Search

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, caused by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), has important implications for the safety of participants in clinical trials and the research staff caring for them and, consequently, for the trials themselves. Patients with heart failure may be at greater risk of infection with COVID-19 and the consequences might also be more serious, but they are also at risk of adverse outcomes if their clinical care is compromised. As physicians and clinical trialists, it is our responsibility to ensure safe and effective care is delivered to trial participants without affecting the integrity of the trial. The social contract with our patients demands no less. Many regulatory authorities from different world regions have issued guidance statements regarding the conduct of clinical trials during this COVID-19 crisis. However, international trials may benefit from expert guidance from a global panel of experts to supplement local advice and regulations, thereby enhancing the safety of participants and the integrity of the trial. Accordingly, the Heart Failure Association of the European Society of Cardiology on 21 and 22 March 2020 conducted web-based meetings with expert clinical trialists in Europe, North America, South America, Australia, and Asia. The main objectives of this Expert Position Paper are to highlight the challenges that this pandemic poses for the conduct of clinical trials in heart failure and to offer advice on how they might be overcome, with some practical examples. While this panel of experts are focused on heart failure clinical trials, these discussions and recommendations may apply to clinical trials in other therapeutic areas.

AimsUse of inotropic agents in patients with heart failure (HF) has been limited by adverse effects on outcomes. However, administration of positive inotropes at lower doses and concomitant treatment with beta-blockers might increase benefit-risk ratio. We investigated the effects of low doses of the positive inotrope enoximone on symptoms, exercise capacity, and major clinical outcomes in patients with advanced HF who were also treated with beta-blockers and other guideline-recommended background therapy.Methods and resultsThe Studies of Oral Enoximone Therapy in Advanced HF (ESSENTIAL) programme consisted of two identical, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials that differed only by geographic location (North and South America: ESSENTIAL-I; Europe: ESSENTIAL-II). Patients with New York Heart Association class III-IV HF symptoms, left ventricular ejection fraction < or = 30%, and one hospitalization or two ambulatory visits for worsening HF in the previous year were eligible for participation in the trials. The trials had three co-primary endpoints: (i) the composite of time to all-cause mortality or cardiovascular hospitalization, analysed in the two ESSENTIAL trials combined; (ii) the 6 month change from baseline in the 6 min walk test distance (6MWTD); and (iii) the Patient Global Assessment (PGA) at 6 months, both analysed in each trial separately. ESSENTIAL-I and -II randomized 1854 subjects at 211 sites in 16 countries. In the combined trials, all-cause mortality and the composite, first co-primary endpoint did not differ between the two treatment groups [hazard ratio (HR) 0.97; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.80-1.17; and HR 0.98; 95% CI 0.86-1.12, respectively, for enoximone vs. placebo]. The two other co-primary endpoints were analysed separately in the two ESSENTIAL trials, as prospectively designed in the protocol. The 6MWTD increased with enoximone, compared with placebo, in ESSENTIAL-I (P = 0.025, not reaching, however, the pre-specified criterion for statistical significance of P < 0.020), but not in ESSENTIAL-II. No difference in PGA was observed in either trial.ConclusionAlthough low-dose enoximone appears to be safe in patients with advanced HF, major clinical outcomes are not improved.

Aims Stroke is an important problem in patients with heart failure (HF), but the intersection between the two conditions is poorly studied across the range of ejection fraction. The prevalence of history of stroke and related outcomes were investigated in patients with HF. Methods and results Individual patient meta-analysis of seven clinical trials enrolling patients with HF with reduced (HFrEF) and preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). Of the 20 159 patients with HFrEF, 1683 (8.3%) had a history of stroke, and of the 13 252 patients with HFpEF, 1287 (9.7%) had a history of stroke. Regardless of ejection fraction, patients with a history of stroke had more vascular comorbidity and worse HF. Among those with HFrEF, the incidence of the composite of cardiovascular death, HF hospitalization, stroke, or myocardial infarction was 18.23 (16.81–19.77) per 100 person-years in those with prior stroke vs. 13.12 (12.77–13.48) in those without [hazard ratio 1.37 (1.26–1.49), P < 0.001]. The corresponding rates in patients with HFpEF were 14.16 (12.96–15.48) and 9.37 (9.06–9.70) [hazard ratio 1.49 (1.36–1.64), P < 0.001]. Each component of the composite was more frequent in patients with stroke history, and the risk of future stroke was doubled in patients with prior stroke. Among patients with prior stroke, 30% with concomitant atrial fibrillation were not anticoagulated, and 29% with arterial disease were not taking statins; 17% with HFrEF and 38% with HFpEF had uncontrolled systolic blood pressure (≥140 mmHg). Conclusion Heart failure patients with a history of stroke are at high risk of subsequent cardiovascular events, and targeting underutilization of guideline-recommended treatments might be a way to improve outcomes in this high-risk population. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims The EMPERIAL (Effect of EMPagliflozin on ExeRcise ability and HF symptoms In patients with chronic heArt faiLure) trials evaluated the effects of empagliflozin on exercise ability and patient-reported outcomes in heart failure (HF) with reduced and preserved ejection fraction (EF), with and without type 2 diabetes (T2D), reporting, for the first time, the effects of sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 inhibition in HF with preserved EF (HFpEF). Methods and results HF patients with reduced EF (HFrEF) (≤40%, N = 312, EMPERIAL-Reduced) or preserved EF (>40%, N = 315, EMPERIAL-Preserved), with and without T2D, were randomized to empagliflozin 10 mg or placebo for 12 weeks. The primary endpoint was 6-minute walk test distance (6MWTD) change to Week 12. Key secondary endpoints included Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire Total Symptom Score (KCCQ-TSS) and Chronic Heart Failure Questionnaire Self-Administered Standardized format (CHQ-SAS) dyspnoea score. 6MWTD median (95% confidence interval) differences, empagliflozin vs. placebo, at Week 12 were −4.0 m (−16.0, 6.0; P = 0.42) and 4.0 m (−5.0, 13.0; P = 0.37) in EMPERIAL-Reduced and EMPERIAL-Preserved, respectively. As the primary endpoint was non-significant, all secondary endpoints were considered exploratory. Changes in KCCQ-TSS and CHQ-SAS dyspnoea score were non-significant. Improvements with empagliflozin in exploratory pre-specified analyses of KCCQ-TSS responder rates, congestion score, and diuretic use in EMPERIAL-Reduced are hypothesis generating. Empagliflozin adverse events were consistent with those previously reported. Conclusion The primary outcome for both trials was neutral. Empagliflozin was well tolerated in HF patients, with and without T2D, with a safety profile consistent with that previously reported in T2D. Hypothesis-generating improvements in exploratory analyses of secondary endpoints with empagliflozin in HFrEF were observed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aim Left ventricular (LV) global longitudinal strain (GLS) reflects LV systolic function and correlates inversely with the extent of LV myocardial scar and fibrosis. The present subanalysis of the Echocardiography Guided CRT trial investigated the prognostic value of LV GLS in patients with narrow QRS complex. Methods and results Left ventricular (LV) global longitudinal strain (GLS) was measured on the apical 2-, 4- and 3-chamber views using speckle tracking analysis. Measurement of baseline LV GLS was feasible in 755 patients (374 with cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT)-ON and 381 with CRT-OFF). The median value of LV GLS in the overall population was 7.9%, interquartile range 6.2-10.1%. After a mean follow-up period of 19.4 months, 95 patients in the CRT-OFF group and 111 in the CRT-ON group reached the combined primary endpoint of all-cause mortality and heart failure hospitalization. Each 1% absolute unit decrease in LV GLS was independently associated with 11% increase in the risk to reach the primary endpoint (Hazard ratio 1.11; 95% confidence interval 95% 1.04-1.17, P<0.001), after adjusting for ischaemic cardiomyopathy and randomization treatment among other clinically relevant variables. When categorizing patients according to quartiles of LV GLS, the primary endpoint occurred more frequently in patients in the lowest quartile (<6.2%) treated with CRT-ON vs. CRT-OFF (45.6% vs. 28.7%, P=0.009) whereas, no differences were observed in patients with LV GLS_6.2% treated with CRT-OFF vs. CRT-ON (23.7% vs. 24.5%, respectively; P ≥0.62). Conclusion Low LV GLS is associated with poor outcome in heart failure patients with QRS width <130 ms, independent of randomization to CRT or not. Importantly, in the group of patients with the lowest LV GLS quartile, CRT may have a detrimental effect on clinical outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]