Supervised Exercise Training for Chronic Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association and American College of Cardiology.

Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) is one of the most common forms of heart failure; its prevalence is increasing, and outcomes are worsening. Affected patients often experience severe exertional dyspnea and debilitating fatigue, as well as poor quality of life, frequent hospitalizations, and a high mortality rate. Until recently, most pharmacological intervention trials for HFpEF yielded neutral primary outcomes. In contrast, trials of exercise-based interventions have consistently demonstrated large, significant, clinically meaningful improvements in symptoms, objectively determined exercise capacity, and usually quality of life. This success may be attributed, at least in part, to the pleiotropic effects of exercise, which may favorably affect the full range of abnormalities-peripheral vascular, skeletal muscle, and cardiovascular-that contribute to exercise intolerance in HFpEF. Accordingly, this scientific statement critically examines the currently available literature on the effects of exercise-based therapies for chronic stable HFpEF, potential mechanisms for improvement of exercise capacity and symptoms, and how these data compare with exercise therapy for other cardiovascular conditions. Specifically, data reviewed herein demonstrate a comparable or larger magnitude of improvement in exercise capacity from supervised exercise training in patients with chronic HFpEF compared with those with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, although Medicare reimbursement is available only for the latter group. Finally, critical gaps in implementation of exercise-based therapies for patients with HFpEF, including exercise setting, training modalities, combinations with other strategies such as diet and medications, long-term adherence, incorporation of innovative and more accessible delivery methods, and management of recently hospitalized patients are highlighted to provide guidance for future research.

Effect of the P-Selectin Inhibitor Crizanlizumab on Survival Free of Organ Support in Patients Hospitalized for COVID-19: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 has been associated with endothelial injury, resultant microvascular inflammation and thrombosis. Activated endothelial cells release and express P-selectin and von Willebrand factor, both of which are elevated in severe COVID-19 and may be implicated in the disease pathophysiology. We hypothesized that crizanlizumab, a humanized monoclonal antibody to P-selectin, would reduce morbidity and death in patients hospitalized for COVID-19. METHODS: An international, adaptive, randomized controlled platform trial, funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, randomly assigned 422 patients hospitalized with COVID-19 with moderate or severe illness to receive either a single infusion of the P-selectin inhibitor crizanlizumab (at a dose of 5 mg/kg) plus standard of care or standard of care alone in an open-label 1:1 ratio. The primary outcome was organ support-free days, evaluated on an ordinal scale consisting of the number of days alive free of organ support through the first 21 days after trial entry. RESULTS: The study was stopped for futility by the data safety monitoring committee. Among 421 randomized patients with known 21-day outcomes, 163 patients (77%) randomized to the crizanlizumab plus standard-of-care arm did not require any respiratory or cardiovascular organ support compared with 169 (80%) in the standard-of-care-alone arm. The adjusted odds ratio for the effect of crizanlizumab on organ support-free days was 0.70 (95% CI, 0.43-1.16), where an odds ratio >1 indicates treatment benefit, yielding a posterior probability of futility (odds ratio <1.2) of 98% and a posterior probability of inferiority (odds ratio <1.0) of 91%. Overall, there were 37 deaths (17.5%) in the crizanlizumab arm and 27 deaths (12.8%) in the standard-of-care arm (hazard ratio, 1.33 [95% CrI, 0.85-2.21]; [probability of hazard ratio>1] = 0.879). CONCLUSIONS: Crizanlizumab, a P-selectin inhibitor, did not result in improvement in organ support-free days in patients hospitalized with COVID-19. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov; Unique identifier: NCT04505774.

Use of win time for ordered composite endpoints in clinical trials.

Consider the choice of outcome for overall treatment benefit in a clinical trial which measures the first time to each of several clinical events. We describe several new variants of the win ratio that incorporate the time spent in each clinical state over the common follow-up, where clinical state means the worst clinical event that has occurred by that time. One version allows restriction so that death during follow-up is most important, while time spent in other clinical states is still accounted for. Three other variants are described; one is based on the average pairwise win time, one creates a continuous outcome for each participant based on expected win times against a reference distribution and another that uses the estimated distributions of clinical state to compare the treatment arms. Finally, a combination testing approach is described to give robust power for detecting treatment benefit across a broad range of alternatives. These new methods are designed to be closer to the overall treatment benefit/harm from a patient's perspective, compared to the ordinary win ratio. The new methods are compared to the composite event approach and the ordinary win ratio. Simulations show that when overall treatment benefit on death is substantial, the variants based on either the participants' expected win times (EWTs) against a reference distribution or estimated clinical state distributions have substantially higher power than either the pairwise comparison or composite event methods. The methods are illustrated by re-analysis of the trial heart failure: a controlled trial investigating outcomes of exercise training.

Comparison of Bayesian and frequentist monitoring boundaries motivated by the Multiplatform Randomized Clinical Trial.

BACKGROUND: The coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic highlighted the need to conduct efficient randomized clinical trials with interim monitoring guidelines for efficacy and futility. Several randomized coronavirus disease 2019 trials, including the Multiplatform Randomized Clinical Trial (mpRCT), used Bayesian guidelines with the belief that they would lead to quicker efficacy or futility decisions than traditional "frequentist" guidelines, such as spending functions and conditional power. We explore this belief using an intuitive interpretation of Bayesian methods as translating prior opinion about the treatment effect into imaginary prior data. These imaginary observations are then combined with actual observations from the trial to make conclusions. Using this approach, we show that the Bayesian efficacy boundary used in mpRCT is actually quite similar to the frequentist Pocock boundary. METHODS: The mpRCT's efficacy monitoring guideline considered stopping if, given the observed data, there was greater than 99% probability that the treatment was effective (odds ratio greater than 1). The mpRCT's futility monitoring guideline considered stopping if, given the observed data, there was greater than 95% probability that the treatment was less than 20% effective (odds ratio less than 1.2). The mpRCT used a normal prior distribution that can be thought of as supplementing the actual patients' data with imaginary patients' data. We explore the effects of varying probability thresholds and the prior-to-actual patient ratio in the mpRCT and compare the resulting Bayesian efficacy monitoring guidelines to the well-known frequentist Pocock and O'Brien-Fleming efficacy guidelines. We also contrast Bayesian futility guidelines with a more traditional 20% conditional power futility guideline. RESULTS: A Bayesian efficacy and futility monitoring boundary using a neutral, weakly informative prior distribution and a fixed probability threshold at all interim analyses is more aggressive than the commonly used O'Brien-Fleming efficacy boundary coupled with a 20% conditional power threshold for futility. The trade-off is that more aggressive boundaries tend to stop trials earlier, but incur a loss of power. Interestingly, the Bayesian efficacy boundary with 99% probability threshold is very similar to the classic Pocock efficacy boundary. CONCLUSIONS: In a pandemic where quickly weeding out ineffective treatments and identifying effective treatments is paramount, aggressive monitoring may be preferred to conservative approaches, such as the O'Brien-Fleming boundary. This can be accomplished with either Bayesian or frequentist methods.

A comparison of computational algorithms for the Bayesian analysis of clinical trials.

BACKGROUND: Clinical trials are increasingly using Bayesian methods for their design and analysis. Inference in Bayesian trials typically uses simulation-based approaches such as Markov Chain Monte Carlo methods. Markov Chain Monte Carlo has high computational cost and can be complex to implement. The Integrated Nested Laplace Approximations algorithm provides approximate Bayesian inference without the need for computationally complex simulations, making it more efficient than Markov Chain Monte Carlo. The practical properties of Integrated Nested Laplace Approximations compared to Markov Chain Monte Carlo have not been considered for clinical trials. Using data from a published clinical trial, we aim to investigate whether Integrated Nested Laplace Approximations is a feasible and accurate alternative to Markov Chain Monte Carlo and provide practical guidance for trialists interested in Bayesian trial design. METHODS: Data from an international Bayesian multi-platform adaptive trial that compared therapeutic-dose anticoagulation with heparin to usual care in non-critically ill patients hospitalized for COVID-19 were used to fit Bayesian hierarchical generalized mixed models. Integrated Nested Laplace Approximations was compared to two Markov Chain Monte Carlo algorithms, implemented in the software JAGS and stan, using packages available in the statistical software R. Seven outcomes were analysed: organ-support free days (an ordinal outcome), five binary outcomes related to survival and length of hospital stay, and a time-to-event outcome. The posterior distributions for the treatment and sex effects and the variances for the hierarchical effects of age, site and time period were obtained. We summarized these posteriors by calculating the mean, standard deviations and the 95% equitailed credible intervals and presenting the results graphically. The computation time for each algorithm was recorded. RESULTS: The average overlap of the 95% credible interval for the treatment and sex effects estimated using Integrated Nested Laplace Approximations was 96% and 97.6% compared with stan, respectively. The graphical posterior densities for these effects overlapped for all three algorithms. The posterior mean for the variance of the hierarchical effects of age, site and time estimated using Integrated Nested Laplace Approximations are within the 95% credible interval estimated using Markov Chain Monte Carlo but the average overlap of the credible interval is lower, 77%, 85.6% and 91.3%, respectively, for Integrated Nested Laplace Approximations compared to stan. Integrated Nested Laplace Approximations and stan were easily implemented in clear, well-established packages in R, while JAGS required the direct specification of the model. Integrated Nested Laplace Approximations was between 85 and 269 times faster than stan and 26 and 1852 times faster than JAGS. CONCLUSION: Integrated Nested Laplace Approximations could reduce the computational complexity of Bayesian analysis in clinical trials as it is easy to implement in R, substantially faster than Markov Chain Monte Carlo methods implemented in JAGS and stan, and provides near identical approximations to the posterior distributions for the treatment effect. Integrated Nested Laplace Approximations was less accurate when estimating the posterior distribution for the variance of hierarchical effects, particularly for the proportional odds model, and future work should determine if the Integrated Nested Laplace Approximations algorithm can be adjusted to improve this estimation.

Effect of Thromboprophylaxis on Clinical Outcomes After COVID-19 Hospitalization.

BACKGROUND: Patients hospitalized with COVID-19 have an increased incidence of thromboembolism. The role of extended thromboprophylaxis after hospital discharge is unclear. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether anticoagulation is superior to placebo in reducing death and thromboembolic complications among patients discharged after COVID-19 hospitalization. DESIGN: Prospective, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04650087). SETTING: Done during 2021 to 2022 among 127 U.S. hospitals. PARTICIPANTS: Adults aged 18 years or older hospitalized with COVID-19 for 48 hours or more and ready for discharge, excluding those with a requirement for, or contraindication to, anticoagulation. INTERVENTION: 2.5 mg of apixaban versus placebo twice daily for 30 days. MEASUREMENTS: The primary efficacy end point was a 30-day composite of death, arterial thromboembolism, and venous thromboembolism. The primary safety end points were 30-day major bleeding and clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding. RESULTS: Enrollment was terminated early, after 1217 participants were randomly assigned, because of a lower than anticipated event rate and a declining rate of COVID-19 hospitalizations. Median age was 54 years, 50.4% were women, 26.5% were Black, and 16.7% were Hispanic; 30.7% had a World Health Organization severity score of 5 or greater, and 11.0% had an International Medical Prevention Registry on Venous Thromboembolism risk prediction score of greater than 4. Incidence of the primary end point was 2.13% (95% CI, 1.14 to 3.62) in the apixaban group and 2.31% (CI, 1.27 to 3.84) in the placebo group. Major bleeding occurred in 2 (0.4%) and 1 (0.2%) and clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding occurred in 3 (0.6%) and 6 (1.1%) apixaban-treated and placebo-treated participants, respectively. By day 30, thirty-six (3.0%) participants were lost to follow-up, and 8.5% of apixaban and 11.9% of placebo participants permanently discontinued the study drug treatment. LIMITATIONS: The introduction of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines decreased the risk for hospitalization and death. Study enrollment spanned the peaks of the Delta and Omicron variants in the United States, which influenced illness severity. CONCLUSION: The incidence of death or thromboembolism was low in this cohort of patients discharged after hospitalization with COVID-19. Because of early enrollment termination, the results were imprecise and the study was inconclusive. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: National Institutes of Health.

Randomized multicenter trial of sirolimus vs prednisone as initial therapy for standard-risk acute GVHD: the BMT CTN 1501 trial.

Clinical- and biomarker-based tools may identify a lower-risk acute graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) population amenable to novel, reduced-intensity treatments. Previous data suggest sirolimus may rival standard of care prednisone. We conducted a National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute/National Cancer Institute-funded Blood and Marrow Transplant Clinical Trials Network multicenter, open-label, randomized phase 2 trial to estimate the difference in day 28 complete response (CR)/partial response (PR) rates for sirolimus vs prednisone as initial treatment of patients with standard risk (SR) acute GVHD as defined by the Minnesota (MN) GVHD Risk Score and Ann Arbor (AA1/2) biomarker status. A total of 127 MN-SR patients were randomized (1:1), and 122 were AA1/2 (sirolimus, n = 58; prednisone, n = 64). Others were AA3 (n = 4), or AA status missing (n = 1). The day 28 CR/PR rates were similar for sirolimus 64.8% (90% confidence interval [CI], 54.1%-75.5%) vs 73% (90% CI, 63.8%-82.2%) for prednisone. The day 28 rate of CR/PR with prednisone ≤0.25 mg/kg/day was significantly higher for sirolimus than prednisone (66.7% vs 31.7%; P < .001). No differences were detected in steroid-refractory acute GVHD, disease-free survival, relapse, nonrelapse mortality, or overall survival. Sirolimus was associated with reduced steroid exposure and hyperglycemia, reduced grade 2 to 3 infections, improvement in immune suppression discontinuation and patient-reported quality of life, and increased risk for thrombotic microangiopathy. For patients with clinical- and biomarker-based SR acute GVHD, sirolimus demonstrates similar overall initial treatment efficacy as prednisone. In addition, sirolimus therapy spares steroid exposure and allied toxicity, does not compromise long-term survival outcomes, and is associated with improved patient-reported quality of life. This trial was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT02806947.

The Impact of Depression on Outcomes in Patients With Heart Failure and Reduced Ejection Fraction Treated in the GUIDE-IT Trial.

BACKGROUND: It remains unclear why depression is associated with adverse outcomes in patients with heart failure (HF). We examine the relationship between depression and clinical outcomes among patients with HF with reduced ejection fraction managed with guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT). METHODS AND RESULTS: Using the GUIDE-IT trial, 894 patients with HF with reduced ejection fraction were stratified according to a history of depression, and Cox proportional hazards regression modeling was used to examine the association with outcomes. There were 140 patients (16%) in the overall cohort who had depression. They tended to be female (29% vs 46%, P < .001) and White (67% vs 53%, P = .002). There were no differences in GDMT rates at baseline or at 90 days; nor were there differences in target doses of these therapies achieved at 90 days (NS, all). amino-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide levels at all time points were similar between the cohorts (P > .05, all). After adjustment, depression was associated with all-cause hospitalizations (hazard ratio, 1.42, 95% confidence interval 1.11-1.81, P < .01), cardiovascular death (hazard ratio, 1.69, 95% confidence interval 1.07-2.68, P = .025), and all-cause mortality (hazard ratio, 1.54, 95% confidence interval 1.03-2.32, P = .039). CONCLUSIONS: Depression impacts clinical outcomes in HF regardless of GDMT intensity and amino-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide levels. This finding underscores the need for a focus on mental health in parallel to achievement of optimal GDMT in these patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT01685840, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01685840.

Joint testing of overall and simple effects for the two-by-two factorial trial design.

BACKGROUND/AIMS: The two-by-two factorial design randomizes participants to receive treatment A alone, treatment B alone, both treatments A and B(AB), or neither treatment (C). When the combined effect of A and B is less than the sum of the A and B effects, called a subadditive interaction, there can be low power to detect the A effect using an overall test, that is, factorial analysis, which compares the A and AB groups to the C and B groups. Such an interaction may have occurred in the Action to Control Cardiovascular Risk in Diabetes blood pressure trial (ACCORD BP) which simultaneously randomized participants to receive intensive or standard blood pressure, control and intensive or standard glycemic control. For the primary outcome of major cardiovascular event, the overall test for efficacy of intensive blood pressure control was nonsignificant. In such an instance, simple effect tests of A versus C and B versus C may be useful since they are not affected by a subadditive interaction, but they can have lower power since they use half the participants of the overall trial. We investigate multiple testing procedures which exploit the overall tests' sample size advantage and the simple tests' robustness to a potential interaction. METHODS: In the time-to-event setting, we use the stratified and ordinary logrank statistics' asymptotic means to calculate the power of the overall and simple tests under various scenarios. We consider the A and B research questions to be unrelated and allocate 0.05 significance level to each. For each question, we investigate three multiple testing procedures which allocate the type 1 error in different proportions for the overall and simple effects as well as the AB effect. The Equal Allocation 3 procedure allocates equal type 1 error to each of the three effects, the Proportional Allocation 2 procedure allocates 2/3 of the type 1 error to the overall A (respectively, B) effect and the remaining type 1 error to the AB effect, and the Equal Allocation 2 procedure allocates equal amounts to the simple A (respectively, B) and AB effects. These procedures are applied to ACCORD BP. RESULTS: Across various scenarios, Equal Allocation 3 had robust power for detecting a true effect. For ACCORD BP, all three procedures would have detected a benefit of intensive glycemia control. CONCLUSIONS: When there is no interaction, Equal Allocation 3 has less power than a factorial analysis. However, Equal Allocation 3 often has greater power when there is an interaction. The R package factorial2x2 can be used to explore the power gain or loss for different scenarios.

Dealing with competing risks in clinical trials: How to choose the primary efficacy analysis?

We investigate different primary efficacy analysis approaches for a 2-armed randomized clinical trial when interest is focused on a time to event primary outcome that is subject to a competing risk. We extend the work of Friedlin and Korn (2005) by considering estimation as well as testing and by simulating the primary and competing events' times from both a cause-specific hazards model as well as a joint subdistribution-cause-specific hazards model. We show that the cumulative incidence function can provide useful prognostic information for a particular patient but is not advisable for the primary efficacy analysis. Instead, it is preferable to fit a Cox model for the primary event which treats the competing event as an independent censoring. This is reasonably robust for controlling type I error and treatment effect bias with respect to the true primary and competing events' cause-specific hazards model, even when there is a shared, moderately prognostic, unobserved baseline frailty for the primary and competing events in that model. However, when it is plausible that a strongly prognostic frailty exists, combining the primary and competing events into a composite event should be considered. Finally, when there is an a priori interest in having both the primary and competing events in the primary analysis, we compare a bivariate approach for establishing overall treatment efficacy to the composite event approach. The ideas are illustrated by analyzing the Women's Health Initiative clinical trials sponsored by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute.

Effect of Natriuretic Peptide-Guided Therapy on Hospitalization or Cardiovascular Mortality in High-Risk Patients With Heart Failure and Reduced Ejection Fraction: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: The natriuretic peptides are biochemical markers of heart failure (HF) severity and predictors of adverse outcomes. Smaller studies have evaluated adjusting HF therapy based on natriuretic peptide levels ("guided therapy") with inconsistent results. Objective: To determine whether an amino-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP)-guided treatment strategy improves clinical outcomes vs usual care in high-risk patients with HF and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). Design, Settings, and Participants: The Guiding Evidence Based Therapy Using Biomarker Intensified Treatment in Heart Failure (GUIDE-IT) study was a randomized multicenter clinical trial conducted between January 16, 2013, and September 20, 2016, at 45 clinical sites in the United States and Canada. This study planned to randomize 1100 patients with HFrEF (ejection fraction ≤40%), elevated natriuretic peptide levels within the prior 30 days, and a history of a prior HF event (HF hospitalization or equivalent) to either an NT-proBNP-guided strategy or usual care. Interventions: Patients were randomized to either an NT-proBNP-guided strategy or usual care. Patients randomized to the guided strategy (n = 446) had HF therapy titrated with the goal of achieving a target NT-proBNP of less than 1000 pg/mL. Patients randomized to usual care (n = 448) had HF care in accordance with published guidelines, with emphasis on titration of proven neurohormonal therapies for HF. Serial measurement of NT-proBNP testing was discouraged in the usual care group. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was the composite of time-to-first HF hospitalization or cardiovascular mortality. Prespecified secondary end points included all-cause mortality, total hospitalizations for HF, days alive and not hospitalized for cardiovascular reasons, the individual components on the primary end point, and adverse events. Results: The data and safety monitoring board recommended stopping the study for futility when 894 (median age, 63 years; 286 [32%] women) of the planned 1100 patients had been enrolled with follow-up for a median of 15 months. The primary end point occurred in 164 patients (37%) in the biomarker-guided group and 164 patients (37%) in the usual care group (adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 0.98; 95% CI, 0.79-1.22; P = .88). Cardiovascular mortality was 12% (n = 53) in the biomarker-guided group and 13% (n = 57) in the usual care group (HR, 0.94; 95% CI; 0.65-1.37; P = .75). None of the secondary end points nor the decreases in the NT-proBNP levels achieved differed significantly between groups. Conclusions and Relevance: In high-risk patients with HFrEF, a strategy of NT-proBNP-guided therapy was not more effective than a usual care strategy in improving outcomes. Trial Registration: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01685840.

Response to Exercise Training and Outcomes in Patients With Heart Failure and Diabetes Mellitus: Insights From the HF-ACTION Trial.

BACKGROUND: In HF-ACTION (Heart Failure: A Controlled Trial Investigating Outcomes of Exercise Training), exercise training improved functional capacity in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). Previous studies have suggested that diabetes mellitus (DM) may be associated with an attenuated response to exercise. We explored whether DM attenuated the improvement in functional capacity with exercise. METHODS AND RESULTS: HF-ACTION randomized 2331 patients with HFrEF to medical therapy with or without exercise training over a median follow-up of 2.5 years. We examined the interaction between DM and exercise response measured by change in 6-minute walk distance (6MWD) and peak VO2. We also examined outcomes by DM status. In HF-ACTION, 748 (32%) patients had DM. DM patients had lower functional capacity at baseline and had lower exercise volumes at 3 months. There was a significant interaction between DM status and exercise training for change in peak VO2 (interaction P = .02), but not 6MWD. In the exercise arm, DM patients had a smaller mean increase in peak VO2 than non-DM patients (P = .03). There was no interaction between DM and exercise on clinical outcomes. After risk adjustment, DM was associated with increased all-cause mortality/hospitalization (P = .03). CONCLUSIONS: In HF-ACTION, DM was associated with lower baseline functional capacity, an attenuated improvement in peak VO2, and increased hospitalizations.

Comprehensive analysis of cardiopulmonary exercise testing and mortality in patients with systolic heart failure: the Henry Ford Hospital cardiopulmonary exercise testing (FIT-CPX) project.

BACKGROUND: Many studies have shown a strong association between numerous variables from a cardiopulmonary exercise (CPX) test and prognosis in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). However, few studies have compared the prognostic value of a majority of these variables simultaneously, so controversy remains regarding optimal interpretation. METHODS AND RESULTS: This was a retrospective analysis of patients with HFrEF (n = 1,201; age = 55 ± 13 y; 33% female) and a CPX test from 1997 to 2010. Thirty variables from a CPX test were considered in separate adjusted Cox regression analyses to describe the strength of the relation of each to a composite end point of all-cause mortality, left ventricular assist device implantation, or heart transplantation. During a median follow-up of 3.8 years, there were 577 (48.0%) events. The majority of variables were highly significant (P < .001). Among these, percentage of predicted maximum V˙O2 (ppMV˙O2; Wald = 203; P < .001; C-index = 0.73) was similar to VE-VCO2 slope (Wald = 201; P < .001; C = 0.72) and peak V˙O2 (Wald = 161; P < .001; C = 0.72). In addition, there was no significant interaction observed for peak respiratory exchange ratio <1 vs ≥1. CONCLUSIONS: Consistent with prior studies, many CPX test variables were strongly associated with prognosis in patients with HFrEF. The choice of which variable to use is up to the clinician. Renewed attention should be given to ppMV˙O2, which appears to be highly predictive of survival in these patients.

Prognostic Impact of Repeated NT-proBNP Measurements in Patients With Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction.

BACKGROUND: Although clinical studies have demonstrated the association between a single N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) measurement and clinical outcomes in chronic heart failure, the biomarker is frequently measured serially in clinical practice. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to determine the added prognostic value of repeated NT-proBNP measurements compared with single measurements alone for chronic heart failure patients. METHODS: In the GUIDE-IT (Guiding Evidence Based Therapy Using Biomarker Intensified Treatment in Heart Failure) study, 894 study participants with chronic heart failure with reduced ejection fraction were enrolled at 45 outpatient sites in the United States and Canada. Repeated NT-proBNP levels were measured over a 2-year study period. Associations between repeated NT-proBNP measurements and trial endpoints were assessed using a joint longitudinal and survival model. RESULTS: After adjustment for baseline covariates, each doubling of the baseline NT-proBNP level was associated with a HR of 1.17 (95% CI: 1.08-1.28; P = 0.0003) for the primary trial endpoint of cardiovascular death or heart failure hospitalization. Serial measurements increased the adjusted HR for the primary trial endpoint to 1.66 (95% CI: 1.50-1.84; P < 0.0001), and a similar increased risk was observed across secondary trial endpoints. In joint modeling, an increase in NT-proBNP occurred weeks before the onset of adjudicated events. CONCLUSIONS: Repeated NT-proBNP measurements are a strong predictor of outcomes in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction with an increase in concentration occurring well before event onset. These results may support routine NT-proBNP monitoring to assist in clinical decision making. (Guiding Evidence Based Therapy Using Biomarker Intensified Treatment in Heart Failure [GUIDE-IT]; NCT01685840).

Effect of sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 inhibitors on survival free of organ support in patients hospitalised for COVID-19 (ACTIV-4a): a pragmatic, multicentre, open-label, randomised, controlled, platform trial.

BACKGROUND: Patients hospitalised for COVID-19 are at risk for multiorgan failure and death. Sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitors provide cardiovascular and kidney protection in patients with cardiometabolic conditions and could provide organ protection during COVID-19. We aimed to investigate whether SGLT2 inhibitors can reduce the need for organ support in patients hospitalised for COVID-19. METHODS: This pragmatic, multicentre, open-label, randomised, controlled, platform trial was conducted across 63 sites in the USA, Spain, Brazil, Italy, and Mexico. Patients aged at least 18 years hospitalised for COVID-19 (moderate or severe illness) were randomly assigned (1:1), via an interactive voice system or web-response system, to receive locally available SGLT2 inhibitor (administered orally, once daily) plus standard-of-care or standard-of-care for 30 days. The primary outcome was organ support-free days evaluated through 21 days, assessed using intention-to-treat approach. This trial is registered on ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04505774. FINDINGS: The first patient was randomly assigned to the SGLT2 inhibitor domain on Dec 3, 2021. On March 31, 2023, at the recommendation of the data and safety monitoring board, enrolment in the SGLT2 inhibitor domain for both moderately and severely ill hospitalised patients was stopped prematurely for futility due to a low likelihood of finding a treatment benefit. The final randomised population consisted of 575 patients (mean age 72 years [SD 13], 242 (42%) female and 154 (27%) Hispanic; 504 in the moderate illness group and 71 in the severe illness group). 573 patients had a known 21-day outcome; 215 (75%) of 285 patients in the SGLT2 inhibitor plus standard-of-care group did not require respiratory or cardiovascular organ support versus 231 (80%) of 288 patients in the standard-of-care group. The adjusted odds ratio (OR) for an SGLT2 inhibitor effect on organ support-free days was 0·74 (95% Credible Interval [CrI] 0·48-1·13; where OR higher than 1 indicated treatment benefit, yielding a posterior probability of futility P(OR <1·2) of 99% and a posterior probability of inferiority P(OR<1·0) of 91%). There were 37 deaths (13%) in the SGLT2 inhibitor plus standard-of-care group and 42 deaths (15%) in the standard-of-care group at 90 days (hazard ratio 0·91 [95% CrI 0·58-1·43], probability of hazard ratio <1 of 66%). No safety concerns were observed with SGLT2 inhibitors, including no cases of ketoacidosis. INTERPRETATION: SGLT2 inhibitors did not significantly increase days free of organ support or reduce mortality in patients hospitalised with COVID-19. SGLT2 inhibitors were well tolerated with no observed safety concerns. Overall, these findings do not support the use of SGLT2 inhibitors as standard care in patients hospitalised with COVID-19. FUNDING: National Institutes of Health.

Supervised Exercise Training for Chronic Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association and American College of Cardiology.

Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) is one of the most common forms of heart failure; its prevalence is increasing, and outcomes are worsening. Affected patients often experience severe exertional dyspnea and debilitating fatigue, as well as poor quality of life, frequent hospitalizations, and a high mortality rate. Until recently, most pharmacological intervention trials for HFpEF yielded neutral primary outcomes. In contrast, trials of exercise-based interventions have consistently demonstrated large, significant, clinically meaningful improvements in symptoms, objectively determined exercise capacity, and usually quality of life. This success may be attributed, at least in part, to the pleiotropic effects of exercise, which may favorably affect the full range of abnormalities-peripheral vascular, skeletal muscle, and cardiovascular-that contribute to exercise intolerance in HFpEF. Accordingly, this scientific statement critically examines the currently available literature on the effects of exercise-based therapies for chronic stable HFpEF, potential mechanisms for improvement of exercise capacity and symptoms, and how these data compare with exercise therapy for other cardiovascular conditions. Specifically, data reviewed herein demonstrate a comparable or larger magnitude of improvement in exercise capacity from supervised exercise training in patients with chronic HFpEF compared with those with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, although Medicare reimbursement is available only for the latter group. Finally, critical gaps in implementation of exercise-based therapies for patients with HFpEF, including exercise setting, training modalities, combinations with other strategies such as diet and medications, long-term adherence, incorporation of innovative and more accessible delivery methods, and management of recently hospitalized patients are highlighted to provide guidance for future research.

Effect of therapeutic-dose heparin on severe acute kidney injury and death in noncritically ill patients hospitalized for COVID-19: a prespecified secondary analysis of the ACTIV4a and ATTACC randomized trial.

Background: Acute kidney injury (AKI) in patients with COVID-19 is partly mediated by thromboinflammation. In noncritically ill patients with COVID-19, therapeutic-dose anticoagulation with heparin increased the probability of survival to hospital discharge with reduced use of cardiovascular or respiratory organ support. Objectives: We investigated whether therapeutic-dose heparin reduces the incidence of AKI or death in noncritically ill patients hospitalized for COVID-19. Methods: We report a prespecified secondary analysis of the ACTIV4a and ATTACC open-label, multiplatform randomized trial of therapeutic-dose heparin vs usual-care pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis on the incidence of severe AKI (≥2-fold increase in serum creatinine or initiation of kidney replacement therapy (KDIGO stage 2 or 3) or all-cause mortality in noncritically ill patients hospitalized for COVID-19. Bayesian statistical models were adjusted for age, sex, D-dimer, enrollment period, country, site, and platform. Results: Among 1922 enrolled, 23 were excluded due to pre-existing end stage kidney disease and 205 were missing baseline or follow-up creatinine measurements. Severe AKI or death occurred in 4.4% participants assigned to therapeutic-dose heparin and 5.5% assigned to thromboprophylaxis (adjusted relative risk [aRR]: 0.72; 95% credible interval (CrI): 0.47, 1.10); the posterior probability of superiority for therapeutic-dose heparin (relative risk < 1.0) was 93.6%. Therapeutic-dose heparin was associated with a 97.7% probability of superiority to reduce the composite of stage 3 AKI or death (3.1% vs 4.6%; aRR: 0.64; 95% CrI: 0.40, 0.99) compared to thromboprophylaxis. Conclusion: Therapeutic-dose heparin was associated with a high probability of superiority to reduce the incidence of in-hospital severe AKI or death in patients hospitalized for COVID-19.

Fludarabine-based conditioning for marrow transplantation from unrelated donors in severe aplastic anemia: early results of a cyclophosphamide dose deescalation study show life-threatening adverse events at predefined cyclophosphamide dose levels.

Excessive adverse events were encountered in a Phase I/II study of cyclophosphamide (CY) dose deescalation in a fludarabine-based conditioning regimen for bone marrow transplantation from unrelated donors in patients with severe aplastic anemia. All patients received fixed doses of antithymocyte globulin, fludarabine, and low-dose total body irradiation. The starting CY dose was 150 mg/kg, with deescalation to 100 mg/kg, 50 mg/kg, or 0 mg/kg. CY dose level 0 mg/kg was closed due to graft failure in 3 of 3 patients. CY dose level 150 mg/kg was closed due to excessive organ toxicity (n = 6) or viral pneumonia (n = 1), resulting in the death of 7 of 14 patients. CY dose levels 50 and 100 mg/kg remain open. Thus, CY at doses of 150 mg/kg in combination with total body irradiation (2 Gy), fludarabine (120 mg/m(2)), and antithymocyte globulin was associated with excessive organ toxicity.

The influence of comorbidities on achieving an N-terminal pro-b-type natriuretic peptide target: a secondary analysis of the GUIDE-IT trial.

AIMS: N-terminal pro-b-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) values may be influenced by patient factors beyond the severity of illness, including atrial fibrillation (AF), renal dysfunction, or increased body mass index (BMI). We hypothesized that these factors may influence the achievement of NT-proBNP targets and clinical outcomes. METHODS: A total of 894 patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction were enrolled in The Guiding Evidence-Based Therapy Using Biomarker Intensified Treatment trial. NT-proBNP was analysed every 3 months. RESULTS: Forty per cent of patients had AF, the median estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) was 59 mL/min/1.73 m2 [interquartile range (IQR) 43-76], and median BMI was 29 kg/m2 (IQR 25-34). Patients with AF, eGFR < 60 mL/min/1.73 m2 , or a BMI < 29 kg/m2 had a higher level of NT-proBNP at randomization and over all study visits (all P values < 0.001). Over 18 months, the rate of change of NT-proBNP was less for patients with AF (compared with those without AF, P = 0.037) and patients with an eGFR < 60 mL/min/1.73 m2 (compared with eGFR > 60 mL/min/1.73 m2 , P < 0.001). The rate of change of NT-proBNP was similar for patients with a BMI above or below the median value. Using the 90 day NT-proBNP, patients with AF, lower eGFR, or lower BMI were less likely to achieve the target NT-proBNP < 1000 pg/mL than patients without AF, higher eGFR, or higher BMI, respectively. None of these differed between the Usual Care or Guided Care arm for AF, eGFR, or BMI (Pinteractions all NS). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with AF, a lower BMI, or worse renal function are less likely to achieve a lower or target NT-proBNP. Clinicians should be aware of these factors both when interpreting NT-proBNP levels and making therapeutic decisions about heart failure therapies.