease in the risk of all-cause mortality when leucocyte count was dichotomized using 7100 cells/μL, which was not statistically significant (Table 2). In contrast, we ob- served a linear relationship between leucocyte count and all-cause mortality that was statistically significant in both
unadjusted and adjusted analyses (Figure 4).
There were no differences in the incidence of cardiovascu- lar mortality, aborted cardiac arrest, stroke, or non-
Figure 3 Relationship between leucocyte count and the primary outcome, cardiovascular disease (CVD)-related mortality, heart failure hospitalization, and aborted cardiac arrest in the TOPCAT-Americas population. The adjusted Poisson regression models were controlled for age, gender, race, hyper- tension, diabetes, dyslipidaemia, coronary artery disease, estimated glomerular filtration rate, atrial fibrillation, body mass index, New York Heart As- sociation class (III/IV vs. I/II), stroke, peripheral arterial disease, smoking, haematocrit, LVEF, and treatment with spironolactone. Restricted cubic spline Poisson regression models estimates (red) are presented with 95% confidence intervals (blue). IRR, incidence rate ratio for every 1000 cells/μL rise in leucocyte count.
Figure 4 Relationship between leucocyte count and all-cause mortality, non-cardiovascular disease (CVD)-related mortality, non-fatal myocardial in- farction and stroke in the TOPCAT-Americas population. The adjusted Poisson regression models were controlled for age, gender, race, hypertension, diabetes, dyslipidaemia, coronary artery disease, estimated glomerular filtration rate, atrial fibrillation, body mass index, New York Heart Association class (III/IV vs. I/II), stroke, peripheral arterial disease, smoking, haematocrit, LVEF, and treatment with spironolactone. Restricted cubic spline Poisson regression models are presented with 95% confidence intervals (blue). IRR, incidence rate ratio for every 1000 cells/μL rise in leucocyte count.
cardiovascular/other mortality between the patients with leucocyte count >7100 cells/μL and with leucocyte count
≤7100 cells/μL in the unadjusted and adjusted analyses (Ta-
ble 2 and Figures 3 and 4).
The E-values (HR) for the point estimate for the incident pri- mary outcome, HF hospitalization, and myocardial infarction were 1.86, 1.92, and 2.81, respectively. The highest HR in the adjusted model for clinical comorbidities was 1.90 for smoking (primary outcome), 1.76 for NYHA class (HF hospital- ization), and 2.17 for smoking (non-fatal myocardial infarc- tion). It is unlikely that an unmeasured or unknown confounder would have a substantially greater effect on de- velopment of primary outcome, HF hospitalization, and myo- cardial infarction than the known clinically important comorbidities for which we adjusted in multivariate analysis by having an HR exceeding 1.86 for primary outcome, 1.92 for heart failure hospitalization, and 2.81 for myocardial in- farction. The associations between leucocyte count and pri- mary outcome, CV mortality, non-fatal MI, and HF hospitalization did not change in competing risk analysis indi- cating robustness of our results (Supporting Information, Ta- ble S4 and Figure S2).
A total of 1738 patients had a platelet count (myeloid marker) measured and available for the platelet analyses (Figure 1).
We observed a V-shaped relationship between incidence rates of the primary outcome and platelet count (Supporting Information, Figure S1). After excluding the lower tertile of platelets, the final analysis was conducted in 1176 patients. In the adjusted analyses, patients with platelet count in the highest tertile were 27% more likely to experience the pri- mary outcome than patients with platelet count in the middle tertile (HR 1.27, 95% CI: 1.01–1.60).
We also sought to distinguish whether lymphoid or mye- loid cells were driving the clinical outcomes. To isolate the ef- fect of the nature of immune cell expansion on the primary outcome, we sequentially added confounders to Cox propor- tional hazards models (Table 3). In Models 1 and 2, the model statistics improved with the addition of demographic and clinical factors. In Model 3, leucocyte count (aggregate mye- loid and lymphoid expansion) improved model statistics as compared with Model 2 and was significantly associated with higher risk of primary outcome. In Model 4, the addition of platelet count (marker of myeloid expansion) in addition to leucocyte count improved model statistics further. Interest- ingly, both higher leucocyte and platelet count in the same model (Model 4) were associated with higher risk of primary outcome (Table 3), suggesting that leucocyte expansion in general and myeloid expansion in particular are associated with higher risk of the primary outcome.
We demonstrated that higher leucocyte count, even after ex- tensive multivariate modelling, was associated with the
composite endpoint of HF hospitalization, aborted cardiac ar- rest, and cardiovascular mortality in stable HFpEF patients en- rolled in the America’s cohort of the TOPCAT trial. This was primarily driven by increased hospitalizations for HF. We also observed a greater incidence of non-fatal myocardial infarc- tion in patients with higher leucocyte count. These associa- tions remained robust on sensitivity analyses that suggested a low probability of confounding. Our results support the hy- pothesis that immune cell expansion as evidenced by in- creased total blood leucocyte count (and potentially myeloid-specific cell expansion as reflected by increased platelet count) is an important pathogenetic component of HFpEF that impacts disease progression and outcomes.
There may be multiple mechanistic explanations for our findings. At present, the prevailing paradigm is that pathology and symptomatology in HFpEF are heavily driven by a sub- ject’s burden of comorbidities such as obesity, hypertension, diabetes mellitus, and coronary artery disease.28,29 This co- morbidity burden has been strongly linked to cardiac and sys- temic inflammation,8 suggesting considerable interplay between the immune system and cardiovascular disease.30– 35 In our study, we found that most of these comorbidities were more prevalent in HFpEF patients with higher than me- dian leucocyte count along with adverse CV outcomes. This suggests an interaction between immune cell expansion and the pathogenesis of HFpEF, and, subsequently, clinical outcomes.8,36
Prior data from animals and humans suggest multilevel in- volvement of the immune system in HFpEF. At the tissue level, reduced capillary density and augmented fibrosis are hallmarks of human HFpEF.36 In animal models of aging-associated and hypertension-associated HFpEF, cardiac myeloid cell infiltration has been specifically linked to in- creased myocardial fibrosis.7,37,38 There is also evidence of augmented bone marrow and splenic myelopoiesis and higher circulating monocytes and neutrophils in these models.7 Myocardial biopsies from humans with HFpEF show augmented numbers of macrophages, CD3+ lymphocytes, and total CD45+ leucocytes as compared with nonfailing
control heart samples, with correlation between inflamma- tory cell infiltration and collagen expression.7,39 Recent data, albeit from an ischaemic HFrEF model, have linked regulatory T-cell dysfunction to capillary rarefaction in the failing heart.40 Taken together, these data indicate that myeloid and lymphoid expansion in HFpEF, presumably driven in part by co-morbidities, contribute importantly to adverse cardiac remodelling, lending mechanistic credence to our central ob- servation that higher leucocyte count in human HFpEF is a powerful biomarker of detrimental clinical outcomes. The ob- servation that the leucocyte count, while higher in HFpEF pa- tients with adverse outcomes, was not significantly 『elevated』 beyond the usual clinical ranges may imply qualitative im- mune cell dysfunction induced by comorbidities. This has been previously suggested for other types of cardiovascular disease.12
Our investigation adds important contributions to the existing literature base pertaining to immune cell expansion and HFpEF and is consistent with the aforementioned animal and human studies implicating myeloid and lymphoid expan- sion, and a general pro-inflammatory state, as disease drivers in HFpEF. To the best of our knowledge, there are no prior data linking the circulating leucocytes to clinical outcomes in a stable human HFpEF population. Prior observational data have, however, linked leucocyte (or neutrophil) count to later development of incident HF in broad population studies,11,12 and to all-cause mortality in subjects with ischaemic LV sys- tolic dysfunction13 and acutely decompensated HF (HFrEF and HFpEF).15 Shah et al.12 posited that a chronic inflamma- tory substrate may combine with individual triggers to pro- duce qualitative neutrophil dysfunction that leads to incident cardiovascular events in the general population. Im- portantly, they highlighted that neutrophil count may prog- nosticate within 『normal』 ranges, with a neutrophil count of 6–7000 cells/μL associated with a hazard ratio of 2.04 for in- cident HF as compared to a neutrophil count of 2–3000 cells/μL. However, their analysis did not distinguish between types of HF or account for subject comorbidities. Engström et al.11 evaluated the relationship between leucocyte count
Table 3 Multivariable adjusted association of leucocyte and platelet count with primary efficacy outcome (N = 1156)
Model statistics
Sequential models for primary efficacy outcome
Leucocyte hazard ratio (95% CI)
P-
value
Platelet hazard ratio (95% CI)
P-
value
Likelihood ratio
chi-square P-value
AIC
BIC
Multivariable Model 1: demographics — — — —
9.72
0.021 4434.874450.04
Multivariable Model 2: Model 1+ clinical factors— — — —
122.41
<< span="">0.0014305.294391.16
Multivariable Model 3: Model 2 + Leucocyte 1.36 (1.08–1.71) 0.009 — —
129.32
<< span="">0.0014300.394391.30
Multivariable Model 4: Model 3 + Platelets 1.28 (1.01–1.62) 0.042 1.27 (1.01–1.60)0.039
176.35
<< span="">0.0014280.584376.42
The primary efficacy outcome was defined as the composite of death from cardiovascular causes, aborted cardiac arrest or hospitalization for the management of heart failure. Model 1 includes demographic factors age, gender, and race. Model 2: Model + clinical factors in- clude hypertension, diabetes, dyslipidaemia, coronary artery disease, smoking, body mass index, left ventricular ejection fraction, haematocrit, estimated glomerular filtration rate, atrial fibrillation, New York Heart Association class (III and IV vs. I and II), stroke, periph- eral arterial disease, and treatment with spironolactone. Model 3: leucocyte hazard ratio with reference as leucocyte count ≤7100 cells/μL. Model 4: platelets hazard ratio of with reference as platelet count ≤246 000 cells/μL.
AIC, Akaike information criterion; BIC, Bayesian information criterion; CI, confidence interval.
and incident HF hospitalization in a Swedish community co- hort. A leucocyte count in the highest quartile (710019 200 cells/μL) was associated with incident HF hospitalization; the analysis was limited by lack of data on the HF phenotype (HFrEF or HFpEF) whereas HF hospitalizations were identified using ICD-9 codes.
In comparison, our data focus exclusively on well-characterized HFpEF patients with all clinical outcomes rigorously adjudicated in the setting of a prospective, double-blind, placebo-controlled randomized trial. We were able to link the prognostic effect of leucocyte count to other several clinical outcomes in HFpEF—HF hospitalization and non-fatal myocardial infarction—and adjust for a large num- ber of potential confounders. Interestingly, we note that the cut-off for leucocyte count that Engström et al. linked
to heart failure hospitalization (>7100 cells/μL) was identical to that seen in our investigation. A similar cut-off of >7000 leucocytes/ μL was predictive of all-cause mortality in pa-
tients with ischaemic left ventricular (LV) dysfunction en- rolled in the studies of left ventricular dysfunction (SOLVD) trial.13 Hence, our findings taken together with prior studies suggest that total leucocyte count may be broadly applied as a risk marker in HF.
Our investigation has important public health implications. We anticipate that invoking immune cell expansion in the pathophysiology of HFpEF will yield further investigation into specific immune pathways that may contribute to disease de- velopment and progression. At present, few quantitative tools exist for predicting long-term risk in HFpEF patients. If our findings are validated, our data support using immune cell function to stratify long-term clinical risk and pursuing further investigation into identifying potential therapeutic im- munomodulatory targets for HFpEF. The promising results of immunomodulation for the treatment of coronary artery disease34 and the emergence of immune checkpoint inhibi- tors for oncological disease41 underscore the possibility that similar approaches may be feasible for HFpEF.
We acknowledge that our work has important limitations. We were limited in our ability to determine the causal rela- tionships between leucocyte count and HFpEF outcomes. Also, the leucocyte and platelet count employed in our anal- yses were those that were measured only at the time of the subjects』 study enrolment. However, our one-time measure- ment of leucocyte count at baseline would likely underesti- mate its association with poor outcomes, and the fact that an association is present suggests at least some temporal re- lationship between leucocyte count, platelet count, and clin- ical outcomes. We were also unable to characterize many important comorbidities and clinical characteristics that may influence leucocyte and platelet count as they were not cap- tured in the TOPCAT trial. However, our sensitivity analyses suggested a low probability of an unmeasured confounder. We were also limited in our ability to evaluate the association of the clinical outcomes with direct measurement of the
myeloid and lymphoid components of the leucocyte popula- tion, and instead used platelet count as a surrogate marker of myeloid cells. This was due to the lack of availability of leu- cocyte differential count amongst TOPCAT patients. This may be of particular importance in view of prior research demon- strating highly specialized roles of specific lymphoid and my- eloid cells in key pathologic processes, such as adverse cardiac remodelling.40,42 Due to the aforementioned limita- tions, the therapeutic window of opportunity and accurate timeframe for prognostication also remain unclear. Further research will be needed to delineate specific immunologic ef- fect measure modifiers in the causal pathway between HFpEF and clinical outcomes.
In conclusion, leucocyte count was independently associated with the composite primary outcome of cardiovascular mor- tality, aborted cardiac arrest, or HF hospitalization during the follow-up in the HFpEF patients from TOPCAT-Americas. These results were primarily driven by the HF hospitalization
outcome and were also accompanied by an excess of non-fatal MI amongst patients with leucocyte count >7100 cells/μL. Patients with platelet count (surrogate myeloid marker) in the highest tertile also had a higher incidence rate for the primary outcome. Further research is needed to de- fine the mechanisms underlying our findings and validate their prognostic implications.
This manuscript was prepared using TOPCAT Research Mate- rials obtained from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute.
S. J. S. has received research grants from Actelion, AstraZeneca, Corvia, and Novartis and has served as a consul- tant, scientific advisory board member, and/or executive committee/steering committee member for Abbott, Actelion, AstraZeneca, Amgen, Bayer, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Cardiora, Coridea, CVRx, Eisai, Ionis, Ironwood, Merck, MyoKardia, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi, Shifamed, Tenax, and United Thera- peutics. None of the other authors had any conflicts of inter- est or financial disclosures to declare.
N. S. B. is supported by Walter B. Frommeyer Jr. Fellowship in Investigative Medicine awarded by the University of Alabama at Birmingham, American College of Cardiology Presidential Career Development Award, and National Center for Advanc- ing Translational Research of the National Institutes of Health under award number UL1TR001417. S. J. S. is supported by NIH R01 grants HL107577, HL127028, HL140731, and HL149423, and #16SFRN28780016 from the American Heart Association. S. D. P. is supported by NIH R01 grants HL125735 and HL147549, and a VA Merit Award (I01 BX002706).
Additional supporting information may be found online in the Supporting Information section at the end of the article.
Table S1. STROBE Statement
Table S2. Hazard ratios (HR) with 95% confidence interval for
interaction between leucocyte count with clinically important variables used in the multivariable Cox proportional hazard model for the primary outcome.
Table S3. Hazard ratios (HR) with 95% confidence interval (CI) for leucocyte count and primary outcome using a Cox propor- tional hazard model.
Table S4. Association between Leucocyte counts and Out- comes in Cox proportional hazard Model vs Competing Risk models
Figure S1. Unadjusted relationship between platelet count and the primary outcome in the TOPCAT-Americas population Figure S2. Cumulative subhazard plots stratified by median leucocyte count for primary outcome with non-primary out- come (non-CV mortality or non-HF hospitalization) as com- peting risk (Panel A), CV mortality with non-CV mortality as competing risk (Panel B), non-CV mortality with CV mortality as competing risk (Panel C), HF hospitalization with non-HF hospitalization as competing risk (Panel D) and Non-Fatal Myocardial Infarction with all-cause mortality as competing risk (Panel E).
1.Adamo L, Rocha-Resende C, Prabhu SD, Mann DL. Reappraising the role of in- flammation in heart failure. Nat Rev Cardiol 2020: 1–17.
2.Prabhu SD, Frangogiannis NG. The bio- logical basis for cardiac repair after myo- cardial infarction: from inflammation to fibrosis. Circ Res 2016; 119: 91–112.
3.Bansal SS, Ismahil MA, Goel M, Patel B, Hamid T, Rokosh G, Prabhu SD. Acti- vated T lymphocytes are essential drivers of pathological remodeling in is- chemic heart failure. Circ Heart Fail 2017; 10: e003688.
4.Ismahil MA, Hamid T, Bansal SS, Patel B, Kingery JR, Prabhu SD. Remodeling of the mononuclear phagocyte network underlies chronic inflammation and disease progression in heart failure: critical importance of the cardiosplenic axis. Circ Res 2014; 114: 266–282.
5.Nevers T, Salvador AM, Grodecki-Pena A, Knapp A, Velázquez F, Aronovitz M, Kapur NK, Karas RH, Blanton RM, Al- caide P. Left ventricular t-cell recruit- ment contributes to the pathogenesis of heart failure. Circ Heart Fail 2015; 8: 776–787.
6.Sager HB, Hulsmans M, Lavine KJ, Moreira MB, Heidt T, Courties G, Sun Y, Iwamoto Y, Tricot B, Khan OF, Dahlman JE, Borodovsky A, Fitzgerald K, Anderson DG, Weissleder R, Libby P, Swirski FK, Nahrendorf M. Proliferation
and recruitment contribute to myocar- dial macrophage expansion in chronic heart failure. Circ Res 2016; 119:
853–864.
7.Hulsmans M, Sager HB, Roh JD, Valero-Muñoz M, Houstis NE, Iwamoto Y, Sun Y, Wilson RM, Wojtkiewicz G, Tricot B, Osborne MT, Hung J, Vinegoni C, Naxerova K, Sosnovik DE, Zile MR, Bradshaw AD, Liao R, Tawakol A, Weissleder R, Rosenzweig A, Swirski FK, Sam F, Nahrendorf M. Cardiac mac- rophages promote diastolic dysfunction. J Exp Med 2018; 215: 423–440.
8.Paulus WJ, Tschope C. A novel paradigm for heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: comorbidities drive myocardial dysfunction and remodeling through coronary microvascular endothelial in- flammation. J Am Coll Cardiol 2013; 62: 263–271.
9.van Empel V, Brunner-La Rocca HP. In- flammation in HFpEF: key or circum- stantial? Int J Cardiol 2015; 189: 259–263.
10.von Vietinghoff S, Ley K. Homeostatic regulation of blood neutrophil counts. J Immunol 2008; 181: 5183–5188.
11.Engström G, Melander O, Hedblad B. Leukocyte count and incidence of hospi- talizations due to heart failure. Circ Heart Fail 2009; 2: 217–222.
12.Shah AD, Denaxas S, Nicholas O, Hingorani AD, Hemingway H.
Neutrophil counts and initial presenta- tion of 12 cardiovascular diseases: a CALIBER cohort study. J Am Coll Cardiol 2017; 69: 1160–1169.
13.Cooper HA, Exner DV, Waclawiw MA, Domanski MJ. White blood cell count and mortality in patients with ischemic and nonischemic left ventricular systolic dysfunction (an analysis of the studies of left ventricular dysfunction [SOLVD]). Am J Cardiol 1999; 84: 252–257.
14.Gong FF, Jelinek MV, Castro JM, Coller JM, McGrady M, Boffa U, Shiel L, Liew D, Wolfe R, Stewart S, Owen AJ, Krum H, Reid CM, Prior DL, Campbell DJ. Risk factors for incident heart failure with preserved or reduced ejection fraction, and valvular heart failure, in a community-based cohort. Open Heart 2018; 5: e000782.
15.Huang WM, Cheng HM, Huang CJ, Guo CY, Lu DY, Lee CW, Hsu PF, Yu WC, Chen CH, Sung SH. Hemographic indices are associated with mortality in acute heart failure. Sci Rep 2017; 7: 17828.
16.Goonewardena SN, Stein AB, Tsuchida RE, Rattan R, Shah D, Hummel SL. Monocyte subsets and inflammatory cy- tokines in acute decompensated heart failure. J Cardiac Fail 2016; 22: 358–365.
17.Desai AS, Lewis EF, Li R, Solomon SD, Assmann SF, Boineau R, Clausell N, Diaz R, Fleg JL, Gordeev I, McKinlay S. Ratio- nale and design of the treatment of
preserved cardiac function heart failure with an aldosterone antagonist trial: a randomized, controlled study of spironolactone in patients with symp- tomatic heart failure and preserved ejec- tion fraction. Am Heart J 2011; 162: 966–72.e10.
18.Pitt B, Pfeffer MA, Assmann SF, Boineau R, Anand IS, Claggett B, Clausell N, De- sai AS, Diaz R, Fleg JL, Gordeev I, Harty B, Heitner JF, Kenwood CT, Lewis EF, O』Meara E, Probstfield JL, Shaburishvili T, Shah SJ, Solomon SD, Sweitzer NK, Yang S, McKinlay S, TOPCAT Investiga- tors. Spironolactone for heart failure with preserved ejection fraction. New Engl J Med 2014; 370: 1383–1392.
19.Pfeffer MA, Claggett B, Assmann SF, Boineau R, Anand IS, Clausell N, Desai AS, Diaz R, Fleg JL, Gordeev I, Heitner JF, Lewis EF, O』Meara E, Rouleau JL, Probstfield JL, Shaburishvili T, Shah SJ, Solomon SD, Sweitzer NK, McKinlay S, Pitt B. Regional variation in patients and outcomes in the treatment of pre- served cardiac function heart failure with an aldosterone antagonist (TOPCAT) trial. Circulation 2015; 131: 34–42.
20.de Denus S, O』Meara E, Desai AS, Claggett B, Lewis EF, Leclair G, Jutras M, Lavoie J, Solomon SD, Pitt B, Pfeffer MA, Rouleau JL. Spironolactone metab- olites in TOPCAT—new insights into re- gional variation. New Engl J Med 2017; 376: 1690–1692.
21.Sanders NA, Supiano MA, Lewis EF, Liu J, Claggett B, Pfeffer MA, Desai AS, Sweitzer NK, Solomon SD, Fang JC. The frailty syndrome and outcomes in the TOPCAT trial. Eur J Heart Fail 2018; 20: 1570–1577.
22.Haneuse S, VanderWeele TJ, Arterburn
D. Using the E-value to assess the poten- tial effect of unmeasured confounding in observational studies. JAMA 2019; 321: 602–603.
23.Austin PC, Lee DS, Fine JP. Introduction to the analysis of survival data in the presence of competing risks. Circulation 2016; 133: 601–609.
24.Morrell CN, Aggrey AA, Chapman LM, Modjeski KL. Emerging roles for plate- lets as immune and inflammatory cells. Blood 2014; 123: 2759–2767.
25.Wong EY, Rose MG. Why does my pa- tient have thrombocytopenia? Hematol
Oncol Clin North Am 2012; 26:
231–252 vii.
26.Woolthuis CM, Park CY. Hematopoietic stem/progenitor cell commitment to the megakaryocyte lineage. Blood 2016; 127: 1242–1248.
27.Kaushansky K. Thrombopoiesis. Semin Hematol 2015; 52: 4–11.
28.Redfield MM. Heart failure with pre- served ejection fraction. New Engl J Med 2016; 375: 1868–1877.
29.Shah SJ, Kitzman DW, Borlaug BA, van Heerebeek L, Zile MR, Kass DA, Paulus WJ. Phenotype-specific treatment of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: a multiorgan roadmap. Circula- tion 2016; 134: 73–90.
30.Reddy YNV, Carter RE, Obokata M, Redfield MM, Borlaug BA. A simple, evidence-based approach to help guide diagnosis of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction. Circulation 2018; 138: 861–870.
31.Vandanmagsar B, Youm Y-H, Ravussin A, Galgani JE, Stadler K, Mynatt RL, Ravussin E, Stephens JM, Dixit VD. The NLRP3 inflammasome instigates obesity-induced inflammation and insu- lin resistance. Nat Med 2011; 17: 179–188.
32.Harrison DG, Guzik TJ, Lob HE, Madhur MS, Marvar PJ, Thabet SR, Vinh A, Weyand CM. Inflammation, immunity, and hypertension. Hypertension 2011; 57: 132–140.
33.Hansson GK. Inflammation, atheroscle- rosis, and coronary artery disease. New Engl J Med 2005; 352: 1685–1695.
34.Ridker PM, Everett BM, Thuren T, MacFadyen J, Chang WH, Ballantyne C, Fonseca F, Nicolau J, Koenig W, Anker SD, Kastelein JJP, Cornel JH, Pais P, Pella D, Genest J, Cifkova R, Lorenzatti A, Forster T, Kobalava Z, Vida-Simiti L, Flather M, Shimokawa H, Ogawa H, Dellborg M, Rossi PRF, Troquay RPT, Libby P, Glynn RJ, CANTOS Trial Group. Antiinflammatory therapy with canakinumab for atherosclerotic dis- ease. New Engl J Med 2017; 377: 1119–1131.
35.Wellen KE, Hotamisligil GS. Inflamma- tion, stress, and diabetes. J Clin Invest 2005; 115: 1111–1119.
36.Mohammed Selma F, Hussain S, Mirzoyev Sultan A, Edwards William D,
Maleszewski Joseph J, Redfield MM. Coronary microvascular rarefaction and myocardial fibrosis in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction. Circulation 2015; 131: 550–559.
37.Trial J, Heredia CP, Taffet GE, Entman ML, Cieslik KA. Dissecting the role of myeloid and mesenchymal fibroblasts in age-dependent cardiac fibrosis. Basic Res Cardiol 2017; 112: 34.
38.Iyer A, Woodruff TM, Wu MC, Stylianou C, Reid RC, Fairlie DP, Taylor SM, Brown
L. Inhibition of inflammation and fibro- sis by a complement C5a receptor antag- onist in DOCA-salt hypertensive rats. J Cardiovasc Pharmacol 2011; 58: 479–486.
39.Westermann D, Lindner D, Kasner M, Zietsch C, Savvatis K, Escher F, von Schlippenbach J, Skurk C, Steendijk P, Riad A, Poller W, Schultheiss HP, Tschöpe C. Cardiac inflammation con- tributes to changes in the extracellular matrix in patients with heart failure and normal ejection fraction. Circ Heart Fail 2011; 4: 44–52.
40.Bansal SS, Ismahil MA, Goel M, Zhou G, Rokosh G, Hamid T, Prabhu SD. Dys- functional and proinflammatory regula- tory T-lymphocytes are essential for adverse cardiac remodeling in ischemic cardiomyopathy. Circulation 2019; 139: 206–221.
41.Hodi FS, O』Day SJ, McDermott DF, We- ber RW, Sosman JA, Haanen JB, Gonzalez R, Robert C, Schadendorf D, Hassel JC, Akerley W, van den Eertwegh A, Lutzky J, Lorigan P, Vaubel JM, Linette GP, Hogg D, Ottensmeier CH, Lebbé C, Peschel C, Quirt I, Clark JI, Wolchok JD, Weber JS, Tian J, Yellin MJ, Nichol GM, Hoos A, Urba WJ. Improved survival with ipilimumab in patients with metastatic melanoma. New Engl J Med 2010; 363: 711–723.
42.Patel B, Bansal SS, Ismahil MA, Hamid T, Rokosh G, Mack M, Prabhu SD. CCR2(+) monocyte-derived infiltrating macrophages are required for adverse cardiac remodeling during pressure overload. JACC Basic Transl Sci 2018; 3: 230–244.