Search

BackgroundFor patients with acute heart failure (AHF), substantial diuresis after administration of loop diuretics is generally associated with better clinical outcomes but may cause creatinine to rise, suggesting renal function decline. We investigated the interaction between diuretic response and worsening renal function (WRF) on clinical outcomes in patients with AHF.Methods and resultsIn two AHF cohorts (PROTECT, n = 1698 and RELAX-AHF-2, n = 5586 in current analysis), the prognostic impact of WRF (creatinine ≥0.3 mg/dl increase baseline-day 4; sensitivity analyses incorporated baseline renal function) by diuretic response (kg weight loss/40 mg furosemide equivalent baseline-day 4) was investigated with regard to (cardiovascular) death or cardiovascular/renal hospitalization using subpopulation treatment effect pattern plots (STEPP) and survival analyses. WRF occurred in 286 (16.8%) and 1031 (18.5%) patients in PROTECT and RELAX-AHF-2, respectively. Patients with WRF had higher left ventricular ejection fraction and lower estimated glomerular filtration rate at baseline (p

AimsStroke is often a devastating event among patients with heart failure with reduced ejection (HFrEF). In COMMANDER HF, rivaroxaban 2.5 mg b.i.d. did not reduce the composite of first occurrence of death, stroke, or myocardial infarction compared with placebo in patients with HFrEF, coronary artery disease (CAD), and sinus rhythm. We now examine the incidence, timing, type, severity, and predictors of stroke or a transient ischaemic attack (TIA), and seek to establish the net clinical benefit of treatment with low-dose rivaroxaban.Methods and resultsIn this double-blind, randomized trial, 5022 patients who had HFrEF(≤40%), elevated natriuretic peptides, CAD, and who were in sinus rhythm were treated with rivaroxaban 2.5 mg b.i.d. or placebo in addition to antiplatelet therapy, after an episode of worsening HF. The primary neurological outcome for this post hoc analysis was time to first event of any stroke or TIA. Over a median follow-up of 20.5 (25th-75th percentiles 20.0-20.9) months, 150 all-cause stroke (127) or TIA (23) events occurred (ischaemic stroke in 82% and haemorrhagic stroke in 11% of stroke events). Overall, 47.5% of first-time strokes were either disabling (16.5%) or fatal (31%). Prior stroke, low body mass index, geographic region, and the CHA2DS2-VASc score were predictors of stroke/TIA. Rivaroxaban significantly reduced the primary neurological endpoint of all-cause stroke or TIA compared with placebo by 32% (1.29 events vs. 1.90 events per 100 patient-years), adjusted for the time from index HF event to randomization and stratified by geographic region (adjusted hazard ratio 0.68, 95% confidence interval 0.49-0.94), with a number needed to treat of 164 patients per year to prevent one stroke/TIA event. The principal safety endpoint of fatal bleeding or bleeding into a critical space, occurred at a similar rate on rivaroxaban and placebo (0.44 events vs. 0.55 events per 100 patient-years).ConclusionsPatients with HFrEF and CAD are at risk for stroke or TIA in the period following an episode of worsening heart failure in the absence of atrial fibrillation. Most strokes are of ischaemic origin and nearly half are either disabling or fatal. Rivaroxaban at a dose of 2.5 mg b.i.d. reduced rates of stroke or TIA compared with placebo in this population.Trial registrationCOMMANDER HF (A Study to Assess the Effectiveness and Safety of Rivaroxaban in Reducing the Risk of Death, Myocardial Infarction, or Stroke in Participants with Heart Failure and Coronary Artery Disease Following an Episode of Decompensated Heart Failure); ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01877915.

BackgroundOver the last 50 years, clinical trials of novel interventions for acute heart failure (AHF) have, with few exceptions, been neutral or shown harm. We hypothesize that this might be related to a differential response to pharmacological therapy.MethodsWe studied the magnitude of treatment effect of rolofylline across clinical characteristics and plasma biomarkers in 2033 AHF patients and derived a biomarker-based responder sum score model. Treatment response was survival from all-cause mortality through day 180.ResultsIn the overall study population, rolofylline had no effect on mortality (HR 1.03, 95% CI 0.82-1.28, p = 0.808). We found no treatment interaction across clinical characteristics, but we found interactions between several biomarkers and rolofylline. The biomarker-based sum score model included TNF-R1α, ST2, WAP four-disulfide core domain protein HE4 (WAP-4C), and total cholesterol, and the score ranged between 0 and 4. In patients with score 4 (those with increased TNF-R1α, ST2, WAP-4C, and low total cholesterol), treatment with rolofylline was beneficial (HR 0.61, 95% CI 0.40-0.92, p = 0.019). In patients with score 0, treatment with rolofylline was harmful (HR 5.52, 95% CI 1.68-18.13, p = 0.005; treatment by score interaction p

AimsThrombin is a critical element of crosstalk between pathways contributing to worsening of established heart failure (HF). The aim of this study is to explore the efficacy and safety of rivaroxaban 2.5 mg bid compared with placebo (with standard care) after an exacerbation of HF in patients with reduced ejection fraction (HF-rEF) and documented coronary artery disease.MethodsThis is an international prospective, multicentre, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, event-driven study of approximately 5000 patients for a targeted 984 events. Patients must have a recent symptomatic exacerbation of HF, increased plasma concentrations of natriuretic peptides (B-type natriuretic peptide ≥200 pg/mL or N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide ≥800 pg/mL), with left ventricular ejection fraction ≤40% and coronary artery disease. Patients requiring anticoagulation for atrial fibrillation or other conditions will be excluded. After an index event (overnight hospitalization, emergency department or observation unit admission, or unscheduled outpatient parenteral treatment for worsening HF), patients will be randomized 1:1 to rivaroxaban or placebo (with standard of care). The primary efficacy outcome event is a composite of all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction or stroke. The principal safety outcome events are the composite of fatal bleeding or bleeding into a critical space with potential permanent disability, bleeding events requiring hospitalization and major bleeding events according to International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis bleeding criteria.ConclusionCOMMANDER HF is the first prospective study of a target-specific oral antithrombotic agent in HF. It will provide important information regarding rivaroxaban use following an HF event in an HF-rEF patient population with coronary artery disease.

BackgroundWorsening heart failure (WHF) symptoms despite initial therapy during admission for acute heart failure (AHF) is associated with worse outcomes. The association between the time of the WHF event and the intensity of WHF therapy with outcomes is unknown.Methods and resultsIn the PROTECT trial of 2033 AHF patients, we investigated the association between time of occurrence of WHF and intensity of therapy, with subsequent outcomes. WHF was defined by standardized, physician-determined assessment. Early WHF was defined as occurring on days 2-3 and late on days 4-7. Low intensity included restarting/increasing diuretics or vasodilators and high intensity included initiation of inotropes, vasopressors, inodilators, or mechanical support. Outcomes were death or cardiovascular/renal hospitalization over 60 days and death over 180 days. Of the 1879 patients with complete follow-up after day 7, 12.7% (n = 238) experienced WHF: 47.9% early and 52.1% late. Treatment intensity was low in 72.3% and high in 24.8% (2.9% missing). After adjusting for baseline predictors of outcome, WHF was associated with a trend toward increased 60-day death or cardiovascular/renal hospitalization [hazard ratio (HR) 1.26; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.99-1.60; P = 0.063] and increased 180-day death (HR 1.77; 95% CI 1.33-2.34; P

Heart failure is a syndrome with a pathophysiological basis that can be traced to dysfunction in several interconnected molecular pathways. Identification of biomarkers of heart failure that allow measurement of the disease on a molecular level has resulted in enthusiasm for their use in prognostication and selection of appropriate therapies. However, despite considerable amounts of information available on numerous biomarkers, inconsistent research methodologies and lack of clinical correlations have made bench-to-bedside translations rare and left the literature with countless publications of varied quality. There is a need for a systematic and collaborative approach aimed at definitively studying the clinical benefits of novel biomarkers. In this review, on the basis of input from academia, industry, and governmental agencies, we propose a systematized approach based on adherence to specific quality measures for studies looking to augment current prediction model or use biomarkers to tailor therapeutics. We suggest that study quality, rather than results, should determine publication and propose a system for grading biomarker studies. We outline the need for collaboration between clinical investigators and statisticians to introduce more advanced statistical methodologies into the field of biomarkers that would allow for data from a large number of variables to be distilled into clinically actionable information. Lastly, we propose the creation of a heart failure biomarker consortium that would allow for a comprehensive list of biomarkers to be concomitantly analyzed in a pooled sample of randomized clinical trials and hypotheses to be generated for testing in biomarker-guided trials. Such a consortium could collaborate in sharing samples to identify biomarkers, undertake meta-analyses on completed trials, and spearhead clinical trials to test the clinical utility of new biomarkers.

AimsThe implications of geographical variation are unknown following adjustment for hospital length of stay (LOS) in heart failure (HF) trials that included patients whether or not they had systolic dysfunction. We investigated regional differences in an international acute HF trial.Methods and resultsThe PROTECT trial investigated 2033 patients with acute HF and renal dysfunction hospitalized at 173 sites in 17 countries with randomization to rolofylline or placebo. We grouped enrolling countries into six regions. Baseline characteristics, in-hospital management, and outcomes were explored by region. The primary study outcome was 60-day mortality or cardiovascular/renal hospitalization. Secondary outcomes included 180-day mortality. Of 2033 patients, 33% were from Eastern Europe, 19% from Western Europe, 16% from Israel, 15% from North America, 14% from Russia, and 3% from Argentina. Marked differences in baseline characteristics, HF phenotype, in-hospital diuretic and vasodilator strategies, and LOS were observed by region. LOS was shortest in North America and Israel (median 5 days) and longest in Russia (median 15 days). Regional event rates varied significantly. Following multivariable adjustment, region was an independent predictor of the risk of mortality/hospitalization at 60 days, with the lowest risk in Russia (hazard ratio 0.39, 95% confidence interval 0.23-0.64 vs. Western Europe) due to lower rehospitalization; mortality differences were attenuated by 180 days.ConclusionsIn an international HF trial, there were differences in baseline characteristics, treatments, LOS, and rehospitalization amongst regions, but little difference in longer term mortality. Rehospitalization differences exist independent of LOS. This analysis may help inform future trial design and should be externally validated.

The burden of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) is considerable and is projected to worsen. To date, there are no approved therapies available for reducing mortality or hospitalizations for these patients. The pathophysiology of HFpEF is complex and includes alterations in cardiac structure and function, systemic and pulmonary vascular abnormalities, end-organ involvement, and comorbidities. There remain major gaps in our understanding of HFpEF pathophysiology. To facilitate a discussion of how to proceed effectively in future with development of therapies for HFpEF, a meeting was facilitated by the Food and Drug Administration and included representatives from academia, industry, and regulatory agencies. This document summarizes the proceedings from this meeting.

There are over 1 million hospitalizations for heart failure (HF) annually in the United States alone, and a similar number has been reported in Europe. Recent clinical trials investigating novel therapies in patients with hospitalized HF (HHF) have been negative, and the post-discharge event rate remains unacceptably high. The lack of success with HHF trials stem from problems with understanding the study drug, matching the drug to the appropriate HF subgroup, and study execution. Related to the concept of study execution is the importance of including appropriate study sites in HHF trials. Often overlooked issues include consideration of the geographic region and the number of patients enrolled at each study center. Marked differences in baseline patient co-morbidities, serum biomarkers, treatment utilization and outcomes have been demonstrated across geographic regions. Furthermore, patients from sites with low recruitment may have worse outcomes compared to sites with higher enrollment patterns. Consequently, sites with poor trial enrollment may influence key patient end points and likely do not justify the costs of site training and maintenance. Accordingly, there is an unmet need to develop strategies to identify the right study sites that have acceptable patient quantity and quality. Potential approaches include, but are not limited to, establishing a pre-trial registry, developing site performance metrics, identifying a local regionally involved leader and bolstering recruitment incentives. This manuscript summarizes the roundtable discussion hosted by the Food and Drug Administration between members of academia, the National Institutes of Health, industry partners, contract research organizations and academic research organizations on the importance of selecting optimal sites for successful trials in HHF.

Ketone bodies (KBs) might increase in response to physiological situations, usually after glycogen stores have been exhausted (fasting, prolonged exercise) or due to pathological causes (cardiac dysfunction or development of congestion); in patients with acute heart failure, diuresis might reduce KBs. Therefore, KBs might be a marker of cardiac and hemodynamic stress in heart failure (left panel). Preliminary experimental and human studies suggest that augmentation of KBs might have beneficial effects on cardiac hemodynamics and function; for instance, KBs might increase heart rate (HR), left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and stroke volume (SV), and atrial contraction, and might cause a fall in systemic (SVR) and pulmonary (PVR) vascular resistance (right panel). SGLT2is, sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors. [Display omitted] [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]