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.

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 ).

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.

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.

Sacubitril/Valsartan in Advanced Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction: Rationale and Design of the LIFE Trial.

The PARADIGM-HF (Prospective Comparison of Angiotensin II Receptor Blocker Neprilysin Inhibitor With Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitor to Determine Impact on Global Mortality and Morbidity in Heart Failure) trial reported that sacubitril/valsartan (S/V), an angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor, significantly reduced mortality and heart failure (HF) hospitalization in HF patients with a reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). However, fewer than 1% of patients in the PARADIGM-HF study had New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional class IV symptoms. Accordingly, data that informed the use of S/V among patients with advanced HF were limited. The LIFE (LCZ696 in Hospitalized Advanced Heart Failure) study was a 24-week prospective, multicenter, double-blinded, double-dummy, active comparator trial that compared the safety, efficacy, and tolerability of S/V with those of valsartan in patients with advanced HFrEF. The trial planned to randomize 400 patients ≥18 years of age with advanced HF, defined as an EF ≤35%, New York Heart Association functional class IV symptoms, elevated natriuretic peptide concentration (B-type natriuretic peptide [BNP] ≥250 pg/ml or N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide [NT-proBNP] ≥800 pg/ml), and ≥1 objective finding of advanced HF. Following a 3- to 7-day open label run-in period with S/V (24 mg/26 mg twice daily), patients were randomized 1:1 to S/V titrated to 97 mg/103 mg twice daily versus 160 mg of V twice daily. The primary endpoint was the proportional change from baseline in the area under the curve for NT-proBNP levels measured through week 24. Secondary and tertiary endpoints included clinical outcomes and safety and tolerability. Because of the COVID-19 pandemic, enrollment in the LIFE trial was stopped prematurely to ensure patient safety and data integrity. The primary analysis consists of the first 335 randomized patients whose clinical follow-up examination results were not severely impacted by COVID-19. (Entresto [LCZ696] in Advanced Heart Failure [LIFE STUDY] [HFN-LIFE]; NCT02816736).

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.

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.).

Spironolactone in Acute Heart Failure Patients With Renal Dysfunction and Risk Factors for Diuretic Resistance: From the ATHENA-HF Trial.

BACKGROUND: Acute heart failure (HF) patients with renal insufficiency and risk factors for diuretic resistance may be most likely to derive incremental improvement in congestion with the addition of spironolactone. METHODS: The Aldosterone Targeted Neurohormonal Combined with Natriuresis Therapy in Heart Failure (ATHENA-HF) trial randomized 360 acute HF patients with reduced or preserved ejection fraction to spironolactone 100 mg daily or usual care for 96 hours. The current analysis assessed the effects of study therapy within tertiles of baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and subgroups at heightened risk for diuretic resistance. RESULTS: Across eGFR tertiles, there was no incremental benefit of high-dose spironolactone on any efficacy endpoint, including changes in log N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide and signs and symptoms of congestion (all P for interaction ≥ 0.06). High-dose spironolactone had no significant effect on N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide reduction regardless of blood pressure, diabetes mellitus status, and loop diuretic dose (all P for interaction ≥ 0.38). In-hospital changes in serum potassium and creatinine were similar between treatment groups for all GFR tertiles (all P for interaction ≥ 0.18). Rates of inpatient worsening HF, 30-day worsening HF, and 60-day all-cause mortality were numerically higher among patients with lower baseline eGFR, but relative effects of study treatment did not differ with renal function (all P for interaction ≥ 0.27). CONCLUSIONS: High-dose spironolactone did not improve congestion over usual care among patients with acute HF, irrespective of renal function and risk factors for diuretic resistance. In-hospital initiation or continuation of spironolactone was safe during the inpatient stay, even when administered at high doses to patients with moderate renal dysfunction.

Liraglutide and weight loss among patients with advanced heart failure and a reduced ejection fraction: insights from the FIGHT trial.

AIMS: Obesity is present in up to 45% of patients with heart failure (HF). Liraglutide, a glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor antagonist, facilitates weight loss in obese patients. The efficacy of liraglutide as a weight loss agent among patients with HF and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and a recent acute HF hospitalization remains unknown. METHODS AND RESULTS: The Functional Impact of GLP-1 for Heart Failure Treatment study randomized 300 patients with HFrEF (ejection fraction ≤ 40%), both with and without diabetes and a recent HF hospitalization to liraglutide or placebo. The primary outcome for this post hoc analysis was the change in weight from baseline to last study visit. We conducted an 'on-treatment' analysis of patients with at least one follow-up visit on study drug (123 on liraglutide and 124 on placebo). The median age was 61 years, 21% were female, and 69% of patients had New York Heart Association functional Class III or IV symptoms. The median ejection fraction was 25% (25th, 75th percentile 19-32%). Liraglutide use was associated with a significant weight reduction [liraglutide -1.00 lbs vs. placebo 2.00 lbs; treatment difference -4.10 lbs; 95% confidence interval (CI) -7.94, -0.25; P = 0.0367; percentage treatment difference -2.07%, 95% CI -3.86, -0.28; P = 0.0237]. Similar results were seen after multivariable adjustments. Liraglutide also significantly reduced triglyceride levels (liraglutide 7.5 mg/dL vs. placebo 12.0 mg/dL; treatment difference -33.1 mg/dL; 95% CI -60.7, -5.6; P = 0.019). CONCLUSIONS: Liraglutide is an efficacious weight loss agent in patients with HFrEF. These findings will require further exploration in a well-powered cardiovascular outcomes trial.

Comparing Measures to Assess Health-Related Quality of Life in Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction.

OBJECTIVES: This study sought to compare the performance of 2 health-related quality of life (HRQOL) questionnaires in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). BACKGROUND: The ability to accurately assess HRQOL over time is important in the care of patients with heart failure. The validity and reliability of HRQOL tools including the Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire (MLHFQ) and the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ) has not been fully determined or compared in patients with HFpEF. METHODS: Among patients with stable chronic HFpEF enrolled in the NEAT (Nitrate Effect on Activity Tolerance in Heart Failure) trial (n = 110), the study evaluated and compared reliability, validity, and responsiveness to change of the MLHFQ and KCCQ at baseline, 6 weeks, and 12 weeks. RESULTS: Internal consistency was good and comparable for MLHFQ and KCCQ domains measuring similar aspects of HRQOL at baseline including the MLHFQ physical (Cronbach's α = 0.93) compared with the KCCQ clinical summary (α = 0.91), and the MLHFQ emotional (α = 0.92) compared with the KCCQ quality of life (α = 0.87). Correlations with New York Heart Association functional class (Spearman rho; rs= -0.37 vs. 0.30) and 6-min walk test (6MWT) (rs = 0.38 vs. -0.23) at baseline were slightly stronger for the KCCQ overall summary score than for the MLHFQ total score. The MLHFQ was more responsive to change in 6MWT based on responsiveness statistics. CONCLUSIONS: These data suggest that both the MLHFQ and KCCQ are reliable and valid tools to assess HRQOL in HFpEF. The KCCQ was more strongly correlated with baseline functional status parameters, while the MLHFQ was more responsive to improvement in 6MWT.

Efficacy and Safety of Spironolactone in Acute Heart Failure: The ATHENA-HF Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Persistent congestion is associated with worse outcomes in acute heart failure (AHF). Mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists administered at high doses may relieve congestion, overcome diuretic resistance, and mitigate the effects of adverse neurohormonal activation in AHF. Objective: To assess the effect of high-dose spironolactone and usual care on N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) levels compared with usual care alone. Design, Setting, and Participants: This double-blind and placebo (or low-dose)-controlled randomized clinical trial was conducted in 22 US acute care hospitals among patients with AHF who were previously receiving no or low-dose (12.5 mg or 25 mg daily) spironolactone and had NT-proBNP levels of 1000 pg/mL or more or B-type natriuretic peptide levels of 250 pg/mL or more, regardless of ejection fraction. Interventions: High-dose spironolactone (100 mg) vs placebo or 25 mg spironolactone (usual care) daily for 96 hours. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was the change in NT-proBNP levels from baseline to 96 hours. Secondary end points included the clinical congestion score, dyspnea assessment, net urine output, and net weight change. Safety end points included hyperkalemia and changes in renal function. Results: A total of 360 patients were randomized, of whom the median age was 65 years, 129 (36%) were women, 200 (55.5%) were white, 151 (42%) were black, 8 (2%) were Hispanic or Latino, 9 (2.5%) were of other race/ethnicity, and the median left ventricular ejection fraction was 34%. Baseline median (interquartile range) NT-proBNP levels were 4601 (2697-9596) pg/mL among the group treated with high-dose spironolactone and 3753 (1968-7633) pg/mL among the group who received usual care. There was no significant difference in the log NT-proBNP reduction between the 2 groups (-0.55 [95% CI, -0.92 to -0.18] with high-dose spironolactone and -0.49 [95% CI, -0.98 to -0.14] with usual care, P = .57). None of the secondary end point or day-30 all-cause mortality or heart failure hospitalization rate differed between the 2 groups. The changes in serum potassium and estimated glomerular filtration rate at 24, 48, 72, and 96 hours. were similar between the 2 groups. Conclusions and Relevance: Adding treatment with high-dose spironolactone to usual care for patients with AHF for 96 hours was well tolerated but did not improve the primary or secondary efficacy end points. Trial Registration: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT02235077.

Accelerometer-Measured Daily Activity in Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction: Clinical Correlates and Association With Standard Heart Failure Severity Indices.

BACKGROUND: Daily physical activity assessed by accelerometers represents a novel method to assess the impact of interventions on heart failure (HF) patients' functional status. We hypothesized that daily activity varies by patient characteristics and correlates with established measures of HF severity in HF with preserved ejection fraction. METHODS AND RESULTS: In this ancillary study of the NEAT-HFpEF trial (Nitrate's Effects on Activity Tolerance in HF With Preserved Ejection Fraction), average daily accelerometer units (ADAU) and hours active per day were assessed during a 14-day period before starting isosorbide mononitrate or placebo (n=110). Baseline ADAU was negatively associated with age, female sex, height, and body mass index, and these variables accounted for 28% of the variability in ADAU (P<0.007 for all). Adjusting for these factors, patients with lower ADAU were more likely to have had an HF hospitalization, orthopnea, diabetes mellitus and anemia, be treated with ß-blockers, have higher ejection fraction, relative wall thickness and left atrial volume, and worse New York Heart Association class, HF-specific quality of life scores, 6-minute walk distance, and NT-proBNP (N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide; P<0.05 for all). Associations between hours active per day and clinical characteristics were similar. Relative to baseline, there were no significant associations between changes in ADAU or hours active per day and changes in standard functional assessments (New York Heart Association, quality of life, 6-minute walk distance, and NT-proBNP) with isosorbide mononitrate. CONCLUSIONS: Daily activity is a measure of HF-related and global functional status in HF with preserved ejection fraction. As compared with intermittently assessed standard HF assessments, change in daily activity may provide unique information about the impact of HF interventions on functional status. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/. Unique identifier: 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.

Left Atrial Structure and Function in Heart Failure with Preserved Ejection Fraction: A RELAX Substudy.

Given the emerging recognition of left atrial structure and function as an important marker of disease in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HF-pEF), we investigated the association between left atrial volume and function with markers of disease severity and cardiac structure in HF-pEF. We studied 100 patients enrolled in the PhosphdiesteRasE-5 Inhibition to Improve CLinical Status and EXercise Capacity in Diastolic Heart Failure (RELAX) trial who underwent cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR), cardiopulmonary exercise testing, and blood collection before randomization. Maximal left atrial volume index (LAVi; N = 100), left atrial emptying fraction (LAEF; N = 99; including passive and active components (LAEFP, LAEFA; N = 80, 79, respectively) were quantified by CMR. After adjustment for multiple testing, maximal LAVi was only associated with age (ρ = 0.39), transmitral filling patterns (medial E/e' ρ = 0.43), and N-terminal pro-BNP (NT-proBNP; ρ = 0.65; all p<0.05). Lower LAEF was associated with older age, higher transmitral E/A ratio and higher NT-proBNP. Peak VO2 and VE/VCO2 slope were not associated with left atrial structure or function. After adjustment for age, sex, transmitral E/A ratio, CMR LV mass, LV ejection fraction, and creatinine clearance, NT-proBNP remained associated with maximal LAVi (ß = 0.028, p = 0.0007) and total LAEF (ß = -0.033, p = 0.001). Passive and active LAEF were most strongly associated with age and NT-proBNP, but not gas exchange or other markers of ventricular structure or filling properties. Left atrial volume and emptying function are associated most strongly with NT-proBNP and diastolic filling properties, but not significantly with gas exchange, in HFpEF. Further research to explore the relevance of left atrial structure and function in HF-pEF is warranted.

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.

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.