Search

Aims In a retrospective analysis of dal-Outcomes, the effect of dalcetrapib on cardiovascular events was influenced by an adenylate cyclase type 9 (ADCY9) gene polymorphism. The dal-GenE study was conducted to test this pharmacogenetic hypothesis. Methods and results dal-GenE was a double-blind trial in patients with an acute coronary syndrome within 1–3 months and the AA genotype at variant rs1967309 in the ADCY9 gene. A total of 6147 patients were randomly assigned to receive dalcetrapib 600 mg or placebo daily. The primary endpoint was the time from randomization to first occurrence of cardiovascular death, resuscitated cardiac arrest, non-fatal myocardial infarction, or non-fatal stroke. After a median follow-up of 39.9 months, the primary endpoint occurred in 292 (9.5%) of 3071 patients in the dalcetrapib group and 327 (10.6%) of 3076 patients in the placebo group [hazard ratio 0.88; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.75–1.03; P = 0.12]. The hazard ratios for the components of the primary endpoint were 0.79 (95% CI 0.65–0.96) for myocardial infarction, 0.92 (95% CI 0.64–1.33) for stroke, 1.21 (95% CI 0.91–1.60) for death from cardiovascular causes, and 2.33 (95% CI 0.60–9.02) for resuscitated cardiac arrest. In a pre-specified on-treatment sensitivity analysis, the primary endpoint event rate was 7.8% (236/3015) in the dalcetrapib group and 9.3% (282/3031) in the placebo group (hazard ratio 0.83; 95% CI 0.70–0.98). Conclusion Dalcetrapib did not significantly reduce the risk of occurrence of the primary endpoint of ischaemic cardiovascular events at end of study. A new trial would be needed to test the pharmacogenetic hypothesis that dalcetrapib improves the prognosis of patients with the AA genotype. Clinical Trial Registration Trial registration dal-GenE ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02525939

Objectives: The primary objective was to identify well-tolerated doses of cimlanod in patients with acute heart failure (AHF). Secondary objectives were to identify signals of efficacy, including biomarkers, symptoms, and clinical events. Background: Nitroxyl (HNO) donors have vasodilator, inotropic and lusitropic effects. Bristol-Myers Squibb-986231 (cimlanod) is an HNO donor being developed for acute heart failure (AHF). Methods: This was a phase IIb, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial of 48-h treatment with cimlanod compared with placebo in patients with left ventricular ejection fraction ≤40% hospitalized for AHF. In part I, patients were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to escalating doses of cimlanod or matching placebo. In part II, patients were randomized in a 1:1:1 ratio to either of the 2 highest tolerated doses of cimlanod from part I or placebo. The primary endpoint was the rate of clinically relevant hypotension (systolic blood pressure

BACKGROUND The selective cardiac myosin activator omecamtiv mecarbil has been shown to improve cardiac function in patients with heart failure with a reduced ejection fraction. Its effect on cardiovascular outcomes is unknown. METHODS We randomly assigned 8256 patients (inpatients and outpatients) with symptomatic chronic heart failure and an ejection fraction of 35% or less to receive omecamtiv mecarbil (using pharmacokinetic-guided doses of 25 mg, 37.5 mg, or 50 mg twice daily) or placebo, in addition to standard heart-failure therapy. The primary outcome was a composite of a first heart-failure event (hospitalization or urgent visit for heart failure) or death from cardiovascular causes. RESULTS During a median of 21.8 months, a primary-outcome event occurred in 1523 of 4120 patients (37.0%) in the omecamtiv mecarbil group and in 1607 of 4112 patients (39.1%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.92; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.86 to 0.99; P = 0.03). A total of 808 patients (19.6%) and 798 patients (19.4%), respectively, died from cardiovascular causes (hazard ratio, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.92 to 1.11). There was no significant difference between groups in the change from baseline on the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire total symptom score. At week 24, the change from baseline for the median N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide level was 10% lower in the omecamtiv mecarbil group than in the placebo group; the median cardiac troponin I level was 4 ng per liter higher. The frequency of cardiac ischemic and ventricular arrhythmia events was similar in the two groups. CONCLUSIONS Among patients with heart failure and a reduced ejection, those who received omecamtiv mecarbil had a lower incidence of a composite of a heart-failure event or death from cardiovascular causes than those who received placebo. (Funded by Amgen and others; GALACTIC-HF ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02929329; EudraCT number, 2016 -002299-28.). Copyright © 2020 Massachusetts Medical Society.

Aims: The safety and efficacy of the novel selective cardiac myosin activator, omecamtiv mecarbil, in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) is being tested in the Global Approach to Lowering Adverse Cardiac outcomes Through Improving Contractility in Heart Failure (GALACTIC-HF) trial. Here we describe the baseline characteristics of participants in GALACTIC-HF and how these compare with other contemporary trials. Methods and results: Adults with established HFrEF, New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional class ≥II, ejection fraction ≤35%, elevated natriuretic peptides and either current hospitalization for heart failure or history of hospitalization/emergency department visit for heart failure within a year were randomized to either placebo or omecamtiv mecarbil (pharmacokinetic-guided dosing: 25, 37.5, or 50 mg bid). A total of 8256 patients [male (79%), non-white (22%), mean age 65 years] were enrolled with a mean ejection fraction 27%, ischaemic aetiology in 54%, NYHA class II 53% and III/IV 47%, and median N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide 1971 pg/mL. Heart failure therapies at baseline were among the most effectively employed in contemporary heart failure trials. GALACTIC-HF randomized patients representative of recent heart failure registries and trials with substantial numbers of patients also having characteristics understudied in previous trials including more from North America (n = 1386), enrolled as inpatients (n = 2084), systolic blood pressure

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. © 2020 Published on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology. All rights reserved. © The Author(s) 2020.

Background: To describe the baseline characteristics of patients with heart failure and preserved left ventricular ejection fraction enrolled in the PARAGON-HF trial (Prospective Comparison of Angiotensin Receptor Neprilysin Inhibitor With Angiotensin Receptor Blocker Global Outcomes in HFpEF) comparing sacubitril/valsartan to valsartan in reducing morbidity and mortality. Methods and Results: We report key demographic, clinical, and laboratory findings, and baseline therapies, of 4822 patients randomized in PARAGON-HF, grouped by factors that influence criteria for study inclusion. We further compared baseline characteristics of patients enrolled in PARAGON-HF with those patients enrolled in other recent trials of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). Among patients enrolled from various regions (16% Asia-Pacific, 37% Central Europe, 7% Latin America, 12% North America, 28% Western Europe), the mean age of patients enrolled in PARAGON-HF was 72.7±8.4 years, 52% of patients were female, and mean left ventricular ejection fraction was 57.5%, similar to other trials of HFpEF. Most patients were in New York Heart Association class II, and 38% had ≥1 hospitalizations for heart failure within the previous 9 months. Diabetes mellitus (43%) and chronic kidney disease (47%) were more prevalent than in previous trials of HFpEF. Many patients were prescribed angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers (85%), β-blockers (80%), calcium channel blockers (36%), and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (24%). As specified in the protocol, virtually all patients were on diuretics, had elevated plasma concentrations of N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (median, 911 pg/mL; interquartile range, 464-1610), and structural heart disease. Conclusions: PARAGON-HF represents a contemporary group of patients with HFpEF with similar age and sex distribution compared with prior HFpEF trials but higher prevalence of comorbidities. These findings provide insights into the impact of inclusion criteria on, and regional variation in, HFpEF patient characteristics. Clinical Trial Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01920711. © 2018 American Heart Association, Inc.

The coexistence of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and heart failure (HF), either with reduced (HFrEF) or preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), is frequent (30–40% of patients) and associated with a higher risk of HF hospitalization, all-cause and cardiovascular (CV) mortality. The most important causes of HF in T2DM are coronary artery disease, arterial hypertension and a direct detrimental effect of T2DM on the myocardium. T2DM is often unrecognized in HF patients, and vice versa, which emphasizes the importance of an active search for both disorders in the clinical practice. There are no specific limitations to HF treatment in T2DM. Subanalyses of trials addressing HF treatment in the general population have shown that all HF therapies are similarly effective regardless of T2DM. Concerning T2DM treatment in HF patients, most guidelines currently recommend metformin as the first-line choice. Sulphonylureas and insulin have been the traditional second- and third-line therapies although their safety in HF is equivocal. Neither glucagon-like preptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists, nor dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP4) inhibitors reduce the risk for HF hospitalization. Indeed, a DPP4 inhibitor, saxagliptin, has been associated with a higher risk of HF hospitalization. Thiazolidinediones (pioglitazone and rosiglitazone) are contraindicated in patients with (or at risk of) HF. In recent trials, sodium–glucose co-transporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitors, empagliflozin and canagliflozin, have both shown a significant reduction in HF hospitalization in patients with established CV disease or at risk of CV disease. Several ongoing trials should provide an insight into the effectiveness of SGLT2 inhibitors in patients with HFrEF and HFpEF in the absence of T2DM. © 2018 The Authors. European Journal of Heart Failure © 2018 European Society of Cardiology

BACKGROUND: In patients with acute heart failure, early intervention with an intravenous vasodilator has been proposed as a therapeutic goal to reduce cardiac-wall stress and, potentially, myocardial injury, thereby favorably affecting patients' long-term prognosis. METHODS: In this double-blind trial, we randomly assigned 2157 patients with acute heart failure to receive a continuous intravenous infusion of either ularitide at a dose of 15 ng per kilogram of body weight per minute or matching placebo for 48 hours, in addition to accepted therapy. Treatment was initiated a median of 6 hours after the initial clinical evaluation. The coprimary outcomes were death from cardiovascular causes during a median follow-up of 15 months and a hierarchical composite end point that evaluated the initial 48-hour clinical course. RESULTS: Death from cardiovascular causes occurred in 236 patients in the ularitide group and 225 patients in the placebo group (21.7% vs. 21.0%; hazard ratio, 1.03; 96% confidence interval, 0.85 to 1.25; P=0.75). In the intention-to-treat analysis, there was no significant between-group difference with respect to the hierarchical composite outcome. The ularitide group had greater reductions in systolic blood pressure and in levels of N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide than the placebo group. However, changes in cardiac troponin T levels during the infusion did not differ between the two groups in the 55% of patients with paired data. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with acute heart failure, ularitide exerted favorable physiological effects (without affecting cardiac troponin levels), but short-term treatment did not affect a clinical composite end point or reduce long-term cardiovascular mortality. Copyright © 2017 Massachusetts Medical Society. All rights reserved.

The TRUE-AHF is a randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, placebo-controlled trial which is evaluating the effects of a 48-h infusion of ularitide (15 ng/kg/min) on the short- and long-term clinical course of patients with acute heart failure. Noteworthy features of the study include the early enrolment of patients following their initial clinical presentation (within 12 h), and entry blood pressure criteria and thresholds for the adjustment of drug infusion rates, which aim to minimize the risk of hypotension. The trial has two primary endpoints: (i) cardiovascular mortality during long-term follow-up; and (ii) the clinical course of patients during their index hospitalization. Cardiovascular mortality is evaluated in this event-driven trial by following all randomized patients for the occurrence of death until the end of the entire study without truncation at an arbitrarily determined early time point. The clinical course during the index hospitalization is evaluated using the hierarchical clinical composite endpoint, which combines information regarding changes in symptoms and the occurrence of in-hospital worsening heart failure events and death into a single ranked metric that captures interval clinical events and minimizes the likelihood of missing data and confounding due to intensification of background therapy. The design of the TRUE-AHF trial capitalizes on lessons learned from earlier trials and aims to evaluate definitively the potential benefit of ularitide in patients with acute heart failure. Trial registration: NCT01661634. © 2016 The Authors. European Journal of Heart Failure © 2016 European Society of Cardiology

Despite the availability of a number of different classes of therapeutic agents with proven efficacy in heart failure, the clinical course of heart failure patients is characterized by a reduction in life expectancy, a progressive decline in health-related quality of life and functional status, as well as a high risk of hospitalization. New approaches are needed to address the unmet medical needs of this patient population. The European Medicines Agency (EMA) is undertaking a revision of its Guideline on Clinical Investigation of Medicinal Products for the Treatment of Chronic Heart Failure. The draft version of the Guideline was released for public consultation in January 2016. The Cardiovascular Round Table of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC), in partnership with the Heart Failure Association of the ESC, convened a dedicated two-day workshop to discuss three main topic areas of major interest in the field and addressed in this draft EMA guideline: (i) assessment of efficacy (i.e. endpoint selection and statistical analysis); (ii) clinical trial design (i.e. issues pertaining to patient population, optimal medical therapy, run-in period); and (iii) research approaches for testing novel therapeutic principles (i.e. cell therapy). This paper summarizes the key outputs from the workshop, reviews areas of expert consensus, and identifies gaps that require further research or discussion. Collaboration between regulators, industry, clinical trialists, cardiologists, health technology assessment bodies, payers, and patient organizations is critical to address the ongoing challenge of heart failure and to ensure the development and market access of new therapeutics in a scientifically robust, practical and safe way. © 2017 The Authors. European Journal of Heart Failure © 2017 European Society of Cardiology

Aims Predicting incident diabetes could inform treatment strategies for diabetes prevention, but the incremental benefit of recalculating risk using updated risk factors is unknown. We used baseline and 1-year data from the Nateglinide and Valsartan in Impaired Glucose Tolerance Outcomes Research (NAVIGATOR) Trial to compare diabetes risk prediction using historical or updated clinical information. Methods Among non-diabetic participants reaching 1 year of follow-up in NAVIGATOR, we compared the performance of the published baseline diabetes risk model with a “landmark” model incorporating risk factors updated at the 1-year time point. The C-statistic was used to compare model discrimination and reclassification analyses to demonstrate the relative accuracy of diabetes prediction. Results A total of 7527 participants remained non-diabetic at 1 year, and 2375 developed diabetes during a median of 4 years of follow-up. The C-statistic for the landmark model was higher (0.73 [95% CI 0.72–0.74]) than for the baseline model (0.67 [95% CI 0.66–0.68]). The landmark model improved classification to modest ( 40%) 4-year risk, with a net reclassification index of 0.14 (95% CI 0.10–0.16) and an integrated discrimination index of 0.01 (95% CI 0.003–0.013). Conclusions Using historical clinical values to calculate diabetes risk reduces the accuracy of prediction. Diabetes risk calculations should be routinely updated to inform discussions about diabetes prevention at both the patient and population health levels. © 2017 Elsevier Inc.