Patiromer for the management of hyperkalemia in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction: the DIAMOND trial.

AIMS: To investigate the impact of patiromer on the serum potassium level and its ability to enable specified target doses of renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system inhibitor (RAASi) use in patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). METHODS AND RESULTS: A total of 1642 patients with HFrEF and current or a history of RAASi-related hyperkalemia were screened and 1195 were enrolled in the run-in phase with patiromer and optimization of the RAASi therapy [≥50% recommended dose of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor/angiotensin receptor blocker/angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor, and 50 mg of mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist (MRA) spironolactone or eplerenone]. Specified target doses of the RAASi therapy were achieved in 878 (84.6%) patients; 439 were randomized to patiromer and 439 to placebo. All patients, physicians, and outcome assessors were blinded to treatment assignment. The primary endpoint was between-group difference in the adjusted mean change in serum potassium. Five hierarchical secondary endpoints were assessed. At the end of treatment, the median (interquartile range) duration of follow-up was 27 (13-43) weeks, the adjusted mean change in potassium was +0.03 mmol/l in the patiromer group and +0.13 mmol/l in the placebo group [difference in the adjusted mean change between patiromer and placebo: -0.10 mmol/l (95% confidence interval, CI -0.13, 0.07); P < 0.001]. Risk of hyperkalemia >5.5 mmol/l [hazard ratio (HR) 0.63; 95% CI 0.45, 0.87; P = 0.006), reduction of MRA dose (HR 0.62; 95% CI 0.45, 0.87; P = 0.006), and total adjusted hyperkalemia events/100 person-years (77.7 vs. 118.2; HR 0.66; 95% CI 0.53, 0.81; P < 0.001) were lower with patiromer. Hyperkalemia-related morbidity-adjusted events (win ratio 1.53, P < 0.001) and total RAASi use score (win ratio 1.25, P = 0.048) favored the patiromer arm. Adverse events were similar between groups. CONCLUSION: Concurrent use of patiromer and high-dose MRAs reduces the risk of recurrent hyperkalemia (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03888066).

Baroreflex activation therapy with the Barostim™ device in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction: a patient level meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

AIMS: Heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) remains associated with high morbidity and mortality, poor quality of life (QoL) and significant exercise limitation. Sympatho-vagal imbalance has been shown to predict adverse prognosis and symptoms in HFrEF, yet it has not been specifically targeted by any guideline-recommended device therapy to date. Barostim™, which directly addresses this imbalance, is the first Food and Drug Administration approved neuromodulation technology for HFrEF. We aimed to analyse all randomized trial evidence to evaluate the effect of baroreflex activation therapy (BAT) on heart failure symptoms, QoL and N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) in HFrEF. METHODS AND RESULTS: An individual patient data (IPD) meta-analysis was performed on all eligible trials that randomized HFrEF patients to BAT + guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) or GDMT alone (open label). Endpoints included 6-month changes in 6-min hall walk (6MHW) distance, Minnesota Living With Heart Failure (MLWHF) QoL score, NT-proBNP, and New York Heart Association (NYHA) class in all patients and three subgroups. A total of 554 randomized patients were included. In all patients, BAT provided significant improvement in 6MHW distance of 49 m (95% confidence interval [CI] 33, 64), MLWHF QoL of -13 points (95% CI -17, -10), and 3.4 higher odds of improving at least one NYHA class (95% CI 2.3, 4.9) when comparing from baseline to 6 months. These improvements were similar, or better, in patients who had baseline NT-proBNP <1600 pg/ml, regardless of the cardiac resynchronization therapy indication status. CONCLUSION: An IPD meta-analysis suggests that BAT improves exercise capacity, NYHA class, and QoL in HFrEF patients receiving GDMT. These clinically meaningful improvements were consistent across the range of patients studies. BAT was also associated with an improvement in NT-proBNP in subjects with a lower baseline NT-proBNP.

Response by Sex in Patient-Centered Outcomes With Baroreflex Activation Therapy in Systolic Heart Failure.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to assess sex differences in the efficacy and safety of baroreflex activation therapy (BAT) in the BeAT-HF (Baroreflex Activation Therapy for Heart Failure) trial. BACKGROUND: Patients were randomized 1:1 to receive guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) alone (control group) or BAT plus GDMT. METHODS: Pre-specified subgroup analyses including change from baseline to 6 months in 6-min walk distance (6MWD), quality of life (QoL) assessed using the Minnesota Living With Heart Failure Questionnaire (MLWHQ), New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional class, and N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) were conducted in men versus women. RESULTS: Fifty-three women and 211 men were evaluated. Women had similar baseline NT-proBNP levels, 6MWDs, and percentage of subjects with NYHA functional class III symptoms but poorer MLWHQ scores (mean 62 ± 22 vs. 50 ± 24; p = 0.01) compared with men. Women experienced significant improvement from baseline to 6 months with BAT plus GDMT relative to GDMT alone in MLWHQ score (-34 ± 27 vs. -9 ± 23, respectively; p < 0.01), 6MWD (44 ± 45 m vs. -32 ± 118 m; p < 0.01), and improvement in NYHA functional class (70% vs. 27%; p < 0.01), similar to the responses seen in men, with no significant difference in safety. Women receiving BAT plus GDMT had a significant decrease in NT-proBNP (-43% vs. 7% with GDMT alone; difference -48%; p < 0.01), while in men this decrease was -15% versus 2%, respectively (difference -17%; p = 0.08), with an interaction p value of 0.05. CONCLUSIONS: Women in BeAT-HF had poorer baseline QoL than men but demonstrated similar improvements with BAT in 6MWD, QoL, and NYHA functional class. Women had a significant improvement in NT-proBNP, whereas men did not. (Baroreflex Activation Therapy for Heart Failure [BeAT-HF]; NCT02627196).

Cost-impact analysis of baroreflex activation therapy in chronic heart failure patients in the United States.

BACKGROUND: The study evaluated the cost of baroreflex activation therapy plus guideline directed therapy (BAT + GDT) compared to GDT alone for HF patients with reduced ejection fraction and New York Heart Association Class III or II (with a recent history of III). Baroreflex activation therapy (BAT) is delivered by an implantable device that stimulates the baroreceptors through an electrode attached to the outside of the carotid artery, which rebalances the autonomic nervous system to regain cardiovascular (CV) homeostasis. The BeAT-HF trial evaluated the safety and effectiveness of BAT. METHODS: A cost impact model was developed from a U.S. health care payer or integrated delivery network perspective over a 3-year period for BAT + GDT versus GDT alone. Expected costs were calculated by utilizing 6-month data from the BeAT-HF trial and existing literature. HF hospitalization rates were extrapolated based on improvement in NT-proBNP. RESULTS: At baseline the expected cost of BAT + GDT were $29,526 per patient more than GDT alone due to BAT device and implantation costs. After 3 years, the predicted cost per patient was $9521 less expensive for BAT + GDT versus GDT alone due to lower rates of significant HF hospitalizations, CV non-HF hospitalizations, and resource intensive late-stage procedures (LVADs and heart transplants) among the BAT + GDT group. CONCLUSIONS: BAT + GDT treatment becomes less costly than GDT alone beginning between years 1 and 2 and becomes less costly cumulatively between years 2 and 3, potentially providing significant savings over time. As additional BeAT-HF trial data become available, the model can be updated to show longer term effects.

Baroreflex Activation Therapy in Patients With Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction.

BACKGROUND: This study demonstrated the safety and effectiveness of baroreflex activation therapy (BAT) in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). OBJECTIVES: The BeAT-HF (Baroreflex Activation Therapy for Heart Failure) trial was a multicenter, prospective, randomized, controlled trial; subjects were randomized 1:1 to receive either BAT plus optimal medical management (BAT group) or optimal medical management alone (control group). METHODS: Four patient cohorts were created from 408 randomized patients with HFrEF using the following enrollment criteria: current New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional class III or functional class II (patients who had a recent history of NYHA functional class III); ejection fraction ≤35%; stable medical management for ≥4 weeks; and no Class I indication for cardiac resynchronization therapy. Effectiveness endpoints were the change from baseline to 6 months in 6-min hall walk distance (6MHW), Minnesota Living with HF Questionnaire quality-of-life (QOL) score, and N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) levels. The safety endpoint included the major adverse neurological or cardiovascular system or procedure-related event rate (MANCE). RESULTS: Results from, timeline and rationale for, cohorts A, B, and C are presented in detail in the text. Cohort D, which represented the intended use population that reflected the U.S. Food and Drug Administration-approved instructions for use (enrollment criteria plus NT-proBNP <1,600 pg/ml), consisted of 245 patients followed-up for 6 months (120 in the BAT group and 125 in the control group). BAT was safe and significantly improved QOL, 6MHW, and NT-proBNP. In the BAT group versus the control group, QOL score decreased (Δ = -14.1; 95% confidence interval [CI]: -19 to -9; p < 0.001), 6MHW distance increased (Δ = 60 m; 95% CI: 40 to 80 m; p < 0.001), NT-proBNP decreased (Δ = -25%; 95% CI: -38% to -9%; p = 0.004), and the MANCE free rate was 97% (95% CI: 93% to 100%; p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: BAT was safe and significantly improved QOL, exercise capacity, and NT-proBNP. (Baroreflex Activation Therapy for Heart Failure [BeAT-HF]; NCT02627196).

First granted example of novel FDA trial design under Expedited Access Pathway for premarket approval: BeAT-HF.

BACKGROUND: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) initiated the Expedited Access Pathway (EAP) to accelerate approval of novel therapies targeting unmet needs for life-threatening conditions. EAP allows for the possibility of initial FDA approval using intermediate end points with postapproval demonstration of improved outcomes. OBJECTIVE: Describe the EAP process using the BeAT-HF trial as a case study. METHODS: BeAT-HF will examine the safety and effectiveness of baroreflex activation therapy (BAT) in heart failure patients with reduced ejection fraction using an Expedited and Extended Phase design. In the Expedited Phase, BAT plus guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) will be compared at 6 months postimplant to GDMT alone using 3 intermediate end points: 6-minute hall walk distance, Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire, and N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide. The rate of heart failure morbidity and cardiovascular mortality will be compared between the arms to evaluate early trending using predictive probability modeling. Sample size of 264 patients randomized 1:1 to BAT + GDMT versus GDMT alone provides 81% power for the Expedited Phase intermediate end points. For the Extended Phase, the heart failure morbidity and cardiovascular mortality end point is based on an expected event rate of 0.4 events/patient/year in the GDMT arm. With an adaptive sample size selection design for robustness to inaccurate assumptions, a sample size of 480-960 randomized patients followed ≥2 years allows detecting a 30% reduction in the primary end point with a power of 97.5%. CONCLUSION: Through a unique collaboration with FDA under the EAP, the BeAT-HF trial design allows for the possibility of approval of BAT, initially for symptom relief and subsequently for outcomes improvement.

An early analysis of cost-utility of baroreflex activation therapy in advanced chronic heart failure in Germany.

BACKGROUND: This study aimed to evaluate cost-utility of baroreflex activation therapy (BAT) using the Barostim neo™ device (CVRx Inc., Minneapolis, MN, USA) compared with optimized medical management in patients with advanced chronic heart failure (NYHA class III) who were not eligible for treatment with cardiac resynchronization therapy, from a statutory health insurance perspective in Germany over a lifetime horizon. METHODS: A decision analytic model was developed using the combination of a decision tree and the Markov process. The model included transitions between New York Heart Association (NYHA) health states, each of which is associated with a risk of mortality, hospitalization, cost, and quality of life. The effectiveness of BAT was projected through relative risks for mortality (obtained by application of patient-level data to the Meta-analysis Global Group in Chronic Heart Failure risk prediction model) and hospitalization owing to worsening of heart failure (obtained from BAT Randomized Clinical Trial). All patients were in NYHA class III at baseline. RESULTS: BAT led to an incremental cost of €33,185 (95% credible interval [CI] €24,561-38,637) and incremental benefits of 1.78 [95% CI 0.45-2.71] life-years and 1.19 [95% CI 0.30-1.81] quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). This resulted in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of €27,951/QALY (95% CI €21,357-82,970). BAT had a 59% probability of being cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of €35,000/QALY (but 84% at a threshold of €52,000/QALY). CONCLUSIONS: BAT can be cost-effective in European settings in those not eligible for cardiac resynchronization therapy among patients with advanced heart failure.

Treatment Approaches to Congestion Relief in Acute Decompensated HF: Insights After DOSE-AHF and CARRESS-HF.

OPINION STATEMENT: Most patients admitted to the hospital with ADHF do not achieve adequate relief of signs and symptoms of congestion. Patients with inadequate decongestion are known to be at higher risk of readmission for heart failure and mortality, although it is uncertain whether this is a cause or simply a marker of increased risk. Nonetheless, adequate decongestion is critical for improving quality of life. Based on the DOSE-AHF and CARRESS-HF studies, a high-dose diuretic regimen consisting of 2.5 times the daily dose of loop diuretic in furosemide equivalents, administered in twice-daily bolus doses, is reasonable to achieve a goal of 3-5 liters of urine output per day. Transient increases in creatinine in the first 4-5 days of diuresis should not be a limiting factor, but a prolonged progressive increase in creatinine signals a high-risk patient. Current goals for decongestion should be resolution of orthopnea, jugular venous pressure of < 8 cm of water, and trace to no peripheral edema. The hope is that better measures of assessing complete decongestion will reduce the progression to heart failure and mortality. While the best noninvasive method to assess speed of congestion has not been determined, it is clear that hemoconcentration (an increase in hematocrit) reflects a decrease in plasma volume and decongestion. In-line monitoring of hemoconcentration may improve the results of ultrafiltration therapy by preventing too large and/or too rapid a fall in intravascular volume and consequent triggering of neurohormonal activation. Several additional strategies such as serelaxin, high-dose mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists, and new forms and combinations of natriuretic peptides have shown promising results in the relief of congestion in patients with ADHF.

Implantable cardioverter-defibrillator shocks in patients with a left ventricular assist device.

BACKGROUND: Left ventricular assist device (LVAD) use is becoming increasingly common for patients with end-stage heart failure. However, the rate of implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) shocks and the effect of these shocks on outcomes in patients with LVADs remain unknown. METHODS: Medical records were reviewed from patients with both an ICD and a LVAD from September 2000 to February 2009. The association between ICD shocks and survival while receiving device support was assessed using Cox proportional hazards modeling. RESULTS: Thirty-three of 61 patients with a LVAD also had an ICD and form the basis of this report. The mean duration of LVAD support was 238 days. One or more ICD shocks were delivered to 14 patients (42%) with 8 (24%) receiving appropriate shocks for ventricular arrhythmias and 6 (18%) receiving inappropriate shocks. No patients received both appropriate and inappropriate shocks. When compared with receiving no ICD shock, receiving any ICD shock or an appropriate ICD shock were both associated with an increase in the risk of death (hazard ratio [HR] 4.5, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.2 to 17.3, p = 0.027, and HR 5.3, 95% CI 1.3 to 22.6, p = 0.023, respectively); receipt of an inappropriate shock showed a non-significant trend for an increased risk of death (HR 3.2, 95% CI 0.7 to 16.1, p = 0.151). CONCLUSIONS: ICD shocks are common after implantation of LVADs, with nearly equal numbers of appropriate and inappropriate shocks. ICD shocks are associated with higher mortality. Larger studies are needed for assessing the independent relationship of ICDs to a variety of clinical outcomes in patients with LVADs.