Search

The clinical implications of hypertension in addition to a high prevalence of both uncontrolled blood pressure and medication nonadherence promote interest in developing device-based approaches to hypertension treatment. The expansion of device-based therapies and ongoing clinical trials underscores the need for consistency in trial design, conduct, and definitions of clinical study elements to permit trial comparability and data poolability. Standardizing methods of blood pressure assessment, effectiveness measures beyond blood pressure alone, and safety outcomes are paramount. The Hypertension Academic Research Consortium (HARC) document represents an integration of evolving evidence and consensus opinion among leading experts in cardiovascular medicine and hypertension research with regulatory perspectives on clinical trial design and methodology. The HARC document integrates the collective information among device-based therapies for hypertension to better address existing challenges and identify unmet needs for technologies proposed to treat the world's leading cause of death and disability. Consistent with the Academic Research Consortium charter, this document proposes pragmatic consensus clinical design principles and outcomes definitions for studies aimed at evaluating device-based hypertension therapies. © 2022 Lippincott Williams and Wilkins. All rights reserved.

Aims The Valve Academic Research Consortium (VARC), founded in 2010, was intended to (i) identify appropriate clinical endpoints and (ii) standardize definitions of these endpoints for transcatheter and surgical aortic valve clinical trials. Rapid evolution of the field, including the emergence of new complications, expanding clinical indications, and novel therapy strategies have mandated further refinement and expansion of these definitions to ensure clinical relevance. This document provides an update of the most appropriate clinical endpoint definitions to be used in the conduct of transcatheter and surgical aortic valve clinical research. Methods and results Several years after the publication of the VARC-2 manuscript, an in-person meeting was held involving over 50 independent clinical experts representing several professional societies, academic research organizations, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and industry representatives to (i) evaluate utilization of VARC endpoint definitions in clinical research, (ii) discuss the scope of this focused update, and (iii) review and revise specific clinical endpoint definitions. A writing committee of independent experts was convened and subsequently met to further address outstanding issues. There were ongoing discussions with FDA and many experts to develop a new classification schema for bioprosthetic valve dysfunction and failure. Overall, this multi-disciplinary process has resulted in important recommendations for data reporting, clinical research methods, and updated endpoint definitions. New definitions or modifications of existing definitions are being proposed for repeat hospitalizations, access site-related complications, bleeding events, conduction disturbances, cardiac structural complications, and bioprosthetic valve dysfunction and failure (including valve leaflet thickening and thrombosis). A more granular 5-class grading scheme for paravalvular regurgitation (PVR) is being proposed to help refine the assessment of PVR. Finally, more specific recommendations on quality-of-life assessments have been included, which have been targeted to specific clinical study designs. Conclusions Acknowledging the dynamic and evolving nature of less-invasive aortic valve therapies, further refinements of clinical research processes are required. The adoption of these updated and newly proposed VARC-3 endpoints and definitions will ensure homogenous event reporting, accurate adjudication, and appropriate comparisons of clinical research studies involving devices and new therapeutic strategies.

Background The role of direct oral anticoagulants as compared with vitamin K antagonists for atrial fibrillation after successful transcatheter aortic-valve replacement (TAVR) has not been well studied. Methods We conducted a multicenter, prospective, randomized, open-label, adjudicator-masked trial comparing edoxaban with vitamin K antagonists in patients with prevalent or incident atrial fibrillation as the indication for oral anticoagulation after successful TAVR. The primary efficacy outcome was a composite of adverse events consisting of death from any cause, myocardial infarction, ischemic stroke, systemic thromboembolism, valve thrombosis, or major bleeding. The primary safety outcome was major bleeding. On the basis of a hierarchical testing plan, the primary efficacy and safety outcomes were tested sequentially for noninferiority, with noninferiority of edoxaban established if the upper boundary of the 95% confidence interval for the hazard ratio did not exceed 1.38. Superiority testing of edoxaban for efficacy would follow if noninferiority and superiority were established for major bleeding. Results A total of 1426 patients were enrolled (713 in each group). The mean age of the patients was 82.1 years, and 47.5% of the patients were women. Almost all the patients had atrial fibrillation before TAVR. The rate of the composite primary efficacy outcome was 17.3 per 100 person-years in the edoxaban group and 16.5 per 100 person-years in the vitamin K antagonist group (hazard ratio, 1.05; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.85 to 1.31; P=0.01 for noninferiority). Rates of major bleeding were 9.7 per 100 person-years and 7.0 per 100 person-years, respectively (hazard ratio, 1.40; 95% CI, 1.03 to 1.91; P=0.93 for noninferiority); the difference between groups was mainly due to more gastrointestinal bleeding with edoxaban. Rates of death from any cause or stroke were 10.0 per 100 person-years in the edoxaban group and 11.7 per 100 person-years in the vitamin K antagonist group (hazard ratio, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.66 to 1.11). Conclusions In patients with mainly prevalent atrial fibrillation who underwent successful TAVR, edoxaban was noninferior to vitamin K antagonists as determined by a hazard ratio margin of 38% for a composite primary outcome of adverse clinical events. The incidence of major bleeding was higher with edoxaban than with vitamin K antagonists. (Funded by Daiichi Sankyo; ENVISAGE-TAVI AF ClinicalTrials.gov number, .) Edoxaban for Atrial Fibrillation with TAVR In a randomized trial involving patients who had atrial fibrillation after TAVR, edoxaban was noninferior to vitamin K antagonists with respect to a composite outcome of death, MI, stroke, thromboembolism, valve thrombosis, or major bleeding but was associated with a higher incidence of major bleeding.

Sacubitril-Valsartan in Acute Myocardial Infarction In a randomized trial, 5661 patients with acute myocardial infarction and a reduced left ventricular ejection fraction, pulmonary congestion, or both were assigned to receive either sacubitril-valsartan or ramipril. At a median of 22 months, there was no significant difference between the two groups in the incidence of death from cardiovascular causes or incident heart failure. Background In patients with symptomatic heart failure, sacubitril-valsartan has been found to reduce the risk of hospitalization and death from cardiovascular causes more effectively than an angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibitor. Trials comparing the effects of these drugs in patients with acute myocardial infarction have been lacking. Methods We randomly assigned patients with myocardial infarction complicated by a reduced left ventricular ejection fraction, pulmonary congestion, or both to receive either sacubitril-valsartan (97 mg of sacubitril and 103 mg of valsartan twice daily) or ramipril (5 mg twice daily) in addition to recommended therapy. The primary outcome was death from cardiovascular causes or incident heart failure (outpatient symptomatic heart failure or heart failure leading to hospitalization), whichever occurred first. Results A total of 5661 patients underwent randomization; 2830 were assigned to receive sacubitril-valsartan and 2831 to receive ramipril. Over a median of 22 months, a primary-outcome event occurred in 338 patients (11.9%) in the sacubitril-valsartan group and in 373 patients (13.2%) in the ramipril group (hazard ratio, 0.90; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.78 to 1.04; P=0.17). Death from cardiovascular causes or hospitalization for heart failure occurred in 308 patients (10.9%) in the sacubitril-valsartan group and in 335 patients (11.8%) in the ramipril group (hazard ratio, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.78 to 1.07); death from cardiovascular causes in 168 (5.9%) and 191 (6.7%), respectively (hazard ratio, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.71 to 1.08); and death from any cause in 213 (7.5%) and 242 (8.5%), respectively (hazard ratio, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.73 to 1.05). Treatment was discontinued because of an adverse event in 357 patients (12.6%) in the sacubitril-valsartan group and 379 patients (13.4%) in the ramipril group. Conclusions Sacubitril-valsartan was not associated with a significantly lower incidence of death from cardiovascular causes or incident heart failure than ramipril among patients with acute myocardial infarction. (Funded by Novartis; PARADISE-MI ClinicalTrials.gov number, .)