Inhaled Fluticasone Furoate for Outpatient Treatment of Covid-19.

BACKGROUND: The effectiveness of inhaled glucocorticoids in shortening the time to symptom resolution or preventing hospitalization or death among outpatients with mild-to-moderate coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) is unclear. METHODS: We conducted a decentralized, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled platform trial in the United States to assess the use of repurposed medications in outpatients with confirmed coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19). Nonhospitalized adults 30 years of age or older who had at least two symptoms of acute infection that had been present for no more than 7 days before enrollment were randomly assigned to receive inhaled fluticasone furoate at a dose of 200 µg once daily for 14 days or placebo. The primary outcome was the time to sustained recovery, defined as the third of 3 consecutive days without symptoms. Key secondary outcomes included hospitalization or death by day 28 and a composite outcome of the need for an urgent-care or emergency department visit or hospitalization or death through day 28. RESULTS: Of the 1407 enrolled participants who underwent randomization, 715 were assigned to receive inhaled fluticasone furoate and 692 to receive placebo, and 656 and 621, respectively, were included in the analysis. There was no evidence that the use of fluticasone furoate resulted in a shorter time to recovery than placebo (hazard ratio, 1.01; 95% credible interval, 0.91 to 1.12; posterior probability of benefit [defined as a hazard ratio >1], 0.56). A total of 24 participants (3.7%) in the fluticasone furoate group had urgent-care or emergency department visits or were hospitalized, as compared with 13 participants (2.1%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 1.9; 95% credible interval, 0.8 to 3.5). Three participants in each group were hospitalized, and no deaths occurred. Adverse events were uncommon in both groups. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment with inhaled fluticasone furoate for 14 days did not result in a shorter time to recovery than placebo among outpatients with Covid-19 in the United States. (Funded by the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences and others; ACTIV-6 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04885530.).

Adaptive versus conventional cardiac resynchronisation therapy in patients with heart failure (AdaptResponse): a global, prospective, randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Continuous automatic optimisation of cardiac resynchronisation therapy (CRT), stimulating only the left ventricle to fuse with intrinsic right bundle conduction (synchronised left ventricular stimulation), might offer better outcomes than conventional CRT in patients with heart failure, left bundle branch block, and normal atrioventricular conduction. This study aimed to compare clinical outcomes of adaptive CRT versus conventional CRT in patients with heart failure with intact atrioventricular conduction and left bundle branch block. METHODS: This global, prospective, randomised controlled trial was done in 227 hospitals in 27 countries across Asia, Australia, Europe, and North America. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older with class 2-4 heart failure, an ejection fraction of 35% or less, left bundle branch block with QRS duration of 140 ms or more (male patients) or 130 ms or more (female patients), and a baseline PR interval 200 ms or less. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) via block permutation to adaptive CRT (an algorithm providing synchronised left ventricular stimulation) or conventional biventricular CRT using a device programmer. All patients received device programming but were masked until procedures were completed. Site staff were not masked to group assignment. The primary outcome was a composite of all-cause death or intervention for heart failure decompensation and was assessed in the intention-to-treat population. Safety events were collected and reported in the intention-to-treat population. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02205359, and is closed to accrual. FINDINGS: Between Aug 5, 2014, and Jan 31, 2019, of 3797 patients enrolled, 3617 (95·3%) were randomly assigned (1810 to adaptive CRT and 1807 to conventional CRT). The futility boundary was crossed at the third interim analysis on June 23, 2022, when the decision was made to stop the trial early. 1568 (43·4%) of 3617 patients were female and 2049 (56·6%) were male. Median follow-up was 59·0 months (IQR 45-72). A primary outcome event occurred in 430 of 1810 patients (Kaplan-Meier occurrence rate 23·5% [95% CI 21·3-25·5] at 60 months) in the adaptive CRT group and in 470 of 1807 patients (25·7% [23·5-27·8] at 60 months) in the conventional CRT group (hazard ratio 0·89, 95% CI 0·78-1·01; p=0·077). System-related adverse events were reported in 452 (25·0%) of 1810 patients in the adaptive CRT group and 440 (24·3%) of 1807 patients in the conventional CRT group. INTERPRETATION: Compared with conventional CRT, adaptive CRT did not significantly reduce the incidence of all-cause death or intervention for heart failure decompensation in the included population of patients with heart failure, left bundle branch block, and intact AV conduction. Death and heart failure decompensation rates were low with both CRT therapies, suggesting a greater response to CRT occurred in this population than in patients in previous trials. FUNDING: Medtronic.

Cardiac Myosin Activation with Omecamtiv Mecarbil in Systolic Heart Failure.

BACKGROUND: The selective cardiac myosin activator omecamtiv mecarbil has been shown to improve cardiac function in patients with heart failure with a reduced ejection fraction. Its effect on cardiovascular outcomes is unknown. METHODS: We randomly assigned 8256 patients (inpatients and outpatients) with symptomatic chronic heart failure and an ejection fraction of 35% or less to receive omecamtiv mecarbil (using pharmacokinetic-guided doses of 25 mg, 37.5 mg, or 50 mg twice daily) or placebo, in addition to standard heart-failure therapy. The primary outcome was a composite of a first heart-failure event (hospitalization or urgent visit for heart failure) or death from cardiovascular causes. RESULTS: During a median of 21.8 months, a primary-outcome event occurred in 1523 of 4120 patients (37.0%) in the omecamtiv mecarbil group and in 1607 of 4112 patients (39.1%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.92; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.86 to 0.99; P = 0.03). A total of 808 patients (19.6%) and 798 patients (19.4%), respectively, died from cardiovascular causes (hazard ratio, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.92 to 1.11). There was no significant difference between groups in the change from baseline on the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire total symptom score. At week 24, the change from baseline for the median N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide level was 10% lower in the omecamtiv mecarbil group than in the placebo group; the median cardiac troponin I level was 4 ng per liter higher. The frequency of cardiac ischemic and ventricular arrhythmia events was similar in the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with heart failure and a reduced ejection, those who received omecamtiv mecarbil had a lower incidence of a composite of a heart-failure event or death from cardiovascular causes than those who received placebo. (Funded by Amgen and others; GALACTIC-HF ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02929329; EudraCT number, 2016-002299-28.).

Severe obesity among patients with left ventricular assist devices.

BACKGROUND: Patients with obesity and advanced heart failure requiring left ventricular assist device (LVAD) support are more likely to experience LVAD complications and may be disproportionately Black and/or female when compared to patients without obesity. Among these patients, obesity may represent a barrier to transplant eligibility and a marker of inequity in heart transplantation and health outcomes in advanced heart failure. METHODS: To better understand this issue at our institution, we examined our active LVAD cohort and found that almost one-third of all patients had severe obesity with BMI ≥ 35 kg/m2. RESULTS: Patients with LVADs and severe obesity were significantly younger and more likely to self-identify as Black, and numerically more likely to be female. CONCLUSION: Weight management in this group represents a vital area for improved equity in health outcomes and barriers to heart transplantation. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NA.

Comparing Analytical Methods for Composite End Points in Clinical Trials: Insights from the Vericiguat Global Study in Subjects with Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction Trial.

BACKGROUND: In VICTORIA (Vericiguat Global Study in Subjects with Heart Failure with Reduced Ejection Fraction), participants with heart failure (HF) and reduced ejection fraction, vericiguat decreased the primary composite outcome (time to first HF hospitalization [HFH] or cardiovascular death [CVD]) (897 events) compared with placebo (972 events) (hazard ratio, 0.90; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.82-0.98; P = .02). In this prespecified secondary analysis, we applied the weighted composite end point (WCE) and the win ratio (WR) methods to provide complementary assessments of treatment effect. METHODS AND RESULTS: The WCE method estimated the mean HFH-adjusted survival based on prespecified weights from a Delphi panel of the VICTORIA executive committee and national leaders: mild (weight per event, 0.39), moderate (0.5), or severe (0.67) HFH, and CVD (1.0). The unmatched WR was estimated for the descending hierarchy of CVD, then recurrent HFH. The WCE used all 3412 primary clinical events: 875 severe HFH (vericiguat, 416/ placebo, 459), 1614 moderate HFH (767/847), 68 mild HFH (38/30), and 855 CVD (414/441). Improved HFH-adjusted survival occurred with vericiguat (mean 78.2% vs 75.6%, difference 2.4%, 95% CI, 1.7%-3.2%, P < .0001). Based on a comparison of 6,375,624 pairs, the WR of 1.13 (95% CI 1.03-1.24, P = .01) also indicated improved clinical outcomes with vericiguat. CONCLUSIONS: The results of the WCE and WR methods were consistent with the primary analysis of the time to first HFH or CVD. Although both WCE and WR assessed recurrent events, the WCE allowed inclusion of all recurrent events, insights on the severity of HFH events, and an absolute measure of the participant-treatment experience. This approach complements conventional assessment, better informing consumers of new therapeutics and future trial designs.

Remote Follow-up in a Heart Failure Pragmatic Trial: Insights From the CONNECT-HF.

BACKGROUND: Randomized controlled trials typically require study-specific visits, which can burden participants and sites. Remote follow-up, such as centralized call centers for participant-reported or site-reported, holds promise for reducing costs and enhancing the pragmatism of trials. In this secondary analysis of the CONNECT-HF (Care Optimization Through Patient and Hospital Engagement For HF) trial, we aimed to evaluate the completeness and validity of the remote follow-up process. METHODS AND RESULTS: The CONNECT-HF trial evaluated the effect of a post-discharge quality-improvement intervention for heart failure compared to usual care for up to 1 year. Suspected events were reported either by participants or by health care proxies through a centralized call center or by sites through medical-record queries. When potential hospitalization events were suspected, additional medical records were collected and adjudicated. Among 5942 potential hospitalizations, 18% were only participant-reported, 28% were reported by both participants and sites, and 50% were only site-reported. Concordance rates between the participant/site reports and adjudication for hospitalization were high: 87% participant-reported, 86% both, and 86% site-reported. Rates of adjudicated heart failure hospitalization events among adjudicated all-cause hospitalization were lower but also consistent: 45% participant-reported, 50% both, and 50% site-reported. CONCLUSIONS: Participant-only and site-only reports missed a substantial number of hospitalization events. We observed similar concordance between participant/site reports and adjudication for hospitalizations. Combining participant-reported and site-reported outcomes data is important to capture and validate hospitalizations effectively in pragmatic heart failure trials.

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.

Worth Their Weight? An Update on New and Emerging Pharmacologic Agents for Obesity and Their Potential Role for Persons with Cardiac Conditions.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Obesity is associated with cardiovascular (CV) conditions, including but not limited to atherosclerotic disease, heart failure, and atrial fibrillation. Despite this, the impact of intentional weight loss on CV outcomes for persons with obesity and established CV conditions remains poorly studied. New and emerging pharmacologic therapies for weight loss primarily targeting the incretin/nutrient sensing axes induce substantial and sustained weight loss. The glucagon-like-peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RA) liraglutide and semaglutide have US FDA approval for the treatment of obesity, and the application for an obesity indication for the dual GLP-1/glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP) receptor agonist tirzepatide is presently under FDA review. Extensive phase II and IIIa randomized controlled trials are underway evaluating permutations of combined GLP-1 RA, GIP receptor agonist, GIP receptor antagonist, and glucagon receptor agonists. Clinical outcome trials of these therapies in persons with obesity at high risk of established CV conditions should make it possible to estimate the role of intentional weight loss in managing CV risk via these medications. RECENT FINDINGS: High-dose once weekly injectable semaglutide (2.4 mg/week) use among persons with obesity and heart failure with preserved ejection fraction was effective at both reducing weight and improving health status; exercise capacity was also improved. Ongoing CV outcome trials of oral semaglutide and once weekly injectable tirzepatide will help to establish the role of these therapies among persons with other CV conditions. In addition to these two therapies targeting a CV claim or indication, many other new therapeutics for weight loss, as reviewed, are currently in development. The impact of pharmacologic-induced weight loss on CV conditions for persons with obesity and established CV conditions is currently under investigation for multiple agents. These therapies may offer new avenues to manage CV risk in persons with obesity and with established or at high risk for CV disease.

Putting More Weight on Obesity Trials in Heart Failure.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: To review ongoing and planned clinical trials of weight loss among individuals with or at high risk of heart failure. RECENT FINDINGS: Intentional weight loss via semaglutide among persons with heart failure and preserved ejection fraction and obesity significantly improves weight loss and health status as assessed by the KCCQ-CSS score and is associated with improvements in 6-min walk test. Ongoing and planned trials will explore the role of intentional weight loss with treatments such as semaglutide or tirzepatide for individuals with heart failure across the entire ejection fraction spectrum.

Long-term outcomes of phenoclusters in severe tricuspid regurgitation.

AIMS: Severe tricuspid regurgitation (TR) exhibits high 1-year morbidity and mortality, yet long-term cardiovascular risk overall and by subgroups remains unknown. This study characterizes 5-year outcomes and identifies distinct clinical risk profiles of severe TR. METHODS AND RESULTS: Patients were included from a large US tertiary referral center with new severe TR by echocardiography based on four-category American Society of Echocardiography grading scale between 2007 and 2018. Patients were categorized by TR etiology (with lead present, primary, and secondary) and by supervised recursive partitioning (survival trees) for outcomes of death and the composite of death or heart failure hospitalization. The Kaplan-Meier estimates and Cox regression models were used to evaluate any association by (i) TR etiology and (ii) groups identified by survival trees and outcomes over 5 years. Among 2379 consecutive patients with new severe TR, median age was 70 years, 61% were female, and 40% were black. Event rates (95% confidence interval) were 30.9 (29.0-32.8) events/100 patient-years for death and 49.0 (45.9-52.2) events/100 patient-years for the composite endpoint, with no significant difference by TR etiology. After applying supervised survival tree modeling, two separate groups of four phenoclusters with distinct clinical prognoses were separately identified for death and the composite endpoint. Variables discriminating both outcomes were age, albumin, blood urea nitrogen, right ventricular function, and systolic blood pressure (all P < 0.05). CONCLUSION: Patients with newly identified severe TR have high 5-year risk for death and death or heart failure hospitalization. Partitioning patients using supervised survival tree models, but not TR etiology, discriminated clinical risk. These data aid in identifying relevant subgroups in clinical trials of TR and clinical risk/benefit analysis for TR therapies.

Electronic health record characterization and outcomes of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction.

BACKGROUND: Electronic health record (EHR)-based identification of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) in the clinical setting may facilitate screening for clinical trials by improving the understanding of its epidemiology and outcomes; yet, previous data have yielded variable results. We sought to characterize groups identified with HFpEF by different EHR screening strategies and their associated long-term outcomes across a large and diverse population. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed 116,499 consecutive patients from an academic referral center who underwent echocardiography, and 9,263 patients who underwent echocardiography within 6 months of right heart catheterization (RHC), between 2008 and 2018. EHR-based screening strategies identified patients with HFpEF using 1) International Classification of Diseases (ICD)-9/10 codes, 2) H2FpEF score ≥6 and ejection fraction (EF) ≥50%, or 3) RHC wedge pressure ≥15 mmHg and EF ≥50%, when available. Primary outcomes were 1) cumulative incident heart failure hospitalization (HFH), and 2) death, over 10 years. RESULTS: There were 33,461 (29%) patients who met either ICD or H2FpEF-HFpEF definition, of whom 5,310 (16%) met both criteria. Compared to ICD-HFpEF, patients with H2FpEF-HFpEF were more likely older (median age 72 vs 67), White (78% vs 64%), and had atrial fibrillation (97% vs 41%). Among those also with RHC, 6,353 (69%) patients met any HFpEF criteria, of whom only 783 (12%) satisfied all three criteria. Female sex was more common among RHC-HFpEF (55%) compared to other methods (H2FpEF-HFpEF, 47%; ICD-HFpEF, 43%). Atrial fibrillation was substantially higher among HFpEF identified by the H2FpEF score (97%) compared to other methods (49% for ICD and 47% for RHC). Across HFpEF screening methods, 10-year cumulative incidence rates for HFH was 32% to 45% for echocardiography only and 43% to 52% for echocardiography and RHC populations; 10-year risk of death was 54% to 56% for echocardiography only and 52% to 57% for echocardiography and RHC populations. CONCLUSIONS: Different EHR-based HFpEF definitions identified cohorts with modest overlap and varying baseline characteristics. Yet, long-term risk for HFH and death were similarly high for cohorts identified among both populations undergoing echocardiography only or echocardiography and RHC. These data aid in identifying relevant subgroups in clinical trials of HFpEF.

Isovolumic Contraction Velocity in Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction and Effect of Sacubitril/Valsartan: the PROVE-HF Study.

OBJECTIVES: To assess tissue Doppler-derived mitral annular isovolumic contraction velocity (ICV) after starting sacubitril/valsartan (sac/val) for the treatment of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and left ventricular [LV] EF < 40%). BACKGROUND: ICV may inform load-independent systolic function; combining ICV and LVEF may improve assessment of LV contractility. METHODS: Among 651 participants with HFrEF treated with sac/val, echocardiograms were performed at baseline, 6 and 12 months. Pretreatment median ICVs and LVEFs were used for classification to predict LV reverse remodeling, health status using the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire, and biomarker concentrations. RESULTS: The mean age was 64.6 ± 12.4 years, and 28% were women, baseline LVEF: 28.9% ± 6.9%. Compared to baseline, median ICV increased post sac/val therapy (4.6 [3.5, 6.1] vs 4.9 [3.6, 6.4]; P = 0.005). ICV added value to separate and combined models of biomarkers and clinical and echocardiographic variables for prediction of post-therapy EF recovery. Classification using baseline ICV/EF yielded relatively equal numbers in 4 groups based on low/high ICV or LVEF. Most deleterious results for remodeling, health status and biomarkers were found in patients with low ICV/low EF, whereas patients with high ICV/high EF had the best profiles; other groups were intermediate. Significant shifts toward better ICV/EF profiles were noted post sac/val treatment compared to baseline, with doubling of high ICV/high EF (241 [60%] vs 123 [31%]) and 78% reduction of low ICV/low EF (28 [7%] vs 125 [32%]). CONCLUSIONS: In HFrEF, ICV adds to the profiling of systolic function and represents an independent predictor of reverse cardiac remodeling after treatment with sac/val. ICV changes may be used for assessment of treatment responses.

Circulating Angiokines Are Associated With Reverse Remodeling and Outcomes in Chronic Heart Failure.

BACKGROUND: We sought to determine whether circulating modifiers of endothelial function are associated with cardiac structure and clinical outcomes in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). METHODS: We measured 25 proteins related to endothelial function in 99 patients from the GUIDE-IT study. Protein levels were evaluated for association with echocardiographic parameters and the incidence of all-cause death and hospitalization for heart failure (HHF). RESULTS: Higher concentrations of angiopoietin 2 (ANGPT2), vascular endothelial growth factor receptor 1 (VEGFR1) and hepatocyte growth factor (HGF) were significantly associated with worse function and larger ventricular volumes. Over time, decreases in ANGPT2 and, to a lesser extent, VEGFR1 and HGF, were associated with improvements in cardiac size and function. Individuals with higher concentrations of ANGPT2, VEGFR1 or HGF had increased risks for a composite of death and HHF in the following year (HR 2.76 (95% CI 1.73-4.40) per 2-fold change in ANGPT2; HR 1.76 (95% CI 1.11-2.79) for VEGFR1; and HR 4.04 (95% CI 2.19-7.44) for HGF). CONCLUSIONS: Proteins related to endothelial function associate with cardiac size, cardiac function and clinical outcomes in patients with HFrEF. These results support the concept that endothelial function may be an important contributor to the progression to and the recovery from HFrEF.

Classification of Heart Failure Events by Severity: Insights From the VICTORIA Trial.

BACKGROUND: Hospitalization due to heart failure (HFH) is a major source of morbidity, consumes significant economic resources and is a key endpoint in HF clinical trials. HFH events vary in severity and implications, but they are typically considered equivalent when analyzing clinical trial outcomes. OBJECTIVES: We aimed to evaluate the frequency and severity of HF events, assess treatment effects and describe differences in outcomes by type of HF event in VICTORIA (Vericiguat Global Study in Subjects with Heart Failure with Reduced Ejection Fraction). METHODS: VICTORIA compared vericiguat with placebo in patients with HF with reduced ejection fraction (< 45%) and a recent worsening HF event. All HFHs were prospectively adjudicated by an independent clinical events committee (CEC) whose members were blinded to treatment assignment. We evaluated the frequency and clinical impact of HF events by severity, categorized by highest intensity of HF treatment (urgent outpatient visit or hospitalization treated with oral diuretics, intravenous diuretics, intravenous vasodilators, intravenous inotropes, or mechanical support) and treatment effect by event categories. RESULTS: In VICTORIA, 2948 HF events occurred in 5050 enrolled patients. Overall total CEC HF events for vericiguat vs placebo were 43.9 vs 49.1 events/100 patient-years (P = 0.01). Hospitalization for intravenous diuretics was the most common type of HFH event (54%). HF event types differed markedly in their clinical implications for both in-hospital and post-discharge events. We observed no difference in the distribution of HF events between randomized treatment groups (P = 0.78). CONCLUSION: HF events in large global trials vary significantly in severity and clinical implications, which may have implications for more nuanced trial design and interpretation. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02861534).

Natriuretic Peptides: Role in the Diagnosis and Management of Heart Failure: A Scientific Statement From the Heart Failure Association of the European Society of Cardiology, Heart Failure Society of America and Japanese Heart Failure Society.

Natriuretic peptides, brain (B-type) natriuretic peptide (BNP) and N-terminal prohormone of brain natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) are globally and most often used for the diagnosis of heart failure (HF). In addition, they can have an important complementary role in the risk stratification of its prognosis. Since the development of angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitors (ARNIs), the use of natriuretic peptides as therapeutic agents has grown in importance. The present document is the result of the Trilateral Cooperation Project among the Heart Failure Association of the European Society of Cardiology, the Heart Failure Society of America and the Japanese Heart Failure Society. It represents an expert consensus that aims to provide a comprehensive, up-to-date perspective on natriuretic peptides in the diagnosis and management of HF, with a focus on the following main issues: (1) history and basic research: discovery, production and cardiovascular protection; (2) diagnostic and prognostic biomarkers: acute HF, chronic HF, inclusion/endpoint in clinical trials, and natriuretic peptides-guided therapy; (3) therapeutic use: nesiritide (BNP), carperitide (ANP) and ARNIs; and (4) gaps in knowledge and future directions.

Mechanisms and Models in Heart Failure: A Translational Approach.

Despite multiple attempts to develop a unifying hypothesis that explains the pathophysiology of heart failure with a reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), no single conceptual model has withstood the test of time. In the present review, we discuss how the results of recent successful phase III clinical development programs in HFrEF are built upon existing conceptual models for drug development. We will also discuss where recent successes in clinical trials do not fit existing models to identify areas where further refinement of current paradigms may be needed. To provide the necessary structure for this review, we will begin with a brief overview of the pathophysiology of HFrEF, followed by an overview of the current conceptual models for HFrEF, and end with an analysis of the scientific rationale and clinical development programs for 4 new therapeutic classes of drugs that have improved clinical outcomes in HFrEF. The 4 new therapeutic classes discussed are ARNIs, SGLT2 (sodium-glucose cotransporter 2) inhibitors, soluble guanylate cyclase stimulators, and myosin activators. With the exception of SGLT2 inhibitors, each of these therapeutic advances was informed by the insights provided by existing conceptual models of heart failure. Although the quest to determine the mechanism of action of SGLT2 inhibitors is ongoing, this therapeutic class of drugs may represent the most important advance in cardiovascular therapeutics of recent decades and may lead to rethinking or expanding our current conceptual models for HFrEF.

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 Fluvoxamine vs Placebo on Time to Sustained Recovery in Outpatients With Mild to Moderate COVID-19: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: The effectiveness of fluvoxamine to shorten symptom duration or prevent hospitalization among outpatients with mild to moderate symptomatic COVID-19 is unclear. Objective: To evaluate the efficacy of low-dose fluvoxamine (50 mg twice daily) for 10 days compared with placebo for the treatment of mild to moderate COVID-19 in the US. Design, Setting, and Participants: The ongoing Accelerating COVID-19 Therapeutic Interventions and Vaccines (ACTIV-6) platform randomized clinical trial was designed to test repurposed medications in outpatients with mild to moderate COVID-19. A total of 1288 participants aged 30 years or older with test-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection and experiencing 2 or more symptoms of acute COVID-19 for 7 days or less were enrolled between August 6, 2021, and May 27, 2022, at 91 sites in the US. Interventions: Participants were randomized to receive 50 mg of fluvoxamine twice daily for 10 days or placebo. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was time to sustained recovery (defined as the third day of 3 consecutive days without symptoms). There were 7 secondary outcomes, including a composite outcome of hospitalization, urgent care visit, emergency department visit, or death through day 28. Results: Among 1331 participants who were randomized (median age, 47 years [IQR, 38-57 years]; 57% were women; and 67% reported receiving ≥2 doses of a SARS-CoV-2 vaccine), 1288 completed the trial (674 in the fluvoxamine group and 614 in the placebo group). The median time to sustained recovery was 12 days (IQR, 11-14 days) in the fluvoxamine group and 13 days (IQR, 12-13 days) in the placebo group (hazard ratio [HR], 0.96 [95% credible interval, 0.86-1.06], posterior P = .21 for the probability of benefit [determined by an HR >1]). For the composite outcome, 26 participants (3.9%) in the fluvoxamine group were hospitalized, had an urgent care visit, had an emergency department visit, or died compared with 23 participants (3.8%) in the placebo group (HR, 1.1 [95% credible interval, 0.5-1.8], posterior P = .35 for the probability of benefit [determined by an HR <1]). One participant in the fluvoxamine group and 2 participants in the placebo group were hospitalized; no deaths occurred in either group. Adverse events were uncommon in both groups. Conclusions and Relevance: Among outpatients with mild to moderate COVID-19, treatment with 50 mg of fluvoxamine twice daily for 10 days, compared with placebo, did not improve time to sustained recovery. These findings do not support the use of fluvoxamine at this dose and duration in patients with mild to moderate COVID-19. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04885530.