Who are we missing? Language exclusivity of patient-reported outcomes in atrial fibrillation clinical trials.

INTRODUCTION: Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are increasingly used to evaluate quality of life (QoL) in Atrial Fibrillation (AF) patients, providing crucial insights in clinical trials. This study examines the frequency of PRO use in AF trials and the linguistic accessibility of AF-specific PROs. BACKGROUND: As the United States becomes more multilingual, ensuring PROs are available in various languages is vital. The number of people speaking a language other than English at home has tripled from 23.1 million in 1980 to 67.8 million in 2019. This diversity necessitates the availability of PROs in multiple languages for inclusive clinical assessments. METHODS: We queried ClinicalTrials.gov for all US interventional AF trials up to November 28, 2023, reviewing each for PRO usage as primary or secondary outcomes. We identified the five most common AF-specific and generic PROs, extracting their available translations and original languages from published sources. RESULTS: Of 233 identified trials, 191 had associated publications, with 180 (94.2%) conducted solely in English. Only one trial (0.4%) used an AF-specific PRO as a primary outcome, compared to four (1.7%) with a generic PRO. Ten trials (4.3%) used AF-specific PROs as secondary endpoints, versus 22 (9.4%) using generic PROs. AF-specific PROs had significantly fewer translations than generic PROs (11.2 vs. 148.8; p < .001). The AF Effect on Quality-of-Life (AFEQT) was available in 24 languages, with limited translations in commonly spoken US languages like Arabic and Asian languages. CONCLUSION: The limited availability of AF-specific PRO translations highlights a barrier to inclusive AF clinical trials. Expanding translations for AF-specific PROs is crucial for equitable QoL assessments.

Meta-analysis of risk of major adverse cardiovascular events in adults with type 2 diabetes treated with bexagliflozin.

AIM: To explore the risk of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) associated with exposure to bexagliflozin. METHODS: The analysis included 4090 participants with type 2 diabetes (T2D) enrolled in nine phase 2 and 3 double-blind randomized controlled trials. All potential MACE were adjudicated by a blinded committee. The primary endpoint for the meta-analysis was the hazard ratio (HR) for the time to first occurrence of non-fatal stroke, non-fatal myocardial infarction (MI), cardiovascular (CV) death or hospitalization for unstable angina (MACE+), tested for non-inferiority to a ratio of 1.8. The secondary endpoints were time to first occurrence of (i) non-fatal stroke, non-fatal MI or CV death (MACE), tested for non-inferiority to a ratio of 1.3; and (ii) CV death or hospitalization for heart failure, tested for superiority. RESULTS: The HR for the primary endpoint of MACE+ was 0.80 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.58, 1.09), which fulfilled the non-inferiority objective with a P value of less than 0.0001. Non-inferiority for the first key secondary endpoint of MACE was also shown (HR = 0.82; 95% CI 0.59, 1.13; P = 0.0023). Superiority for time to CV death or first hospitalization for heart failure was not shown. CONCLUSIONS: Bexagliflozin did not increase the risk of MACE in participants with T2D when compared with placebo or active control. Both the preapproval and postapproval thresholds for CV safety were met and bexagliflozin has been approved by the US Food and Drug Administration.

Edetate Disodium-Based Chelation for Patients With a Previous Myocardial Infarction and Diabetes: TACT2 Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: In 2013, the Trial to Assess Chelation Therapy (TACT) reported that edetate disodium (EDTA)-based chelation significantly reduced cardiovascular disease (CVD) events by 18% in 1708 patients with a prior myocardial infarction (MI). Objective: To replicate the finding of TACT in individuals with diabetes and previous MI. Design, Setting, and Participants: A 2 × 2 factorial, double-masked, placebo-controlled, multicenter trial at 88 sites in the US and Canada, involving participants who were 50 years or older, had diabetes, and had experienced an MI at least 6 weeks before recruitment compared the effect of EDTA-based chelation vs placebo infusions on CVD events and compared the effect of high doses of oral multivitamins and minerals with oral placebo. This article reports on the chelation vs placebo infusion comparisons. Interventions: Eligible participants were randomly assigned to 40 weekly infusions of an EDTA-based chelation solution or matching placebo and to twice daily oral, high-dose multivitamin and mineral supplements or matching placebo for 60 months. This article addresses the chelation study. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was the composite of all-cause mortality, MI, stroke, coronary revascularization, or hospitalization for unstable angina. Median follow-up was 48 months. Primary comparisons were made from patients who received at least 1 assigned infusion. Results: Of the 959 participants (median age, 67 years [IQR, 60-72 years]; 27% females; 78% White, 10% Black, and 20% Hispanic), 483 received at least 1 chelation infusion and 476 at least 1 placebo infusion. A primary end point event occurred in 172 participants (35.6%) in the chelation group and in 170 (35.7%) in the placebo group (adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 0.93; 95% CI, 0.76-1.16; P = .53). The 5-year primary event cumulative incidence rates were 45.8% for the chelation group and 46.5% for the placebo group. CV death, MI, or stroke events occurred in 89 participants (18.4%) in the chelation group and in 94 (19.7%) in the placebo group (adjusted HR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.66-1.19). Death from any cause occurred in 84 participants (17.4%) in the chelation group and in 84 (17.6%) in the placebo group (adjusted HR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.71-1.30). Chelation reduced median blood lead levels from 9.03 µg/L at baseline to 3.46 µg/L at infusion 40 (P < .001). Corresponding levels in the placebo group were 9.3 µg/L and 8.7 µg/L, respectively. Conclusions and Relevance: Despite effectively reducing blood lead levels, EDTA chelation was not effective in reducing cardiovascular events in stable patients with coronary artery disease who have diabetes and a history of MI. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02733185.

Predictors of heart failure readmission and all-cause mortality in patients with acute heart failure.

BACKGROUND: Predischarge risk stratification of patients with acute heart failure (AHF) could facilitate tailored treatment and follow-up, however, simple scores to predict short-term risk for HF readmission or death are lacking. METHODS: We sought to develop a congestion-focused risk score using data from a prospective, two-center observational study in adults hospitalized for AHF. Laboratory data were collected on admission. Patients underwent physical examination, 4-zone, and in a subset 8-zone, lung ultrasound (LUS), and echocardiography at baseline. A second LUS was performed before discharge in a subset of patients. The primary endpoint was the composite of HF hospitalization or all-cause death. RESULTS: Among 350 patients (median age 75 years, 43% women), 88 participants (25%) were hospitalized or died within 90 days after discharge. A stepwise Cox regression model selected four significant independent predictors of the composite outcome, and each was assigned points proportional to its regression coefficient: NT-proBNP ≥2000 pg/mL (admission) (3 points), systolic blood pressure < 120 mmHg (baseline) (2 points), left atrial volume index ≥60 mL/m2 (baseline) (1 point) and ≥ 9 B-lines on predischarge 4-zone LUS (3 points). This risk score provided adequate risk discrimination for the composite outcome (HR 1.48 per 1 point increase, 95% confidence interval: 1.32-1.67, p < 0.001, C-statistic: 0.70). In a subset of patients with 8-zone LUS data (n = 176), results were similar (C-statistic: 0.72). CONCLUSIONS: A four-variable risk score integrating clinical, laboratory and ultrasound data may provide a simple approach for risk discrimination for 90-day adverse outcomes in patients with AHF if validated in future investigations.

Rates of Sudden Death After Myocardial Infarction-Insights From the VALIANT and PARADISE-MI Trials.

Importance: Sudden death is a leading cause of death after acute myocardial infarction (AMI). The Prospective ARNi vs ACE Inhibitor Trial to Determine Superiority in Reducing Heart Failure Events After MI (PARADISE-MI) and Valsartan in Acute Myocardial Infarction (VALIANT) trials enrolled patients with pulmonary congestion and/or left ventricular dysfunction after AMI. Whether the prognosis in such patients has changed over time has not been examined. Objective: To compare the rate of sudden death/resuscitated cardiac arrest (RCA) after AMI in the PARADISE-MI and VALIANT trials. Design, Setting, and Participants: This was a secondary analysis of multicenter randomized clinical trials enrolling patients after AMI. In the primary analysis, the VALIANT cohort was restricted to patients with "PARADISE-MI-like" characteristics (eg, at least 1 augmenting risk factor and no history of heart failure). The baseline characteristics of people in both trials were compared. The VALIANT trial enrolled from December 1998 to June 2001, and the PARADISE-MI trial enrolled between December 2016, and March 2020. The median follow-up in the VALIANT and PARADISE-MI trials was 24.7 and 22 months, respectively. People with AMI, complicated by pulmonary congestion and/or left ventricular dysfunction, were included in the analysis. Exposure: Sudden death after AMI. Results: A total of 5661 patients were included in the PARADISE-MI cohort (mean [SD] age, 63.7 [11.5] years; 4298 male [75.9%]), 9617 were included in the VALIANT (PARADISE-MI-like) cohort (mean [SD] age, 66.1 [11.5] years; 6504 male [67.6%]), and 14 703 patients were included in the VALIANT (total) cohort (mean [SD] age, 64.8 [11.8] years; 10 133 male [68.9%]). In the PARADISE-MI-like cohort of the VALIANT trial, 707 of 9617 participants (7.4%) experienced sudden death/RCA. A total of 148 of 5661 people (2.6%) in the PARADISE-MI trial experienced sudden death/RCA. Sudden death rates were highest in the first month after infarction in both trials: 19.3 (95% CI, 16.4-22.6) per 100 person-years in the VALIANT trial and 9.5 (95% CI, 7.0-12.7) per 100 person-years in the PARADISE-MI trial, and these rates declined steadily thereafter. Compared with the VALIANT cohort, people in the PARADISE-MI trial were more often treated with percutaneous coronary intervention for their qualifying AMI and received a ß-blocker, statin, and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist more frequently. Conclusions and Relevance: After AMI, the risk of sudden death/RCA was highest in the first month, declining rapidly thereafter. Results revealed that compared with counterparts from 20 years ago, the rate of sudden death/RCA in patients with a reduced left ventricular ejection fraction and/or pulmonary congestion was 2- to 3-fold lower in people receiving contemporary management. Interventions to further protect people in the highest risk first month after infarction are needed. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02924727.

Acute changes in kidney function and outcomes following an acute myocardial infarction: Insights from PARADISE-MI.

AIMS: Pharmacologic blockade of neurohormonal pathways in patients with acute myocardial infarction (MI) can result in acute changes in biomarkers of kidney function. We evaluated the effect of sacubitril/valsartan versus ramipril on initial changes in serum creatinine and the association of these changes with longer-term outcomes among participants in PARADISE-MI. METHODS AND RESULTS: In this randomized, double-blind, active-controlled, event-driven trial, 5661 patients with an acute MI were assigned to receive sacubitril/valsartan or ramipril, with no run-in. The frequency of an initial pre-specified increase in serum creatinine (≥26.5 or ≥44 µmol/L) from baseline to week 1 was compared between arms. Multivariable Cox regression models were fit to examine the association of acute changes in serum creatinine with the primary cardiovascular composite outcome (cardiovascular death, first heart failure hospitalization, or outpatient heart failure), all-cause mortality, and longer-term changes in estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR). An initial increase in serum creatinine ≥26.5 µmol/L occurred in 155 of 2604 (6.0%) patients assigned to sacubitril/valsartan and 120 of 2603 (4.6%) patients assigned to ramipril (odds ratio [OR] 1.32; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.03-1.68). The corresponding numbers for an increase ≥44 µmol/L were 57 (2.2%) and 42 (1.6%), respectively (OR 1.37; 95% CI 0.92-2.05). A higher odds of increased serum creatinine ≥26.5 and ≥44 µmol/L for sacubitril/valsartan versus ramipril appeared to be restricted to patients who had a greater decline in systolic blood pressure over the same period (p-interaction = 0.05 and 0.001, respectively). In multivariable analyses, neither an acute increase in serum creatinine ≥26.5 or ≥44 µmol/L was associated with a higher risk of cardiovascular outcomes, all-cause mortality, or differences in longer-term eGFR slope. Findings were similar across the randomized treatment arms (p-interaction >0.6 for all). CONCLUSIONS: Following acute MI, patients assigned to sacubitril/valsartan had a higher frequency of initial increases in serum creatinine at 1 week, compared with ramipril. In adjusted models, initial increases in serum creatinine with either treatment were not associated with adverse cardiovascular outcomes or changes in longer-term kidney function.

Angiotensin Receptor-Neprilysin Inhibition in Patients With STEMI vs NSTEMI.

BACKGROUND: Patients who sustain an acute myocardial infarction (AMI), including ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI), remain at high risk for heart failure (HF), coronary events, and death. Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors have been shown to significantly decrease the risk for cardiovascular events in both STEMI and NSTEMI patients. OBJECTIVES: The objectives were to determine whether angiotensin-receptor blockade and neprilysin inhibition with sacubitril/valsartan, compared with ramipril, has impact on reducing cardiovascular events according to the type of AMI. METHODS: The PARADISE-MI (Prospective ARNI versus ACE inhibitor trial to DetermIne Superiority in reducing heart failure Events after Myocardial Infarction) trial enrolled patients with AMI complicated by left ventricular dysfunction and/or pulmonary congestion and at least 1 risk-enhancing factor. Patients were randomized to either sacubitril/valsartan or ramipril. The primary endpoint was death from cardiovascular causes or incident HF. In this prespecified analysis, we stratified patients according to AMI type. RESULTS: Of 5,661 enrolled patients, 4,291 (75.8%) had STEMI. These patients were younger and had fewer comorbidities and cardiovascular risk factors than NSTEMI patients. After adjustment for potential confounders, the risk for the primary outcome was marginally higher in NSTEMI vs STEMI patients (adjusted HR: 1.19; 95% CI: 1.00-1.41), with borderline statistical significance (P = 0.05). The primary composite outcome occurred at similar rates in patients randomized to sacubitril/valsartan vs ramipril in STEMI (10% vs 12%; HR: 0.87; 95% CI: 0.73-1.04; P = 0.13) and NSTEMI patients (17% vs 17%; HR: 0.97; 95% CI: 0.75-1.25; P = 0.80; P interaction = 0.53). CONCLUSIONS: Compared with ramipril, sacubitril/valsartan did not significantly decrease the risk for cardiovascular death and HF in patients with AMI complicated by left ventricular dysfunction, irrespective of the type of AMI. (Prospective ARNI vs ACE Inhibitor Trial to Determine Superiority in Reducing Heart Failure Events After MI; NCT02924727).

American Heart Association Cardiogenic Shock Registry: Design and Implementation.

BACKGROUND: Cardiogenic shock is a morbid complication of heart disease that claims the lives of more than 1 in 3 patients presenting with this syndrome. Supporting a unique collaboration across clinical specialties, federal regulators, payors, and industry, the American Heart Association volunteers and staff have launched a quality improvement registry to better understand the clinical manifestations of shock phenotypes, and to benchmark the management patterns, and outcomes of patients presenting with cardiogenic shock to hospitals across the United States. METHODS: Participating hospitals will enroll consecutive hospitalized patients with cardiogenic shock, regardless of etiology or severity. Data are collected through individual reviews of medical records of sequential adult patients with cardiogenic shock. The electronic case record form was collaboratively designed with a core minimum data structure and aligned with Shock Academic Research Consortium definitions. This registry will allow participating health systems to evaluate patient-level data including diagnostic approaches, therapeutics, use of advanced monitoring and circulatory support, processes of care, complications, and in-hospital survival. Participating sites can leverage these data for onsite monitoring of outcomes and benchmarking versus other institutions. The registry was concomitantly designed to provide a high-quality longitudinal research infrastructure for pragmatic randomized trials as well as translational, clinical, and implementation research. An aggregate deidentified data set will be made available to the research community on the American Heart Association's Precision Medicine Platform. On March 31, 2022, the American Heart Association Cardiogenic Shock Registry received its first clinical records. At the time of this submission, 100 centers are participating. CONCLUSIONS: The American Heart Association Cardiogenic Shock Registry will serve as a resource using consistent data structure and definitions for the medical and research community to accelerate scientific advancement through shared learning and research resulting in improved quality of care and outcomes of shock patients.

Opportunities to Increase Science of Diversity and Inclusion in Clinical Trials: Equity and a Lack of a Control.

The United States witnessed a nearly 4-fold increase in personal health care expenditures between 1980 and 2010. Despite innovations and obvious benefits to health, participants enrolled in clinical trials still do not accurately represent the racial and ethnic composition of patients nationally or globally. This lack of diversity in cohorts limits the generalizability and significance of results among all populations and has deep repercussions for patient equity. To advance diversity in clinical trials, robust evidence for the most effective strategies for recruitment of diverse participants is needed. A major limitation of previous literature on clinical trial diversity is the lack of control or comparator groups for different strategies. To date, interventions have focused primarily on (1) community-based interventions, (2) institutional practices, and (3) digital health systems. This review article outlines prior intervention strategies across these 3 categories and considers health policy and ethical incentives for substantiation before US Food and Drug Administration approval. There are no current studies that comprehensively compare these interventions against one another. The American Heart Association Strategically Focused Research Network on the Science of Diversity in Clinical Trials represents a multicenter, collaborative network between Stanford School of Medicine and Morehouse School of Medicine created to understand the barriers to diversity in clinical trials by contemporaneous head-to-head interventional strategies accessing digital, institutional, and community-based recruitment strategies to produce informed recruitment strategies targeted to improve underrepresented patient representation in clinical trials.