Background pharmacological therapy in the ANTHEM-HF: comparison to contemporary trials of novel heart failure therapies

Neurocardiology: translational advancements and potential

In our original white paper published in the The Journal of Physiology in 2016, we set out our knowledge of the structural and functional organization of cardiac autonomic control, how it remodels during disease, and approaches to exploit such knowledge for autonomic regulation therapy. The aim of this update is to build on this original blueprint, highlighting the significant progress which has been made in the field since and major challenges and opportunities that exist with regard to translation. Imbalances in autonomic responses, while beneficial in the short term, ultimately contribute to the evolution of cardiac pathology. As our understanding emerges of where and how to target in terms of actuators (including the heart and intracardiac nervous system (ICNS), stellate ganglia, dorsal root ganglia (DRG), vagus nerve, brainstem, and even higher centres), there is also a need to develop sensor technology to respond to appropriate biomarkers (electrophysiological, mechanical, and molecular) such that closed-loop autonomic regulation therapies can evolve. The goal is to work with endogenous control systems, rather than in opposition to them, to improve outcomes.

Comment on: The Role of a Multidisciplinary Heart Failure Clinic in Optimization of Guideline-Directed Medical Therapy: HF-optimize

I'm writing to provide more information about the study by Theresa et al., "The Role of a Multidisciplinary Heart Failure Clinic in Optimization of Guideline-Directed Medical Therapy: HF-optimize [1]." While the study examines how a multidisciplinary approach might be used to enhance medical care for heart failure patients controlled by guidelines, some restrictions, and factors should be discussed.

A Comparative Review of Vagal Nerve Stimulation Versus Baroreceptor Activation Therapy in Cardiac Diseases

Sympathetic imbalance coupled with impairment of baroreceptor control is a key factor responsible for hemodynamic abnormalities in congestive heart failure. Vagal nerve stimulation (VNS) and baroreceptor activation therapy (BAT) are two novel interventions for the same. In this paper, we review the role of sympathovagal alterations in cardiac diseases like heart failure, arrhythmia, hypertension (HTN), etc. Studies like neural cardiac therapy for heart failure (NECTAR-HF), autonomic regulation therapy to enhance myocardial function and reduce progression of heart failure (ANTHEM-HF), and baroreflex activation therapy for heart failure (BEAT-HF), which comprise the history, efficacy, limitations, and current protocols, were extensively analyzed in contrast to one another. Vagal nerve stimulation reverses the reflex inhibition of cardiac vagal efferent activity, which is caused as a result of sympathetic overdrive during the course for heart failure. It has shown encouraging results in certain pre-clinical studies; however, there is also a possibility of serious cardiovascular adverse events if given in higher than the recommended dosage. Attenuated baroreflex sensitivity is attributed to cardiac arrhythmogenesis during heart failure. Baroreceptor activation therapy reverses this phenomenon. However, the surgical procedure for baroreceptor stimulation can have unwarranted complications, including worsening heart failure and hypertension. Considering the effectiveness of the given modalities and taking into account the inconclusive evidence of their adverse events, more clinical trials are needed for establishing the future prospects of these interventional approaches.

Advances in Our Clinical Understanding of Autonomic Regulation Therapy Using Vagal Nerve Stimulation in Patients Living With Heart Failure

The ANTHEM-HF, INOVATE-HF, and NECTAR-HF clinical studies of autonomic regulation therapy (ART) using vagus nerve stimulation (VNS) systems have collectively provided dose-ranging information enabling the development of several working hypotheses on how stimulation frequency can be utilized during VNS for tolerability and improving cardiovascular outcomes in patients living with heart failure (HF) and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). Changes in heart rate dynamics, comprising reduced heart rate (HR) and increased HR variability, are a biomarker of autonomic nerve system engagement and cardiac control, and appear to be sensitive to VNS that is delivered using a stimulation frequency that is similar to the natural operating frequency of the vagus nerve. Among prior studies, the ANTHEM-HF Pilot Study has provided the clearest evidence of autonomic engagement with VNS that was delivered using a stimulation frequency that was within the operating range of the vagus nerve. Achieving autonomic engagement was accompanied by improvement from baseline in six-minute walk duration (6MWD), health-related quality of life, and left ventricular EF (LVEF), over and above those achieved by concomitant guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) administered to counteract harmful neurohormonal activation, with relative freedom from deleterious effects. Autonomic engagement and positive directional changes have persisted over time, and an exploratory analysis suggests that improvement in autonomic tone, symptoms, and physical capacity may be independent of baseline NT-proBNP values. Based upon these encouraging observations, prospective, randomized controlled trials examining the effects on symptoms and cardiac function as well as natural history have been warranted. A multi-national, large-scale, randomized, controlled trial is well underway to determine the outcomes associated with ART using autonomic nervous system engagement as a guide for VNS delivery.

Therapeutic responsiveness to vagus nerve stimulation in patients receiving beta-blockade for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction

Background

The effect of beta-blockade (BB) on response to vagus nerve stimulation (VNS) has not been reported in patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). In the ANTHEM-HF Study, 60 patients received chronic cervical VNS. Background pharmacological therapy remained unchanged during the study, and VNS intensity was stable once up-titrated. Significant improvement from baseline occurred in resting 24-hour heart rate (HR), 24-hour HR variability (SDNN), left ventricular EF (LVEF), 6-minute walk distance (6MWD), and quality of life (MLWHFS) at 6 months post-titration. We evaluated whether response to VNS was related to percentage of target BB dose (PTBBD) at baseline.

Methods

Patients were categorized by baseline PTBBD, then analyzed for changes from baseline in symptoms and function at 6 months after VNS titration.

Results

All patients received BB, either PTBBD ≥ 50 % (16 patients, 27 %; group 1) or PTBBD < 50 % (44 patients, 73 %; group 2). Heart rate, systolic blood pressure, LVEF, use of ACE/ARB, and use of MRA were similar between the two groups at baseline. Six months after up-titration, VNS reduced HR and significantly improved SDNN, LVEF, 6MWD, and MLWHFS equally in both groups.

Conclusions

In the ANTHEM-HF study, VNS responsiveness appeared to be independent of the baseline BB dose administered.

Comparison of symptomatic and functional responses to vagus nerve stimulation in ANTHEM-HF, INOVATE-HF, and NECTAR-HF

AIMS

Clinical studies of vagal nerve stimulation (VNS) for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction have had mixed results to date. We sought to compare VNS delivery and associated changes in symptoms and function in autonomic regulation therapy via left or right cervical vagus nerve stimulation in patients with chronic heart failure (ANTHEM-HF), increase of vagal tone in heart failure (INOVATE-HF), and neural cardiac therapy for heart failure (NECTAR-HF) for hypothesis generation.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Descriptive statistics were used to analyse data from the public domain for differences in proportions using Pearson's chi-square test, differences in mean values using Student's unpaired t-test, and differences in changes of mean values using two-sample t-tests. Guideline-directed medical therapy recommendations were similar across studies. Fewer patients were in New York Heart Association 3, and baseline heart rate (HR) was higher in ANTHEM-HF. In INOVATE-HF, VNS was aimed at peripheral neural targets, using closed-loop delivery that required synchronization of VNS to R-wave sensing by an intracardiac lead. Pulse frequency was low (1-2 Hz) because of a timing schedule allowing ≤3 pulses of VNS following at most 25% of detected R waves. NECTAR-HF and ANTHEM-HF used open-loop VNS delivery (i.e. independent of any external signal) aimed at both central and peripheral targets. In NECTAR-HF, VNS delivery at 20 Hz caused off-target effects that limited VNS up-titration in a majority of patients. In ANTHEM-HF, VNS delivery at 10 Hz allowed up-titration until changes in HR dynamics were confirmed. Six months after VNS titration, significant improvements in both HR and HR variability occurred only in ANTHEM-HF. When ANTHEM-HF and NECTAR-HF were compared, greater improvements from baseline were observed in ANTHEM-HF in standard deviation in normal-to-normal R-R intervals (94 ± 26 to 111 ± 50 vs. 146 ± 48 to 130 ± 52 ms; P < 0.001), left ventricular ejection fraction (32 ± 7 to 37 ± 0.4 vs. 31 ± 6 to 33 ± 6; P < 0.05), and Minnesota Living with Heart Failure mean score (40 ± 14 to 21 ± 10 vs. 44 ± 22 to 36 ± 21; P < 0.002). When compared with INOVATE-HF, greater improvement in 6-min walk distance was observed in ANTHEM-HF (287 ± 66 to 346 ± 78 vs. 304 ± 111 to 334 ± 111 m; P < 0.04).

CONCLUSIONS

In this post-hoc analysis, differences in patient demographics were seen and may have caused the differential responses in symptoms and function observed in association with VNS. Major differences in technology platforms, neural targets, VNS delivery, and HR and HR variability responses could have also potentially played a very important role. Further study is underway in a randomized controlled trial with these considerations in mind.

Background pharmacological therapy in the ANTHEM-HF: comparison to contemporary trials of novel heart failure therapies

AIMS

Clinical trials of new heart failure (HF) therapies administer guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) as background pharmacologic treatment (BPT). In the ANTHEM-HF Pilot Study, addition of autonomic regulation therapy to GDMT significantly improved left ventricular function, New York Heart Association (NYHA) class, 6 min walk distance, and quality of life in patients with HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). A post hoc analysis was performed to compare BPT in ANTHEM-HF with two other trials of novel HF therapies: the PARADIGM-HF study of sacubitril-valsartan and the SHIFT study of ivadrabine. All three studies evaluated patients with HFrEF, and the recommendations for use of GDMT were similar. A left ventricular ejection fraction ≤40% was required for entry into ANTHEM-HF and PARADIGM-HF and ≤35% for SHIFT. NYHA 2 or 3 symptoms were required for entry into ANTHEM-HF, and patients with predominantly NYHA 2 or 3 symptoms were enrolled in PARADIGM-HF and SHIFT.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Data on BPT were obtained from peer-reviewed publications and the public domain. Pearson's χ² test was used to evaluate differences in proportions, and Student's unpaired t-test was used to evaluate differences in mean values. The minimum period of stable GDMT required before randomization was longer in ANTHEM-HF: 3 months vs. 1 month in PARADIGM-HF and SHIFT, respectively. When compared with PARADIGM-HF and SHIFT, more patients in ANTHEM-HF received beta-blockers (100% vs. 93% and 89%, P < 0.04 and P < 0.007) and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (75% vs. 55% and 61%, P < 0.002 and P < 0.03). More patients in PARADIGM-HF received an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker than in ANTHEM-HF or SHIFT (100% vs. 85%, P < 0.0001, and 100% vs. 91%, P < 0.001), which was related to PARADIGM's design. When beta-blocker doses in ANTHEM-HF and SHIFT were compared, significantly fewer patients in ANTHEM-HF received doses ≥100% of target (10% vs. 23%, P < 0.02), and fewer patients tended to receive doses ≥50% of target (17% vs. 26%, P = 0.11). When ANTHEM-HF and PARADIGM-HF were compared, more patients in ANTHEM-HF tended to receive doses ≥100% of target (10% vs. 7%, P = 0.36), and fewer patients tended to receive doses ≥50% of target (17% vs. 20%, P = 0.56).

CONCLUSIONS

Background treatment with GDMT in ANTHEM-HF compared favourably with that in two other contemporary trials of new HF therapies. The minimum period of stable GDMT required before randomization was longer, and GDMT remained unchanged for the study's duration. These findings serve to further support the potential role of autonomic regulation therapy as an adjunct to GDMT for patients with HFrEF.