Endpoint adjudication in cardiovascular clinical trials.

Endpoint adjudication (EA) is a common feature of contemporary randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in cardiovascular medicine. Endpoint adjudication refers to a process wherein a group of expert reviewers, known as the clinical endpoint committee (CEC), verify potential endpoints identified by site investigators. Events that are determined by the CEC to meet pre-specified trial definitions are then utilized for analysis. The rationale behind the use of EA is that it may lessen the potential misclassification of clinical events, thereby reducing statistical noise and bias. However, it has been questioned whether this is universally true, especially given that EA significantly increases the time, effort, and resources required to conduct a trial. Herein, we compare the summary estimates obtained using adjudicated vs. non-adjudicated site designated endpoints in major cardiovascular RCTs in which both were reported. Based on these data, we lay out a framework to determine which trials may warrant EA and where it may be redundant. The value of EA is likely greater when cardiovascular trials have nuanced primary endpoints, endpoint definitions that align poorly with practice, sub-optimal data completeness, greater operator variability, and lack of blinding. EA may not be needed if the primary endpoint is all-cause death or all-cause hospitalization. In contrast, EA is likely merited for more nuanced endpoints such as myocardial infarction, bleeding, worsening heart failure as an outpatient, unstable angina, or transient ischaemic attack. A risk-based approach to adjudication can potentially allow compromise between costs and accuracy. This would involve adjudication of a small proportion of events, with further adjudication done if inconsistencies are detected.

Effects of serelaxin on the outcome of patients with or without substantial peripheral edema: A subgroup analysis from the RELAX-AHF trial.

BACKGROUND: Acute heart failure (AHF) is a heterogeneous disorder, with most of the patients presenting with breathlessness along with varying degrees of peripheral edema. The presence of peripheral edema suggests that volume overload is the cause of decompensation leading to AHF, whereas breathlessness in the absence of edema may reflect a "vascular phenotype." This analysis investigated the characteristics, therapeutic response, and outcome of patients with AHF, with and without overt peripheral edema in the RELAX-AHF trial. METHODS: Physician-assessed edema scores at baseline were used to categorize the population into those with no/mild edema (score 0 or 1+) and moderate/severe edema (score 2+ or 3+). The effect of serelaxin vs placebo was assessed within each subgroup. RESULTS: Patients with moderate/severe edema (n = 583; 50.5%) were more likely to have severe dyspnea, orthopnea (>30°), rales (≥1/3), and elevated jugular venous pressure (>6 cm) than the patients with little or no peripheral edema (n=571; 49.5%). The relative benefits of serelaxin in terms of reduction in breathlessness, lower diuretic requirements, decreased length of initial hospital stay and days in intensive care unit/cardiac care unit, and improved prognosis (180-day cardiovascular and all-cause mortality) were generally similar for patients with or without peripheral edema. However, because patients with moderate/severe peripheral edema had worse outcomes, the absolute benefit was generally greater than in patients with no/mild edema. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, patients with AHF and moderate/severe peripheral edema have a worse prognosis but appear to receive similar relative benefit and perhaps greater absolute benefit from serelaxin administration.

Implications of trial eligibility in patients with heart failure with mildly reduced or preserved ejection fraction.

AIMS: Clinical trials in heart failure with mildly reduced or preserved ejection fraction (HFmrEF/HFpEF) commonly have detailed eligibility criteria. This may contribute to challenges with efficient enrolment and questions regarding the generalizability of trial findings. METHODS AND RESULTS: Patients with HFmrEF/HFpEF from a large US healthcare system were identified through a computable phenotype applied in linked imaging and electronic health record databases. We evaluated shared eligibility criteria from five recent/ongoing HFmrEF/HFpEF trials (PARAGON-HF, EMPEROR-Preserved, DELIVER, FINE-ARTS, and SPIRRIT-HFpEF) and compared clinical and echocardiographic features as well as outcomes between trial-eligible and trial-ineligible patients. Among 5552 patients with HFpEF/HFmrEF, 792 (14%) were eligible for trial consideration, having met all criteria assessed. Causes of ineligibility included lack of recent loop diuretics (37%), significant pulmonary disease (24%), reduced estimated glomerular filtration rate (17%), recent stroke/transient ischaemic attack (13%), or low natriuretic peptides (12%); 53% of ineligible patients had >1 reason for exclusion. Compared with eligible patients, ineligible patients were younger (age 71 vs. 75 years, P < 0.001) with higher rates of coronary artery disease (66% vs. 59%, P < 0.001) and peripheral vascular disease (40% vs. 33%, P < 0.001), but less mitral regurgitation, lower E/e' ratio, and smaller left atrial sizes. Both eligible and ineligible patients demonstrated high rates of structural heart disease consistent with HFpEF [elevated left atrial size or left ventricular (LV) hypertrophy/increased LV mass], although this was slightly higher among eligible patients (95% vs. 92%, P = 0.001). The two cohorts demonstrated similar LV global longitudinal strain along with a similar prevalence of atrial fibrillation/flutter, hypertension, and obesity. Ineligible patients had similar all-cause mortality (33% vs. 33% at 3 years) to those eligible but lower rates of heart failure hospitalization (20% vs. 28% at 3 years, P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with HFmrEF/HFpEF from a large health system, approximately one in seven were eligible for major trials based on key criteria applied through a clinical computable phenotype. These findings highlight the large proportion of patients with HFmrEF/HFpEF ineligible for contemporary trials for whom the generalizability of trial findings may be questioned and further investigation would be beneficial.

Learning from recent trials and shaping the future of acute heart failure trials.

The last decade of acute heart failure (HF) research is characterized by disappointments in large phase 2 and 3 pharmacologic studies of therapeutics including calcium-sensitizing agents and antagonists of endothelin, vasopressin, and adenosine. As a result, pharmacologic management for acute HF has changed little in recent years, and adverse event rates remain higher than in chronic HF. Despite neutral results in many acute HF trials, recent studies including RELAX-AHF, ASTRONAUT, and PRONTO have highlighted the role of appropriate timing of patient enrollment, targeting the "right" patients, and selecting appropriate end points and sites. We describe lessons learned from recent trials in acute HF and outline strategies to improve the potential for success in future trials. This review is based on discussions between scientists, clinical trialists, and regulatory representatives at the 9th Global Cardio Vascular Clinical Trialists Forum in Paris, France, from November 30 to December 1, 2012.

Implications of peripheral oedema in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: a heart failure network analysis.

AIMS: Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) is a heterogeneous condition, and tissue congestion manifested by oedema is not present in all patients. We compared clinical characteristics, exercise capacity, and outcomes in patients with HFpEF with and without oedema. METHODS AND RESULTS: This study was a post hoc analysis of pooled data of patients with left ventricular ejection fraction of ≥50% enrolled in the DOSE, CARRESS-HF, RELAX, ATHENA, ROSE, INDIE, and NEAT trials. Patients were dichotomized by the severity of oedema. Cox proportional hazard regression and generalized linear regression models were used to assess associations between oedema, symptoms, and clinical outcomes. The ambulatory cohort included 393 patients (228 with and 165 without oedema), and the hospitalized cohort included 338 patients (249 with ≥moderate oedema and 89 with mild or none). Among ambulatory patients, patients with oedema had a higher body mass index (35.2 kg/m2 [inter-quartile range, IQR 30.5, 41.6] vs. 31.6 kg/m2 [IQR 27.9, 36.3], P < 0.001), greater burden of co-morbidities, higher intravascular pressures estimated on physical examination (elevated jugular venous pressure: 50% vs. 24.7%, P < 0.001), poorer renal function (creatinine: 1.2 mg/dL [IQR 0.9, 1.5] vs. 1 mg/dL [IQR 0.8, 1.3], P = 0.003), and lower peak VO2 (adjusted mean difference -1.04 mL/kg/min, 95% confidence interval [-1.71, -0.37], P < 0.003). Among hospitalized patients, despite greater in-hospital fluid/weight loss in the ≥moderate oedema group, there was no difference in the improvement in dyspnoea by the visual analogue scale or well-being visual analogue scale from baseline to 3-4 days and no statistically significant difference in the rate of 60 day rehospitalization/death (adjusted hazard ratio 1.44, 95% confidence interval [0.87, 2.39], P = 0.156). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with HFpEF and oedema display higher body mass, greater burden of co-morbidities, and more severe exercise intolerance, but clinical responses to treatment appear similar. Further research is required to better understand the nature of volume distribution in different HFpEF phenotypes.

Eligibility of sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 inhibitors among patients with diabetes mellitus admitted for heart failure.

AIMS: Sodium-glucose co-transporter (SGLT)-2 inhibitors have been shown to reduce the risk of cardiovascular death and heart failure (HF) hospitalization in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM) and high cardiovascular risk in two large clinical outcome trials: empagliflozin in EMPA-REG OUTCOME and canagliflozin in CANVAS. The scope of eligibility for SGLT-2 inhibitors (empagliflozin and canagliflozin) among patients with type 2 DM and HF, based on clinical trial criteria and current US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) labelling criteria, remains unknown. METHODS AND RESULTS: Using data from the US Get With The Guidelines (GWTG)-Heart Failure registry, we evaluated the proportion of patients with DM and HF eligible for SGLT-2 inhibitor therapy based on the clinical trial criteria and the US FDA labelling criteria. The GWTG-HF registry is a quality improvement registry of patients admitted in hospital with HF in the USA. We included GWTG-HF registry participants meeting eligibility criteria hospitalized between August 2014 and 30 June 2017 from sites fully participating in the registry. The initial inclusion time point reflects when both drugs had FDA approval. Among the 139 317 patients (out of 407 317) with DM hospitalized with HF (in 460 hospitals; 2014 to 2017), the median age was 71 years, 47% (n = 65 685) were female, and 43% (n = 59 973) had HF with reduced ejection fraction. Overall, 43% (n = 59 943) were eligible for the EMPA-REG OUTCOME trial, 45% (n = 62 818) were eligible for the CANVAS trial, and 34% (n = 47 747) of patients were eligible for either SGLT-2 inhibitors based on the FDA labelling criteria. Among the FDA-eligible patients, 91.5% (n = 43 708) were eligible for either the EMPA-REG OUTCOME trial or the CANVAS trial. Patients who were FDA eligible, compared with those who were not, were younger (70.0 vs. 72.0 years of age), more likely to be male (57.7 vs. 50.3%), and had less burden of co-morbidities. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of patients with DM who are hospitalized with HF are not eligible for SGLT-2 inhibitor therapies. Ongoing studies evaluating the safety and efficacy of SGLT-2 inhibitors among patients with HF may potentially broaden the population that may benefit from these therapies.

Prospective evaluation of the association between hemoglobin concentration and quality of life in patients with heart failure.

BACKGROUND: Reduced hemoglobin has been associated with adverse outcomes in heart failure, but the relationship of hemoglobin to health-related quality of life in outpatients with this syndrome has not been well studied. METHODS: We used data from the prospective, observational Study of Anemia in a Heart Failure Population Registry, which randomly selected outpatients with heart failure from specialty or community cardiology clinics. Hemoglobin was determined by finger stick at baseline and during medically indicated follow-up visits. Health-related quality of life was assessed using the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire and the Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire at 3-month intervals for 12 months. RESULTS: Adjusted regression analysis demonstrated a significant, direct, linear relationship between hemoglobin and health-related quality of life from baseline through 12 months follow-up on all Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire domains (all P < .001) and the Summary and Physical domains of the Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire (all P < .05). Adjusted categorical analysis of the change in Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire Clinical scores associated with change in hemoglobin from baseline to 6 months also showed a significant relationship between increasing hemoglobin and improved health status (5.9 +/- 1.8 units for a hemoglobin increase of >or=1 g/dL, 0.7 +/- 1.2 units for change in hemoglobin <1 g/dL, and -2.6 +/- 1.4 units for a >or=1 g/dL decrease in hemoglobin, P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: These prospective, observational results indicate that reduced hemoglobin is associated with poorer quality of life in patients with heart failure. Additional studies will be required to establish if this is a cause-and-effect relationship.

Comparison of Clinical Characteristics and Outcomes of Patients With Versus Without Diabetes Mellitus and With Versus Without Angina Pectoris (from the Duke Databank for Cardiovascular Disease).

Angina pectoris (AP) has different prognostic implications in various populations. Patients with diabetes mellitus (DM) may experience neuropathy such that AP may not be perceived in the setting of coronary artery disease (CAD). The prognostic utility of AP in DM patients with CAD is not well known. We analyzed patients with CAD who underwent coronary angiography at Duke University from 2002 to 2011 and compared patients with and without AP within the previous 6 weeks stratified by DM status. We used multivariable Cox regression to assess the association between AP and the outcomes of cardiovascular (CV) hospitalization/revascularization, all-cause mortality/myocardial infarction/revascularization, and all-cause mortality. Of 17,211 patients with CAD, 5,284 (31%) had DM and AP was present in 69% of DM and 67% of non-DM. After risk adjustment, the risk of CV hospitalization/revascularization and all-cause mortality/myocardial infarction/revascularization in patients with and without AP was similar regardless of DM status (all p ≥0.05). In patients with or without DM, AP was associated with lower all-cause mortality compared with no AP (adjusted hazard ratio 0.89, 95% confidence interval 0.82 to 0.97, p = 0.005 for DM patients). The relation between AP status and clinical outcomes was not dependent on DM status (all interaction p >0.10). In conclusion, in patients with CAD, AP was associated with similar risk for CV hospitalization and revascularization and lower all-cause mortality compared with patients without AP regardless of DM status. Future studies are needed to assess whether these findings are related to increased severity of disease in those without AP or whether AP leads to differential management that improves survival.