Aficamten for Symptomatic Obstructive Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy.

BACKGROUND: One of the major determinants of exercise intolerance and limiting symptoms among patients with obstructive hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM) is an elevated intracardiac pressure resulting from left ventricular outflow tract obstruction. Aficamten is an oral selective cardiac myosin inhibitor that reduces left ventricular outflow tract gradients by mitigating cardiac hypercontractility. METHODS: In this phase 3, double-blind trial, we randomly assigned adults with symptomatic obstructive HCM to receive aficamten (starting dose, 5 mg; maximum dose, 20 mg) or placebo for 24 weeks, with dose adjustment based on echocardiography results. The primary end point was the change from baseline to week 24 in the peak oxygen uptake as assessed by cardiopulmonary exercise testing. The 10 prespecified secondary end points (tested hierarchically) were change in the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire clinical summary score (KCCQ-CSS), improvement in the New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional class, change in the pressure gradient after the Valsalva maneuver, occurrence of a gradient of less than 30 mm Hg after the Valsalva maneuver, and duration of eligibility for septal reduction therapy (all assessed at week 24); change in the KCCQ-CSS, improvement in the NYHA functional class, change in the pressure gradient after the Valsalva maneuver, and occurrence of a gradient of less than 30 mm Hg after the Valsalva maneuver (all assessed at week 12); and change in the total workload as assessed by cardiopulmonary exercise testing at week 24. RESULTS: A total of 282 patients underwent randomization: 142 to the aficamten group and 140 to the placebo group. The mean age was 59.1 years, 59.2% were men, the baseline mean resting left ventricular outflow tract gradient was 55.1 mm Hg, and the baseline mean left ventricular ejection fraction was 74.8%. At 24 weeks, the mean change in the peak oxygen uptake was 1.8 ml per kilogram per minute (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.2 to 2.3) in the aficamten group and 0.0 ml per kilogram per minute (95% CI, -0.5 to 0.5) in the placebo group (least-squares mean between-group difference, 1.7 ml per kilogram per minute; 95% CI, 1.0 to 2.4; P<0.001). The results for all 10 secondary end points were significantly improved with aficamten as compared with placebo. The incidence of adverse events appeared to be similar in the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with symptomatic obstructive HCM, treatment with aficamten resulted in a significantly greater improvement in peak oxygen uptake than placebo. (Funded by Cytokinetics; SEQUOIA-HCM ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT05186818.).

Cardiac Troponin and Treatment Effects of Omecamtiv Mecarbil: Results From the GALACTIC-HF Study.

BACKGROUND: Omecamtiv mecarbil improves outcomes in patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). We examined the relationship between baseline troponin levels, change in troponin levels over time and the treatment effect of omecamtiv mecarbil in patients enrolled in the Global Approach to Lowering Adverse Cardiac Outcomes through Improving Contractility in Heart Failure (GALACTIC-HF) trial (NCT02929329). METHODS: GALACTIC-HF was a double-blind, placebo-controlled trial that randomized 8256 patients with symptomatic HFrEF to omecamtiv mecarbil or placebo. High-sensitivity troponin I (cTnI) was measured serially at a core laboratory. We analyzed the relationship between both baseline cTnI and change in cTnI concentrations with clinical outcomes and the treatment effect of omecamtiv mecarbil. RESULTS: Higher baseline cTnI concentrations were associated with a risk of adverse outcomes (hazard ratio for the primary endpoint of time to first HF event or CV death = 1.30; 95% CI 1.28, 1.33; P < 0.001 per doubling of baseline cTnI). Although the incidence of safety outcomes was higher in patients with higher baseline cTnI, there was no difference between treatment groups. Treatment with omecamtiv mecarbil led to a modest increase in cTnI that was related to plasma concentrations of omecamtiv mecarbil, and it peaked at 6 weeks. An increase in troponin from baseline to week 6 was associated with an increased risk of the primary endpoint (P < 0.001), which was similar, regardless of treatment assignment (P value for interaction = 0.2). CONCLUSIONS: In a cohort of patients with HFrEF, baseline cTnI concentrations were strongly associated with adverse clinical outcomes. Although cTnI concentrations were higher in patients treated with omecamtiv mecarbil, we did not find a differential effect of omecamtiv mecarbil on either safety or efficacy based on baseline cTnI status or change in cTnI.

The Effect of Omecamtiv Mecarbil in Hospitalized Patients as Compared With Outpatients With HFrEF: An Analysis of GALACTIC-HF.

BACKGROUND: In the Global Approach to Lowering Adverse Cardiac Outcomes Through Improving Contractility in Heart Failure (GALACTIC-HF) trial, omecamtiv mecarbil, compared with placebo, reduced the risk of worsening heart failure (HF) events, or cardiovascular death in patients with HF and reduced ejection fraction. The primary aim of this prespecified analysis was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of omecamtiv mecarbil by randomization setting, that is, whether participants were enrolled as outpatients or inpatients. METHODS AND RESULTS: Patients were randomized either during a HF hospitalization or as an outpatient, within one year of a worsening HF event (hospitalization or emergency department visit). The primary outcome was a composite of worsening HF event (HF hospitalization or an urgent emergency department or clinic visit) or cardiovascular death. Of the 8232 patients analyzed, 2084 (25%) were hospitalized at randomization. Hospitalized patients had higher N-terminal prohormone of B-type natriuretic peptide concentrations, lower systolic blood pressure, reported more symptoms, and were less frequently treated with a renin-angiotensin system blocker or a beta-blocker than outpatients. The rate (per 100 person-years) of the primary outcome was higher in hospitalized patients (placebo group = 38.3/100 person-years) than in outpatients (23.1/100 person-years); adjusted hazard ratio 1.21 (95% confidence interval 1.12-1.31). The effect of omecamtiv mecarbil versus placebo on the primary outcome was similar in hospitalized patients (hazard ratio 0.89, 95% confidence interval 0.78-1.01) and outpatients (hazard ratio 0.94, 95% confidence interval 0.86-1.02) (interaction P = .51). CONCLUSIONS: Hospitalized patients with HF with reduced ejection fraction had a higher rate of the primary outcome than outpatients. Omecamtiv mecarbil decreased the risk of the primary outcome both when initiated in hospitalized patients and in outpatients.

Efficacy and Safety of Aficamten in Symptomatic Nonobstructive Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy: Results From the REDWOOD-HCM Trial, Cohort 4.

BACKGROUND: This open-label phase 2 trial evaluated the safety and efficacy of aficamten in patients with nonobstructive hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (nHCM). METHODS: Patients with symptomatic nHCM (left ventricular outflow tract obstruction gradient ≤ 30 mmHg, left ventricular ejection fraction [LVEF] ≥ 60%, N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide [NT-proBNP] > 300 pg/mL) received aficamten 5-15 mg once daily (doses adjusted according to echocardiographic LVEF) for 10 weeks. RESULTS: We enrolled 41 patients (mean ± SD age 56 ± 16 years; 59% female). At Week 10, 22 (55%) patients experienced an improvement of ≥ 1 New York Heart Association class; 11 (29%) became asymptomatic. Clinically relevant improvements in Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire Clinical Summary Scores occurred in 22 (55%) patients. Symptom relief was paralleled by reductions in NT-proBNP levels (56%; P < 0.001) and high-sensitivity cardiac troponin I (22%; P < 0.005). Modest reductions in LVEF (mean ± SD) of -5.4% ± 10 to 64.6% ± 9.1 were observed. Three (8%) patients had asymptomatic reduction in LVEF < 50% (range: 41%-48%), all returning to normal after 2 weeks of washout. One patient with prior history of aborted sudden cardiac death experienced a fatal arrhythmia during the study. CONCLUSIONS: Aficamten administration for symptomatic nHCM was generally safe and was associated with improvements in heart failure symptoms and cardiac biomarkers. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04219826.

Effects of omecamtiv mecarbil in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction according to blood pressure: the GALACTIC-HF trial.

AIM: Patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction and low systolic blood pressure (SBP) have high mortality, hospitalizations, and poorly tolerate evidence-based medical treatment. Omecamtiv mecarbil may be particularly helpful in such patients. This study examined its efficacy and tolerability in patients with SBP ≤100 mmHg enrolled in the Global Approach to Lowering Adverse Cardiac outcomes Through Improving Contractility in Heart Failure (GALACTIC-HF). METHODS AND RESULTS: The GALACTIC-HF enrolled patients with baseline SBP ≥85 mmHg with a primary outcome of time to cardiovascular death or first heart failure event. In this analysis, patients were divided according to their baseline SBP (≤100 vs. >100 mmHg). Among the 8232 analysed patients, 1473 (17.9%) had baseline SBP ≤100 mmHg and 6759 (82.1%) had SBP >100 mmHg. The primary outcome occurred in 715 (48.5%) and 2415 (35.7%) patients with SBP ≤100 and >100 mmHg, respectively. Patients with lower SBP were at higher risk of adverse outcomes. Omecamtiv mecarbil, compared with placebo, appeared to be more effective in reducing the primary composite endpoint in patients with SBP ≤100 mmHg [hazard ratio (HR), 0.81; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.70-0.94] compared with those with SBP >100 mmHg (HR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.88-1.03; P-value for interaction = 0.051). In both groups, omecamtiv mecarbil did not change SBP values over time and did not increase the risk of adverse events, when compared with placebo. CONCLUSION: In GALACTIC-HF, risk reduction of heart failure outcomes with omecamtiv mecarbil compared with placebo was large and significant in patients with low SBP. Omecamtiv mecarbil did not affect SBP and was well tolerated independent of SBP values.

Influence of atrial fibrillation on efficacy and safety of omecamtiv mecarbil in heart failure: the GALACTIC-HF trial.

AIMS: In GALACTIC-HF, the cardiac myosin activator omecamtiv mecarbil compared with placebo reduced the risk of heart failure events or cardiovascular death in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction. We explored the influence of atrial fibrillation or flutter (AFF) on the effectiveness of omecamtiv mecarbil. METHODS AND RESULTS: GALACTIC-HF enrolled patients with New York Heart Association (NYHA) Class II-IV heart failure, left ventricular ejection fraction ≤35%, and elevated natriuretic peptides. We assessed whether the presence or absence of AFF, a pre-specified subgroup, modified the treatment effect for the primary and secondary outcomes, and additionally explored effect modification in patients who were or were not receiving digoxin. Patients with AFF (n = 2245, 27%) were older, more likely to be randomized as an inpatient, less likely to have a history of ischaemic aetiology or myocardial infarction, had a worse NYHA class, worse quality of life, lower estimated glomerular filtration rate, and higher N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide. The treatment effect of omecamtiv mecarbil was modified by baseline AFF (interaction P = 0.012), with patients without AFF at baseline deriving greater benefit. The worsening of the treatment effect by baseline AFF was significantly more pronounced in digoxin users than in non-users (interaction P = 0.007); there was minimal evidence of effect modification in those patients not using digoxin (P = 0.47) or in digoxin users not in AFF. CONCLUSION: Patients in AFF at baseline were less likely to benefit from omecamtiv mecarbil than patients without AFF, although the attenuation of the treatment effect was disproportionally concentrated in patients with AFF who were also receiving digoxin.Clinical Trial Registration: NCT02929329.

Effect of Omecamtiv Mecarbil on Exercise Capacity in Chronic Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction: The METEORIC-HF Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Exercise limitation is a cardinal manifestation of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) but is not consistently improved by any of the current guideline-directed medical therapies. Objective: To determine whether omecamtiv mecarbil, a novel direct myosin activator that improves cardiac performance and reduces the risk for cardiovascular death or first HF event in HFrEF, can improve peak exercise capacity in patients with chronic HFrEF. Design, Setting, and Participants: Phase 3, double-blind, placebo-controlled randomized trial of patients with HFrEF (left ventricular ejection fraction ≤35%), New York Heart Association class II-III symptoms, N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide level of 200 pg/mL or greater, and baseline peak oxygen uptake (V̇o2) of 75% or less of predicted. Patients were randomized in a 2:1 ratio (omecamtiv mecarbil to placebo) between March 2019 and May 2021 at 63 sites in North America and Europe, with the last patient visit occurring on November 29, 2021. Interventions: Omecamtiv mecarbil (n = 185) or matching placebo (n = 91), given orally twice daily at a dose of 25 mg, 37.5 mg, or 50 mg based on target plasma levels, for 20 weeks. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was a change in exercise capacity (peak V̇o2) from baseline to week 20. Secondary end points included total workload, ventilatory efficiency, and daily physical activity as determined by accelerometry. Results: Among 276 patients who were randomized (median age, 64 years; IQR, 55-70 years; 42 women [15%]), 249 (90%) completed the trial. The median left ventricular ejection fraction was 28% (IQR, 21-33) and the median baseline peak V̇o2 was 14.2 mL/kg/min (IQR, 11.6-17.4) in the omecamtiv mecarbil group and 15.0 mL/kg/min (IQR, 12.0-17.2) in the placebo group. Mean change in peak V̇o2 did not differ significantly between the omecamtiv mecarbil and placebo groups (mean, -0.24 mL/kg/min vs 0.21 mL/kg/min; least square mean difference, -0.45 mL/kg/min [95% CI, -1.02 to 0.13]; P = .13). Adverse events included dizziness (omecamtiv mecarbil: 4.9%, placebo: 5.5%), fatigue (omecamtiv mecarbil: 4.9%, placebo: 4.4%), heart failure events (omecamtiv mecarbil: 4.9%, placebo: 4.4%), death (omecamtiv mecarbil: 1.6%, placebo: 1.1%), stroke (omecamtiv mecarbil: 0.5%, placebo: 1.1%), and myocardial infarction (omecamtiv mecarbil: 0%, placebo: 1.1%). Conclusions and Relevance: In patients with chronic HFrEF, omecamtiv mecarbil did not significantly improve exercise capacity over 20 weeks compared with placebo. These findings do not support the use of omecamtiv mecarbil for treatment of HFrEF for improvement of exercise capacity. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03759392.

Serial Measurement of High-Sensitivity Troponin I and Cardiovascular Outcomes in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus in the EXAMINE Trial (Examination of Cardiovascular Outcomes With Alogliptin Versus Standard of Care).

BACKGROUND: We aimed to describe the relationship between changes in high-sensitivity cardiac troponin I (hsTnI) and cardiovascular outcomes. METHODS: The EXAMINE trial (Examination of Cardiovascular Outcomes With Alogliptin Versus Standard of Care) was a phase IIIb clinical outcomes trial designed to evaluate the cardiovascular safety of alogliptin, a nonselective dipeptidyl peptidase 4 inhibitor. Patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus, glycohemoglobin between 6.5% and 11% (or between 7% and 11% if they were on insulin), and a recent acute coronary syndrome (between 15 and 90 days before randomization) were eligible for the trial. hsTnI was measured using the Abbott ARCHITECT assay at baseline and 6 months in patients randomized in the EXAMINE trial. This analysis was restricted to patients randomized ≥30 days after qualifying acute coronary syndrome to mitigate the potential for persistent hsTnI elevation after acute coronary syndrome (n=3808). The primary end point of the trial was cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or stroke. Cardiovascular death or heart failure was a prespecified, adjudicated secondary end point. RESULTS: At baseline, hsTnI was detectable (≥1.9 ng/L) in 93% of patients and >99th percentile upper reference limit in 16%. There was a strong relationship between increasing hsTnI, both at baseline and 6 months, and the incidence of cardiovascular events through 24 months (P<0.001 for each). Patients with undetectable hsTnI at baseline and 6 months were at the lowest risk of future cardiovascular events. Stable patients with hsTnI ≥99th percentile upper reference limit at 6 months were at increased risk of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or stroke compared with patients with hsTnI <99 percentile upper reference limit irrespective of whether hsTnI was newly elevated (28.1% versus 8.8%; adjusted hazard ratio, 2.65; 95% confidence interval, 1.64-4.28; P<0.001) or persistently so (22.5% versus 8.8%; adjusted hazard ratio, 1.90; 95% confidence interval, 1.33-2.70; P<0.001). Alogliptin neither increased nor decreased the risk of cardiovascular events compared with placebo in patients with high baseline hsTnI (22.3% versus 23.0%; hazard ratio, 0.87; 95% confidence interval, 0.60-1.25; P=0.44). CONCLUSIONS: Serial assessment of hsTnI revealed a substantial proportion of patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus without clinically recognized events had dynamic or persistently elevated values and were at high risk of recurrent events. hsTnI may have a role in personalizing preventive strategies in patients with diabetes mellitus based on risk. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00968708.

Relationship of glycated haemoglobin and reported hypoglycaemia to cardiovascular outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes and recent acute coronary syndrome events: The EXAMINE trial.

AIMS: To investigate relationships between glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) and reported hypoglycaemia and risk of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE). METHODS: The EXAMINE trial randomized 5380 patients with type 2 diabetes (T2DM) and a recent acute coronary syndrome (ACS) event, in 49 countries, to double-blind treatment with alogliptin or placebo in addition to standard of care. We used Cox proportional hazards models to analyse relationships among MACE, HbA1c levels and hypoglycaemic events. RESULTS: Patients randomized to alogliptin achieved lower HbA1c levels than the placebo group in all baseline HbA1c categories without differences in hypoglycaemia rates. No systematic change was found in MACE rates according to baseline HbA1c (Pinteraction = 0.971) or HbA1c category at 1 month. Patients in the combined treatment groups (n = 5380) who experienced serious hypoglycaemia (n = 34) had higher MACE rates than those who did not (35.3% vs 11.4%, adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 2.42, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.27-4.60; P = .007), although the association was less strong when analysing only events after the hypoglycaemic event (adjusted HR 1.60, 95% CI 0.80, 3.20). CONCLUSIONS: There were no relationships between baseline HbA1c levels or HbA1c levels after 1 month of treatment and the risk of MACE. Alogliptin improved glycaemic control without increasing hypoglycaemia. Reported events of hypoglycaemia and serious hypoglycaemia were associated with MACE. These data underscore the safety of alogliptin in improving glycaemic control in T2DM post-ACS. Further study of hypoglycaemia as an independent risk factor for MACE in patients with T2DM and coronary disease is needed.

Heart failure and mortality outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes taking alogliptin versus placebo in EXAMINE: a multicentre, randomised, double-blind trial.

BACKGROUND: The EXAMINE trial showed non-inferiority of the DPP-4 inhibitor alogliptin to placebo on major adverse cardiac event (MACE) rates in patients with type 2 diabetes and recent acute coronary syndromes. Concerns about excessive rates of in-hospital heart failure in another DPP-4 inhibitor trial have been reported. We therefore assessed hospital admission for heart failure in the EXAMINE trial. METHODS: Patients with type 2 diabetes and an acute coronary syndrome event in the previous 15-90 days were randomly assigned alogliptin or placebo plus standard treatment for diabetes and cardiovascular disease prevention. The prespecified exploratory extended MACE endpoint was all-cause mortality, non-fatal myocardial infarction, non-fatal stroke, urgent revascularisation due to unstable angina, and hospital admission for heart failure. The post-hoc analyses were of cardiovascular death and hospital admission for heart failure, assessed by history of heart failure and brain natriuretic peptide (BNP) concentration at baseline. We also assessed changes in N-terminal pro-BNP (NT-pro-BNP) from baseline to 6 months. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00968708. FINDINGS: 5380 patients were assigned to alogliptin (n=2701) or placebo (n=2679) and followed up for a median of 533 days (IQR 280-751). The exploratory extended MACE endpoint was seen in 433 (16·0%) patients assigned to alogliptin and in 441 (16·5%) assigned to placebo (hazard ratio [HR] 0·98, 95% CI 0·86-1·12). Hospital admission for heart failure was the first event in 85 (3·1%) patients taking alogliptin compared with 79 (2·9%) taking placebo (HR 1·07, 95% CI 0·79-1·46). Alogliptin had no effect on composite events of cardiovascular death and hospital admission for heart failure in the post hoc analysis (HR 1·00, 95% CI 0·82-1·21) and results did not differ by baseline BNP concentration. NT-pro-BNP concentrations decreased significantly and similarly in the two groups. INTERPRETATION: In patients with type 2 diabetes and recent acute coronary syndromes, alogliptin did not increase the risk of heart failure outcomes. FUNDING: Takeda Development Center Americas.

Alogliptin after acute coronary syndrome in patients with type 2 diabetes.

BACKGROUND: To assess potentially elevated cardiovascular risk related to new antihyperglycemic drugs in patients with type 2 diabetes, regulatory agencies require a comprehensive evaluation of the cardiovascular safety profile of new antidiabetic therapies. We assessed cardiovascular outcomes with alogliptin, a new inhibitor of dipeptidyl peptidase 4 (DPP-4), as compared with placebo in patients with type 2 diabetes who had had a recent acute coronary syndrome. METHODS: We randomly assigned patients with type 2 diabetes and either an acute myocardial infarction or unstable angina requiring hospitalization within the previous 15 to 90 days to receive alogliptin or placebo in addition to existing antihyperglycemic and cardiovascular drug therapy. The study design was a double-blind, noninferiority trial with a prespecified noninferiority margin of 1.3 for the hazard ratio for the primary end point of a composite of death from cardiovascular causes, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or nonfatal stroke. RESULTS: A total of 5380 patients underwent randomization and were followed for up to 40 months (median, 18 months). A primary end-point event occurred in 305 patients assigned to alogliptin (11.3%) and in 316 patients assigned to placebo (11.8%) (hazard ratio, 0.96; upper boundary of the one-sided repeated confidence interval, 1.16; P<0.001 for noninferiority). Glycated hemoglobin levels were significantly lower with alogliptin than with placebo (mean difference, -0.36 percentage points; P<0.001). Incidences of hypoglycemia, cancer, pancreatitis, and initiation of dialysis were similar with alogliptin and placebo. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with type 2 diabetes who had had a recent acute coronary syndrome, the rates of major adverse cardiovascular events were not increased with the DPP-4 inhibitor alogliptin as compared with placebo. (Funded by Takeda Development Center Americas; EXAMINE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00968708.).

Ischemic cardiac outcomes and hospitalizations according to prior macrovascular disease status in patients with type 2 diabetes and recent acute coronary syndrome from the Examination of Cardiovascular Outcomes with Alogliptin versus Standard of Care trial.

BACKGROUND: Concerns raised regarding adverse cardiovascular (CV) outcomes with new therapies for type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) have led to several large-scale CV outcome trials. The EXAMINE trial confirmed noninferiority of the dipeptidyl dipeptidase 4 inhibitor alogliptin to placebo on major adverse cardiac event rates in a post-acute coronary syndrome (ACS) T2DM population. We present data on additional ischemic cardiac events and CV hospitalizations in EXAMINE. METHODS: Patients with T2DM and an ACS event in the previous 15 to 90 days were randomly assigned to alogliptin or placebo on a background of standard treatment for diabetes. The incident rates of a 5-component composite end point of CV death, stroke, myocardial infarction, unstable angina, and coronary revascularization as well as CV hospitalization were calculated in all participants and according to macrovascular disease at baseline. RESULTS: There were no significant differences between alogliptin (n = 2,701) and placebo (n = 2,679) in the event rate of the 5-component composite endpoint with median follow-up 533 days (21.0% vs 21.5%, hazard ratio [HR] 0.98 [0.87-1.10], P = .72). No differences were observed in terms of CV hospitalization (25.0% vs 25.4%, HR 0.98 [0.88-1.09], P = .70) or coronary revascularization (10.6% vs 10.2%, HR 1.05 [0.88-1.09], P = .60). No interactions were observed for treatment and prior macrovascular disease. CONCLUSIONS: EXAMINE demonstrates that there was no increase in the risk of cardiac ischemic events and CV hospitalizations with alogliptin in a high-risk post-ACS patient population. Because these are major driver of overall health care costs, these data suggest that there would be no adverse impact on health care resource utilization.

Improving cardiovascular clinical trials conduct in the United States: recommendation from clinicians, researchers, sponsors, and regulators.

Advances in medical therapies leading to improved patient outcomes are in large part related to successful conduct of clinical trials that offer critical information regarding the efficacy and safety of novel interventions. The conduct of clinical trials in the United States, however, continues to face increasing challenges with recruitment and retention. These trends are paralleled by an increasing shift toward more multinational trials where most participants are enrolled in countries outside the United States, bringing into question the generalizability of the results to the American population. This manuscript presents the perspectives and recommendations from clinicians, researchers, sponsors, and regulators who attended a meeting facilitated by the Food and Drug Administration to improve upon the current clinical trial trends in the United States.

Clinical trials in hospitalized heart failure patients: targeting interventions to optimal phenotypic subpopulations.

With one possible exception, the last decade of clinical trials in hospitalized heart failure (HHF) patients has failed to demonstrate improvement in long-term clinical outcomes. This trend necessitates a need to evaluate optimal drug development strategies and standards of trial conduct. It has become increasingly important to recognize the heterogeneity among HHF patients and the differential characterization of novel drug candidates. Targeting these agents to specific subpopulations may afford optimal net response related to the particular mode of action of the drug. Analyses of previous trials demonstrate profound differences in the baseline characteristics of patients enrolled across global regions and participating sites. Such differences may influence risks for events and interpretation of results. Therefore, the actual execution of trials and the epidemiology of HHF populations at the investigative sites must be taken into consideration. Collaboration among participating sites including the provision of registry data tailored to the planned development program will optimize trial conduct. Observational data prior to study initiation may enable sites to feedback and engage in protocol development to allow for feasible and valid clinical trial conduct. This site-centered, epidemiology-based network environment may facilitate studies in specific patient populations and promote optimal data collection and clear interpretation of drug safety and efficacy. This review summarizes the roundtable discussion held by a multidisciplinary team of representatives from academia, National Institutes of Health, industry, regulatory agencies, payers, and contract and academic research organizations to answer the question: Who should be targeted for novel therapies in HHF?

Relationship between quantitative strength and functional outcomes in the phase 2 FORTITUDE-ALS trial.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the relationship among measurements of strength, function, and quality of life in an amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) clinical trial. METHODS: In the FORTITUDE-ALS clinical trial (NCT03160898), 456 participants in the full-analysis set were treated with either reldesemtiv or placebo for 12 weeks; this post hoc analysis included all participants regardless of treatment assignments. Assessments included slow vital capacity (SVC), the ALS Functional Rating Scale-Revised (ALSFRS-R), and the 5-item ALS Assessment Questionnaire (ALSAQ-5). Muscle strength was measured quantitatively with hand-held dynamometry, and grip strength with a dedicated dynamometer. The relationship between strength and ALSFRS-R fine and gross motor domain scores, or responses to ALSAQ-5 questions on hand function and walking, was assessed with Spearman's rank correlation. The relationship between mean upper- or lower-extremity muscle strength and specific ALSFRS-R domains was modeled using principal-components analysis. RESULTS: Upper-extremity muscle strength and hand grip were highly correlated with ALSFRS-R fine motor scores and the ALSAQ-5 hand function question. Similarly, lower-extremity strength correlated well with ALSFRS-R gross motor domain and the ALSAQ-5 walking question. For SVC, correlation was poor with the ALSFRS-R respiratory domain, but stronger with the total score, potentially reflecting the insensitivity of the respiratory questions in the scale. Upper- and lower-extremity strength were both strong predictors of ALSFRS-R domain scores. CONCLUSIONS: In this analysis of data from an ALS clinical trial, muscle strength quantified by dynamometry was strongly correlated with functional capacity. These results suggest that muscle strength directly relates to specific functions of importance to people with ALS.

Tricuspid Regurgitation and Clinical Outcomes in Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction.

BACKGROUND: Tricuspid regurgitation (TR) is common and is associated with poor outcomes in patients with heart failure (HF). However, data with adjudicated events from fully characterized patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) are lacking. OBJECTIVES: This study sought to explore the association between mild or moderate/severe TR and clinical outcomes of patients with HFrEF. METHODS: GALACTIC-HF (Global Approach to Lowering Adverse Cardiac Outcomes Through Improving Contractility in Heart Failure) was a double-blind, placebo-controlled randomized trial comparing omecamtiv mecarbil vs placebo in patients with symptomatic HFrEF. RESULTS: Among the 8,232 patients analyzed in the GALACTIC-HF trial, 8,180 (99%) had data regarding baseline TR (none: n = 6,476 [79%], mild: n = 919 [11%], and moderate/severe: n = 785 [10%]). The primary composite outcome of a first HF event or cardiovascular death occurred in 2,368 (36.6%) patients with no TR, 353 (38.4%) patients with mild TR, and 389 (49.6%) patients with moderate/severe TR. Moderate/severe TR was independently associated with a higher relative risk of the primary composite outcome compared with either no TR (adjusted HR: 1.12 [95% CI: 1.01-1.26]; P = 0.046) or no/mild TR (adjusted HR: 1.14 [95% CI: 1.02-1.27]; P = 0.025) driven predominantly by HF events. The association between moderate/severe TR and clinical outcomes was more pronounced in outpatients with worse renal function, higher left ventricular ejection fraction, and lower N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide and bilirubin levels. The beneficial treatment effect of omecamtiv mecarbil vs placebo on clinical outcomes was not modified by TR. CONCLUSIONS: In symptomatic patients with HFrEF, baseline moderate/severe TR was independently associated with cardiovascular death or HF events driven predominantly by HF events. The beneficial treatment effect of omecamtiv mecarbil on the primary outcome was not modified by TR.

Exercise Capacity in Patients With Obstructive Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy: SEQUOIA-HCM Baseline Characteristics and Study Design.

Patients with obstructive hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (oHCM) have increased risk of arrhythmia, stroke, heart failure, and sudden death. Contemporary management of oHCM has decreased annual hospitalization and mortality rates, yet patients have worsening health-related quality of life due to impaired exercise capacity and persistent residual symptoms. Here we consider the design of clinical trials evaluating potential oHCM therapies in the context of SEQUOIA-HCM (Safety, Efficacy, and Quantitative Understanding of Obstruction Impact of Aficamten in HCM). This large, phase 3 trial is now fully enrolled (N = 282). Baseline characteristics reflect an ethnically diverse population with characteristics typical of patients encountered clinically with substantial functional and symptom burden. The study will assess the effect of aficamten vs placebo, in addition to standard-of-care medications, on functional capacity and symptoms over 24 weeks. Future clinical trials could model the approach in SEQUOIA-HCM to evaluate the effect of potential therapies on the burden of oHCM. (Safety, Efficacy, and Quantitative Understanding of Obstruction Impact of Aficamten in HCM [SEQUOIA-HCM]; NCT05186818).

Recognizing hospitalized heart failure as an entity and developing new therapies to improve outcomes: academics', clinicians', industry's, regulators', and payers' perspectives.

Hospitalized heart failure (HHF) is associated with unacceptably high postdischarge mortality and rehospitalization rates. This heterogeneous group of patients, however, is still treated with standard, homogenous therapies that are not preventing their rapid deterioration. The costs associated with HHF have added demands from society, government, and payers to improve outcomes. With coordinated and committed efforts in the development of new therapies, improvements may be seen in outcomes for patients with HHF. This article summarizes concepts in developing therapies for HHF discussed during a multidisciplinary panel at the Heart Failure Society of America's Annual Scientific Meeting, September 2012.

Efficacy of omecamtiv mecarbil in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction according to N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide level: insights from the GALACTIC-HF trial.

AIM: N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) is predictive of both outcomes and response to treatment in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). The aim of this study was to examine the effect of the cardiac myosin activator omecamtiv mecarbil according to baseline NT-proBNP level in the Global Approach to Lowering Adverse Cardiac outcomes Through Improving Contractility in Heart Failure trial (GALACTIC-HF). METHODS AND RESULTS: The primary outcome was the composite of a worsening heart failure event (urgent clinic visit, emergency department visit, or hospitalization) or cardiovascular death. We prespecified analysis of the effect of treatment according to baseline NT-proBNP (≤ median, > median), excluding individuals with atrial fibrillation/flutter (AF/AFL). Of the 8232 patients analysed, 8206 had an available baseline NT-proBNP measurement. Among the 5971 patients not in AF/AFL, the median (Q1-Q3) NT-proBNP level was 1675 (812-3579) pg/ml. Hazard ratios (HR) for the effect of omecamtiv mecarbil, compared with placebo, for the primary endpoint in patients without AF/AFL were: ≤ median 0.94 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.80-1.09), > median 0.81 (0.73-0.90) (p-interaction = 0.095); for the overall population (including patients with AF/AFL) the HRs were ≤ median 1.01 (0.90-1.15) and > median 0.88 (0.80-0.96) (p-interaction = 0.035). There was an interaction between treatment and NT-proBNP, examined as a continuous variable, with greater effect of omecamtiv mecarbil on the primary outcome in patients with a higher baseline NT-proBNP (p-interaction = 0.086). CONCLUSIONS: In GALACTIC-HF, the benefit of omecamtiv mecarbil appeared to be larger in patients with higher baseline NT-proBNP levels, especially in patients without AF/AFL. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier NCT02929329; EudraCT number, 2016-002299-28.