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

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

Clinical and Echocardiographic Characteristics and Cardiovascular Outcomes According to Diabetes Status in Patients With Heart Failure and Preserved Ejection Fraction: A Report From the I-Preserve Trial (Irbesartan in Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction).

BACKGROUND: In patients with heart failure and preserved ejection fraction, little is known about the characteristics of, and outcomes in, those with and without diabetes mellitus. METHODS: We examined clinical and echocardiographic characteristics and outcomes in the I-Preserve trial (Irbesartan in Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction) according to history of diabetes mellitus. Cox regression models were used to estimate hazard ratios for cardiovascular outcomes adjusted for known predictors, including age, sex, natriuretic peptides, and comorbidity. Echocardiographic data were available in 745 patients and were additionally adjusted for in supplementary analyses. RESULTS: Overall, 1134 of 4128 patients (27%) had diabetes mellitus. Compared with those without diabetes mellitus, they were more likely to have a history of myocardial infarction (28% versus 22%), higher body mass index (31 versus 29 kg/m2), worse Minnesota Living With Heart Failure score (48 versus 40), higher median N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide concentration (403 versus 320 pg/mL; all P<0.01), more signs of congestion, but no significant difference in left ventricular ejection fraction. Patients with diabetes mellitus had a greater left ventricular mass and left atrial area than patients without diabetes mellitus. Doppler E-wave velocity (86 versus 76 cm/s; P<0.0001) and the E/e' ratio (11.7 versus 10.4; P=0.010) were higher in patients with diabetes mellitus. Over a median follow-up of 4.1 years, cardiovascular death or heart failure hospitalization occurred in 34% of patients with diabetes mellitus versus 22% of those without diabetes mellitus (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.75; 95% confidence interval, 1.49-2.05), and 28% versus 19% of patients with and without diabetes mellitus died (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.59; confidence interval, 1.33-1.91). CONCLUSIONS: In heart failure with preserved ejection fraction, patients with diabetes mellitus have more signs of congestion, worse quality of life, higher N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide levels, and a poorer prognosis. They also display greater structural and functional echocardiographic abnormalities. Further investigation is needed to determine the mediators of the adverse impact of diabetes mellitus on outcomes in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction and whether they are modifiable. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00095238.

Risk of stroke in chronic heart failure patients with preserved ejection fraction, but without atrial fibrillation: analysis of the CHARM-Preserved and I-Preserve trials.

AIMS: The incidence and predictors of stroke in patients with heart failure and preserved ejection fraction (HF-PEF), but without atrial fibrillation (AF), are unknown. We described the incidence of stroke in HF-PEF patients with and without AF and predictors of stroke in those without AF. METHODS AND RESULTS: We pooled data from the CHARM-Preserved and I-Preserve trials. Using Cox regression, we derived a model for stroke in patients without AF in this cohort and compared its performance with a published model in heart failure patients with reduced ejection fraction (HF-REF)-predictive variables: age, body mass index, New York Heart Association class, history of stroke, and insulin-treated diabetes. The two stroke models were compared and Kaplan-Meier curves for stroke estimated. The risk model was validated in a third HF-PEF trial. Of the 6701 patients, 4676 did not have AF. Stroke occurred in 124 (6.1%) with AF and in 171 (3.7%) without AF (rates 1.80 and 1.00 per 100 patient-years, respectively). There was no difference in performance of the stroke model derived in the HF-PEF cohort and the published HF-REF model (c-index 0.71, 95% confidence interval 0.57-0.84 vs. 0.73, 0.59-0.85, respectively) as the predictive variables overlapped. The model performed well in the validation cohort (0.86, 0.62-0.99). The rate of stroke in patients in the upper third of risk approximated to that in patients with AF (1.60 and 1.80 per 100 patient-years, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: A small number of clinical variables identify a subset of patients with HF-PEF, but without AF, at elevated risk of stroke.

Prognostic Value of Insulin-Like Growth Factor-Binding Protein 7 in Patients with Heart Failure and Preserved Ejection Fraction.

BACKGROUND: The prognostic merit of insulin-like growth factor-binding protein 7 (IGFBP7) is unknown in heart failure and preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). METHODS AND RESULTS: Baseline IGFBP7 (BL-IGFBP7; n = 302) and 6-month change (Δ; n = 293) were evaluated in the Irbesartan in Heart Failure and Preserved Ejection Fraction (I-PRESERVE) trial. Primary outcome was all-cause mortality or cardiovascular hospitalization with median follow-up of 3.6 years; secondary outcomes included HF events. Median BL-IGFBP7 concentration was 218 ng/mL. BL-IGFBP7 was significantly correlated with age (R2 = 0.13; P < .0001), amino-terminal pro-B-type NP (R2 = 0.22; P < .0001), and estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR; R2 = 0.14; P < .0001), but not with signs/symptoms of HFpEF. BL-IGFBP7 was significantly associated with the primary outcome (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.007 per ng/mL; P < .001), all-cause mortality (HR = 1.008 per ng/mL; P < .001), and HF events (HR = 1.007 per ng/mL; P < .001). IGFBP7 remained significant for each outcome after adjustment for ln amino-terminal pro-B-type NP and eGFR but not all variables in the I-PRESERVE prediction model. After 6 months, IGFBP7 did not change significantly in either treatment group. ΔIGFBP7 was significantly associated with decrease in eGFR in patients randomized to irbesartan (R2 = 0.09; P = .002). ΔIGFBP7 was not independently associated with outcome. CONCLUSIONS: Higher concentrations of IGFBP7 were associated with increased risk of cardiovascular events, but after multivariable adjustment this association was no longer present. Further studies of IGFBP7 are needed to elucidate its mechanism. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: www.clinicaltrials.gov, NCT00095238.

International geographic variation in event rates in trials of heart failure with preserved and reduced ejection fraction.

BACKGROUND: International geographic differences in outcomes may exist for clinical trials of heart failure and reduced ejection fraction (HF-REF), but there are few data for those with preserved ejection fraction (HF-PEF). METHODS AND RESULTS: We analyzed outcomes by international geographic region in the Irbesartan in Heart Failure with Preserved systolic function trial (I-Preserve), the Candesartan in Heart failure Assessment of Reduction in Mortality and morbidity (CHARM)-Preserved trial, the CHARM-Alternative and CHARM-Added HF-REF trials, and the Controlled Rosuvastatin Multinational Trial in HF-REF (CORONA). Crude rates of heart failure hospitalization varied by geographic region, and more so for HF-PEF than for HF-REF. Rates in patients with HF-PEF were highest in the United States/Canada (HF hospitalization rate 7.6 per 100 patient-years in I-Preserve; 8.8 in CHARM-Preserved), intermediate in Western Europe (4.8/100 and 4.7/100), and lowest in Eastern Europe/Russia (3.3/100 and 2.8/100). The difference between the United States/Canada versus Eastern Europe/Russia persisted after adjustment for key prognostic variables: adjusted hazard ratios 1.34 (95% confidence interval, 1.01-1.74; P=0.04) in I-Preserve and 1.85 (95% confidence interval, 1.17-2.91; P=0.01) in CHARM-Preserved. In HF-REF, rates of HF hospitalization were slightly lower in Western Europe compared with other regions. For both HF-REF and HF-PEF, there were few regional differences in rates of all-cause or cardiovascular mortality. CONCLUSIONS: The differences in event rates observed suggest there is international geographic variation in 1 or more of the definition and diagnosis of HF-PEF, the risk profile of patients enrolled, and the threshold for hospitalization, which has implications for the conduct of future global trials.

Heart Failure in Non-Caucasians, Women, and Older Adults: A White Paper on Special Populations From the Heart Failure Society of America Guideline Committee.

The presentation, natural history, clinical outcomes, and response to therapy in patients with heart failure differ in some ways across populations. Women, older adults, and non-Caucasian racial or ethnic groups compose a substantial proportion of the overall heart failure population, but they have typically been underrepresented in clinical trials. As a result, uncertainty exists about the efficacy of some guideline-directed medical therapies and devices in specific populations, which may result in the under- or overtreatment of these patients. Even when guideline-based treatments are prescribed, socioeconomic, physical, or psychologic factors may affect non-Caucasian and older adult patient groups to a different extent and affect the application, effectiveness, and tolerability of these therapies. Individualized therapy based on tailored biology (genetics, proteomics, metabolomics), socioeconomic and cultural considerations, and individual goals and preferences may be the optimal approach for managing diverse patients. This comprehensive approach to personalized medicine is evolving, but in the interim, the scientific community should continue efforts focused on intensifying research in special populations, prescribing guideline-directed medical therapy unless contraindicated, and implementing evidence-based strategies including patient and family education and multidisciplinary team care in the management of patients.

Advanced (stage D) heart failure: a statement from the Heart Failure Society of America Guidelines Committee.

We propose that stage D advanced heart failure be defined as the presence of progressive and/or persistent severe signs and symptoms of heart failure despite optimized medical, surgical, and device therapy. Importantly, the progressive decline should be primarily driven by the heart failure syndrome. Formally defining advanced heart failure and specifying when medical and device therapies have failed is challenging, but signs and symptoms, hemodynamics, exercise testing, biomarkers, and risk prediction models are useful in this process. Identification of patients in stage D is a clinically important task because treatments are inherently limited, morbidity is typically progressive, and survival is often short. Age, frailty, and psychosocial issues affect both outcomes and selection of therapy for stage D patients. Heart transplant and mechanical circulatory support devices are potential treatment options in select patients. In addition to considering indications, contraindications, clinical status, and comorbidities, treatment selection for stage D patients involves incorporating the patient's wishes for survival versus quality of life, and palliative and hospice care should be integrated into care plans. More research is needed to determine optimal strategies for patient selection and medical decision making, with the ultimate goal of improving clinical and patient centered outcomes in patients with stage D heart failure.

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

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

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

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

Important differences in mode of death between men and women with heart failure who would qualify for a primary prevention implantable cardioverter-defibrillator.

BACKGROUND: Whether sex differences in implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) benefit exist remains unanswered. We evaluated sex differences in mode of death among a large cohort of ambulatory heart failure patients who meet criteria for a primary prevention ICD. METHODS AND RESULTS: Patients from 5 trials or registries were included if they met American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association/Heart Rhythm Society guideline criteria for implantation of a primary prevention ICD. We investigated the potential sex differences in total deaths and total deaths by mode of death. The relationship between the estimated total mortality and mode of death by percentage of total mortality was also analyzed by sex. The Seattle Heart Failure Model was used to estimate total mortality in this analysis. A total of 8337 patients (1685 [20%] women) met inclusion criteria. One-year mortality was 10.8±0.3%. In women, the age-adjusted all-cause mortality was 24% lower (hazard ratio [HR], 0.76; confidence interval [CI], 0.68-0.85; P<0.0001), the risk of sudden death was 31% lower (HR, 0.69; CI, 0.58-0.83; P<0.0001), but no significant difference in pump failure death was observed. Throughout a range of total mortality risk, women had a 20% lower all-cause mortality (HR, 0.80; CI, 0.71-0.89; P<0.001) and 29% fewer deaths that were sudden (HR, 0.71; CI, 0.59-0.86;P<0.001) compared with men. CONCLUSIONS: Women with heart failure have a lower mortality than men, and fewer of those deaths are sudden throughout a spectrum of all-cause mortality risk. These data provide a plausible reason for and thus support the possibility that sex differences in ICD benefit may exist.

Acute decompensated heart failure: update on new and emerging evidence and directions for future research.

Acute decompensated heart failure (ADHF) is a complex clinical event associated with excess morbidity and mortality. Managing ADHF patients is challenging because of the lack of effective treatments that both reduce symptoms and improve clinical outcomes. Existing guideline recommendations are largely based on expert opinion, but several recently published trials have yielded important data to inform both current clinical practice and future research directions. New insight has been gained regarding volume management, including dosing strategies for intravenous loop diuretics and the role of ultrafiltration in patients with heart failure and renal dysfunction. Although the largest ADHF trial to date (ASCEND-HF, using nesiritide) was neutral, promising results with other investigational agents have been reported. If these findings are confirmed in phase III trials, novel compounds, such as relaxin, omecamtiv mecarbil, and ularitide, among others, may become therapeutic options. Translation of research findings into quality clinical care can not be overemphasized. Although many gaps in knowledge exist, ongoing studies will address issues around delivery of evidence-based care to achieve the goal of improving the health status and clinical outcomes of patients with ADHF.

Prevalence and significance of alterations in cardiac structure and function in patients with heart failure and a preserved ejection fraction.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to examine the prevalence of abnormalities in cardiac structure and function present in patients with heart failure and a preserved ejection fraction (HFPEF) and to determine whether these alterations in structure and function were associated with cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. METHODS AND RESULTS: The Irbesartan in HFPEF trial (I-PRESERVE) enrolled 4128 patients; echocardiographic determination of left ventricular (LV) volume, mass, left atrial (LA) size, systolic function, and diastolic function were made at baseline in 745 patients. The primary end point was death or protocol-specific cardiovascular hospitalization. A secondary end point was the composite of heart failure death or heart failure hospitalization. Associations between baseline structure and function and patient outcomes were examined using univariate and multivariable Cox proportional hazard analyses. In this substudy, LV hypertrophy or concentric remodeling was present in 59%, LA enlargement was present in 66%, and diastolic dysfunction was present in 69% of the patients. Multivariable analyses controlling for 7 clinical variables (including log N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide) indicated that increased LV mass, mass/volume ratio, and LA size were independently associated with an increased risk of both primary and heart failure events (all P<0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Left ventricular hypertrophy or concentric remodeling, LA enlargement, and diastolic dysfunction were present in the majority of patients with HFPEF. Left ventricular mass and LA size were independently associated with an increased risk of morbidity and mortality. The presence of structural remodeling and diastolic dysfunction may be useful additions to diagnostic criteria and provide important prognostic insights in patients with HFPEF.

Indications for cardiac resynchronization therapy: 2011 update from the Heart Failure Society of America Guideline Committee.

Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) improves survival, symptoms, quality of life, exercise capacity, and cardiac structure and function in patients with New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional class II or ambulatory class IV heart failure (HF) with wide QRS complex. The totality of evidence supports the use of CRT in patients with less severe HF symptoms. CRT is recommended for patients in sinus rhythm with a widened QRS interval (≥150 ms) not due to right bundle branch block (RBBB) who have severe left ventricular (LV) systolic dysfunction and persistent NYHA functional class II-III symptoms despite optimal medical therapy (strength of evidence A). CRT may be considered for several other patient groups for whom evidence of benefit is clinically significant but less substantial, including patients with a QRS interval of ≥120 to <150 ms and severe LV systolic dysfunction who have persistent mild to severe HF despite optimal medical therapy (strength of evidence B), some patients with atrial fibrillation, and some with ambulatory class IV HF. Several evidence gaps remain that need to be addressed, including the ideal threshold for QRS duration, QRS morphology, lead placement, degree of myocardial scarring, and the modality for evaluating dyssynchrony. Recommendations will evolve over time as additional data emerge from completed and ongoing clinical trials.

Update on aldosterone antagonists use in heart failure with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction. Heart Failure Society of America Guidelines Committee.

Aldosterone antagonists (or mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists [MRAs]) are guideline-recommended therapy for patients with moderate to severe heart failure (HF) symptoms and reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), and in postmyocardial infarction patients with HF. The Eplerenone in Mild Patients Hospitalization and Survival Study in Heart Failure (EMPHASIS-HF) trial evaluated the MRA eplerenone in patients with mild HF symptoms. Eplerenone reduced the risk of the primary endpoint of cardiovascular death or HF hospitalization (hazard ratio [HR] 0.63, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.54-0.74, P < .001) and all-cause mortality (adjusted HR 0.76, 95% CI 0.62-0.93, P < .008) after a median of 21 months. Based on EMPHASIS-HF, an MRA is recommended for patients with New York Heart Association (NYHA) Class II-IV symptoms and reduced LVEF (<35%) on standard therapy (Strength of Evidence A). Patients with NYHA Class II symptoms should have another high-risk feature to be consistent with the EMPHASIS-HF population (age >55 years, QRS duration >130 msec [if LVEF between 31% and 35%], HF hospitalization within 6 months or elevated B-type natriuretic peptide level). Renal function and serum potassium should be closely monitored. Dose selection should consider renal function, baseline potassium, and concomitant drug interactions. The efficacy of eplerenone in patients with mild HF symptoms translates into a unique opportunity to reduce morbidity and mortality earlier in the course of the disease.

Mode of death in patients with heart failure and a preserved ejection fraction: results from the Irbesartan in Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction Study (I-Preserve) trial.

BACKGROUND: The mode of death has been well characterized in patients with heart failure and a reduced ejection fraction; however, less is known about the mode of death in patients with heart failure and a preserved ejection fraction (HFPEF). The purpose of this study was to examine the mode of death in patients with HFPEF enrolled in the Irbesartan in Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction Study (I-Preserve) trial and to determine whether irbesartan altered the distribution of mode of death in HFPEF. METHODS AND RESULTS: All deaths were reviewed by a clinical end-point committee, and the mode of death was assigned by consensus of the members. The annual mortality rate was 5.2% in the I-Preserve trial. There were no significant differences in mortality rate between the placebo and irbesartan groups. The mode of death was cardiovascular in 60% (including 26% sudden, 14% heart failure, 5% myocardial infarction, and 9% stroke), noncardiovascular in 30%, and unknown in 10%. There were no differences in the distribution of mode-specific mortality rates between placebo and irbesartan. CONCLUSIONS: Sixty percent of the deaths in patients with HFPEF were cardiovascular, with sudden death and heart failure death being the most common. Treatment with irbesartan did not affect overall mortality or the distribution of mode-specific mortality rates. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00095238.

Irbesartan in patients with heart failure and preserved ejection fraction.

BACKGROUND: Approximately 50% of patients with heart failure have a left ventricular ejection fraction of at least 45%, but no therapies have been shown to improve the outcome of these patients. Therefore, we studied the effects of irbesartan in patients with this syndrome. METHODS: We enrolled 4128 patients who were at least 60 years of age and had New York Heart Association class II, III, or IV heart failure and an ejection fraction of at least 45% and randomly assigned them to receive 300 mg of irbesartan or placebo per day. The primary composite outcome was death from any cause or hospitalization for a cardiovascular cause (heart failure, myocardial infarction, unstable angina, arrhythmia, or stroke). Secondary outcomes included death from heart failure or hospitalization for heart failure, death from any cause and from cardiovascular causes, and quality of life. RESULTS: During a mean follow-up of 49.5 months, the primary outcome occurred in 742 patients in the irbesartan group and 763 in the placebo group. Primary event rates in the irbesartan and placebo groups were 100.4 and 105.4 per 1000 patient-years, respectively (hazard ratio, 0.95; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.86 to 1.05; P=0.35). Overall rates of death were 52.6 and 52.3 per 1000 patient-years, respectively (hazard ratio, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.88 to 1.14; P=0.98). Rates of hospitalization for cardiovascular causes that contributed to the primary outcome were 70.6 and 74.3 per 1000 patient-years, respectively (hazard ratio, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.85 to 1.08; P=0.44). There were no significant differences in the other prespecified outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Irbesartan did not improve the outcomes of patients with heart failure and a preserved left ventricular ejection fraction. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00095238.)

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

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

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

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

Uric acid level and allopurinol use as risk markers of mortality and morbidity in systolic heart failure.

BACKGROUND: Previous studies have not extensively examined the association of hyperuricemia and adverse outcomes in systolic heart failure (HF) in relation to xanthine oxidase inhibitor therapy. METHODS: The Prospective Randomized Amlodipine Survival Evaluation study included New York Heart Association class IIIB or IV patients with left ventricular ejection fraction <30%. For analysis, the population was divided into uric acid quartiles among nonallopurinol users (2.2-7.1, >7.1-8.6, >8.6-10.4, >10.4 mg/dL) and those using allopurinol. Multivariate Cox regression modeling was performed to identify predictors of mortality. Uric acid quartile and allopurinol groups were referenced to the lowest uric acid quartile. RESULTS: A total of 1,152 patients were included. In general, patients in the allopurinol group and in the highest uric acid quartile had indicators of more severe HF, including worse renal function and greater proportion of New York Heart Association class IV patients, and greater diuretic use. The allopurinol group and highest uric acid quartile had the highest total mortality (41.7 and 42.4 per 100 person-years, respectively) and combined morbidity/mortality (45.6 and 51.0 per 100 person-years, respectively). Allopurinol use and highest uric acid quartile were independently associated with mortality (hazard ratio [HR] 1.65, 95% CI 1.22-2.23, P = .001 and HR 1.35, 95% CI 1.07-1.72, P = .01, respectively) and combined morbidity/mortality (uric acid quartile 4 vs 1: HR 1.32, 95% CI 1.06-1.66, P = .02; allopurinol use: HR 1.48, 95% CI 1.11-1.99, P = .008). CONCLUSION: Elevated uric acid level was independently associated with mortality in patients with severe systolic HF, even when accounting for allopurinol use.

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

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