Heart Failure Drug Development Over the Eras: From the Heart Failure Collaboratory.

Over the past decade, the field of heart failure (HF) has witnessed remarkable progress in drug development, resulting in the approval of numerous groundbreaking drugs by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. To address some of these challenges, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has issued guidance documents that have been critical in contemporary HF drug development; however, there are still many challenges in need of investigation. This article leverages efforts of the Heart Failure Collaboratory and the scientific community to discuss the critical need for innovative trial designs, important concepts in clinical trials in the modern era, and the utilization of big data to accelerate HF drug development. At this inflection point in HF drug development, it is imperative that, as a global scientific community, we foster increased collaboration among researchers, clinicians, patients, and regulatory bodies. Only through such unified efforts can we navigate the complexities of HF, accelerate the development process, and ultimately deliver effective therapies that transform patient outcomes.

Low Natriuretic Peptide Levels and Outcomes in Patients With Heart Failure and Preserved Ejection Fraction.

BACKGROUND: Although some patients with heart failure (HF) with mildly reduced/preserved ejection fraction have low natriuretic peptide levels, there are no large-scale systematic studies of how common these individuals are or what happens to them. OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to examine the proportion of patients in the I-PRESERVE (Irbesartan in Heart Failure with Preserved Ejection Fraction) trial with an N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) level <125 pg/mL, their clinical characteristics, and outcomes. METHODS: I- PRESERVE enrolled patients with symptomatic HF and a LVEF ≥45% but who did not have NT-proBNP or body mass index inclusion/exclusion criteria. Baseline NT-proBNP was measured after enrollment but not reported to investigators. The primary outcome in this analysis was the composite of cardiovascular death or HF hospitalization. RESULTS: Overall, 808 of 3,480 patients (23.2%) had NT-proBNP <125 pg/mL. Patients with a low NT-proBNP were younger (68.6 years vs 72.6 years; P < 0.001), were less often men (36.1% vs 40.9%; P = 0.015), and had a higher body mass index (48.4% vs 38.7% obese; P < 0.001) than those with a higher NT-proBNP level. Patients with a low NT-proBNP had less atrial fibrillation (8.5% vs 35.1%; P < 0.001), myocardial infarction, diabetes, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and anemia but better kidney function. Patients with a lower NT-proBNP level had less marked echocardiographic abnormalities and were less likely to experience cardiovascular death or HF hospitalization; adjusted HR: 0.35 (95% CI: 0.27-0.46; P < 0.001). However, health status was similarly impaired in patients with lower and higher NT-proBNP levels (median Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire 43 vs 43; P = 0.95). CONCLUSIONS: Almost one-quarter of patients with HF with mildly reduced/preserved ejection fraction had a low NT-proBNP level. Although these patients have a favorable prognosis, compared to those with a high NT-proBNP level, they have similarly impaired health status which should be a target for treatment. (Irbesartan in Heart Failure With Preserved Systolic Function [I- PRESERVE]; NCT00095238).

Left Ventricular Ejection Fraction and the Future of Heart Failure Phenotyping.

Heart failure (HF) is a complex syndrome traditionally classified by left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) cutpoints. Although LVEF is prognostic for risk of events and predictive of response to some HF therapies, LVEF is a continuous variable and cutpoints are arbitrary, often based on historical clinical trial enrichment decisions rather than physiology. Holistic evaluation of the treatment effects for therapies throughout the LVEF range suggests the standard categorization paradigm for HF merits modification. The multidisciplinary Heart Failure Collaboratory reviewed data from large-scale HF clinical trials and found that many HF therapies have demonstrated therapeutic benefit across a large range of LVEF, but specific treatment effects vary across that range. Therefore, HF should practically be classified by association with an LVEF that is reduced or not reduced, while acknowledging uncertainty around the precise LVEF cutpoint, and future research should evaluate new therapies across the continuum of LVEF.

Land application of industrial wastes: impacts on soil quality, biota, and human health.

Globally, waste disposal options such as landfill, incineration, and discharge to water, are not preferred long-term solutions due to their social, environmental, political, and economic implications. However, there is potential for increasing the sustainability of industrial processes by considering land application of industrial wastes. Applying waste to land can have beneficial outcomes including reducing waste sent to landfill and providing alternative nutrient sources for agriculture and other primary production. However, there are also potential hazards, including environmental contamination. This article reviewed the literature on industrial waste applications to soils and assessed the associated hazards and benefits. The review investigated wastes in relation to soil characteristics, dynamics between soils and waste constituents, and possible impacts on plants, animals, and humans. The current body of literature demonstrates the potential for the application of industrial waste into agricultural soils. The main challenge for applying industrial wastes to land is the presence of contaminants in some wastes and managing these to enhance positive effects and reduce negative outcomes to within acceptable limits. Examination of the literature also revealed several gaps in the research and opportunities for further investigation: specifically, a lack of long-term experiments and mass balance assessments, variable waste composition, and negative public opinion.

Comparison of Investigator-Reported and Centrally Adjudicated Heart Failure Outcomes in the EMPEROR-Reduced Trial.

BACKGROUND: There is limited published information on outcome adjudication in heart failure (HF). OBJECTIVES: The authors sought to compare investigator reports (IRs) to a Clinical Events Committee (CEC) and the impact of SCTI (Standardized Clinical Trial Initiative) criteria. METHODS: In the EMPEROR-Reduced trial, the authors compared IRs to the CEC for concordance; treatment effect on primary composite outcome events; and the components first event hospitalization primarily for HF or cardiovascular mortality (CVM), prognosis after hospitalization for heart failure (HHF), total HHFs, and trial duration with and without SCTI criteria. RESULTS: The CEC confirmed 76.3% of IR events for the primary outcome (CVM: 89.1%; HHF: 73.7%). The HR for treatment effect did not differ between adjudication methods for the primary outcome (IR: 0.75 [95% CI: 0.66-0.85]; CEC: 0.75 [95% CI: 0.65-0.86]), its components, or total HHFs. The prognosis after first HHF for all-cause mortality and CVM also did not differ between IR or CEC. Interestingly, IR primary HHF with different CEC primary cause had the highest subsequent fatal event rate. Full SCTI criteria were present in 90% of CEC HHFs-with a similar treatment effect to non-SCTI. The IR primary event reached the protocol target number (841) 3 months earlier than CEC (4 months with full SCTI criteria). CONCLUSIONS: Investigator adjudication is an alternative to a CEC with similar accuracy and faster event accumulation. The use of granular (SCTI) criteria did not improve trial performance. Finally, our data suggest that consideration be given to broadening the HHF definition to include "for or with" worsening disease. (Empagliflozin Outcome Trial in Patients With Chronic Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction [EMPEROR-Reduced]; NCT03057977).

Empagliflozin in Heart Failure with a Preserved Ejection Fraction.

BACKGROUND: Sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors reduce the risk of hospitalization for heart failure in patients with heart failure and a reduced ejection fraction, but their effects in patients with heart failure and a preserved ejection fraction are uncertain. METHODS: In this double-blind trial, we randomly assigned 5988 patients with class II-IV heart failure and an ejection fraction of more than 40% to receive empagliflozin (10 mg once daily) or placebo, in addition to usual therapy. The primary outcome was a composite of cardiovascular death or hospitalization for heart failure. RESULTS: Over a median of 26.2 months, a primary outcome event occurred in 415 of 2997 patients (13.8%) in the empagliflozin group and in 511 of 2991 patients (17.1%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.79; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.69 to 0.90; P<0.001). This effect was mainly related to a lower risk of hospitalization for heart failure in the empagliflozin group. The effects of empagliflozin appeared consistent in patients with or without diabetes. The total number of hospitalizations for heart failure was lower in the empagliflozin group than in the placebo group (407 with empagliflozin and 541 with placebo; hazard ratio, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.61 to 0.88; P<0.001). Uncomplicated genital and urinary tract infections and hypotension were reported more frequently with empagliflozin. CONCLUSIONS: Empagliflozin reduced the combined risk of cardiovascular death or hospitalization for heart failure in patients with heart failure and a preserved ejection fraction, regardless of the presence or absence of diabetes. (Funded by Boehringer Ingelheim and Eli Lilly; EMPEROR-Preserved ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03057951).

Effect of Empagliflozin on Worsening Heart Failure Events in Patients With Heart Failure and Preserved Ejection Fraction: EMPEROR-Preserved Trial.

BACKGROUND: Empagliflozin reduces the risk of cardiovascular death or hospitalization for heart failure in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction, but additional data are needed about its effect on inpatient and outpatient heart failure events. METHODS: We randomly assigned 5988 patients with class II through IV heart failure with an ejection fraction of >40% to double-blind treatment with placebo or empagliflozin (10 mg once daily), in addition to usual therapy, for a median of 26 months. We prospectively collected information on inpatient and outpatient events reflecting worsening heart failure and prespecified their analysis in individual and composite end points. RESULTS: Empagliflozin reduced the combined risk of cardiovascular death, hospitalization for heart failure, or an emergency or urgent heart failure visit requiring intravenous treatment (432 versus 546 patients [empagliflozin versus placebo, respectively]; hazard ratio, 0.77 [95% CI, 0.67-0.87]; P<0.0001). This benefit reached statistical significance at 18 days after randomization. Empagliflozin reduced the total number of heart failure hospitalizations that required intensive care (hazard ratio, 0.71 [95% CI, 0.52-0.96]; P=0.028) and the total number of all hospitalizations that required a vasopressor or positive inotropic drug (hazard ratio, 0.73 [95% CI, 0.55-0.97]; P=0.033). Compared with patients in the placebo group, fewer patients in the empagliflozin group reported outpatient intensification of diuretics (482 versus 610; hazard ratio, 0.76 [95% CI, 0.67-0.86]; P<0.0001), and patients assigned to empagliflozin were 20% to 50% more likely to have a better New York Heart Association functional class, with significant effects at 12 weeks that were maintained for at least 2 years. The benefit on total heart failure hospitalizations was similar in patients with an ejection fraction of >40% to <50% and 50% to <60%, but was attenuated at higher ejection fractions. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction, empagliflozin produced a meaningful, early, and sustained reduction in the risk and severity of a broad range of inpatient and outpatient worsening heart failure events. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT03057977.

Effect of Empagliflozin on the Clinical Stability of Patients With Heart Failure and a Reduced Ejection Fraction: The EMPEROR-Reduced Trial.

BACKGROUND: Empagliflozin reduces the risk of cardiovascular death or hospitalization for heart failure in patients with heart failure and a reduced ejection fraction, with or without diabetes, but additional data are needed about the effect of the drug on inpatient and outpatient events that reflect worsening heart failure. METHODS: We randomly assigned 3730 patients with class II to IV heart failure with an ejection fraction of ≤40% to double-blind treatment with placebo or empagliflozin (10 mg once daily), in addition to recommended treatments for heart failure, for a median of 16 months. We prospectively collected information on inpatient and outpatient events reflecting worsening heart failure and prespecified their analysis in individual and composite end points. RESULTS: Empagliflozin reduced the combined risk of death, hospitalization for heart failure or an emergent/urgent heart failure visit requiring intravenous treatment (415 versus 519 patients; empagliflozin versus placebo, respectively; hazard ratio [HR], 0.76; 95% CI, 0.67-0.87; P<0.0001). This benefit reached statistical significance at 12 days after randomization. Empagliflozin reduced the total number of heart failure hospitalizations that required intensive care (HR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.50-0.90; P=0.008) and that required a vasopressor or positive inotropic drug or mechanical or surgical intervention (HR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.47-0.87; P=0.005). As compared with placebo, fewer patients in the empagliflozin group reported intensification of diuretics (297 versus 414 [HR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.56-0.78; P<0.0001]). Additionally, patients assigned to empagliflozin were 20% to 40% more likely to experience an improvement in New York Heart Association functional class and were 20% to 40% less likely to experience worsening of New York Heart Association functional class, with statistically significant effects that were apparent 28 days after randomization and maintained during long-term follow-up. The risk of any inpatient or outpatient worsening heart failure event in the placebo group was high (48.1 per 100 patient-years of follow-up), and it was reduced by empagliflozin (HR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.63-0.78; P<0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with heart failure and a reduced ejection fraction, empagliflozin reduced the risk and total number of inpatient and outpatient worsening heart failure events, with benefits seen early after initiation of treatment and sustained for the duration of double-blind therapy. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT03057977.

Developing and validating models to predict sudden death and pump failure death in patients with heart failure and preserved ejection fraction.

BACKGROUND: Sudden death (SD) and pump failure death (PFD) are leading modes of death in heart failure and preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). Risk stratification for mode-specific death may aid in patient enrichment for new device trials in HFpEF. METHODS: Models were derived in 4116 patients in the Irbesartan in Heart Failure with Preserved Ejection Fraction trial (I-Preserve), using competing risks regression analysis. A series of models were built in a stepwise manner, and were validated in the Candesartan in Heart failure: Assessment of Reduction in Mortality and morbidity (CHARM)-Preserved and Treatment of Preserved Cardiac Function Heart Failure with an Aldosterone Antagonist (TOPCAT) trials. RESULTS: The clinical model for SD included older age, men, lower LVEF, higher heart rate, history of diabetes or myocardial infarction, and HF hospitalization within previous 6 months, all of which were associated with a higher SD risk. The clinical model predicting PFD included older age, men, lower LVEF or diastolic blood pressure, higher heart rate, and history of diabetes or atrial fibrillation, all for a higher PFD risk, and dyslipidaemia for a lower risk of PFD. In each model, the observed and predicted incidences were similar in each risk subgroup, suggesting good calibration. Model discrimination was good for SD and excellent for PFD with Harrell's C of 0.71 (95% CI 0.68-0.75) and 0.78 (95% CI 0.75-0.82), respectively. Both models were robust in external validation. Adding ECG and biochemical parameters, model performance improved little in the derivation cohort but decreased in validation. Including NT-proBNP substantially increased discrimination of the SD model, and simplified the PFD model with marginal increase in discrimination. CONCLUSIONS: The clinical models can predict risks for SD and PFD separately with good discrimination and calibration in HFpEF and are robust in external validation. Adding NT-proBNP further improved model performance. These models may help to identify high-risk individuals for device intervention in future trials. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: I-Preserve: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00095238; TOPCAT: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00094302; CHARM-Preserved: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00634712.

Treatment of HF in an Era of Multiple Therapies: Statement From the HF Collaboratory.

The treatment of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) has changed considerably over time, particularly with the sequential development of therapies aimed at antagonism of maladaptive biologic pathways, including inhibition of the sympathetic nervous system and the renin-angiotensin aldosterone system. The sequential nature of earlier HFrEF trials allowed the integration of new therapies tested against the background therapy of the time. More recently, multiple heart failure therapies are being evaluated simultaneously, and the number of therapeutic choices for treating HFrEF has grown considerably. In addition, implementation science has lagged behind discovery science in heart failure. Furthermore, given there are currently >200 ongoing clinical trials in heart failure, further complexities are anticipated. In an effort to provide a decision-making framework in the current era of expanding therapeutic options in HFrEF, the Heart Failure Collaboratory convened a multi-stakeholder group, including patients, clinicians, clinical investigators, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, industry, and payers who met at the U.S. Food and Drug Administration campus on March 6, 2020. This paper summarizes the discussions and expert consensus recommendations.

Conduct of Clinical Trials in the Era of COVID-19: JACC Scientific Expert Panel.

The coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has profoundly changed clinical care and research, including the conduct of clinical trials, and the clinical research ecosystem will need to adapt to this transformed environment. The Heart Failure Academic Research Consortium is a partnership between the Heart Failure Collaboratory and the Academic Research Consortium, composed of academic investigators from the United States and Europe, patients, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, the National Institutes of Health, and industry members. A series of meetings were convened to address the challenges caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, review options for maintaining or altering best practices, and establish key recommendations for the conduct and analysis of clinical trials for cardiovascular disease and heart failure. This paper summarizes the discussions and expert consensus recommendations.

Cause of Death in Patients With Acute Heart Failure: Insights From RELAX-AHF-2.

OBJECTIVES: This study sought to better understand the discrepant results of 2 trials of serelaxin on acute heart failure (AHF) and short-term mortality after AHF by analyzing causes of death of patients in the RELAX-AHF-2 (Efficacy, Safety and Tolerability of Serelaxin When Added to Standard Therapy in AHF-2) trial. BACKGROUND: Patients with AHF continue to suffer significant short-term mortality, but limited systematic analyses of causes of death in this patient population are available. METHODS: Adjudicated cause of death of patients in RELAX-AHF-2, a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of serelaxin in patients with AHF across the spectrum of ejection fraction (EF), was analyzed. RESULTS: By 180 days of follow-up, 11.5% of patients in RELAX-AHF-2 died, primarily due to heart failure (HF) (38% of all deaths). Unlike RELAX-AHF, there was no apparent effect of treatment with serelaxin on any category of cause of death. Older patients (≥75 years) had higher rates of mortality (14.2% vs. 8.8%) and noncardiovascular (CV) death (27% vs. 19%) compared to younger patients. Patients with preserved EF (≥50%) had lower rates of HF-related mortality (30% vs. 40%) but higher non-CV mortality (36% vs. 20%) compared to patients with reduced EF. CONCLUSIONS: Despite previous data suggesting benefit of serelaxin in AHF, treatment with serelaxin was not found to improve overall mortality or have an effect on any category of cause of death in RELAX-AHF-2. Careful adjudication of events in the serelaxin trials showed that older patients and those with preserved EF had fewer deaths from HF or sudden death and more deaths from other CV causes and from noncardiac causes. (Efficacy, Safety and Tolerability of Serelaxin When Added to Standard Therapy in AHF [RELAX-AHF-2]; NCT01870778).

Standardized Definitions for Evaluation of Heart Failure Therapies: Scientific Expert Panel From the Heart Failure Collaboratory and Academic Research Consortium.

The Heart Failure Academic Research Consortium is a partnership between the Heart Failure Collaboratory (HFC) and Academic Research Consortium (ARC), comprised of leading heart failure (HF) academic research investigators, patients, United States (US) Food and Drug Administration representatives, and industry members from the US and Europe. A series of meetings were convened to establish definitions and key concepts for the evaluation of HF therapies including optimal medical and device background therapy, clinical trial design elements and statistical concepts, and study endpoints. This manuscript summarizes the expert panel discussions as consensus recommendations focused on populations and endpoint definitions; it is not exhaustive or restrictive, but designed to stimulate HF clinical trial innovation.

Standardized definitions for evaluation of heart failure therapies: scientific expert panel from the Heart Failure Collaboratory and Academic Research Consortium.

The Heart Failure Academic Research Consortium is a partnership between the Heart Failure Collaboratory (HFC) and Academic Research Consortium (ARC), comprised of leading heart failure (HF) academic research investigators, patients, United States (US) Food and Drug Administration representatives, and industry members from the US and Europe. A series of meetings were convened to establish definitions and key concepts for the evaluation of HF therapies including optimal medical and device background therapy, clinical trial design elements and statistical concepts, and study endpoints. This manuscript summarizes the expert panel discussions as consensus recommendations focused on populations and endpoint definitions; it is not exhaustive or restrictive, but designed to stimulate HF clinical trial innovation.

Cardiovascular and Renal Outcomes with Empagliflozin in Heart Failure.

BACKGROUND: Sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors reduce the risk of hospitalization for heart failure in patients regardless of the presence or absence of diabetes. More evidence is needed regarding the effects of these drugs in patients across the broad spectrum of heart failure, including those with a markedly reduced ejection fraction. METHODS: In this double-blind trial, we randomly assigned 3730 patients with class II, III, or IV heart failure and an ejection fraction of 40% or less to receive empagliflozin (10 mg once daily) or placebo, in addition to recommended therapy. The primary outcome was a composite of cardiovascular death or hospitalization for worsening heart failure. RESULTS: During a median of 16 months, a primary outcome event occurred in 361 of 1863 patients (19.4%) in the empagliflozin group and in 462 of 1867 patients (24.7%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio for cardiovascular death or hospitalization for heart failure, 0.75; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.65 to 0.86; P<0.001). The effect of empagliflozin on the primary outcome was consistent in patients regardless of the presence or absence of diabetes. The total number of hospitalizations for heart failure was lower in the empagliflozin group than in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.58 to 0.85; P<0.001). The annual rate of decline in the estimated glomerular filtration rate was slower in the empagliflozin group than in the placebo group (-0.55 vs. -2.28 ml per minute per 1.73 m2 of body-surface area per year, P<0.001), and empagliflozin-treated patients had a lower risk of serious renal outcomes. Uncomplicated genital tract infection was reported more frequently with empagliflozin. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients receiving recommended therapy for heart failure, those in the empagliflozin group had a lower risk of cardiovascular death or hospitalization for heart failure than those in the placebo group, regardless of the presence or absence of diabetes. (Funded by Boehringer Ingelheim and Eli Lilly; EMPEROR-Reduced ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03057977.).

Myocardial Infarction in Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction: Pooled Analysis of 3 Clinical Trials.

OBJECTIVES: The authors investigated the relationship between past or incident myocardial infarction (MI) and cardiovascular (CV) events in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). BACKGROUND: MI and HFpEF share some common risk factors. The prognostic significance of MI in patients with HFpEF is uncertain. METHODS: The authors pooled data from 3 trials-CHARM Preserved (Candesartan Cilexietil in Heart Failure Assessment of Reduction in Mortality and Morbidity), I-Preserve (Irbesartan in Heart Failure With Preserved Systolic Function), and the Americas region of TOPCAT (Treatment of Preserved Cardiac Function Heart Failure With an Aldosterone Antagonist) (N = 8,916)-and examined whether MI before or following enrollment independently predicted CV death and heart failure (HF) hospitalization. RESULTS: At baseline, 2,668 patients (30%) had history of MI. Prior MI was independently associated with greater risk of CV death (4.7 vs. 3.5 events/100 patient-years [py], adjusted hazard ratio [HR]: 1.42 [95% confidence interval (CI): 1.23 to 1.64]; p < 0.001). Excess sudden death drove this difference (1.9 vs. 1.2 events/100 py, adjusted HR: 1.55 [95% CI: 1.23 to 1.97]; p < 0.001). There was no difference in HF hospitalization (5.9 vs. 5.5 events/100 py, adjusted HR: 1.05, 95% CI: 0.92 to 1.19) or HF death by prior MI. During follow-up, MI occurred in 336 patients (3.8%). Risk of CV death increased 31-fold in the first 30 days after first post-enrollment MI, and remained 58% higher beyond 1 year after MI. Risk of first or recurrent HF hospitalization increased 2.4-fold after MI. CONCLUSIONS: Prior MI in HFpEF is associated with greater CV and sudden death but similar risk of HF outcomes. Patients with HFpEF who experience MI are at high risk of subsequent CV death and HF hospitalization. These data highlight the importance of primary and secondary prevention of MI in patients with HFpEF. (Candesartan Cilexietil in Heart Failure Assessment of Reduction in Mortality and Morbidity [CHARM Preserved]; NCT00634712; Irbesartan in Heart Failure With Preserved Systolic Function [I-Preserve]; NCT00095238; and Treatment of Preserved Cardiac Function Heart Failure With an Aldosterone Antagonist [TOPCAT]; NCT00094302).

Safety, Performance, and Efficacy of Cardiac Contractility Modulation Delivered by the 2-Lead Optimizer Smart System: The FIX-HF-5C2 Study.

BACKGROUND: Prior studies of cardiac contractility modulation (CCM) employed a 3-lead Optimizer system. A new 2-lead system eliminated the need for an atrial lead. This study tested the safety and effectiveness of this 2-lead system compared with the 3-lead system. METHODS: Patients with New York Heart Association III/IVa symptoms despite medical therapy, left ventricular ejection fraction 25% to 45%, and not eligible for cardiac resynchronization therapy could participate. All subjects received an Optimizer 2-lead implant. The primary end point was the estimated difference in the change of peak VO2 from baseline to 24 weeks between FIX-HF-5C2 (2-lead system) subjects relative to control subjects from the prior FIX-HF-5C (3-lead system) study. Changes in New York Heart Association were a secondary end point. The primary safety end point was a comparison of device-related adverse events between FIX-HF-5C2 and FIX-HF-5C subjects. RESULTS: Sixty subjects, 88% male, 66±9 years old with left ventricular ejection fraction 34±6% were included. Baseline characteristics were similar between FIX-HF-5C and FIX-HF-5C2 subjects except that 15% of FIX-HF-5C2 subjects had permanent atrial fibrillation versus 0% in FIX-HF-5C. CCM delivery did not differ significantly between 2- and 3-lead systems (19 892±3472 versus 19 583±4998 CCM signals/day, CI of difference [-1228 to 1847]). The change of peak VO2 from baseline to 24 weeks was 1.72 (95% Bayesian credible interval, 1.02-2.42) mL/kg per minute greater in the 2-lead device group versus controls. 83.1% of 2-lead subjects compared with 42.7% of controls experienced ≥1 class New York Heart Association improvement (P<0.001). There were decreased Optimizer-related adverse events with the 2-lead system compared with the 3-lead system (0% versus 8%; P=0.03). CONCLUSIONS: The 2-lead system effectively delivers comparable amount of CCM signals (including in subjects with atrial fibrillation) as the 3-lead system, is equally safe and improves peak VO2 and New York Heart Association. Device-related adverse effects are less with the 2-lead system. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT03339310.

Covariate adjusted reanalysis of the I-Preserve trial.

BACKGROUND: The CHARM-Preserved trial suggested that the renin-angiotensin system (RAS) inhibitor candesartan might have been beneficial in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF); however, this hypothesis was not supported by the findings of I-Preserve with irbesartan. AIMS: To re-analyse the results of I-Preserve, adjusting for imbalances in baseline variables that may have influenced the trial outcomes. METHODS: Cox proportional hazards models with covariate adjustment for baseline variables, including age, sex, medical history, physiological and laboratory variables. RESULTS: In I-Preserve, 763 (37.0%) participants in the placebo group and 742 (35.9%) in the irbesartan group experienced the primary composite outcome (death from any cause or hospitalization for heart failure, myocardial infarction, unstable angina, arrhythmia, or stroke). The prespecified analysis of this outcome, stratifying for the use of ACEi at baseline, gave a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.95 (95% confidence interval, 0.86-1.05); p = 0.35. Adjusting the effect of treatment for key prognostic baseline variables, gave a HR of 0.89 (0.80-0.99); p = 0.033. Similar findings were observed for the composite of cardiovascular death or HF hospitalization. CONCLUSION: Adjusting for imbalances in baseline variables that influence outcomes (or the response to therapy or both) can improve the power around the estimate of the effect of treatment and may alter its statistical significance. Along with the CHARM-Preserved results, these findings suggest that angiotensin-receptor blockers may have a modest effect in HFpEF.

Heart Failure End Points in Cardiovascular Outcome Trials of Sodium Glucose Cotransporter 2 Inhibitors in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: A Critical Evaluation of Clinical and Regulatory Issues.

Following regulatory guidance set forth in 2008 by the US Food and Drug Administration for new drugs for type 2 diabetes mellitus, many large randomized, controlled trials have been conducted with the primary goal of assessing the safety of antihyperglycemic medications on the primary end point of major adverse cardiovascular events, defined as cardiovascular death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or nonfatal stroke. Heart failure (HF) was not specifically mentioned in the US Food and Drug Administration guidance and therefore it was not a focus of these studies when planned. Several trials subsequently showed the impact of antihyperglycemic drugs on HF outcomes, which were not originally specified as the primary end point of the trials. The most impressive finding has been the substantial and consistent risk reduction in HF hospitalization seen across 4 trials of sodium glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors. However, to date, these results have not led to regulatory approval of any of these drugs for a HF indication or a recommendation for use by US HF guidelines. It is therefore important to explore to what extent persuasive treatment effects on nonprimary end points can be used to support regulatory claims and guideline recommendations. This topic was discussed by researchers, clinicians, industry sponsors, regulators, and representatives from professional societies, who convened on the US Food and Drug Administration campus on March 6, 2019. This report summarizes these discussions and the key takeaway messages from this meeting.