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.

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.

Impact of baseline kidney dysfunction on oral diuretic efficacy following hospitalization for heart failure - insights from TRANSFORM-HF.

AIM: Among patients discharged after hospitalization for heart failure (HF), a strategy of torsemide versus furosemide showed no difference in all-cause mortality or hospitalization. Clinicians have traditionally favoured torsemide in the setting of kidney dysfunction due to better oral bioavailability and longer half-life, but direct supportive evidence is lacking. METHODS AND RESULTS: The TRANSFORM-HF trial randomized patients hospitalized for HF to a long-term strategy of torsemide versus furosemide, and enrolled patients across the spectrum of renal function (without dialysis). In this post-hoc analysis, baseline renal function during the index hospitalization was assessed as categories of estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR; <30, 30-<60, ≥60 ml/min/1.73 m2). The interaction between baseline renal function and treatment effect of torsemide versus furosemide was assessed with respect to mortality and hospitalization outcomes, and the change in Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire clinical summary score (KCCQ-CSS). Of 2859 patients randomized, 336 (11.8%) had eGFR <30 ml/min/1.73 m2, 1138 (39.8%) had eGFR 30-<60 ml/min/1.73 m2, and 1385 (48.4%) had eGFR ≥60 ml/min/1.73 m2. Baseline eGFR did not modify treatment effects of torsemide versus furosemide on all adverse clinical outcomes including individual components or composites of all-cause mortality and all-cause (re)-hospitalizations, both when assessing eGFR categorically or continuously (p-value for interaction all >0.108). Similarly, no treatment effect modification by eGFR was found for the change in KCCQ-CSS (p-value for interaction all >0.052) when assessing eGFR categorically or continuously. CONCLUSION: Among patients discharged after hospitalization for HF, there was no significant difference in clinical and patient-reported outcomes between torsemide and furosemide, irrespective of renal function.

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.

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.

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.

Commensal Oral Microbiota, Disease Severity and Mortality in Fibrotic Lung Disease.

RATIONALE: Oral microbiota associate with diseases of the mouth and serve as a source of lung microbiota. However, the role of oral microbiota in lung disease is unknown. OBJECTIVES: To determine associations between oral microbiota and disease severity and death in idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis. METHODS: We analyzed 16S rRNA gene and shotgun metagenomic sequencing data of buccal swabs from 511 patients with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis in the multicenter CleanUP-IPF trial. Buccal swabs were collected from usual care, and antimicrobial cohorts. Microbiome data was correlated with measures of disease severity using principal component analysis and linear regression models. Associations between the buccal microbiome and mortality were determined using Cox additive models, Kaplan Meier analysis and Cox proportional hazards models. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Greater buccal microbial diversity associated with lower forced vital capacity (FVC) at baseline [mean diff -3.60: 95% CI -5.92 to -1.29 percent predicted FVC per 1 unit increment]. The buccal proportion of Streptococcus correlated positively with FVC [mean diff 0.80: 95% CI 0.16-1.43 percent predicted per 10% increase] (n=490). Greater microbial diversity was associated with an increased risk of death [HR 1.73: 95% CI 1.03-2.90] while a greater proportion of Streptococcus was associated with a reduced risk of death [HR 0.85: 95% CI 0.73 to 0.99]. The Streptococcus genus was mainly comprised of Streptococcus mitis species. CONCLUSIONS: Increasing buccal microbial diversity predicts disease severity and death in IPF. The oral commensal Streptococcus mitis spp associates with preserved lung function and improved survival.

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.

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

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

Safety and efficacy of hydroxychloroquine as prophylactic against COVID-19 in healthcare workers: a meta-analysis of randomised clinical trials.

OBJECTIVE: We studied the safety and efficacy of hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) as pre-exposure prophylaxis for COVID-19 in healthcare workers (HCWs), using a meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs). DATA SOURCES: PubMed and EMBASE databases were searched to identify randomised trials studying HCQ. STUDY SELECTION: Ten RCTs were identified (n=5079 participants). DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines were used in this systematic review and meta-analysis between HCQ and placebo using a Bayesian random-effects model. A pre-hoc statistical analysis plan was written. MAIN OUTCOMES: The primary efficacy outcome was PCR-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection and the primary safety outcome was incidence of adverse events. The secondary outcome included clinically suspected SARS-CoV-2 infection. RESULTS: Compared with placebo, HCWs randomised to HCQ had no significant difference in PCR-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection (OR 0.92, 95% credible interval (CI): 0.58, 1.37) or clinically suspected SARS-CoV-2 infection (OR 0.78, 95% CI: 0.57, 1.10), but significant difference in adverse events (OR 1.35, 95% CI: 1.03, 1.73). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Our meta-analysis of 10 RCTs investigating the safety and efficacy of HCQ as pre-exposure prophylaxis in HCWs found that compared with placebo, HCQ does not significantly reduce the risk of confirmed or clinically suspected SARS-CoV-2 infection, while HCQ significantly increases adverse events. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42021285093.

Effect of Torsemide Versus Furosemide on Symptoms and Quality of Life Among Patients Hospitalized for Heart Failure: The TRANSFORM-HF Randomized Clinical Trial.

BACKGROUND: Loop diuretics are a primary therapy for the symptomatic treatment of heart failure (HF), but whether torsemide improves patient symptoms and quality of life better than furosemide remains unknown. As prespecified secondary end points, the TRANSFORM-HF trial (Torsemide Comparison With Furosemide for Management of Heart Failure) compared the effect of torsemide versus furosemide on patient-reported outcomes among patients with HF. METHODS: TRANSFORM-HF was an open-label, pragmatic, randomized trial of 2859 patients hospitalized for HF (regardless of ejection fraction) across 60 hospitals in the United States. Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to a loop diuretic strategy of torsemide or furosemide with investigator-selected dosage. This report examined effects on prespecified secondary end points, which included Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire Clinical Summary Score (KCCQ-CSS; assessed as adjusted mean difference in change from baseline; range, 0-100 with 100 indicating best health status; clinically important difference, ≥5 points) and Patient Health Questionnaire-2 (range, 0-6; score ≥3 supporting evaluation for depression) over 12 months. RESULTS: Baseline data were available for 2787 (97.5%) patients for KCCQ-CSS and 2624 (91.8%) patients for Patient Health Questionnaire-2. Median (interquartile range) baseline KCCQ-CSS was 42 (27-60) in the torsemide group and 40 (24-59) in the furosemide group. At 12 months, there was no significant difference between torsemide and furosemide in change from baseline in KCCQ-CSS (adjusted mean difference, 0.06 [95% CI, -2.26 to 2.37]; P=0.96) or the proportion of patients with Patient Health Questionnaire-2 score ≥3 (15.1% versus 13.2%: P=0.34). Results for KCCQ-CSS were similar at 1 month (adjusted mean difference, 1.36 [95% CI, -0.64 to 3.36]; P=0.18) and 6-month follow-up (adjusted mean difference, -0.37 [95% CI, -2.52 to 1.78]; P=0.73), and across subgroups by ejection fraction phenotype, New York Heart Association class at randomization, and loop diuretic agent before hospitalization. Irrespective of baseline KCCQ-CSS tertile, there was no significant difference between torsemide and furosemide on change in KCCQ-CSS, all-cause mortality, or all-cause hospitalization. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients discharged after hospitalization for HF, a strategy of torsemide compared with furosemide did not improve symptoms or quality of life over 12 months. The effects of torsemide and furosemide on patient-reported outcomes were similar regardless of ejection fraction, previous loop diuretic use, and baseline health status. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov; Unique identifier: NCT03296813.

Patient-Reported Frailty and Functional Status in Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction: Insights From VITALITY-HFpEF.

BACKGROUND: The association between frailty and health status in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) is not well known. OBJECTIVES: The authors examined the association between: 1) patient-reported frailty, measured by the Fried frailty phenotype, Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire Physical Limitation Score (KCCQ-PLS), 6-minute walking distance (6MWD), and other baseline characteristics; 2) baseline frailty compared with KCCQ-PLS and 24-week 6MWD; 3) frailty and changes in KCCQ-PLS and 6MWD; and 4) vericiguat and frailty at 24 weeks. METHODS: In a post hoc analysis, patients in the VITALITY-HFpEF (Patient-reported Outcomes in Vericiguat-treated Patients With HFpEF) trial were categorized as not frail (0 symptoms), prefrail (1-2 symptoms), and frail (≥3 symptoms) according to patient-reported number of frailty symptoms. Correlations and linear regression models were used to examine the association between frailty and other measures, and between frailty and KCCQ-PLS at baseline with 24-week 6MWD. RESULTS: Among 739 patients, 27.3% were not frail, 37.6% were prefrail, and 35.0% were frail at baseline. Frail patients were older, more likely to be women, and less likely to be from Asia. Baseline KCCQ-PLS and 6MWD (mean ± SD) among not frail, prefrail, and frail patients was 68.2 ± 23.2, 61.7 ± 22.6, and 48.4 ± 23.8 and 328.5 ± 117.1 m, 310.8 ± 98.9 m, and 250.7 ± 104.3 m (P < 0.01 for both). After accounting for baseline 6MWD, frailty status at baseline, but not KCCQ-PLS, was significantly associated with 6MWD at 24 weeks. By 24 weeks, 47.5% of patients had no change in frailty, 45.5% had become less frail, and 7.0% had become more frail. Treatment with vericiguat did not alter frailty status at 24 weeks. CONCLUSIONS: Patient-reported frailty is modestly correlated with both the KCCQ-PLS and 6MWD but offers prognostic insight into 6MWD at 24 weeks. (Patient-reported Outcomes in Vericiguat-treated Patients With HFpEF [VITALITY-HFpEF]; NCT03547583).

Effect of Thromboprophylaxis on Clinical Outcomes After COVID-19 Hospitalization.

BACKGROUND: Patients hospitalized with COVID-19 have an increased incidence of thromboembolism. The role of extended thromboprophylaxis after hospital discharge is unclear. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether anticoagulation is superior to placebo in reducing death and thromboembolic complications among patients discharged after COVID-19 hospitalization. DESIGN: Prospective, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04650087). SETTING: Done during 2021 to 2022 among 127 U.S. hospitals. PARTICIPANTS: Adults aged 18 years or older hospitalized with COVID-19 for 48 hours or more and ready for discharge, excluding those with a requirement for, or contraindication to, anticoagulation. INTERVENTION: 2.5 mg of apixaban versus placebo twice daily for 30 days. MEASUREMENTS: The primary efficacy end point was a 30-day composite of death, arterial thromboembolism, and venous thromboembolism. The primary safety end points were 30-day major bleeding and clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding. RESULTS: Enrollment was terminated early, after 1217 participants were randomly assigned, because of a lower than anticipated event rate and a declining rate of COVID-19 hospitalizations. Median age was 54 years, 50.4% were women, 26.5% were Black, and 16.7% were Hispanic; 30.7% had a World Health Organization severity score of 5 or greater, and 11.0% had an International Medical Prevention Registry on Venous Thromboembolism risk prediction score of greater than 4. Incidence of the primary end point was 2.13% (95% CI, 1.14 to 3.62) in the apixaban group and 2.31% (CI, 1.27 to 3.84) in the placebo group. Major bleeding occurred in 2 (0.4%) and 1 (0.2%) and clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding occurred in 3 (0.6%) and 6 (1.1%) apixaban-treated and placebo-treated participants, respectively. By day 30, thirty-six (3.0%) participants were lost to follow-up, and 8.5% of apixaban and 11.9% of placebo participants permanently discontinued the study drug treatment. LIMITATIONS: The introduction of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines decreased the risk for hospitalization and death. Study enrollment spanned the peaks of the Delta and Omicron variants in the United States, which influenced illness severity. CONCLUSION: The incidence of death or thromboembolism was low in this cohort of patients discharged after hospitalization with COVID-19. Because of early enrollment termination, the results were imprecise and the study was inconclusive. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: National Institutes of Health.