Edetate Disodium-Based Chelation for Patients With a Previous Myocardial Infarction and Diabetes: TACT2 Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: In 2013, the Trial to Assess Chelation Therapy (TACT) reported that edetate disodium (EDTA)-based chelation significantly reduced cardiovascular disease (CVD) events by 18% in 1708 patients with a prior myocardial infarction (MI). Objective: To replicate the finding of TACT in individuals with diabetes and previous MI. Design, Setting, and Participants: A 2 × 2 factorial, double-masked, placebo-controlled, multicenter trial at 88 sites in the US and Canada, involving participants who were 50 years or older, had diabetes, and had experienced an MI at least 6 weeks before recruitment compared the effect of EDTA-based chelation vs placebo infusions on CVD events and compared the effect of high doses of oral multivitamins and minerals with oral placebo. This article reports on the chelation vs placebo infusion comparisons. Interventions: Eligible participants were randomly assigned to 40 weekly infusions of an EDTA-based chelation solution or matching placebo and to twice daily oral, high-dose multivitamin and mineral supplements or matching placebo for 60 months. This article addresses the chelation study. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was the composite of all-cause mortality, MI, stroke, coronary revascularization, or hospitalization for unstable angina. Median follow-up was 48 months. Primary comparisons were made from patients who received at least 1 assigned infusion. Results: Of the 959 participants (median age, 67 years [IQR, 60-72 years]; 27% females; 78% White, 10% Black, and 20% Hispanic), 483 received at least 1 chelation infusion and 476 at least 1 placebo infusion. A primary end point event occurred in 172 participants (35.6%) in the chelation group and in 170 (35.7%) in the placebo group (adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 0.93; 95% CI, 0.76-1.16; P = .53). The 5-year primary event cumulative incidence rates were 45.8% for the chelation group and 46.5% for the placebo group. CV death, MI, or stroke events occurred in 89 participants (18.4%) in the chelation group and in 94 (19.7%) in the placebo group (adjusted HR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.66-1.19). Death from any cause occurred in 84 participants (17.4%) in the chelation group and in 84 (17.6%) in the placebo group (adjusted HR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.71-1.30). Chelation reduced median blood lead levels from 9.03 µg/L at baseline to 3.46 µg/L at infusion 40 (P < .001). Corresponding levels in the placebo group were 9.3 µg/L and 8.7 µg/L, respectively. Conclusions and Relevance: Despite effectively reducing blood lead levels, EDTA chelation was not effective in reducing cardiovascular events in stable patients with coronary artery disease who have diabetes and a history of MI. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02733185.

Comparing Analytical Methods for Composite Endpoints in Clinical Trials: Insights from the Vericiguat Global Study in Subjects with Heart Failure with Reduced Ejection Fraction (VICTORIA) Trial.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: In the VICTORIA trial of participants with heart failure (HF) and reduced ejection fraction, vericiguat (V) reduced the primary composite outcome [time to first HF hospitalization (HFH) or cardiovascular death (CVD)] (897 events) compared to placebo (P) (972 events) (hazard ratio, 0.90; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.82-0.98; p=0.02). In this prespecified secondary analysis, we applied the weighted composite endpoint (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(V:416/P:459) severe HFH, 1614(767/847) moderate HFH and 68(38/30) mild HFH, 855(414/441) CVD. Improved HFH-adjusted survival occurred with vericiguat [mean 78.2% vs. 75.6%; difference (95% CI): 2.4% (1.7%-3.2%); p<0.0001]. Based on the comparison of 6,375,624 pairs, the WR of 1.13 (95% CI, 1.03-1.24, p=0.01) 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. Whereas 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.

Efficacy of infliximab, abatacept, and cenicriviroc for the treatment of adults hospitalized with COVID-19 pneumonia.

A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial was conducted to investigate the efficacy of infliximab, abatacept, and cenicriviroc in treating patients hospitalized with COVID-19. The patient's clinical status was assessed daily on an 8-point ordinal scale. We evaluated the totality of evidence on the efficacy of the 3 immunomodulators by considering all possible changes in the clinical status of each patient over time. We demonstrated that infliximab accelerated improvement and reduced deterioration of clinical status when added to standard of care. There was also evidence for the benefit of abatacept. There was no evidence for the benefit of cenicriviroc.

High-risk subgroups were not identified to benefit from thromboprophylaxis after hospitalization for COVID-19.

Background: The Accelerating COVID-19 Therapeutic Interventions and Vaccines-4c (ACTIV-4c) trial investigated prophylactic apixaban for 30 days following hospitalization for COVID-19. The overall incidence of early postdischarge death or thromboembolism was low, and the trial was closed early. Objectives: To identify a high-risk patient population who might benefit from postdischarge thromboprophylaxis through subgroup analyses stratified by age, race/ethnicity, obesity, D-dimer elevation, World Health Organization score, and modified International Medical Prevention Registry on Venous Thromboembolism score on 30-day composite outcome of all-cause death, arterial thromboembolism (ATE), and venous thromboembolism (VTE). Methods: Cumulative incidences of all-cause death, ATE, and VTE within 30 days were described for each subgroup. Time to death, ATE, or VTE by 30 days was analyzed using Cox proportional hazard models with interaction testing for each subgroup. Results: Among 1217 patients randomized to apixaban or placebo group, 32% were >60 years old. Modified International Medical Prevention Registry on Venous Thromboembolism score was ≥4 in 2% and 2 or 3 with an elevated D-dimer in an additional 9% of participants. The overall incidence of the primary endpoint was 2.13% in the apixaban group and 2.31% in the placebo group. At day 30, similar rates of the primary endpoint occurred within subgroups, except for participants aged >60 years. No benefit of thromboprophylaxis was seen in any subgroup. Conclusion: The combined incidence of 30-day death, ATE, and VTE was low in patients who survived COVID-19 hospitalization, except in patients over age 60 years. Due to the limited number of events, the findings remain inconclusive; nonetheless, the study did not identify a high-risk subgroup that would derive benefits from extended thromboprophylaxis.

Vericiguat and Cardiovascular Outcomes in Heart Failure by Baseline Diabetes Status: Insights From the VICTORIA Trial.

BACKGROUND: Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) significantly worsens heart failure (HF) prognosis. OBJECTIVES: This study sought to investigate the impact of T2DM on outcomes in patients enrolled in VICTORIA and assess the efficacy of vericiguat in patients with and without T2DM. METHODS: Patients with HF with reduced ejection fraction were randomized to receive vericiguat or placebo in addition to standard therapy. The primary outcome was a composite of cardiovascular death or first heart failure hospitalization (HFH). A Cox proportional hazards model was used to calculate HRs and 95% CIs to assess if the effect of vericiguat differed by history of T2DM. RESULTS: Of 5,050 patients enrolled, 3,683 (72.9%) had glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c) measured at baseline. Of these, 2,270 (61.6%) had T2DM, 741 (20.1%) had pre-T2DM, 449 (12.2%) did not have T2DM, and 178 (4.8%) had undiagnosed T2DM. The risks of the primary outcome, HFH, and all-cause and cardiovascular mortality were high across all categories. The efficacy of vericiguat on the primary outcome did not differ in patients stratified by T2DM by history (HR: 0.92; 95% CI: 0.81-1.04), T2DM measured by HbA1c (HR: 0.77; 95% CI: 0.49-1.20), and pre-T2DM measured by HbA1c (HR: 0.88; 95% CI: 0.68-1.13) and in those with normoglycemia (HR: 1.02: 95% CI: 0.75-1.39; P for interaction = 0.752). No significant differences were observed in subgroups with respect to the efficacy of vericiguat on HFH and all-cause or cardiovascular death. CONCLUSIONS: In this post hoc analysis of VICTORIA, vericiguat compared with placebo significantly reduced the risk of cardiovascular death or HFH in patients with worsening HF with reduced ejection fraction regardless of T2DM status. (A Study of Vericiguat in Participants With Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction [HFrEF] [Mk-1242-001] [VICTORIA]; NCT02861534).

On-treatment analysis of torsemide versus furosemide for patients hospitalized for heart failure: A post-hoc analysis of TRANSFORM-HF.

AIM: The TRANSFORM-HF trial demonstrated no significant outcome differences between torsemide and furosemide following hospitalization for heart failure (HF), but may have been impacted by non-adherence to the randomized diuretic. The current study sought to determine the treatment effect of torsemide versus furosemide using an on-treatment analysis inclusive of all randomized patients except those confirmed non-adherent to study diuretic. METHODS AND RESULTS: TRANSFORM-HF was an open-label, pragmatic randomized trial of 2859 patients hospitalized for HF from June 2018 through March 2022. Patients were randomized to a loop diuretic strategy of torsemide versus furosemide with investigator-selected dosage. This post-hoc on-treatment analysis included all patients alive with either known or unknown diuretic status, and excluded patients confirmed to be non-adherent to study diuretic. This modified on-treatment definition was applied separately at time of hospital discharge and 30-day follow-up. All-cause mortality and hospitalization outcomes were assessed over 12 months. Overall, 2570 (89.9%) and 2374 (83.0%) patients were included in on-treatment analyses at discharge and 30-day follow-up, respectively. There was no significant difference in all-cause mortality between torsemide and furosemide in patients on-treatment at discharge (17.5% vs. 17.8%; hazard ratio [HR] 1.01 [95% confidence interval [CI] 0.83-1.22], p = 0.96) and at 30-day follow-up (14.5% vs. 15.0%; HR 1.02 [95% CI 0.81-1.27], p = 0.90). All-cause mortality or all-cause hospitalization was similar between torsemide and furosemide in patients who were on-treatment at discharge (58.3% vs. 61.3%; HR 0.92 [95% CI 0.82-1.03]) and 30-day follow-up (60.9% vs. 64.4%; HR 0.93 [95% CI 0.82-1.05]). In patients who were on-treatment at 30-day follow-up, there were 677 total hospitalizations in the torsemide group and 686 total hospitalizations in the furosemide group (rate ratio 0.99 [95% CI 0.86-1.14], p = 0.87). CONCLUSIONS: In TRANSFORM-HF, a post-hoc on-treatment analysis did not meaningfully differ from the original trial results. Among those deemed compliant with the assigned diuretic, there remained no significant difference in mortality or hospitalization after HF hospitalization with a strategy of torsemide versus furosemide. CLINICAL TRAIL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03296813.

Integrating randomized and observational studies to estimate optimal dynamic treatment regimes.

Sequential multiple assignment randomized trials (SMARTs) are the gold standard for estimating optimal dynamic treatment regimes (DTRs), but are costly and require a large sample size. We introduce the multi-stage augmented Q-learning estimator (MAQE) to improve efficiency of estimation of optimal DTRs by augmenting SMART data with observational data. Our motivating example comes from the Back Pain Consortium, where one of the overarching aims is to learn how to tailor treatments for chronic low back pain to individual patient phenotypes, knowledge which is lacking clinically. The Consortium-wide collaborative SMART and observational studies within the Consortium collect data on the same participant phenotypes, treatments, and outcomes at multiple time points, which can easily be integrated. Previously published single-stage augmentation methods for integration of trial and observational study (OS) data were adapted to estimate optimal DTRs from SMARTs using Q-learning. Simulation studies show the MAQE, which integrates phenotype, treatment, and outcome information from multiple studies over multiple time points, more accurately estimates the optimal DTR, and has a higher average value than a comparable Q-learning estimator without augmentation. We demonstrate this improvement is robust to a wide range of trial and OS sample sizes, addition of noise variables, and effect sizes.

Baseline characteristics including blood and urine metal levels in the Trial to Assess Chelation Therapy 2 (TACT2).

BACKGROUND: The reduction in cardiovascular disease (CVD) events with edetate disodium (EDTA) in the Trial to Assess Chelation Therapy (TACT) suggested that chelation of toxic metals might provide novel opportunities to reduce CVD in patients with diabetes. Lead and cadmium are vasculotoxic metals chelated by EDTA. We present baseline characteristics for participants in TACT2, a randomized, double-masked, placebo-controlled trial designed as a replication of the TACT trial limited to patients with diabetes. METHODS: TACT2 enrolled 1,000 participants with diabetes and prior myocardial infarction, age 50 years or older between September 2016 and December 2020. Among 959 participants with at least one infusion, 933 had blood and/or urine metals measured at the Centers for Diseases Control and Prevention using the same methodology as in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES). We compared metal levels in TACT2 to a contemporaneous subset of NHANES participants with CVD, diabetes and other inclusion criteria similar to TACT2's participants. RESULTS: At baseline, the median (interquartile range, IQR) age was 67 (60, 72) years, 27% were women, 78% reported white race, mean (SD) BMI was 32.7 (6.6) kg/m2, 4% reported type 1 diabetes, 46.8% were treated with insulin, 22.3% with GLP1-receptor agonists or SGLT-2 inhibitors, 90.2% with aspirin, warfarin or P2Y12 inhibitors, and 86.5% with statins. Blood lead was detectable in all participants; median (IQR) was 9.19 (6.30, 13.9) µg/L. Blood and urine cadmium were detectable in 97% and median (IQR) levels were 0.28 (0.18, 0.43) µg/L and 0.30 (0.18, 0.51) µg/g creatinine, respectively. Metal levels were largely similar to those in the contemporaneous NHANES subset. CONCLUSIONS: TACT2 participants were characterized by high use of medication to treat CVD and diabetes and similar baseline metal levels as in the general US population. TACT2 will determine whether chelation therapy reduces the occurrence of subsequent CVD events in this high-risk population. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov. Identifier: NCT02733185. https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT02733185.

Torsemide Versus Furosemide After Discharge in Patients Hospitalized With Heart Failure Across the Spectrum of Ejection Fraction: Findings From TRANSFORM-HF.

BACKGROUND: The TRANSFORM-HF trial (Torsemide Comparison With Furosemide for Management of Heart Failure) found no significant difference in all-cause mortality or hospitalization among patients randomized to a strategy of torsemide versus furosemide following a heart failure (HF) hospitalization. However, outcomes and responses to some therapies differ by left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). Thus, we sought to explore the effect of torsemide versus furosemide by baseline LVEF and to assess outcomes across LVEF groups. METHODS: We compared baseline patient characteristics and randomized treatment effects for various end points in TRANSFORM-HF stratified by LVEF: HF with reduced LVEF, ≤40% versus HF with mildly reduced LVEF, 41% to 49% versus HF with preserved LVEF, ≥50%. We also evaluated associations between LVEF and clinical outcomes. Study end points were all-cause mortality or hospitalization at 30 days and 12 months, total hospitalizations at 12 months, and change from baseline in Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire clinical summary score. RESULTS: Overall, 2635 patients (median 64 years, 36% female, 34% Black) had LVEF data. Compared with HF with reduced LVEF, patients with HF with mildly reduced LVEF and HF with preserved LVEF had a higher prevalence of comorbidities. After adjusting for covariates, there was no significant difference in risk of clinical outcomes across the LVEF groups (adjusted hazard ratio for 12-month all-cause mortality, 0.91 [95% CI, 0.59-1.39] for HF with mildly reduced LVEF versus HF with reduced LVEF and 0.91 [95% CI, 0.70-1.17] for HF with preserved LVEF versus HF with reduced LVEF; P=0.73). In addition, there was no significant difference between torsemide and furosemide (1) for mortality and hospitalization outcomes, irrespective of LVEF group and (2) in changes in Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire clinical summary score in any LVEF subgroup. CONCLUSIONS: Despite baseline demographic and clinical differences between LVEF cohorts in TRANSFORM-HF, there were no significant differences in the clinical end points with torsemide versus furosemide across the LVEF spectrum. There was a substantial risk for all-cause mortality and subsequent hospitalization independent of baseline LVEF. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT03296813.

Recurrent Hospitalizations and Response to Vericiguat in Heart Failure and Reduced Ejection Fraction.

BACKGROUND: In VICTORIA (Vericiguat Global Study in Subjects With Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction), vericiguat compared with placebo reduced cardiovascular death or heart failure (HF) hospitalization in patients with HF with reduced ejection fraction. OBJECTIVES: This study explored the association between vericiguat and recurrent hospitalizations and subsequent mortality after HF hospitalization. METHODS: The treatment effect of vericiguat on the burden of HF hospitalizations was evaluated by assessing total HF hospitalization and cardiovascular death in the overall trial and based on baseline N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide levels with and without adjustment for VICTORIA model covariates (ie, baseline variables associated with the primary endpoint) assessed via the Andersen-Gill method. Associations between vericiguat and recurrent hospitalization and mortality adjusted for VICTORIA model covariates are reported. RESULTS: There were 1,222 total HF hospitalizations and cardiovascular deaths among 2,526 patients in the vericiguat group and 1,336 total events among 2,524 patients in the placebo group (unadjusted HR: 0.89 [95% CI: 0.81-0.97] and adjusted HR: 0.92 [95% CI: 0.84-1.01]). In the subgroup with N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide levels ≤2,816 pg/mL (ie, Q1 and Q2; median or below), there was a suggestion of a benefit with vericiguat (adjusted HRs of 0.80 [95% CI: 0.64-1.01] and 0.77 [95% CI: 0.62-0.94], respectively) compared with those above this value (adjusted HRs of 1.12 [95% CI: 0.93-1.34] and 0.87 [95% CI: 0.74-1.04] for Q3 and Q4). There was no significant difference in treatment effect between patients with vs without an HF hospitalization. After HF hospitalization, the all-cause mortality rate (events per 100 patient-years) was 48.6 for vericiguat and 44.1 for placebo. CONCLUSIONS: Additional investigation of the association between vericiguat and cardiovascular death and total HF hospitalizations by recurrent event analysis did not show a statistically significant reduction in events. Mortality was high after HF hospitalization, emphasizing the need for further therapies to reduce morbidity and mortality. (Vericiguat Global Study in Subjects With Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction [VICTORIA]; NCT02861534).

Evaluating registry-based trial economics: Results from the STRESS clinical trial.

Background: Registry-based trials have the potential to reduce randomized clinical trial (RCT) costs. However, observed cost differences also may be achieved through pragmatic trial designs. A systematic comparison of trial costs across different designs has not been previously performed. Methods: We conducted a study to compare the current Steroids to Reduce Systemic inflammation after infant heart surgery (STRESS) registry-based RCT vs. two established designs: pragmatic RCT and explanatory RCT. The primary outcome was total RCT design costs. Secondary outcomes included: RCT duration and personnel hours. Costs were estimated using the Duke Clinical Research Institute's pricing model. Results: The Registry-Based RCT estimated duration was 31.9 weeks greater than the other designs (259.5 vs. 227.6 weeks). This delay was caused by the Registry-Based design's periodic data harvesting that delayed site closing and statistical reporting. Total personnel hours were greatest for the Explanatory design followed by the Pragmatic design and the Registry-Based design (52,488 vs 29,763 vs. 24,480 h, respectively). Total costs were greatest for the Explanatory design followed by the Pragmatic design and the Registry-Based design ($10,140,263 vs. $4,164,863 vs. $3,268,504, respectively). Thus, Registry-Based total costs were 32 % of the Explanatory and 78 % of the Pragmatic design. Conclusion: Total costs for the STRESS RCT with a registry-based design were less than those for a pragmatic design and much less than an explanatory design. Cost savings reflect design elements and leveraging of registry resources to improve cost efficiency, but delays to trial completion should be considered.

Accelerometer vs. other activity measures in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: the VITALITY-HFpEF trial.

AIMS: The relationship between accelerometry data and changes in Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire-Physical Limitation Score (KCCQ-PLS) or 6 min walk test (6MWT) is not well understood. METHODS AND RESULTS: VITALITY-HFpEF accelerometry substudy (n = 69) data were assessed at baseline and 24 weeks. Ordinal logistic regression models were used to assess the association between accelerometry activity and deterioration, improved, or unchanged KCCQ-PLS (≥8.33 and ≤ -4.17 points) and 6MWT (≥32 vs. ≤ -32 m). KCCQ-PLS score deteriorated in 16 patients, improved in 34, and was unchanged in 19. 6MWT deteriorated in 8 patients, improved in 21, and was unchanged in 19. Mean accelerometer wear was 21.4 (±2.1) h/day. Changes in hours active from baseline to 24 weeks were not significantly different among patients who exhibited deterioration, improvement, or no change in KCCQ-PLS [odds ratio (OR) 0.91, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.71-1.18; P = 0.48] or 6MWT (OR 1.21, 95% CI 0.91-1.60; P = 0.18). Similar lack of association was observed for other accelerometry metrics and change in KCCQ and 6MWT. These findings were unaffected when KCCQ and 6MWT were examined as continuous variables. CONCLUSIONS: Accelerometer-based activity measures did not correlate with subjective or objective standard measures of health status and functional capacity in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction. Further investigation of their relationships to clinical outcomes is required.

Torsemide vs Furosemide Among Patients With New-Onset vs Worsening Chronic Heart Failure: A Substudy of the TRANSFORM-HF Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Differences in clinical profiles, outcomes, and diuretic treatment effects may exist between patients with de novo heart failure (HF) and worsening chronic HF (WHF). Objectives: To compare clinical characteristics and treatment outcomes of torsemide vs furosemide in patients hospitalized with de novo HF vs WHF. Design, Setting, and Participants: All patients with a documented ejection fraction who were randomized in the Torsemide Comparison With Furosemide for Management of Heart Failure (TRANSFORM-HF) trial, conducted from June 18 through March 2022, were included in this post hoc analysis. Study data were analyzed March to May 2023. Exposure: Patients were categorized by HF type and further divided by loop diuretic strategy. Main Outcomes and Measures: End points included all-cause mortality and hospitalization outcomes over 12 months, as well as change from baseline in the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire Clinical Summary Score (KCCQ-CSS). Results: Among 2858 patients (mean [SD] age, 64.5 [14.0] years; 1803 male [63.1%]), 838 patients (29.3%) had de novo HF, and 2020 patients (70.7%) had WHF. Patients with de novo HF were younger (mean [SD] age, 60.6 [14.5] years vs 66.1 [13.5] years), had a higher glomerular filtration rate (mean [SD], 68.6 [24.9] vs 57.0 [24.0]), lower levels of natriuretic peptides (median [IQR], brain-type natriuretic peptide, 855.0 [423.0-1555.0] pg/mL vs 1022.0 [500.0-1927.0] pg/mL), and tended to be discharged on lower doses of loop diuretic (mean [SD], 50.3 [46.2] mg vs 63.8 [52.4] mg). De novo HF was associated with lower all-cause mortality at 12 months (de novo, 65 of 838 [9.1%] vs WHF, 408 of 2020 [25.4%]; adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 0.50; 95% CI, 0.38-0.66; P < .001). Similarly, lower all-cause first rehospitalization at 12 months and greater improvement from baseline in KCCQ-CSS at 12 months were noted among patients with de novo HF (median [IQR]: de novo, 29.94 [27.35-32.54] vs WHF, 23.68 [21.62-25.74]; adjusted estimated difference in means: 6.26; 95% CI, 3.72-8.81; P < .001). There was no significant difference in mortality with torsemide vs furosemide in either de novo (No. of events [rate per 100 patient-years]: torsemide, 27 [7.4%] vs furosemide, 38 [10.9%]; aHR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.40-1.14; P = .15) or WHF (torsemide 212 [26.8%] vs furosemide, 196 [24.0%]; aHR, 1.08; 95% CI, 0.89-1.32; P = .42; P for interaction = .10), In addition, no significant differences in hospitalizations, first all-cause hospitalization, or total hospitalizations at 12 months were noted with a strategy of torsemide vs furosemide in either de novo HF or WHF. Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients discharged after hospitalization for HF, de novo HF was associated with better clinical and patient-reported outcomes when compared with WHF. Regardless of HF type, there was no significant difference between torsemide and furosemide with respect to 12-month clinical or patient-reported outcomes.

Comparison of Pirfenidone and Nintedanib: Post Hoc Analysis of the CleanUP-IPF Study.

BACKGROUND: Antifibrotics are effective in slowing FVC decline in idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF). However, whether antifibrotic type is differentially associated with FVC decline remains inconclusive. RESEARCH QUESTION: Are there significant differences in 12-month FVC decline between pirfenidone and nintedanib? STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: A post hoc analysis was performed using the Clinical Efficacy of Antimicrobial Therapy Strategy Using Pragmatic Design in IPF (CleanUP-IPF) trial (No. NCT02759120). Participants who reported using pirfenidone or nintedanib on enrollment into the trial were in the primary analysis. Spirometry was scheduled at baseline and the 12- and 24-month study visits. Linear mixed-effects models with random intercept and slope were used to examine changes in FVC over time. Models were adjusted for age, sex, smoking history, coronary artery disease history, baseline FVC, and 12-month spline term. Survival and nonelective respiratory hospitalization by antifibrotic type were determined using Cox regression models with adjustment for age, sex, smoking history, coronary artery disease history, and baseline FVC and diffusing capacity for carbon monoxide. RESULTS: Out of the 513 participants with IPF randomized in the CleanUP-IPF trial, 407 reported using pirfenidone (n = 264, 65%) or nintedanib (n = 143, 35%). The pirfenidone group had more participants with a history of coronary artery disease than the nintedanib group (34.1% vs 20.3%, respectively). Patients treated with nintedanib had a higher 12-month visit FVC than patients treated with pirfenidone (mean difference, 106 mL; 95% CI, 34-178). This difference was attenuated at the 24-month study visit. There were no significant differences in overall survival and nonelective respiratory hospitalization between the pirfenidone- and nintedanib-treated groups. INTERPRETATION: Patients with IPF who used nintedanib had a slower 12-month FVC decline than pirfenidone in a post hoc analysis of a clinical trial.

Cost-Effectiveness of Vericiguat in Patients With Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction: The VICTORIA Randomized Clinical Trial.

BACKGROUND: The VICTORIA trial (Vericiguat Global Study in Subjects With Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction) demonstrated that, in patients with high-risk heart failure, vericiguat reduced the primary composite outcome of cardiovascular death or heart failure hospitalization relative to placebo. The hazard ratio for all-cause mortality was 0.95 (95% CI, 0.84-1.07). In a prespecified analysis, treatment effects varied substantially as a function of baseline NT-proBNP (N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide) levels, with survival benefit for vericiguat in the lower NT-proBNP quartiles (hazard ratio, 0.82 [95% CI, 0.69-0.97]) and no benefit in the highest NT-proBNP quartile (hazard ratio, 1.14 [95% CI, 0.95-1.38]). An economic analysis was a major secondary objective of the VICTORIA research program. METHODS: Medical resource use data were collected for all VICTORIA patients (N=5050). Costs were estimated by applying externally derived US cost weights to resource use counts. Life expectancy was projected from patient-level empirical trial survival results with the use of age-based survival modeling methods. Quality-of-life adjustments were based on prospectively collected EQ-5D-based utilities. The primary outcome was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, comparing vericiguat with placebo, assessed from the US health care sector perspective over a lifetime horizon. Cost-effectiveness was estimated using the total VICTORIA cohort, both with and without interaction between treatment and baseline NT-proBNP. RESULTS: Life expectancy modeling results varied according to whether the observed heterogeneity of treatment effect by baseline NT-proBNP values was incorporated into the modeling. Including the interaction term, the vericiguat arm had an estimated quality-adjusted life expectancy of 4.56 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) compared with 4.13 QALYs for placebo (incremental discounted QALY, 0.43). Without the treatment heterogeneity/interaction term, vericiguat had 4.50 QALYs compared with 4.33 QALYs for placebo (incremental discounted QALY, 0.17). Incremental discounted costs (vericiguat minus placebo) were $28 546 with the treatment interaction and $20 948 without it. Corresponding incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were $66 509 per QALY allowing for treatment heterogeneity and $124 512 without heterogeneity. CONCLUSIONS: Vericiguat use in the VICTORIA trial met criteria for intermediate value, but the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio estimates were sensitive to whether the analysis accounted for observed NT-proBNP treatment effect heterogeneity. The cost-effectiveness of vericiguat was driven by the projected incremental life expectancy among patients in the lowest 3 quartiles of NT-proBNP. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov; Unique identifier: NCT02861534.

Comparison of an Initial Risk-Based Testing Strategy vs Usual Testing in Stable Symptomatic Patients With Suspected Coronary Artery Disease: The PRECISE Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Trials showing equivalent or better outcomes with initial evaluation using coronary computed tomography angiography (cCTA) compared with stress testing in patients with stable chest pain have informed guidelines but raise questions about overtesting and excess catheterization. Objective: To test a modified initial cCTA strategy designed to improve clinical efficiency vs usual testing (UT). Design, Setting, and Participants: This was a pragmatic randomized clinical trial enrolling participants from December 3, 2018, to May 18, 2021, with a median of 11.8 months of follow-up. Patients from 65 North American and European sites with stable symptoms of suspected coronary artery disease (CAD) and no prior testing were randomly assigned 1:1 to precision strategy (PS) or UT. Interventions: PS incorporated the Prospective Multicenter Imaging Study for the Evaluation of Chest Pain (PROMISE) minimal risk score to quantitatively select minimal-risk participants for deferred testing, assigning all others to cCTA with selective CT-derived fractional flow reserve (FFR-CT). UT included site-selected stress testing or catheterization. Site clinicians determined subsequent care. Main Outcomes and Measures: Outcomes were clinical efficiency (invasive catheterization without obstructive CAD) and safety (death or nonfatal myocardial infarction [MI]) combined into a composite primary end point. Secondary end points included safety components of the primary outcome and medication use. Results: A total of 2103 participants (mean [SD] age, 58.4 [11.5] years; 1056 male [50.2%]) were included in the study, and 422 [20.1%] were classified as minimal risk. The primary end point occurred in 44 of 1057 participants (4.2%) in the PS group and in 118 of 1046 participants (11.3%) in the UT group (hazard ratio [HR], 0.35; 95% CI, 0.25-0.50). Clinical efficiency was higher with PS, with lower rates of catheterization without obstructive disease (27 [2.6%]) vs UT participants (107 [10.2%]; HR, 0.24; 95% CI, 0.16-0.36). The safety composite of death/MI was similar (HR, 1.52; 95% CI, 0.73-3.15). Death occurred in 5 individuals (0.5%) in the PS group vs 7 (0.7%) in the UT group (HR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.23-2.23), and nonfatal MI occurred in 13 individuals (1.2%) in the PS group vs 5 (0.5%) in the UT group (HR, 2.65; 95% CI, 0.96-7.36). Use of lipid-lowering (450 of 900 [50.0%] vs 365 of 873 [41.8%]) and antiplatelet (321 of 900 [35.7%] vs 237 of 873 [27.1%]) medications at 1 year was higher in the PS group compared with the UT group (both P < .001). Conclusions and Relevance: An initial diagnostic approach to stable chest pain starting with quantitative risk stratification and deferred testing for minimal-risk patients and cCTA with selective FFR-CT in all others increased clinical efficiency relative to UT at 1 year. Additional randomized clinical trials are needed to verify these findings, including safety. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03702244.

Deferred Testing in Stable Outpatients With Suspected Coronary Artery Disease: A Prespecified Secondary Analysis of the PRECISE Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Guidelines recommend deferral of testing for symptomatic people with suspected coronary artery disease (CAD) and low pretest probability. To our knowledge, no randomized trial has prospectively evaluated such a strategy. Objective: To assess process of care and health outcomes in people identified as minimal risk for CAD when testing is deferred. Design, Setting, and Participants: This randomized, pragmatic effectiveness trial included prespecified subgroup analysis of the PRECISE trial at 65 North American and European sites. Participants identified as minimal risk by the validated PROMISE minimal risk score (PMRS) were included. Intervention: Randomization to a precision strategy using the PMRS to assign those with minimal risk to deferred testing and others to coronary computed tomography angiography with selective computed tomography-derived fractional flow reserve, or to usual testing (stress testing or catheterization with PMRS masked). Randomization was stratified by PMRS risk. Main Outcome: Composite of all-cause death, nonfatal myocardial infarction (MI), or catheterization without obstructive CAD through 12 months. Results: Among 2103 participants, 422 were identified as minimal risk (20%) and randomized to deferred testing (n = 214) or usual testing (n = 208). Mean age (SD) was 46 (8.6) years; 304 were women (72%). During follow-up, 138 of those randomized to deferred testing never had testing (64%), whereas 76 had a downstream test (36%) (at median [IQR] 48 [15-78] days) for worsening (30%), uncontrolled (10%), or new symptoms (6%), or changing clinician preference (19%) or participant preference (10%). Results were normal for 96% of these tests. The primary end point occurred in 2 deferred testing (0.9%) and 13 usual testing participants (6.3%) (hazard ratio, 0.15; 95% CI, 0.03-0.66; P = .01). No death or MI was observed in the deferred testing participants, while 1 noncardiovascular death and 1 MI occurred in the usual testing group. Two participants (0.9%) had catheterizations without obstructive CAD in the deferred testing group and 12 (5.8%) with usual testing (P = .02). At baseline, 70% of participants had frequent angina and there was similar reduction of frequent angina to less than 20% at 12 months in both groups. Conclusion and Relevance: In symptomatic participants with suspected CAD, identification of minimal risk by the PMRS guided a strategy of initially deferred testing. The strategy was safe with no observed adverse outcome events, fewer catheterizations without obstructive CAD, and similar symptom relief compared with usual testing. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03702244.

Background Medical Therapy and Clinical Outcomes From the VICTORIA Trial.

BACKGROUND: We examined whether the primary composite outcome (cardiovascular death or heart failure hospitalization) was related to differences in background use and dosing of guideline-directed medical therapy in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction enrolled in VICTORIA (Vericiguat Global Study in Subjects with Heart Failure with Reduced Ejection Fraction), a randomized trial of vericiguat versus placebo. METHODS: We evaluated the adherence to guideline use of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, angiotensin-receptor blockers, angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitors, beta-blockers, and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists. We assessed basic adherence; indication-corrected adherence accounting for guideline indications and contraindications; and dose-corrected adherence (indication-corrected adherence+≥50% of drug dose target). Associations between study treatment and the primary composite outcome according to the adherence to guidelines were assessed using multivariable adjustment; adjusted hazard ratios with 95% CIs and Pinteraction are reported. RESULTS: Of 5050 patients, 5040 (99.8%) had medication data at baseline. For angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor, angiotensin-receptor blockers, and angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitors, basic adherence to guidelines was 87.4%, indication-corrected was 95.7%, and dose-corrected was 50.9%. For beta-blockers, basic adherence was 93.1%, indication-corrected was 96.2%, and dose-corrected was 45.4%. For mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists, basic adherence was 70.3%, indication-corrected was 87.1%, and dose-corrected was 82.2%. For triple therapy (angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, angiotensin-receptor blockers, or angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitors+beta-blocker+mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist), basic adherence was 59.7%, indication-corrected was 83.3%, and dose-corrected was 25.5%. Using basic or dose-corrected adherence, the treatment effect of vericiguat was consistent across adherence to guidelines groups, with or without multivariable adjustment with no treatment heterogeneity. CONCLUSIONS: Patients in VICTORIA were well treated with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction medications. The efficacy of vericiguat was consistent across background therapy with very high adherence to guidelines accounting for patient-level indications, contraindications, and tolerance. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov; Unique identifier: 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.