Vericiguat in Patients with Heart Failure and Reduced Ejection Fraction.

BACKGROUND: The effect of vericiguat, a novel oral soluble guanylate cyclase stimulator, in patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction who had recently been hospitalized or had received intravenous diuretic therapy is unclear. METHODS: In this phase 3, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, we assigned 5050 patients with chronic heart failure (New York Heart Association class II, III, or IV) and an ejection fraction of less than 45% to receive vericiguat (target dose, 10 mg once daily) or placebo, in addition to guideline-based medical therapy. The primary outcome was a composite of death from cardiovascular causes or first hospitalization for heart failure. RESULTS: Over a median of 10.8 months, a primary-outcome event occurred in 897 of 2526 patients (35.5%) in the vericiguat group and in 972 of 2524 patients (38.5%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.90; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.82 to 0.98; P = 0.02). A total of 691 patients (27.4%) in the vericiguat group and 747 patients (29.6%) in the placebo group were hospitalized for heart failure (hazard ratio, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.81 to 1.00). Death from cardiovascular causes occurred in 414 patients (16.4%) in the vericiguat group and in 441 patients (17.5%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.81 to 1.06). The composite of death from any cause or hospitalization for heart failure occurred in 957 patients (37.9%) in the vericiguat group and in 1032 patients (40.9%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.83 to 0.98; P = 0.02). Symptomatic hypotension occurred in 9.1% of the patients in the vericiguat group and in 7.9% of the patients in the placebo group (P = 0.12), and syncope occurred in 4.0% of the patients in the vericiguat group and in 3.5% of the patients in the placebo group (P = 0.30). CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with high-risk heart failure, the incidence of death from cardiovascular causes or hospitalization for heart failure was lower among those who received vericiguat than among those who received placebo. (Funded by Merck Sharp & Dohme [a subsidiary of Merck] and Bayer; VICTORIA ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02861534.).

Abatacept, Cenicriviroc, or Infliximab for Treatment of Adults Hospitalized With COVID-19 Pneumonia: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Immune dysregulation contributes to poorer outcomes in COVID-19. Objective: To investigate whether abatacept, cenicriviroc, or infliximab provides benefit when added to standard care for COVID-19 pneumonia. Design, Setting, and Participants: Randomized, double-masked, placebo-controlled clinical trial using a master protocol to investigate immunomodulators added to standard care for treatment of participants hospitalized with COVID-19 pneumonia. The results of 3 substudies are reported from 95 hospitals at 85 clinical research sites in the US and Latin America. Hospitalized patients 18 years or older with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection within 14 days and evidence of pulmonary involvement underwent randomization between October 2020 and December 2021. Interventions: Single infusion of abatacept (10 mg/kg; maximum dose, 1000 mg) or infliximab (5 mg/kg) or a 28-day oral course of cenicriviroc (300-mg loading dose followed by 150 mg twice per day). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was time to recovery by day 28 evaluated using an 8-point ordinal scale (higher scores indicate better health). Recovery was defined as the first day the participant scored at least 6 on the ordinal scale. Results: Of the 1971 participants randomized across the 3 substudies, the mean (SD) age was 54.8 (14.6) years and 1218 (61.8%) were men. The primary end point of time to recovery from COVID-19 pneumonia was not significantly different for abatacept (recovery rate ratio [RRR], 1.12 [95% CI, 0.98-1.28]; P = .09), cenicriviroc (RRR, 1.01 [95% CI, 0.86-1.18]; P = .94), or infliximab (RRR, 1.12 [95% CI, 0.99-1.28]; P = .08) compared with placebo. All-cause 28-day mortality was 11.0% for abatacept vs 15.1% for placebo (odds ratio [OR], 0.62 [95% CI, 0.41-0.94]), 13.8% for cenicriviroc vs 11.9% for placebo (OR, 1.18 [95% CI 0.72-1.94]), and 10.1% for infliximab vs 14.5% for placebo (OR, 0.59 [95% CI, 0.39-0.90]). Safety outcomes were comparable between active treatment and placebo, including secondary infections, in all 3 substudies. Conclusions and Relevance: Time to recovery from COVID-19 pneumonia among hospitalized participants was not significantly different for abatacept, cenicriviroc, or infliximab vs placebo. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04593940.

Isosorbide Mononitrate in Heart Failure with Preserved Ejection Fraction.

BACKGROUND: Nitrates are commonly prescribed to enhance activity tolerance in patients with heart failure and a preserved ejection fraction. We compared the effect of isosorbide mononitrate or placebo on daily activity in such patients. METHODS: In this multicenter, double-blind, crossover study, 110 patients with heart failure and a preserved ejection fraction were randomly assigned to a 6-week dose-escalation regimen of isosorbide mononitrate (from 30 mg to 60 mg to 120 mg once daily) or placebo, with subsequent crossover to the other group for 6 weeks. The primary end point was the daily activity level, quantified as the average daily accelerometer units during the 120-mg phase, as assessed by patient-worn accelerometers. Secondary end points included hours of activity per day during the 120-mg phase, daily accelerometer units during all three dose regimens, quality-of-life scores, 6-minute walk distance, and levels of N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP). RESULTS: In the group receiving the 120-mg dose of isosorbide mononitrate, as compared with the placebo group, there was a nonsignificant trend toward lower daily activity (-381 accelerometer units; 95% confidence interval [CI], -780 to 17; P=0.06) and a significant decrease in hours of activity per day (-0.30 hours; 95% CI, -0.55 to -0.05; P=0.02). During all dose regimens, activity in the isosorbide mononitrate group was lower than that in the placebo group (-439 accelerometer units; 95% CI, -792 to -86; P=0.02). Activity levels decreased progressively and significantly with increased doses of isosorbide mononitrate (but not placebo). There were no significant between-group differences in the 6-minute walk distance, quality-of-life scores, or NT-proBNP levels. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with heart failure and a preserved ejection fraction who received isosorbide mononitrate were less active and did not have better quality of life or submaximal exercise capacity than did patients who received placebo. (Funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02053493.).

Effect of Oral Iron Repletion on Exercise Capacity in Patients With Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction and Iron Deficiency: The IRONOUT HF Randomized Clinical Trial.

IMPORTANCE: Iron deficiency is present in approximately 50% of patients with heart failure with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (HFrEF) and is an independent predictor of reduced functional capacity and mortality. However, the efficacy of inexpensive readily available oral iron supplementation in heart failure is unknown. OBJECTIVE: To test whether therapy with oral iron improves peak exercise capacity in patients with HFrEF and iron deficiency. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Phase 2, double-blind, placebo-controlled randomized clinical trial of patients with HFrEF (<40%) and iron deficiency, defined as a serum ferritin level of 15 to 100 ng/mL or a serum ferritin level of 101 to 299 ng/mL with transferrin saturation of less than 20%. Participants were enrolled between September 2014 and November 2015 at 23 US sites. INTERVENTIONS: Oral iron polysaccharide (n = 111) or placebo (n = 114), 150 mg twice daily for 16 weeks. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary end point was a change in peak oxygen uptake (V̇o2) from baseline to 16 weeks. Secondary end points were change in 6-minute walk distance, plasma N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) levels, and health status as assessed by Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ, range 0-100, higher scores reflect better quality of life). RESULTS: Among 225 randomized participants (median age, 63 years; 36% women) 203 completed the study. The median baseline peak V̇o2 was 1196 mL/min (interquartile range [IQR], 887-1448 mL/min) in the oral iron group and 1167 mL/min (IQR, 887-1449 mL/min) in the placebo group. The primary end point, change in peak V̇o2 at 16 weeks, did not significantly differ between the oral iron and placebo groups (+23 mL/min vs -2 mL/min; difference, 21 mL/min [95% CI, -34 to +76 mL/min]; P = .46). Similarly, at 16 weeks, there were no significant differences between treatment groups in changes in 6-minute walk distance (-13 m; 95% CI, -32 to 6 m), NT-proBNP levels (159; 95% CI, -280 to 599 pg/mL), or KCCQ score (1; 95% CI, -2.4 to 4.4), all P > .05. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Among participants with HFrEF with iron deficiency, high-dose oral iron did not improve exercise capacity over 16 weeks. These results do not support use of oral iron supplementation in patients with HFrEF. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT02188784.

Effects of Xanthine Oxidase Inhibition in Hyperuricemic Heart Failure Patients: The Xanthine Oxidase Inhibition for Hyperuricemic Heart Failure Patients (EXACT-HF) Study.

BACKGROUND: Oxidative stress may contribute to heart failure (HF) progression. Inhibiting xanthine oxidase in hyperuricemic HF patients may improve outcomes. METHODS AND RESULTS: We randomly assigned 253 patients with symptomatic HF, left ventricular ejection fraction ≤40%, and serum uric acid levels ≥9.5 mg/dL to receive allopurinol (target dose, 600 mg daily) or placebo in a double-blind, multicenter trial. The primary composite end point at 24 weeks was based on survival, worsening HF, and patient global assessment. Secondary end points included change in quality of life, submaximal exercise capacity, and left ventricular ejection fraction. Uric acid levels were significantly reduced with allopurinol in comparison with placebo (treatment difference, -4.2 [-4.9, -3.5] mg/dL and -3.5 [-4.2, -2.7] mg/dL at 12 and 24 weeks, respectively, both P<0.0001). At 24 weeks, there was no significant difference in clinical status between the allopurinol- and placebo-treated patients (worsened 45% versus 46%, unchanged 42% versus 34%, improved 13% versus 19%, respectively; P=0.68). At 12 and 24 weeks, there was no significant difference in change in Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire scores or 6-minute walk distances between the 2 groups. At 24 weeks, left ventricular ejection fraction did not change in either group or between groups. Rash occurred more frequently with allopurinol (10% versus 2%, P=0.01), but there was no difference in serious adverse event rates between the groups (20% versus 15%, P=0.36). CONCLUSIONS: In high-risk HF patients with reduced ejection fraction and elevated uric acid levels, xanthine oxidase inhibition with allopurinol failed to improve clinical status, exercise capacity, quality of life, or left ventricular ejection fraction at 24 weeks. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00987415.

Evaluation of a provocative dyspnea severity score in acute heart failure.

BACKGROUND: The acute heart failure (AHF) Syndromes International Working Group proposed that dyspnea be assessed under standardized, incrementally provocative maneuvers and called for studies to assess the feasibility of this approach. We sought to assess the feasibility and statistical characteristics of a novel provocative dyspnea severity score (pDS) versus the traditional dyspnea visual analog scale (DVAS) in an AHF trial. METHODS: At enrollment, 24, 48 and 72hours, 230 ROSE-AHF patients completed a DVAS. Dyspnea was then assessed with 5-point Likert dyspnea scales administered during 4 stages (A: upright-with O2, B: upright-without O2, C: supine-without O2 and D: exercise-without O2). Patients with moderate or less dyspnea were eligible for the next stage. RESULTS: At enrollment, oxygen withdrawal and supine provocation were highly feasible (≥97%), provoking more severe dyspnea (≥1 Likert point) in 24% and 42% of eligible patients, respectively. Exercise provocation had low feasibility with 38% of eligible patients unable to exercise due to factors other than dyspnea. A pDS was constructed from Likert scales during the 3 feasible assessment conditions (A-C). Relative to DVAS, the distribution of the pDS was more skewed with a high "ceiling effect" at enrollment (23%) limiting sensitivity to change. Change in pDS was not related to decongestion or 60-day outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Although oxygen withdrawal and supine provocation are feasible and elicit more severe dyspnea, exercise provocation had unacceptable feasibility in this AHF cohort. The statistical characteristics of a pDS based on feasible provocation measures do not support its potential as a robust dyspnea assessment tool in AHF.

Evaluation of Novel Metrics of Symptom Relief in Acute Heart Failure: The Worst Symptom Score.

OBJECTIVE: To characterize a novel "worst"-symptom visual analogue scale (WS-VAS) versus the traditional dyspnea visual analogue scale (DVAS) in an acute heart failure (AHF) trial. BACKGROUND: AHF trials assess symptom relief as a pivotal endpoint with the use of dyspnea scores. However, many AHF patients' worst presenting symptom (WS) may not be dyspnea. We hypothesized that a WS-VAS may reflect clinical improvement better than DVAS in AHF. METHODS AND RESULTS: AHF patients (n = 232) enrolled in the Renal Optimization Strategies Evaluation in Acute Heart Failure (ROSE-AHF) Trial indicated their WS at enrollment and completed DVAS and WS-VAS at enrollment and 24, 48, and 72 hours. Dyspnea was the WS in 61%, body swelling in 29%, and fatigue in 10% of patients. Clinical characteristics differed by WS. In all patients, DVAS scores were higher (less severe symptoms) than WS-VAS and the change in WS-VAS over 72 hours was greater than the change in DVAS (P < .001). Changes in DVAS were smaller in patients with body swelling and fatigue than in patients with dyspnea as their WS (P = .002), whereas changes in the WS-VAS were similar regardless of patients' WS. Neither score, nor its change, was associated with available decongestion markers (change in N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide, weight or cumulative 72-hour urine volume). CONCLUSIONS: Many AHF patients have symptoms other than dyspnea as their most bothersome symptom. The WS-VAS better reflects symptom improvement across the spectrum of AHF phenotypes. Symptom relief and decongestion were not correlated in this AHF study.

Effects of Liraglutide on Clinical Stability Among Patients With Advanced Heart Failure and Reduced Ejection Fraction: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

IMPORTANCE: Abnormal cardiac metabolism contributes to the pathophysiology of advanced heart failure with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). Glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) agonists have shown cardioprotective effects in early clinical studies of patients with advanced heart failure, irrespective of type 2 diabetes status. OBJECTIVE: To test whether therapy with a GLP-1 agonist improves clinical stability following hospitalization for acute heart failure. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Phase 2, double-blind, placebo-controlled randomized clinical trial of patients with established heart failure and reduced LVEF who were recently hospitalized. Patients were enrolled between August 2013 and March 2015 at 24 US sites. INTERVENTIONS: The GLP-1 agonist liraglutide (n = 154) or placebo (n = 146) via a daily subcutaneous injection; study drug was advanced to a dosage of 1.8 mg/d during the first 30 days as tolerated and continued for 180 days. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary end point was a global rank score in which all patients, regardless of treatment assignment, were ranked across 3 hierarchical tiers: time to death, time to rehospitalization for heart failure, and time-averaged proportional change in N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide level from baseline to 180 days. Higher values indicate better health (stability). Exploratory secondary outcomes included primary end point components, cardiac structure and function, 6-minute walk distance, quality of life, and combined events. RESULTS: Among the 300 patients who were randomized (median age, 61 years [interquartile range {IQR}, 52-68 years]; 64 [21%] women; 178 [59%] with type 2 diabetes; median LVEF of 25% [IQR, 19%-33%]; median N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide level of 2049 pg/mL [IQR, 1054-4235 pg/mL]), 271 completed the study. Compared with placebo, liraglutide had no significant effect on the primary end point (mean rank of 146 for the liraglutide group vs 156 for the placebo group, P = .31). There were no significant between-group differences in the number of deaths (19 [12%] in the liraglutide group vs 16 [11%] in the placebo group; hazard ratio, 1.10 [95% CI, 0.57-2.14]; P = .78) or rehospitalizations for heart failure (63 [41%] vs 50 [34%], respectively; hazard ratio, 1.30 [95% CI, 0.89-1.88]; P = .17) or for the exploratory secondary end points. Prespecified subgroup analyses in patients with diabetes did not reveal any significant between-group differences. The number of investigator-reported hyperglycemic events was 16 (10%) in the liraglutide group vs 27 (18%) in the placebo group and hypoglycemic events were infrequent (2 [1%] vs 4 [3%], respectively). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Among patients recently hospitalized with heart failure and reduced LVEF, the use of liraglutide did not lead to greater posthospitalization clinical stability. These findings do not support the use of liraglutide in this clinical situation. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01800968.

Ultrafiltration in decompensated heart failure with cardiorenal syndrome.

BACKGROUND: Ultrafiltration is an alternative strategy to diuretic therapy for the treatment of patients with acute decompensated heart failure. Little is known about the efficacy and safety of ultrafiltration in patients with acute decompensated heart failure complicated by persistent congestion and worsened renal function. METHODS: We randomly assigned a total of 188 patients with acute decompensated heart failure, worsened renal function, and persistent congestion to a strategy of stepped pharmacologic therapy (94 patients) or ultrafiltration (94 patients). The primary end point was the bivariate change from baseline in the serum creatinine level and body weight, as assessed 96 hours after random assignment. Patients were followed for 60 days. RESULTS: Ultrafiltration was inferior to pharmacologic therapy with respect to the bivariate end point of the change in the serum creatinine level and body weight 96 hours after enrollment (P=0.003), owing primarily to an increase in the creatinine level in the ultrafiltration group. At 96 hours, the mean change in the creatinine level was -0.04±0.53 mg per deciliter (-3.5±46.9 µmol per liter) in the pharmacologic-therapy group, as compared with +0.23±0.70 mg per deciliter (20.3±61.9 µmol per liter) in the ultrafiltration group (P=0.003). There was no significant difference in weight loss 96 hours after enrollment between patients in the pharmacologic-therapy group and those in the ultrafiltration group (a loss of 5.5±5.1 kg [12.1±11.3 lb] and 5.7±3.9 kg [12.6±8.5 lb], respectively; P=0.58). A higher percentage of patients in the ultrafiltration group than in the pharmacologic-therapy group had a serious adverse event (72% vs. 57%, P=0.03). CONCLUSIONS: In a randomized trial involving patients hospitalized for acute decompensated heart failure, worsened renal function, and persistent congestion, the use of a stepped pharmacologic-therapy algorithm was superior to a strategy of ultrafiltration for the preservation of renal function at 96 hours, with a similar amount of weight loss with the two approaches. Ultrafiltration was associated with a higher rate of adverse events. (Funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00608491.).

Diuretic strategies in patients with acute decompensated heart failure.

BACKGROUND: Loop diuretics are an essential component of therapy for patients with acute decompensated heart failure, but there are few prospective data to guide their use. METHODS: In a prospective, double-blind, randomized trial, we assigned 308 patients with acute decompensated heart failure to receive furosemide administered intravenously by means of either a bolus every 12 hours or continuous infusion and at either a low dose (equivalent to the patient's previous oral dose) or a high dose (2.5 times the previous oral dose). The protocol allowed specified dose adjustments after 48 hours. The coprimary end points were patients' global assessment of symptoms, quantified as the area under the curve (AUC) of the score on a visual-analogue scale over the course of 72 hours, and the change in the serum creatinine level from baseline to 72 hours. RESULTS: In the comparison of bolus with continuous infusion, there was no significant difference in patients' global assessment of symptoms (mean AUC, 4236±1440 and 4373±1404, respectively; P=0.47) or in the mean change in the creatinine level (0.05±0.3 mg per deciliter [4.4±26.5 µmol per liter] and 0.07±0.3 mg per deciliter [6.2±26.5 µmol per liter], respectively; P=0.45). In the comparison of the high-dose strategy with the low-dose strategy, there was a nonsignificant trend toward greater improvement in patients' global assessment of symptoms in the high-dose group (mean AUC, 4430±1401 vs. 4171±1436; P=0.06). There was no significant difference between these groups in the mean change in the creatinine level (0.08±0.3 mg per deciliter [7.1±26.5 µmol per liter] with the high-dose strategy and 0.04±0.3 mg per deciliter [3.5±26.5 µmol per liter] with the low-dose strategy, P=0.21). The high-dose strategy was associated with greater diuresis and more favorable outcomes in some secondary measures but also with transient worsening of renal function. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with acute decompensated heart failure, there were no significant differences in patients' global assessment of symptoms or in the change in renal function when diuretic therapy was administered by bolus as compared with continuous infusion or at a high dose as compared with a low dose. (Funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00577135.).

Effect of phosphodiesterase-5 inhibition on exercise capacity and clinical status in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: a randomized clinical trial.

IMPORTANCE: Studies in experimental and human heart failure suggest that phosphodiesterase-5 inhibitors may enhance cardiovascular function and thus exercise capacity in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFPEF). OBJECTIVE: To determine the effect of the phosphodiesterase-5 inhibitor sildenafil compared with placebo on exercise capacity and clinical status in HFPEF. DESIGN: Multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group, randomized clinical trial of 216 stable outpatients with HF, ejection fraction ≥50%, elevated N-terminal brain-type natriuretic peptide or elevated invasively measured filling pressures, and reduced exercise capacity. Participants were randomized from October 2008 through February 2012 at 26 centers in North America. Follow-up was through August 30, 2012. INTERVENTIONS: Sildenafil (n = 113) or placebo (n = 103) administered orally at 20 mg, 3 times daily for 12 weeks, followed by 60 mg, 3 times daily for 12 weeks. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary end point was change in peak oxygen consumption after 24 weeks of therapy. Secondary end points included change in 6-minute walk distance and a hierarchical composite clinical status score (range, 1-n, a higher value indicates better status; expected value with no treatment effect, 95) based on time to death, time to cardiovascular or cardiorenal hospitalization, and change in quality of life for participants without cardiovascular or cardiorenal hospitalization at 24 weeks. RESULTS: Median age was 69 years, and 48% of patients were women. At baseline, median peak oxygen consumption (11.7 mL/kg/min) and 6-minute walk distance (308 m) were reduced. The median E/e' (16), left atrial volume index (44 mL/m2), and pulmonary artery systolic pressure (41 mm Hg) were consistent with chronically elevated left ventricular filling pressures. At 24 weeks, median (IQR) changes in peak oxygen consumption (mL/kg/min) in patients who received placebo (-0.20 [IQR, -0.70 to 1.00]) or sildenafil (-0.20 [IQR, -1.70 to 1.11]) were not significantly different (P = .90) in analyses in which patients with missing week-24 data were excluded, and in sensitivity analysis based on intention to treat with multiple imputation for missing values (mean between-group difference, 0.01 mL/kg/min, [95% CI, -0.60 to 0.61]). The mean clinical status rank score was not significantly different at 24 weeks between placebo (95.8) and sildenafil (94.2) (P = .85). Changes in 6-minute walk distance at 24 weeks in patients who received placebo (15.0 m [IQR, -26.0 to 45.0]) or sildenafil (5.0 m [IQR, -37.0 to 55.0]; P = .92) were also not significantly different. Adverse events occurred in 78 placebo patients (76%) and 90 sildenafil patients (80%). Serious adverse events occurred in 16 placebo patients (16%) and 25 sildenafil patients (22%). CONCLUSION AND RELEVANCE: Among patients with HFPEF, phosphodiesterase-5 inhibition with administration of sildenafil for 24 weeks, compared with placebo, did not result in significant improvement in exercise capacity or clinical status. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00763867.

Low-dose dopamine or low-dose nesiritide in acute heart failure with renal dysfunction: the ROSE acute heart failure randomized trial.

IMPORTANCE: Small studies suggest that low-dose dopamine or low-dose nesiritide may enhance decongestion and preserve renal function in patients with acute heart failure and renal dysfunction; however, neither strategy has been rigorously tested. OBJECTIVE: To test the 2 independent hypotheses that, compared with placebo, addition of low-dose dopamine (2 µg/kg/min) or low-dose nesiritide (0.005 µg/kg/min without bolus) to diuretic therapy will enhance decongestion and preserve renal function in patients with acute heart failure and renal dysfunction. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial (Renal Optimization Strategies Evaluation [ROSE]) of 360 hospitalized patients with acute heart failure and renal dysfunction (estimated glomerular filtration rate of 15-60 mL/min/1.73 m2), randomized within 24 hours of admission. Enrollment occurred from September 2010 to March 2013 across 26 sites in North America. INTERVENTIONS: Participants were randomized in an open, 1:1 allocation ratio to the dopamine or nesiritide strategy. Within each strategy, participants were randomized in a double-blind, 2:1 ratio to active treatment or placebo. The dopamine (n = 122) and nesiritide (n = 119) groups were independently compared with the pooled placebo group (n = 119). MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Coprimary end points included 72-hour cumulative urine volume (decongestion end point) and the change in serum cystatin C from enrollment to 72 hours (renal function end point). RESULTS: Compared with placebo, low-dose dopamine had no significant effect on 72-hour cumulative urine volume (dopamine, 8524 mL; 95% CI, 7917-9131 vs placebo, 8296 mL; 95% CI, 7762-8830 ; difference, 229 mL; 95% CI, -714 to 1171 mL; P = .59) or on the change in cystatin C level (dopamine, 0.12 mg/L; 95% CI, 0.06-0.18 vs placebo, 0.11 mg/L; 95% CI, 0.06-0.16; difference, 0.01; 95% CI, -0.08 to 0.10; P = .72). Similarly, low-dose nesiritide had no significant effect on 72-hour cumulative urine volume (nesiritide, 8574 mL; 95% CI, 8014-9134 vs placebo, 8296 mL; 95% CI, 7762-8830; difference, 279 mL; 95% CI, -618 to 1176 mL; P = .49) or on the change in cystatin C level (nesiritide, 0.07 mg/L; 95% CI, 0.01-0.13 vs placebo, 0.11 mg/L; 95% CI, 0.06-0.16; difference, -0.04; 95% CI, -0.13 to 0.05; P = .36). Compared with placebo, there was no effect of low-dose dopamine or nesiritide on secondary end points reflective of decongestion, renal function, or clinical outcomes. CONCLUSION AND RELEVANCE: In participants with acute heart failure and renal dysfunction, neither low-dose dopamine nor low-dose nesiritide enhanced decongestion or improved renal function when added to diuretic therapy. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01132846.

Tolerability of Sacubitril/Valsartan in Patients With Advanced Heart Failure: Analysis of the LIFE Trial Run-In.

BACKGROUND: The LIFE (LCZ696 In Hospitalized Advanced Heart FailurE) trial, which evaluated sacubitril/valsartan in patients with advanced heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction and recent New York Heart Association functional class IV symptomatology, did not require tolerance to a renin angiotensin system antagonist before initiating sacubitril/valsartan, thus affording an opportunity to study the tolerability of sacubitril/valsartan in advanced HF with reduced ejection fraction. OBJECTIVES: The goal of this analysis of the LIFE trial is to characterize the tolerability of initiating sacubitril/valsartan in patients with chronic advanced HF with reduced ejection fraction. METHODS: In the LIFE trial, 445 subjects with advanced HF entered an unblinded run-in period of 3-7 days with sacubitril/valsartan 24/26 mg twice a day. The authors compared characteristics of subjects completing and failing run-in, performed multivariable analysis of clinical parameters associated with run-in failure, and developed a predictive model for short-term intolerance to sacubitril/valsartan. RESULTS: Of 445 subjects entering run-in, 73 (18%) were intolerant of sacubitril/valsartan. Reasons for intolerance included systolic blood pressure <90 mm Hg (59%), symptoms of hypotension/dizziness with systolic blood pressure >90 mm Hg (19%), and renal dysfunction (creatinine >2.0 mg/dL) (12%). Multivariable predictors of intolerance included lower mean arterial pressure, lower serum chloride, presence of an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator and/or cardiac resynchronization device, moderate or greater mitral regurgitation, nonuse of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker at the screening visit, and use of insulin at screening. Subjects with 4 or more predictors had a 48.9% probability of sacubitril/valsartan intolerance. CONCLUSIONS: Intolerance to low doses of sacubitril/valsartan is common in patients with advanced chronic HF with reduced ejection fraction and may be predicted by the presence of certain risk factors. (EntrestoTM [LCZ696] in Advanced Heart Failure [LIFE Study] [HFN-LIFE] NCT02816736).

Effect of Treatment With Sacubitril/Valsartan in Patients With Advanced Heart Failure and Reduced Ejection Fraction: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: The use of sacubitril/valsartan is not endorsed by practice guidelines for use in patients with New York Heart Association class IV heart failure with a reduced ejection fraction because of limited clinical experience in this population. Objective: To compare treatment with sacubitril/valsartan treatment with valsartan in patients with advanced heart failure and a reduced ejection fraction and recent New York Heart Association class IV symptoms. Design, Setting, and Participants: A double-blind randomized clinical trial was conducted; a total of 335 patients with advanced heart failure were included. The trial began on March 2, 2017, and was stopped early on March 23, 2020, owing to COVID-19 risk. Intervention: Patients were randomized to receive sacubitril/valsartan (target dose, 200 mg twice daily) or valsartan (target dose, 160 mg twice daily) in addition to recommended therapy. Main Outcomes and Measures: The area under the curve (AUC) for the ratio of N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) compared with baseline measured through 24 weeks of therapy. Results: Of the 335 patients included in the analysis, 245 were men (73%); mean (SD) age was 59.4 (13.5) years. Seventy-two eligible patients (18%) were not able to tolerate sacubitril/valsartan, 100 mg/d, during the short run-in period, and 49 patients (29%) discontinued sacubitril/valsartan during the 24 weeks of the trial. The median NT-proBNP AUC for the valsartan treatment arm (n = 168) was 1.19 (IQR, 0.91-1.64), whereas the AUC for the sacubitril/valsartan treatment arm (n = 167) was 1.08 (IQR, 0.75-1.60). The estimated ratio of change in the NT-proBNP AUC was 0.95 (95% CI 0.84-1.08; P = .45). Compared with valsartan, treatment with sacubitril/valsartan did not improve the clinical composite of number of days alive, out of hospital, and free from heart failure events. Aside from a statistically significant increase in non-life-threatening hyperkalemia in the sacubitril/valsartan arm (28 [17%] vs 15 [9%]; P = .04), there were no observed safety concerns. Conclusions and Relevance: The findings of this trial showed that, in patients with chronic advanced heart failure with a reduced ejection fraction, there was no statistically significant difference between sacubitril/valsartan and valsartan with respect to reducing NT-proBNP levels. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02816736.

Abatacept for Treatment of Adults Hospitalized with Moderate or Severe Covid-19.

Background: We investigated whether abatacept, a selective costimulation modulator, provides additional benefit when added to standard-of-care for patients hospitalized with Covid-19. Methods: We conducted a master protocol to investigate immunomodulators for potential benefit treating patients hospitalized with Covid-19 and report results for abatacept. Intravenous abatacept (one-time dose 10 mg/kg, maximum dose 1000 mg) plus standard of care (SOC) was compared with shared placebo plus SOC. Primary outcome was time-to-recovery by day 28. Key secondary endpoints included 28-day mortality. Results: Between October 16, 2020 and December 31, 2021, a total of 1019 participants received study treatment (509 abatacept; 510 shared placebo), constituting the modified intention-to-treat cohort. Participants had a mean age 54.8 (SD 14.6) years, 60.5% were male, 44.2% Hispanic/Latino and 13.7% Black. No statistically significant difference for the primary endpoint of time-to-recovery was found with a recovery-rate-ratio of 1.14 (95% CI 1.00-1.29; p=0.057) compared with placebo. We observed a substantial improvement in 28-day all-cause mortality with abatacept versus placebo (11.0% vs. 15.1%; odds ratio [OR] 0.62 [95% CI 0.41- 0.94]), leading to 38% lower odds of dying. Improvement in mortality occurred for participants requiring oxygen/noninvasive ventilation at randomization. Subgroup analysis identified the strongest effect in those with baseline C-reactive protein >75mg/L. We found no statistically significant differences in adverse events, with safety composite index slightly favoring abatacept. Rates of secondary infections were similar (16.1% for abatacept; 14.3% for placebo). Conclusions: Addition of single-dose intravenous abatacept to standard-of-care demonstrated no statistically significant change in time-to-recovery, but improved 28-day mortality. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov ( NCT04593940 ).

Infliximab for Treatment of Adults Hospitalized with Moderate or Severe Covid-19.

Background: Immune dysregulation contributes to poorer outcomes in severe Covid-19. Immunomodulators targeting various pathways have improved outcomes. We investigated whether infliximab provides benefit over standard of care. Methods: We conducted a master protocol investigating immunomodulators for potential benefit in treatment of participants hospitalized with Covid-19 pneumonia. We report results for infliximab (single dose infusion) versus shared placebo both with standard of care. Primary outcome was time to recovery by day 29 (28 days after randomization). Key secondary endpoints included 14-day clinical status and 28-day mortality. Results: A total of 1033 participants received study drug (517 infliximab, 516 placebo). Mean age was 54.8 years, 60.3% were male, 48.6% Hispanic or Latino, and 14% Black. No statistically significant difference in the primary endpoint was seen with infliximab compared with placebo (recovery rate ratio 1.13, 95% CI 0.99-1.29; p=0.063). Median (IQR) time to recovery was 8 days (7, 9) for infliximab and 9 days (8, 10) for placebo. Participants assigned to infliximab were more likely to have an improved clinical status at day 14 (OR 1.32, 95% CI 1.05-1.66). Twenty-eight-day mortality was 10.1% with infliximab versus 14.5% with placebo, with 41% lower odds of dying in those receiving infliximab (OR 0.59, 95% CI 0.39-0.90). No differences in risk of serious adverse events including secondary infections. Conclusions: Infliximab did not demonstrate statistically significant improvement in time to recovery. It was associated with improved 14-day clinical status and substantial reduction in 28- day mortality compared with standard of care. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov ( NCT04593940 ).

Growth differentiation factor-15, treatment with liraglutide, and clinical outcomes among patients with heart failure.

AIMS: Associations between growth differentiation factor-15 (GDF-15), cardiovascular outcomes, and exercise capacity among patients with a recent hospitalization for heart failure (HHF) and heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) are unknown. We utilized data from the 'Functional Impact of GLP-1 for Heart Failure Treatment' (FIGHT) study to address these knowledge gaps. METHODS AND RESULTS: FIGHT was a randomized clinical trial testing the effect of liraglutide (vs. placebo) among 300 participants with HFrEF and a recent HHF. Multivariable regression models evaluated associations between baseline GDF-15 and change in GDF-15 (per 1000 pg/mL increase from baseline to 30 days) with clinical outcomes (at 180 days) and declines in exercise capacity (6 min walk distance ≥ 45 m). At baseline (n = 249), median GDF-15 value was 3221 pg/mL (interquartile range 1938-5511 pg/mL). Participants in the highest tertile of baseline GDF-15 were more likely to be male and have more co-morbidities. After adjustment, an increase in GDF-15 over 30 days was associated with higher risk of death or HHF [hazard ratio 1.35, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.11-1.64]. In addition, higher baseline GDF-15 (per 1000 pg/mL until 6000 pg/mL) and an increase in GDF-15 over 30 days were associated with declining 6 min walk distance (odds ratio 1.26, 95% CI 1.02-1.55 and odds ratio 1.37, 95% CI 1.12-1.69, respectively). GDF-15 levels remained stable among participants randomized to liraglutide. CONCLUSIONS: An increase in GDF-15 over 30 days among patients in HFrEF was independently associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular events and declining exercise capacity. These results support the value of longitudinal GDF-15 trajectory in informing risk of heart failure disease progression.

Quality of life effects of automatic external defibrillators in the home: results from the Home Automatic External Defibrillator Trial (HAT).

BACKGROUND: Public access automatic external defibrillators (AEDs) can save lives, but most deaths from out-of-hospital sudden cardiac arrest occur at home. The Home Automatic External Defibrillator Trial (HAT) found no survival advantage for adding a home AED to cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) training for 7,001 patients with a prior anterior wall myocardial infarction. Quality of life (QOL) outcomes for both the patient and spouse/companion were secondary end points. METHODS: A subset of 1,007 study patients and their spouse/companions was randomly selected for ascertainment of QOL by structured interview at baseline and 12 and 24 months after enrollment. The primary QOL measures were the Medical Outcomes Study 36-Item Short-Form psychological well-being (reflecting anxiety and depression) and vitality (reflecting energy and fatigue) subscales. RESULTS: For patients and spouse/companions, the psychological well-being and vitality scales did not differ significantly between those randomly assigned an AED plus CPR training and controls who received CPR training only. None of the other QOL measures collected showed a clinically and statistically significant difference between treatment groups. Patients in the AED group were more likely to report being extremely or quite a bit reassured by their treatment assignment. Spouse/companions in the AED group reported being less often nervous about the possibility of using AED/CPR treatment than those in the CPR group. CONCLUSIONS: Adding access to a home AED to CPR training did not affect QOL either for patients with a prior anterior myocardial infarction or their spouse/companion but did provide more reassurance to the patients without increasing anxiety for spouse/companions.

Effects of Liraglutide on Worsening Renal Function Among Patients With Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction: Insights From the FIGHT Trial.

BACKGROUND: The FIGHT (Functional Impact of GLP-1 [glucagon-like peptide-1] for Heart Failure Treatment) trial randomized 300 patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and a recent hospitalization for heart failure to liraglutide versus placebo. While there was no difference in the primary outcome (rank score of time to death, time to rehospitalization for heart failure, and change in NT-proBNP [N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide]), there was a significant increase in cystatin C among patients randomized to liraglutide raising concern of adverse renal outcomes. We performed a post hoc analysis of FIGHT to investigate whether liraglutide was associated with worsening renal function (WRF). METHODS: The relationship between randomization to liraglutide and WRF was evaluated using logistic regression models. Two hundred seventy-four patients (91%) had complete data to assess for WRF defined as: increase in SCr ≥0.3 mg/dL, or ≥25% decrease in estimated glomerular filtration rate, or an increase in cystatin C ≥0.3 mg/L from baseline to 180-days. RESULTS: Patients with WRF (n=113, 41%), compared with those without, were older, had more comorbidities, and lower utilization of guideline-directed medical treatment. Logistic regression models showed that age and baseline cystatin C levels were associated with WRF. In adjusted models, liraglutide was not associated with excess risk of WRF compared with placebo (odds ratio, 1.02 [95% CI, 0.62-1.67]). There was also no difference in the rank score when WRF was added as a fourth-tier outcome. CONCLUSIONS: Liraglutide was not associated with WRF among patients with HFrEF and a recent hospitalization for heart failure. These data support the relative renal safety profile of liraglutide among patients with HFrEF. Registration: URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01800968.