Search

Background: Endothelin receptor antagonist (ERA) and phosphodiesterase 5 inhibitor (PDE5i) combination therapy is recommended for low-/intermediate-risk pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH) patients. A fixed-dose combination of the ERA macitentan and PDE5i tadalafil (M/T FDC) in a once-daily, single tablet would simplify treatment., Objectives: The multicenter, double-blind, adaptive phase 3 A DUE study investigated the efficacy and safety of M/T FDC vs macitentan 10 mg and vs tadalafil 40 mg monotherapies in PAH patients, including treatment-naïve and prior ERA or PDE5i monotherapy-treated patients., Methods: World Health Organization functional class II-III patients were randomized to M/T FDC, macitentan, or tadalafil depending on their PAH treatment (treatment-naïve, ERA, or PDE5i monotherapy) at baseline. The primary endpoint was change in pulmonary vascular resistance (PVR) at week 16., Results: In total, 187 patients were randomized to single-tablet M/T FDC (n = 108), macitentan (n = 35), or tadalafil (n = 44). PVR reduction with M/T FDC was significantly greater vs macitentan (29%; geometric mean ratio 0.71; 95% CL: 0.61-0.82; P < 0.0001) and vs tadalafil (28%; geometric mean ratio 0.72; 95% CL: 0.64-0.80; P < 0.0001). Three patients died in the M/T FDC arm (judged unrelated to treatment). Adverse events (AEs) leading to discontinuation, serious AEs, and those of special interest (anemia, hypotension, and edema) were more frequent with M/T FDC., Conclusions: Macitentan and tadalafil FDC significantly improved PVR vs monotherapies in PAH patients, with a safety and tolerability profile consistent with the individual components. The A DUE study supports M/T FDC as a once-daily, single-tablet combination for initial therapy and escalation to double combination therapy in patients with PAH. (Clinical Study to Compare the Efficacy and Safety of Macitentan and Tadalafil Monotherapies With the Corresponding Fixed-dose Combination Therapy in Subjects With Pulmonary Arterial Hypertension [PAH]) [A DUE]; NCT03904693)., Competing Interests: Funding Support and Author Disclosures This study was funded by Actelion Pharmaceuticals Ltd, a Janssen Pharmaceutical Company of Johnson and Johnson. Prof Grünig has received fees for lectures and/or consultations from Bayer/Merck Sharp & Dohme, Ferrer, GEBRO, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen Pharmaceutical Companies of Johnson and Johnson, and OMT; and has received research grants to his institution from Acceleron, BayerHealthCare, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Bellerophon, GossamerBio, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen Pharmaceutical Companies of Johnson and Johnson, Novartis, OMT, Pfizer, REATE, and United Therapeutics outside of the submitted work. Prof Jansa has received fees and grants from Janssen Pharmaceutical Companies of Johnson and Johnson, Janssen AOP Orphan, Bayer Healthcare, Merck Sharp & Dohme, and Arena Pharmaceuticals Inc. Prof Fan has served as a scientific committee member for Janssen Pharmaceutical Companies of Johnson and Johnson. Dr Hauser, Ms Morganti, and Dr Rofael are employees of Janssen Pharmaceutical Companies of Johnson and Johnson. Mr Pannaux is an employee of a company contracted by Janssen Pharmaceutical Companies of Johnson and Johnson. Dr Chin has served as a scientific committee member for Janssen Pharmaceutical Companies of Johnson and Johnson; has received research grants/support from Janssen Pharmaceutical Companies of Johnson and Johnson, Altavant, Acceleron, United Therapeutics, Pfizer, Merck, and Gossamer Bio; has received support for travel to meetings from Janssen Pharmaceutical Companies of Johnson and Johnson; and has received consultancy fees from Janssen Pharmaceutical Companies of Johnson and Johnson, Altavant, Acceleron, United Therapeutics, Gossamer Bio, and Merck., (Copyright © 2024. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Background: The usefulness of adjudication by central end point committees (CECs) is poorly assessed in heart failure (HF) trials. We aimed to assess its impact on the outcome of the SHIFT trial (Systolic HF Treatment With the If Inhibitor Ivabradine Trial)., Methods: SHIFT was a randomized placebo-controlled trial investigating the effect of ivabradine in 6505 HF patients with reduced ejection fraction. Prespecified end points, reported by investigators (all cardiologists) using specific case report form pages, included all-cause and specific causes of deaths and hospitalizations. The primary end point was a composite of cardiovascular deaths or hospitalizations for worsening HF. We compared the adjudication of prespecified end points made by investigators and by the CEC., Results: Investigators identified 7529 prespecified end points, 6793 of which were confirmed by the CEC: 98.1% of cardiovascular deaths, 88.6% of all hospitalizations, and 84.4% of hospitalizations for worsening HF. These differences had no meaningful impact on the study results; hazard ratio for the primary composite end point: investigators, 0.83 (95% CI, 0.76-0.91) versus CEC, 0.82 (95% CI, 0.75-0.90), with similar results for each component of the primary end point (hazard ratio of 0.92 versus 0.91 for cardiovascular death and 0.78 versus 0.74 for hospitalization for worsening HF)., Conclusions: Central adjudication by a CEC in the SHIFT study confirmed most of cardiovascular deaths and worsening HF hospitalizations assessed by cardiologists and did not result in a significant change of the final result as compared to investigator judgment. In this context, the benefits of CEC in blinded HF trials should be reconsidered. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT02441218. URL: http://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN70429960; Unique identifier: ISRCTN70429960.

Aims: A network meta-analysis (NMA) of all recommended drug groups for the treatment of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), including their combinations, was performed to assess the relative efficacy and incremental benefit., Methods and Results: A search was made in biomedical databases for randomized controlled trials published between 1987 and 2017 on angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs), beta-blockers (BBs), angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs), mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRAs), ivabradine (IVA), or angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitors (ARNI). A total of 58 relevant trials were identified. The relative efficacy of each treatment group (or combination) in terms of all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, all-cause hospitalizations and hospitalizations for heart failure, per patient-year of follow-up, were combined in a random-effects Bayesian NMA. The pairwise comparison between each regimen and for each outcome was estimated. The NMA was dominated by 15 large-scale trials with between 1984 and 18 898 patient-years of follow-up. Combinations of drug groups showed incremental benefits on outcomes over single groups. The most effective combinations were ARNI+BB + MRA and ACEI+BB + MRA + IVA, showing reductions in all-cause mortality (vs. placebo) of 62% and 59%, respectively; hazard ratios were 0.38 [credible interval (CrI) 0.20-0.65] and 0.41 (CrI 0.21-0.70); and in all-cause hospitalizations with reductions of 42% for both. These two combinations were also the most effective for the other outcomes studied., Conclusion: Our analysis shows that the incremental use of combinations of disease-modifying therapies has resulted in the progressive improvement in mortality and hospitalization outcomes in HFrEF. Our findings support the current guideline recommendations., (© 2018 The Authors. European Journal of Heart Failure © 2018 European Society of Cardiology.)

Aims: This randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial assessed whether heart rate (HR) reduction with ivabradine improves cardiac function in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF)., Methods and Results: The prEserveD left ventricular ejectIon fraction chronic heart Failure with ivabradine studY (EDIFY) included 179 patients in New York Heart Association (NYHA) classes II and III, in sinus rhythm, with HR of ≥70 b.p.m., NT-proBNP of ≥220 pg/mL (BNP ≥80 pg/mL) and left ventricular ejection fraction of ≥45%. Ivabradine (or placebo) was titrated to 7.5 mg b.i.d. Patients were followed for 8 months on the change and assessed for three co-primary endpoints: echo-Doppler E/e' ratio, distance on the 6-min walking test (6MWT), and plasma NT-proBNP concentration. At baseline, median E/e' was 12.8 [interquartile range (IQR): 9.9-16.3], median distance on the 6MWT was 320 m (IQR: 247-375 m), and median NT-proBNP was 375 pg/mL (IQR: 253-701 pg/mL). Baseline median HR was 75 b.p.m. (IQR: 70-107 b.p.m.). A total of 171 patients (87 in the ivabradine group, 84 in the placebo group) were evaluated for treatment efficacy. After 8 months of treatment, findings showed a median change in HR of -13.0 b.p.m. (IQR: -18.0 to -6.0 b.p.m.) in the ivabradine group and -3.5 b.p.m. (IQR: -11.5 to 3.0 b.p.m.) in the placebo group [estimated between-group difference: 7.7 b.p.m.; 90% confidence interval (CI) -10 to -5.4; P < 0.0001]. No evidence of improvement was found in any of the three co-primary endpoints. There was almost no change in median E/e' in either of the two groups [median change: +1.0 (IQR: -0.8 to 2.9) in the ivabradine group; -0.6 (IQR: -2.2 to 1.4) in the placebo group; estimated between-group difference: 1.4, 90% CI 0.3-2.5; P = 0.135]. There were no meaningful changes in the other co-primary endpoints and no apparent trends. There was no significant safety concern., Conclusions: In patients with HFpEF, HR reduction with ivabradine did not improve outcomes. These findings do not support the use of ivabradine in HFpEF., (© 2017 The Authors. European Journal of Heart Failure © 2017 European Society of Cardiology.)