Dapagliflozin in Heart Failure With Mildly Reduced or Preserved Ejection Fraction According to Polypharmacy Status.

BACKGROUND: Patients with heart failure (HF) have a high burden of multimorbidity, often necessitating numerous medications. There may be clinical concern about introducing another medication, especially among individuals with polypharmacy. OBJECTIVES: This study examined the efficacy and safety of addition of dapagliflozin according to the number of concomitant medications in HF with mildly reduced or preserved ejection fraction. METHODS: In this post hoc analysis of the DELIVER (Dapagliflozin Evaluation to Improve the Lives of Patients With Preserved Ejection Fraction Heart Failure) trial, 6,263 participants with symptomatic HF with left ventricular ejection fraction >40% were randomized to dapagliflozin or placebo. Baseline medication use (including vitamins and supplements) was collected. Efficacy and safety outcomes were assessed by medication use categories ("nonpolypharmacy": <5 medications; "polypharmacy": 5 to 9 medications; and "hyperpolypharmacy": ≥10 medications) and continuously. The primary outcome was worsening HF or cardiovascular death. RESULTS: Overall, 3,795 (60.6%) patients met polypharmacy and 1,886 (30.1%) met hyperpolypharmacy criteria. Higher numbers of medications were strongly associated with higher comorbidity burden and increased rates of the primary outcome. Compared with placebo, dapagliflozin similarly reduced the risk of the primary outcome irrespective of polypharmacy status (nonpolypharmacy HR: 0.88 [95% CI: 0.58-1.34]; polypharmacy HR: 0.88 [95% CI: 0.75-1.03]; hyperpolypharmacy HR: 0.73 [95% CI: 0.60-0.88]; Pinteraction = 0.30). Similarly, benefits with dapagliflozin were consistent across the spectrum of total medication use (Pinteraction = 0.06). Although adverse events increased with higher number of medications, they were not more frequent with dapagliflozin, regardless of polypharmacy status. CONCLUSIONS: In the DELIVER trial, dapagliflozin safely reduced worsening HF or cardiovascular death across a broad range of baseline medication use, including among individuals with polypharmacy (Dapagliflozin Evaluation to Improve the Lives of Patients With Preserved Ejection Fraction Heart Failure [DELIVER]; NCT03619213).

High-dose intravenous iron reduces myocardial infarction in patients on haemodialysis.

AIMS: To investigate the effect of high-dose iron vs. low-dose intravenous (IV) iron on myocardial infarction (MI) in patients on maintenance haemodialysis. METHODS AND RESULTS: This was a pre-specified analysis of secondary endpoints of the Proactive IV Iron Therapy in Hemodialysis Patients trial (PIVOTAL) randomized, controlled clinical trial. Adults who had started haemodialysis within the previous year, who had a ferritin concentration <400 µg per litre and a transferrin saturation <30% were randomized to high-dose or low-dose IV iron. The main outcome measure for this analysis was fatal or non-fatal MI. Over a median of 2.1 years of follow-up, 8.4% experienced a MI. Rates of type 1 MIs (3.2/100 patient-years) were 2.5 times higher than type 2 MIs (1.3/100 patient-years). Non-ST-elevation MIs (3.3/100 patient-years) were 6 times more common than ST-elevation MIs (0.5/100 patient-years). Mortality was high after non-fatal MI (1- and 2-year mortality of 40% and 60%, respectively). In time-to-first event analyses, proactive high-dose IV iron reduced the composite endpoint of non-fatal and fatal MI [hazard ratio (HR) 0.69, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.52-0.93, P = 0.01] and non-fatal MI (HR 0.69, 95% CI 0.51-0.93; P = 0.01) when compared with reactive low-dose IV iron. There was less effect of high-dose IV iron on recurrent MI events than on the time-to-first event analysis. CONCLUSION: In total, 8.4% of patients on maintenance haemodialysis had an MI over 2 years. High-dose compared to low-dose IV iron reduced MI in patients receiving haemodialysis. EUDRACT REGISTRATION NUMBER: 2013-002267-25.

Heart Failure Hospitalization in Adults Receiving Hemodialysis and the Effect of Intravenous Iron Therapy.

OBJECTIVES: This study sought to examine the effect of intravenous iron on heart failure events in hemodialysis patients. BACKGROUND: Heart failure is a common and deadly complication in patients receiving hemodialysis and is difficult to diagnose and treat. METHODS: The study analyzed heart failure events in the PIVOTAL (Proactive IV Iron Therapy in Hemodialysis Patients) trial, which compared intravenous iron administered proactively in a high-dose regimen with a low-dose regimen administered reactively. Heart failure hospitalization was an adjudicated outcome, a component of the primary composite outcome, and a prespecified secondary endpoint in the trial. RESULTS: Overall, 2,141 participants were followed for a median of 2.1 years. A first fatal or nonfatal heart failure event occurred in 51 (4.7%) of 1,093 patients in the high-dose iron group and in 70 (6.7%) of 1,048 patients in the low-dose group (HR: 0.66; 95% CI: 0.46-0.94; P = 0.023). There was a total of 63 heart failure events (including first and recurrent events) in the high-dose iron group and 98 in the low-dose group, giving a rate ratio of 0.59 (95% CI: 0.40-0.87; P = 0.0084). Most patients presented with pulmonary edema and were mainly treated by mechanical removal of fluid. History of heart failure and diabetes were independent predictors of a heart failure event. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with a lower-dose regimen, high-dose intravenous iron decreased the occurrence of first and recurrent heart failure events in patients undergoing hemodialysis, with large relative and absolute risk reductions. (UK Multicentre Open-label Randomised Controlled Trial Of IV Iron Therapy In Incident Haemodialysis Patients; 2013-002267-25).

Dosing of losartan in men versus women with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction: the HEAAL trial.

AIMS: In heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), guidelines recommend up-titration of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEi) and angiotensin receptors blockers (ARBs) to the maximum tolerated dose. However, some studies suggest that women might need lower doses of ACEi/ARBs than men to achieve similar treatment benefit. METHODS AND RESULTS: The HEAAL trial compared low vs. high dose of losartan. We reassessed the efficacy and safety of high- vs. low-dose in men vs. women using Cox models and machine learning algorithms. The mean age was 66 years and 30% of patients were women. Men appeared to have benefited more from high-dose than from low-dose losartan, whereas women appeared to have responded similarly to low and high doses [hazard ratio (95% confidence interval) comparing high- vs. low-dose losartan for the composite outcome of all-cause death or all-cause hospitalization: 0.89 (0.81-0.98) in men and 1.10 (0.95-1.28) in women; interaction P = 0.018]. Female sex clustered along with older age, ischaemic heart failure, New York Heart Association class III/IV, and estimated glomerular filtration rate <60 mL/min. Patients with these features had a poorer response to high-dose losartan. Subgroup analyses supported no benefit from high-dose losartan in patients with poorer kidney function and severe heart failure symptoms. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with men, women might need lower doses of losartan to achieve similar treatment benefit. However, beyond sex, other factors (e.g. kidney function, age, and symptoms) may influence the response to high-dose losartan, suggesting that sex-based subgroup findings may be biased by other confounders.

Cardiac and Noncardiac Disease Burden and Treatment Effect of Sacubitril/Valsartan: Insights From a Combined PARAGON-HF and PARADIGM-HF Analysis.

BACKGROUND: The net clinical benefit of cardiac disease-modifying drugs might be influenced by the interaction of different domains of disease burden. We assessed the relative contribution of cardiac, comorbid, and demographic factors in heart failure (HF) and how their interplay might influence HF prognosis and efficacy of sacubitril/valsartan across the spectrum of left ventricular ejection fraction. METHODS: We combined data from 2 global trials that evaluated the efficacy of sacubitril/valsartan compared with a renin-angiotensin antagonist in symptomatic HF patients (PARADIGM-HF [Prospective Comparison of Angiotensin Receptor Neprilysin Inhibitor With an Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitor to Determine Impact on Global Mortality and Morbidity in Heart Failure; n=8399] and PARAGON-HF [Prospective Comparison of Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitor With Angiotensin Receptors Blockers Global Outcomes in Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction; n=4796]). We decomposed the previously validated Meta-Analysis Global Group in Chronic Heart Failure risk score into cardiac (left ventricular ejection fraction, New York Heart Association class, blood pressure, time since HF diagnosis, HF medications), noncardiac comorbid (body mass index, creatinine, diabetes, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, smoking), and demographic (age, gender) categories. Based on these domains, an index representing the balance of cardiac to noncardiac comorbid burden was created (cardiac-comorbid index). Clinical outcomes were time to first HF hospitalization or cardiovascular deaths and all-cause mortality. RESULTS: Higher scores of the cardiac domain were observed in PARADIGM-HF (10 [7-13] versus 5 [3-6], P<0.001) and higher scores of the demographic domain in PARAGON-HF (10 [8-13] versus 5 [2-9], P<0.001). In PARADIGM-HF, the contribution of the cardiac domain to clinical outcomes was greater than the noncardiac domain (P<0.001), while in PARAGON-HF the attributable risk of the comorbid and demographic categories predominated. Individual scores from each sub-domain were linearly associated with the risk of clinical outcomes (P<0.001). Beneficial effects of sacubitril/valsartan were observed in patients with preponderance of cardiac over noncardiac comorbid burden (cardiac-comorbid index >5 points), suggesting a significant treatment effect modification (interaction P<0.05 for both outcomes). CONCLUSIONS: Domains of disease burden are clinically relevant features that influence the prognosis and treatment of patients with HF. The therapeutic benefits of sacubitril/valsartan vary according to the balance of components of disease burden, across different ranges of left ventricular ejection fraction.

Clinical Characteristics and Outcomes of Patients With Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction and Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: Insights From PARADIGM-HF.

Background Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a common comorbidity in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, associated with undertreatment and worse outcomes. New treatments for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction may be particularly important in patients with concomitant COPD. Methods and Results We examined outcomes in 8399 patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, according to COPD status, in the PARADIGM-HF (Prospective Comparison of Angiotensin Receptor Blocker-Neprilysin Inhibitor With Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitor to Determine Impact on Global Mortality and Morbidity in Heart Failure) trial. Cox regression models were used to compare COPD versus non-COPD subgroups and the effects of sacubitril/valsartan versus enalapril. Patients with COPD (n=1080, 12.9%) were older than patients without COPD (mean 67 versus 63 years; P<0.001), with similar left ventricular ejection fraction (29.9% versus 29.4%), but higher NT-proBNP (N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide; median, 1741 pg/mL versus 1591 pg/mL; P=0.01), worse functional class (New York Heart Association III/IV 37% versus 23%; P<0.001) and Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire-Clinical Summary Score (73 versus 81; P<0.001), and more congestion and comorbidity. Medical therapy was similar in patients with and without COPD except for beta-blockade (87% versus 94%; P<0.001) and diuretics (85% versus 80%; P<0.001). After multivariable adjustment, COPD was associated with higher risks of heart failure hospitalization (hazard ratio [HR], 1.32; 95% CI, 1.13-1.54), and the composite of cardiovascular death or heart failure hospitalization (HR, 1.18; 95% CI, 1.05-1.34), but not cardiovascular death (HR, 1.10; 95% CI, 0.94-1.30), or all-cause mortality (HR, 1.14; 95% CI, 0.99-1.31). COPD was also associated with higher risk of all cardiovascular hospitalization (HR, 1.17; 95% CI, 1.05-1.31) and noncardiovascular hospitalization (HR, 1.45; 95% CI, 1.29-1.64). The benefit of sacubitril/valsartan over enalapril was consistent in patients with and without COPD for all end points. Conclusions In PARADIGM-HF, COPD was associated with lower use of beta-blockers and worse health status and was an independent predictor of cardiovascular and noncardiovascular hospitalization. Sacubitril/valsartan was beneficial in this high-risk subgroup. Registration URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT01035255.

Stroke in Hemodialysis Patients Randomized to Different Intravenous Iron Strategies: A Prespecified Analysis from the PIVOTAL Trial.

Background: People with kidney failure treated with hemodialysis (HD) are at increased risk of stroke compared with similarly aged people with normal kidney function. One concern is that treatment of renal anemia might increase stroke risk. We studied risk factors for stroke in a prespecified secondary analysis of a randomized, controlled trial of intravenous iron treatment strategies in HD. Methods: We analyzed data from the Proactive IV Iron Therapy in Haemodialysis Patients (PIVOTAL) trial, focusing on variables associated with risk of stroke. The trial randomized 2141 adults who had started HD <12 months earlier and who were receiving an erythropoiesis-stimulating agent (ESA) to high-dose IV iron administered proactively or low-dose IV iron administered reactively in a 1:1 ratio. Possible stroke events were independently adjudicated. We performed analyses to identify variables associated with stroke during follow-up and assessed survival following stroke. Results: During a median 2.1 years of follow-up, 69 (3.2%) patients experienced a first postrandomization stroke. Fifty-seven (82.6%) were ischemic strokes, and 12 (17.4%) were hemorrhagic strokes. There were 34 postrandomization strokes in the proactive arm and 35 postrandomization strokes in the reactive arm (hazard ratio, 0.90; 95% confidence interval, 0.56 to 1.44; P=0.66). In multivariable models, women, diabetes, history of prior stroke at baseline, higher baseline systolic BP, lower serum albumin, and higher C-reactive protein were independently associated with stroke events during follow-up. Hemoglobin, total iron, and ESA dose were not associated with risk of stroke. Fifty-eight percent of patients with a stroke event died during follow-up compared with 23% without a stroke. Conclusions: In patients on HD, stroke risk is broadly associated with risk factors previously described to increase cardiovascular risk in this population. Proactive intravenous iron does not increase stroke risk.Clinical Trial registry name and registration number: Proactive IV Iron Therapy in Haemodialysis Patients (PIVOTAL), 2013-002267-25.

Predicting heart failure events in patients with coronary heart disease and impaired glucose tolerance: Insights from the Acarbose Cardiovascular Evaluation (ACE) trial.

AIMS: Heart failure is a fatal complication of type 2 diabetes but little is known about its incidence in people with impaired glucose tolerance (IGT). We used Acarbose Cardiovascular Evaluation (ACE) trial data to identify predictors of hospitalisation for heart failure (hHF) or cardiovascular (CV) death in patients with coronary heart disease (CHD) and IGT randomised to acarbose or placebo. METHODS: Independent hHF/CV death risk factors were determined using Cox proportional hazards models, with participants censored at first hHF event, CV death, or end of follow-up. RESULTS: During median 5-year follow-up, the composite outcome of hHF/CV death occurred in 393 (6.0%) participants. Significant hHF/CV death multivariate predictors were higher age and plasma creatinine, and prior heart failure (HF), myocardial infarction (MI), atrial fibrillation (AF) and stroke. Acarbose, compared with placebo, did not reduce hHF/CV death (hazard ratio [HR] 0.89, 95% CI 0.64-1.24, P = 0.48) or hHF (HR 0.90, 95% CI 0.74-1.10, P = 0.32). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with CHD and IGT at greater risk of hHF/CV death were older with higher plasma creatinine, prior HF, MI, AF or stroke. Addition of acarbose to optimised CV therapy to reduce post-prandial glucose excursions did not reduce the risk of hHF/CV death or hHF. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00829660, and the International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number registry, number ISRCTN91899513.

Estimating the Lifetime Benefits of Treatments for Heart Failure.

OBJECTIVES: This study compared ways of describing treatment effects. The objective was to better explain to clinicians and patients what they might expect from a given treatment, not only in terms of relative and absolute risk reduction, but also in projections of long-term survival. BACKGROUND: The restricted mean survival time (RMST) can be used to estimate of long-term survival, providing a complementary approach to more conventional metrics (e.g., absolute and relative risk), which may suggest greater benefits of therapy in high-risk patients compared with low-risk patients. METHODS: Relative and absolute risk, as well as the RMST, were calculated in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) trials. RESULTS: As examples, in the RALES trial (more severe HFrEF), the treatment effect metrics for spironolactone versus placebo on heart failure hospitalization and/or cardiovascular death were a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.67 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.5 to 0.77), number needed to treat = 9 (7 to 14), and age extension of event-free survival +1.1 years (-0.1 to + 2.3 years). The corresponding metrics for EMPHASIS-HF (eplerenone vs. placebo in less severe HFrEF) were 0.64 (0.54 to 0.75), 14 (1 to 22), and +2.9 (1.2 to 4.5). In patients in PARADIGM-HF aged younger than 65 years, the metrics for sacubitril/valsartan versus enalapril were 0.77 (95% CI: 0.68 to 0.88), 23 (15 to 44), and +1.7 (0.6 to 2.8) years; for those aged 65 years or older, the metrics were 0.83 (95% CI: 0.73 to 0.94), 29 (17 to 83), and +0.9 (0.2 to 1.6) years, which provided evidence of a greater potential life extension in younger patients. Similar observations were found for lower risk patients. CONCLUSIONS: RMST event-free (and overall) survival estimates provided a complementary means of evaluating the effect of therapy in relation to age and risk. They also provided a clinically useful metric that should be routinely reported and used to explain the potential long-term benefits of a given treatment, especially to younger and less symptomatic patients.

Intravenous Iron Dosing and Infection Risk in Patients on Hemodialysis: A Prespecified Secondary Analysis of the PIVOTAL Trial.

BACKGROUND: Experimental and observational studies have raised concerns that giving intravenous (IV) iron to patients, such as individuals receiving maintenance hemodialysis, might increase the risk of infections. The Proactive IV Iron Therapy in Haemodialysis Patients (PIVOTAL) trial randomized 2141 patients undergoing maintenance hemodialysis for ESKD to a high-dose or a low-dose IV iron regimen, with a primary composite outcome of all-cause death, heart attack, stroke, or hospitalization for heart failure. Comparison of infection rates between the two groups was a prespecified secondary analysis. METHODS: Secondary end points included any infection, hospitalization for infection, and death from infection; we calculated cumulative event rates for these end points. We also interrogated the interaction between iron dose and vascular access (fistula versus catheter). RESULTS: We found no significant difference between the high-dose IV iron group compared with the lose-dose group in event rates for all infections (46.5% versus 45.5%, respectively, which represented incidences of 63.3 versus 69.4 per 100 patient years, respectively); rates of hospitalization for infection (29.6% versus 29.3%, respectively) also did not differ. We did find a significant association between risk of a first cardiovascular event and any infection in the previous 30 days. Compared with patients undergoing dialysis with an arteriovenous fistula, those doing so via a catheter had a higher incidence of having any infection, hospitalization for infection, or fatal infection, but IV iron dosing had no effect on these outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: The high-dose and low-dose IV iron groups exhibited identical infection rates. Risk of a first cardiovascular event strongly associated with a recent infection.

Intravenous Iron in Patients Undergoing Maintenance Hemodialysis.

BACKGROUND: Intravenous iron is a standard treatment for patients undergoing hemodialysis, but comparative data regarding clinically effective regimens are limited. METHODS: In a multicenter, open-label trial with blinded end-point evaluation, we randomly assigned adults undergoing maintenance hemodialysis to receive either high-dose iron sucrose, administered intravenously in a proactive fashion (400 mg monthly, unless the ferritin concentration was >700 µg per liter or the transferrin saturation was ≥40%), or low-dose iron sucrose, administered intravenously in a reactive fashion (0 to 400 mg monthly, with a ferritin concentration of <200 µg per liter or a transferrin saturation of <20% being a trigger for iron administration). The primary end point was the composite of nonfatal myocardial infarction, nonfatal stroke, hospitalization for heart failure, or death, assessed in a time-to-first-event analysis. These end points were also analyzed as recurrent events. Other secondary end points included death, infection rate, and dose of an erythropoiesis-stimulating agent. Noninferiority of the high-dose group to the low-dose group would be established if the upper boundary of the 95% confidence interval for the hazard ratio for the primary end point did not cross 1.25. RESULTS: A total of 2141 patients underwent randomization (1093 patients to the high-dose group and 1048 to the low-dose group). The median follow-up was 2.1 years. Patients in the high-dose group received a median monthly iron dose of 264 mg (interquartile range [25th to 75th percentile], 200 to 336), as compared with 145 mg (interquartile range, 100 to 190) in the low-dose group. The median monthly dose of an erythropoiesis-stimulating agent was 29,757 IU in the high-dose group and 38,805 IU in the low-dose group (median difference, -7539 IU; 95% confidence interval [CI], -9485 to -5582). A total of 320 patients (29.3%) in the high-dose group had a primary end-point event, as compared with 338 (32.3%) in the low-dose group (hazard ratio, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.73 to 1.00; P<0.001 for noninferiority; P=0.04 for superiority). In an analysis that used a recurrent-events approach, there were 429 events in the high-dose group and 507 in the low-dose group (rate ratio, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.66 to 0.92). The infection rate was the same in the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients undergoing hemodialysis, a high-dose intravenous iron regimen administered proactively was superior to a low-dose regimen administered reactively and resulted in lower doses of erythropoiesis-stimulating agent being administered. (Funded by Kidney Research UK; PIVOTAL EudraCT number, 2013-002267-25 .).

Randomized Trial Comparing Proactive, High-Dose versus Reactive, Low-Dose Intravenous Iron Supplementation in Hemodialysis (PIVOTAL): Study Design and Baseline Data.

BACKGROUND: Intravenous (IV) iron supplementation is a standard maintenance treatment for hemodialysis (HD) patients, but the optimum dosing regimen is unknown. METHODS: PIVOTAL (Proactive IV irOn Therapy in hemodiALysis patients) is a multicenter, open-label, blinded endpoint, randomized controlled (PROBE) trial. Incident HD adults with a serum ferritin < 400 µg/L and transferrin saturation (TSAT) levels < 30% receiving erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESA) were eligible. Enrolled patients were randomized to a proactive, high-dose IV iron arm (iron sucrose 400 mg/month unless ferritin > 700 µg/L and/or TSAT ≥40%) or a reactive, low-dose IV iron arm (iron sucrose administered if ferritin <200 µg/L or TSAT < 20%). We hypothesized that proactive, high-dose IV iron would be noninferior to reactive, low-dose IV iron for the primary outcome of first occurrence of nonfatal myocardial infarction (MI), nonfatal stroke, hospitalization for heart failure or death from any cause. If noninferiority is confirmed with a noninferiority limit of 1.25 for the hazard ratio of the proactive strategy relative to the reactive strategy, a test for superiority will be carried out. Secondary outcomes include infection-related endpoints, ESA dose requirements, and quality-of-life measures. As an event-driven trial, the study will continue until at least 631 primary outcome events have accrued, but the expected duration of follow-up is 2-4 years. RESULTS: Of the 2,589 patients screened across 50 UK sites, 2,141 (83%) were randomized. At baseline, 65.3% were male, the median age was 65 years, and 79% were white. According to eligibility criteria, all patients were on ESA at screening. Prior stroke and MI were present in 8 and 9% of the cohort, respectively, and 44% of patients had diabetes at baseline. Baseline data for the randomized cohort were generally concordant with recent data from the UK Renal Registry. CONCLUSIONS: PIVOTAL will provide important information about the optimum dosing of IV iron in HD patients representative of usual clinical practice. TRIAL REGISTRATION: EudraCT number: 2013-002267-25.

Small molecule targeting of the STAT5/6 Src homology 2 (SH2) domains to inhibit allergic airway disease.

Asthma is a chronic inflammatory disease of the lungs and airways and one of the most burdensome of all chronic maladies. Previous studies have established that expression of experimental and human asthma requires the IL-4/IL-13/IL-4 receptor α (IL-4Rα) signaling pathway, which activates the transcription factor STAT6. However, no small molecules targeting this important pathway are currently in clinical development. To this end, using a preclinical asthma model, we sought to develop and test a small-molecule inhibitor of the Src homology 2 domains in mouse and human STAT6. We previously developed multiple peptidomimetic compounds on the basis of blocking the docking site of STAT6 to IL-4Rα and phosphorylation of Tyr641 in STAT6. Here, we expanded the scope of our initial in vitro structure-activity relationship studies to include central and C-terminal analogs of these peptides to develop a lead compound, PM-43I. Conducting initial dose range, toxicity, and pharmacokinetic experiments with PM-43I, we found that it potently inhibits both STAT5- and STAT6-dependent allergic airway disease in mice. Moreover, PM-43I reversed preexisting allergic airway disease in mice with a minimum ED50 of 0.25 µg/kg. Of note, PM-43I was efficiently cleared through the kidneys with no long-term toxicity. We conclude that PM-43I represents the first of a class of small molecules that may be suitable for further clinical development against asthma.

Effects of acarbose on cardiovascular and diabetes outcomes in patients with coronary heart disease and impaired glucose tolerance (ACE): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: The effect of the α-glucosidase inhibitor acarbose on cardiovascular outcomes in patients with coronary heart disease and impaired glucose tolerance is unknown. We aimed to assess whether acarbose could reduce the frequency of cardiovascular events in Chinese patients with established coronary heart disease and impaired glucose tolerance, and whether the incidence of type 2 diabetes could be reduced. METHODS: The Acarbose Cardiovascular Evaluation (ACE) trial was a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 4 trial, with patients recruited from 176 hospital outpatient clinics in China. Chinese patients with coronary heart disease and impaired glucose tolerance were randomly assigned (1:1), in blocks by site, by a centralised computer system to receive oral acarbose (50 mg three times a day) or matched placebo, which was added to standardised cardiovascular secondary prevention therapy. All study staff and patients were masked to treatment group allocation. The primary outcome was a five-point composite of cardiovascular death, non-fatal myocardial infarction, non-fatal stroke, hospital admission for unstable angina, and hospital admission for heart failure, analysed in the intention-to-treat population (all participants randomly assigned to treatment who provided written informed consent). The secondary outcomes were a three-point composite outcome (cardiovascular death, non-fatal myocardial infarction, and non-fatal stroke), death from any cause, cardiovascular death, fatal or non-fatal myocardial infarction, fatal or non-fatal stroke, hospital admission for unstable angina, hospital admission for heart failure, development of diabetes, and development of impaired renal function. The safety population comprised all patients who received at least one dose of study medication. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00829660, and the International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number registry, number ISRCTN91899513. FINDINGS: Between March 20, 2009, and Oct 23, 2015, 6522 patients were randomly assigned and included in the intention-to-treat population, 3272 assigned to acarbose and 3250 to placebo. Patients were followed up for a median of 5·0 years (IQR 3·4-6·0) in both groups. The primary five-point composite outcome occurred in 470 (14%; 3·33 per 100 person-years) of 3272 acarbose group participants and in 479 (15%; 3·41 per 100 person-years) of 3250 placebo group participants (hazard ratio 0·98; 95% CI 0·86-1·11, p=0·73). No significant differences were seen between treatment groups for the secondary three-point composite outcome, death from any cause, cardiovascular death, fatal or non-fatal myocardial infarction, fatal or non-fatal stroke, hospital admission for unstable angina, hospital admission for heart failure, or impaired renal function. Diabetes developed less frequently in the acarbose group (436 [13%] of 3272; 3·17 per 100 person-years) compared with the placebo group (513 [16%] of 3250; 3·84 per 100 person-years; rate ratio 0·82, 95% CI 0·71-0·94, p=0·005). Gastrointestinal disorders were the most common adverse event associated with drug discontinuation or dose changes (215 [7%] of 3263 patients in the acarbose group vs 150 [5%] of 3241 in the placebo group [p=0·0007]; safety population). Numbers of non-cardiovascular deaths (71 [2%] of 3272 vs 56 [2%] of 3250, p=0·19) and cancer deaths (ten [<1%] of 3272 vs 12 [<1%] of 3250, p=0·08) did not differ between groups. INTERPRETATION: In Chinese patients with coronary heart disease and impaired glucose tolerance, acarbose did not reduce the risk of major adverse cardiovascular events, but did reduce the incidence of diabetes. FUNDING: Bayer AG.

Health-Related Quality of Life Outcomes in PARADIGM-HF.

BACKGROUND: Patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction have impaired health-related quality of life (HRQL) with variable responses to therapies that target mortality and heart failure hospitalizations. In PARADIGM-HF trial (Prospective Comparison of ARNI [Angiotensin Receptor-Neprilysin Inhibitor] With ACEI [Angiotensin-Converting-Enzyme Inhibitor] to Determine Impact on Global Mortality and Morbidity in Heart Failure), sacubitril/valsartan reduced morbidity and mortality compared with enalapril. Another major treatment goal is to improve HRQL. Given improvements in mortality with sacubitril/valsartan, this analysis provides comprehensive assessment of impact of therapy on HRQL in survivors only. METHODS AND RESULTS: Patients (after run-in phase) completed disease-specific HRQL using Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ) at randomization, 4 month, 8 month, and annual visits. Changes in KCCQ scores were calculated using repeated measures analysis of covariance model that adjusted for treatment and baseline values (principal efficacy prespecified at 8 months). Among the 8399 patients enrolled in PARADIGM-HF, 7623 (91%) completed KCCQ scores at randomization with complete data at 8 months for 6881 patients (90% of baseline). At 8 months, sacubitril/valsartan group noted improvements in both KCCQ clinical summary score (+0.64 versus -0.29; P=0.008) and KCCQ overall summary score (+1.13 versus -0.14; P<0.001) in comparison to enalapril group and significantly less proportion of patients with deterioration (≥5 points decrease) of both KCCQ scores (27% versus 31%; P=0.01). Adjusted change scores demonstrated consistent improvements in sacubitril/valsartan compared with enalapril through 36 months. CONCLUSIONS: Change scores in KCCQ clinical summary scores and KCCQ overall summary scores were better in patients treated with sacubitril/valsartan compared with those treated with enalapril, with consistency in most domains, and persist during follow-up beyond 8 months. These findings demonstrate that sacubitril/valsartan leads to better HRQL in surviving patients with heart failure. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01035255.

Efficacy and Safety of Novel Oral Anticoagulants in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation and Heart Failure: A Meta-Analysis.

OBJECTIVES: This study investigated the efficacy and safety of novel oral anticoagulants (NOACs) in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) and heart failure (HF) by a meta-analysis. BACKGROUND: AF is quite prevalent in patients with HF. METHODS: Four phase III clinical trials comparing NOACs to warfarin in patients with AF were included. Each patient was defined as affected by HF according to the criteria of the trial in which the patient was enrolled. Pre-specified outcomes were the composite of stroke/systemic embolism (SSE); major, intracranial, and any bleeding; and cardiovascular (CV) and all-cause death. RESULTS: A total of 55,011 patients were enrolled, 26,384 (48%) with HF, and 28,627 (52%) without HF; 27,518 receiving NOACs and 27,493 receiving warfarin (median, 70 years of age; 36% females; follow-up: 1.5 to 2.8 years). Rates of SSE (relative risk [RR]: 0.98; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.90 to 1.07]; p = 0.68) and major bleeding (RR: 0.95; 95% CI: 0.88 to 1.03; p = 0.21) were comparable in patients with and without HF. HF patients had reduced rates of any (RR: 0.86; 95% CI: 0.81 to 0.91; p < 0.01) and intracranial (RR: 0.74 95% CI: 0.63 to 0.88; p < 0.01) bleeding but increased rates of all-cause (RR: 1.70 95% CI: 1.31 to 2.19; p < 0.01) and CV death (RR: 2.05 95% CI: 1.66 to 2.55; p < 0.01). NOACs, compared with warfarin significantly reduced SSE and major, intracranial, and any bleeding, regardless of the presence or absence of HF (pinteraction > 0.05 for each). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with AF and HF had increased mortality but reduced rates of intracranial and any bleeding compared with the no-HF patients, with no differences in rates of SSE and major bleeding. NOACs significantly reduced SSE, major bleeding, and intracranial hemorrhage in HF patients. No interactions in efficacy and safety of NOACs were observed between AF patients with and without HF.

Initiating sacubitril/valsartan (LCZ696) in heart failure: results of TITRATION, a double-blind, randomized comparison of two uptitration regimens.

AIMS: To assess the tolerability of initiating/uptitrating sacubitril/valsartan (LCZ696) from 50 to 200 mg twice daily (target dose) over 3 and 6 weeks in heart failure (HF) patients (ejection fraction ≤35%). METHODS AND RESULTS: A 5-day open-label run-in (sacubitril/valsartan 50 mg twice daily) preceded an 11-week, double-blind, randomization period [100 mg twice daily for 2 weeks followed by 200 mg twice daily ('condensed' regimen) vs. 50 mg twice daily for 2 weeks, 100 mg twice daily for 3 weeks, followed by 200 mg twice daily ('conservative' regimen)]. Patients were stratified by pre-study dose of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor/angiotensin-receptor blocker (ACEI/ARB; low-dose stratum included ACEI/ARB-naïve patients). Of 540 patients entering run-in, 498 (92%) were randomized and 429 (86.1% of randomized) completed the study. Pre-defined tolerability criteria were hypotension, renal dysfunction and hyperkalaemia; and adjudicated angioedema, which occurred in ('condensed' vs. 'conservative') 9.7% vs. 8.4% (P = 0.570), 7.3% vs. 7.6% (P = 0.990), 7.7% vs. 4.4% (P = 0.114), and 0.0% vs. 0.8% of patients, respectively. Corresponding proportions for pre-defined systolic blood pressure <95 mmHg, serum potassium >5.5 mmol/L, and serum creatinine >3.0 mg/dL were 8.9% vs. 5.2% (P = 0.102), 7.3% vs. 4.0% (P = 0.097), and 0.4% vs. 0%, respectively. In total, 378 (76%) patients achieved and maintained sacubitril/valsartan 200 mg twice daily without dose interruption/down-titration over 12 weeks (77.8% vs. 84.3% for 'condensed' vs. 'conservative'; P = 0.078). Rates by ACEI/ARB pre-study dose stratification were 82.6% vs. 83.8% (P = 0.783) for high-dose/'condensed' vs. high-dose/'conservative' and 84.9% vs. 73.6% (P = 0.030) for low-dose/'conservative' vs. low-dose/'condensed'. CONCLUSIONS: Initiation/uptitration of sacubitril/valsartan from 50 to 200 mg twice daily over 3 or 6 weeks had a tolerability profile in line with other HF treatments. More gradual initiation/uptitration maximized attainment of target dose in the low-dose ACEI/ARB group.

Traditional and new composite endpoints in heart failure clinical trials: facilitating comprehensive efficacy assessments and improving trial efficiency.

Composite endpoints are commonly used as the primary measure of efficacy in heart failure clinical trials to assess the overall treatment effect and to increase the efficiency of trials. Clinical trials still must enrol large numbers of patients to accrue a sufficient number of outcome events and have adequate power to draw conclusions about the efficacy and safety of new treatments for heart failure. Additionally, the societal and health system perspectives on heart failure have raised interest in ascertaining the effects of therapy on outcomes such as repeat hospitalization and the patient's burden of disease. Thus, novel methods for using composite endpoints in clinical trials (e.g. clinical status composite endpoints, recurrent event analyses) are being applied in current and planned trials. Endpoints that measure functional status or reflect the patient experience are important but used cautiously because heart failure treatments may improve function yet have adverse effects on mortality. This paper discusses the use of traditional and new composite endpoints, identifies qualities of robust composites, and outlines opportunities for future research.

Loop diuretics, renal function and clinical outcome in patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction.

AIM: We aimed to study the relationships of loop diuretic dose with renal function and clinical outcomes in patients with chronic heart failure (HF). METHODS AND RESULTS: Loop diuretic dose at baseline was recorded in patients included in the Controlled Rosuvastatin Multinational Trial in Heart Failure (CORONA). The relationship to change in estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) over time and to the first occurrence of the composite outcome of cardiovascular (CV) death or hospitalization owing to HF was examined in propensity score matched cohorts. Of the 5011 patients, 2550, 745, and 449 were receiving >80 mg (high), 41-80 mg (medium) and ≤40 mg (low) of loop diuretics in furosemide equivalent daily dosages, respectively, which were used to assemble 229, 385, and 1045 pairs of propensity-matched high, medium, and low dose cohorts. Compared with matched no loop diuretic groups, eGFR declined 0.3 ± 0.2, 0.3 ± 0.3 and 1.2 ± 0.5 mL/min/1.73 m(2) /year in the low-, medium-, and high-dose groups, respectively. Compared with matched no loop diuretic groups, hazard ratios (HR) (95% confidence intervals) for outcome associated with low-, medium- and high-dose groups were 1.71 (1.41-2.06), 1.99 (1.50-2.64), and 2.94 (1.95-4.41), respectively. Higher loop diuretic dose was particularly associated with increased risk for hospitalization owing to HF: HR 4.80 (2.75-8.37), P < 0.001. CONCLUSIONS: The use of loop diuretics was associated with a slightly greater rate of decline in eGFR, which did not vary significantly by diuretic dose.Loop diuretic dose was associated with higher risks of (CV) mortality and predominantly hospitalization owing to HF, which appeared to be higher among those receiving higher daily doses.