Comparison of Investigator-Reported and Centrally Adjudicated Heart Failure Outcomes in the EMPEROR-Reduced Trial.

BACKGROUND: There is limited published information on outcome adjudication in heart failure (HF). OBJECTIVES: The authors sought to compare investigator reports (IRs) to a Clinical Events Committee (CEC) and the impact of SCTI (Standardized Clinical Trial Initiative) criteria. METHODS: In the EMPEROR-Reduced trial, the authors compared IRs to the CEC for concordance; treatment effect on primary composite outcome events; and the components first event hospitalization primarily for HF or cardiovascular mortality (CVM), prognosis after hospitalization for heart failure (HHF), total HHFs, and trial duration with and without SCTI criteria. RESULTS: The CEC confirmed 76.3% of IR events for the primary outcome (CVM: 89.1%; HHF: 73.7%). The HR for treatment effect did not differ between adjudication methods for the primary outcome (IR: 0.75 [95% CI: 0.66-0.85]; CEC: 0.75 [95% CI: 0.65-0.86]), its components, or total HHFs. The prognosis after first HHF for all-cause mortality and CVM also did not differ between IR or CEC. Interestingly, IR primary HHF with different CEC primary cause had the highest subsequent fatal event rate. Full SCTI criteria were present in 90% of CEC HHFs-with a similar treatment effect to non-SCTI. The IR primary event reached the protocol target number (841) 3 months earlier than CEC (4 months with full SCTI criteria). CONCLUSIONS: Investigator adjudication is an alternative to a CEC with similar accuracy and faster event accumulation. The use of granular (SCTI) criteria did not improve trial performance. Finally, our data suggest that consideration be given to broadening the HHF definition to include "for or with" worsening disease. (Empagliflozin Outcome Trial in Patients With Chronic Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction [EMPEROR-Reduced]; NCT03057977).

Efficacy of empagliflozin in heart failure with preserved versus mid-range ejection fraction: a pre-specified analysis of EMPEROR-Preserved.

The EMPEROR-Preserved trial showed that the sodium-glucose co-transporter 2 inhibitor empagliflozin significantly reduces the risk of cardiovascular death or hospitalization for heart failure (HHF) in heart failure patients with left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) > 40%. Here, we report the results of a pre-specified analysis that separately evaluates these patients stratified by LVEF: preserved (≥ 50%) (n = 4,005; 66.9%) or mid-range (41-49%). In patients with LVEF ≥ 50%, empagliflozin reduced the risk of cardiovascular death or HHF (the primary endpoint) by 17% versus placebo (hazard ratio (HR) 0.83; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.71-0.98, P = 0.024). For the key secondary endpoint, the HR for total HHF was 0.83 (95%CI: 0.66-1.04, P = 0.11). For patients with an LVEF of 41-49%, the HR for empagliflozin versus placebo was 0.71 (95%CI: 0.57-0.88, P = 0.002) for the primary outcome (Pinteraction = 0.27), and 0.57 (95%CI: 0.42-0.79, P < 0.001) for total HHF (Pinteraction = 0.06). These results, together with those from the EMPEROR-Reduced trial in patients with LVEF < 40%, support the use of empagliflozin across the full spectrum of LVEF in heart failure.

Effect of Empagliflozin on Worsening Heart Failure Events in Patients With Heart Failure and Preserved Ejection Fraction: EMPEROR-Preserved Trial.

BACKGROUND: Empagliflozin reduces the risk of cardiovascular death or hospitalization for heart failure in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction, but additional data are needed about its effect on inpatient and outpatient heart failure events. METHODS: We randomly assigned 5988 patients with class II through IV heart failure with an ejection fraction of >40% to double-blind treatment with placebo or empagliflozin (10 mg once daily), in addition to usual therapy, for a median of 26 months. We prospectively collected information on inpatient and outpatient events reflecting worsening heart failure and prespecified their analysis in individual and composite end points. RESULTS: Empagliflozin reduced the combined risk of cardiovascular death, hospitalization for heart failure, or an emergency or urgent heart failure visit requiring intravenous treatment (432 versus 546 patients [empagliflozin versus placebo, respectively]; hazard ratio, 0.77 [95% CI, 0.67-0.87]; P<0.0001). This benefit reached statistical significance at 18 days after randomization. Empagliflozin reduced the total number of heart failure hospitalizations that required intensive care (hazard ratio, 0.71 [95% CI, 0.52-0.96]; P=0.028) and the total number of all hospitalizations that required a vasopressor or positive inotropic drug (hazard ratio, 0.73 [95% CI, 0.55-0.97]; P=0.033). Compared with patients in the placebo group, fewer patients in the empagliflozin group reported outpatient intensification of diuretics (482 versus 610; hazard ratio, 0.76 [95% CI, 0.67-0.86]; P<0.0001), and patients assigned to empagliflozin were 20% to 50% more likely to have a better New York Heart Association functional class, with significant effects at 12 weeks that were maintained for at least 2 years. The benefit on total heart failure hospitalizations was similar in patients with an ejection fraction of >40% to <50% and 50% to <60%, but was attenuated at higher ejection fractions. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction, empagliflozin produced a meaningful, early, and sustained reduction in the risk and severity of a broad range of inpatient and outpatient worsening heart failure events. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT03057977.

Empagliflozin in Heart Failure with a Preserved Ejection Fraction.

BACKGROUND: Sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors reduce the risk of hospitalization for heart failure in patients with heart failure and a reduced ejection fraction, but their effects in patients with heart failure and a preserved ejection fraction are uncertain. METHODS: In this double-blind trial, we randomly assigned 5988 patients with class II-IV heart failure and an ejection fraction of more than 40% to receive empagliflozin (10 mg once daily) or placebo, in addition to usual therapy. The primary outcome was a composite of cardiovascular death or hospitalization for heart failure. RESULTS: Over a median of 26.2 months, a primary outcome event occurred in 415 of 2997 patients (13.8%) in the empagliflozin group and in 511 of 2991 patients (17.1%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.79; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.69 to 0.90; P<0.001). This effect was mainly related to a lower risk of hospitalization for heart failure in the empagliflozin group. The effects of empagliflozin appeared consistent in patients with or without diabetes. The total number of hospitalizations for heart failure was lower in the empagliflozin group than in the placebo group (407 with empagliflozin and 541 with placebo; hazard ratio, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.61 to 0.88; P<0.001). Uncomplicated genital and urinary tract infections and hypotension were reported more frequently with empagliflozin. CONCLUSIONS: Empagliflozin reduced the combined risk of cardiovascular death or hospitalization for heart failure in patients with heart failure and a preserved ejection fraction, regardless of the presence or absence of diabetes. (Funded by Boehringer Ingelheim and Eli Lilly; EMPEROR-Preserved ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03057951).

Baseline characteristics of patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction in the EMPEROR-Preserved trial.

AIMS: EMPEROR-Preserved is an ongoing trial evaluating the effect of empagliflozin in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). This report describes the baseline characteristics of the EMPEROR-Preserved cohort and compares them with patients enrolled in prior HFpEF trials. METHODS AND RESULTS: EMPEROR-Preserved is a phase III randomized, international, double-blind, parallel-group, placebo-controlled trial in which 5988 symptomatic HFpEF patients [left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) >40%] with and without type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) have been enrolled. Patients were required to have elevated N-terminal pro B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) concentrations (i.e. >300 pg/mL in patients without and >900 pg/mL in patients with atrial fibrillation) along with evidence of structural changes in the heart or documented history of heart failure hospitalization. Among patients enrolled from various regions (45% Europe, 11% Asia, 25% Latin America, 12% North America), the mean age was 72 ± 9 years, 45% were women. Almost all patients had New York Heart Association class II or III symptoms (99.6%), and 23% had prior heart failure hospitalization within 12 months. Thirty-three percent of the patients had baseline LVEF of 41-50%. The mean LVEF (54 ± 9%) was slightly lower while the median NT-proBNP [974 (499-1731) pg/mL] was higher compared with previous HFpEF trials. Presence of comorbidities such as diabetes (49%) and chronic kidney disease (50%) were common. The majority of the patients were on angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors/angiotensin receptor blockers/angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitors (80%) and beta-blockers (86%), and 37% of patients were on mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists. CONCLUSION: When compared with prior trials in HFpEF, the EMPEROR-Preserved cohort has a somewhat higher burden of comorbidities, lower LVEF, higher median NT-proBNP and greater use of mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists at baseline. Results of the EMPEROR-Preserved trial will be available in 2021.

Oral dabigatran versus enoxaparin for thromboprophylaxis after primary total hip arthroplasty (RE-NOVATE II*). A randomised, double-blind, non-inferiority trial.

This trial compared the efficacy and safety of oral dabigatran, a direct thrombin inhibitor, versus subcutaneous enoxaparin for extended thromboprophylaxis in patients undergoing total hip arthroplasty. A total of 2,055 patients were randomised to 28-35 days treatment with oral dabigatran, 220 mg once-daily, starting with a half-dose 1-4 hours after surgery, or subcutaneous enoxaparin 40 mg once-daily, starting the evening before surgery. The primary efficacy outcome was a composite of total venous thromboembolism [VTE] (venographic or symptomatic) and death from all-causes. The main secondary composite outcome was major VTE (proximal deep-vein thrombosis or non-fatal pulmonary embolism) plus VTE-related death. The main safety outcome was major bleeding. In total, 2,013 were treated, of whom 1,577 operated patients were included in the primary efficacy analysis. The primary efficacy outcome occurred in 7.7% of the dabigatran group versus 8.8% of the enoxaparin group, risk difference (RD) -1.1% (95%CI -3.8 to 1.6%); p<0.0001 for the pre-specified non-inferiority margin. Major VTE plus VTE-related death occurred in 2.2% of the dabigatran group versus 4.2% of the enoxaparin group, RD -1.9% (-3.6% to -0.2%); p=0.03. Major bleeding occurred in 1.4% of the dabigatran group and 0.9% of the enoxaparin group (p=0.40). The incidence of adverse events, including liver enzyme elevations and cardiac events, during treatment was similar between the groups. Extended prophylaxis with oral dabigatran 220 mg once-daily was as effective as subcutaneous enoxaparin 40 mg once-daily in reducing the risk of VTE after total hip arthroplasty, and superior to enoxaparin for reducing the risk of major VTE. The risk of bleeding and safety profiles were similar.

Oral thrombin inhibitor dabigatran etexilate vs North American enoxaparin regimen for prevention of venous thromboembolism after knee arthroplasty surgery.

Dabigatran, an oral once-daily unmonitored thrombin inhibitor, has been tested elsewhere using enoxaparin 40 mg once daily. We used the North American enoxaparin 30 mg BID regimen as the comparator. This was a double-blind, centrally randomized trial. Unilateral total knee arthroplasty patients were randomized to receive oral dabigatran etexilate 220 or 150 mg once daily, or enoxaparin 30 mg SC BID after surgery, blinded. Dosing stopped at contrast venography, 12 to 15 days after surgery. Among 1896 patients, dabigatran 220 and 110 mg showed inferior efficacy to enoxaparin (venous thromboembolism rates of 31% [P = .02 vs enoxaparin], 34% [P < .001 vs enoxaparin], and 25%, respectively). Bleeding rates were similar, and no drug-related hepatic illness was recognized. Dabigatran, effective compared to once-daily enoxaparin, showed inferior efficacy to the twice-daily North American enoxaparin regimen, probably because of the latter's more intense and prolonged dosing.