The AWAKE-HF Study: Sacubitril/Valsartan Impact on Daily Physical Activity and Sleep in Heart Failure

Wearable Accelerometer-Derived Measures of Physical Activity in Heart Failure: Insights From the DETERMINE trials

INTRODUCTION

Wearable accelerometers allow continuous assessment of physical activity during normal living conditions and may be useful in evaluating the effects of treatment for heart failure. We explored the relationships between accelerometer measures of physical activity and 6-minute walk distance and patient-reported measures of functional limitation in participants across the entire spectrum of left ventricular ejection fraction in the DETERMINE (Dapagliflozin EffecT on ExeRcise capacity using a 6-MINutE walk test in patients with heart failure) trials.

METHODS

A subgroup of patients in the DETERMINE trials wore a waist-based accelerometer during 7-day periods at 3 points during the trial: between screening and randomization and during weeks 8 and 14. Patients completed the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ) and 6-minute walk distance (6MWD) at baseline and at weeks 8 and 16.

RESULTS

Of the 817 patients randomized, 319 (39%) had adequate baseline accelerometer data. Patients with lower levels of physical activity had lower (ie, worse) KCCQ scores and 6MWD, higher NT-proBNP levels and BMIs, worse kidney function, and a greater likelihood of diabetes and atrial fibrillation. Baseline accelerometer values had weak correlations with KCCQ summary scores (Pearson r = 0.06-0.21) and weak to moderate correlations with 6MWD (Pearson r = 0.20-0.31). The change from baseline to 16 weeks in accelerometer-measured physical activity correlated weakly with the change in KCCQ summary scores (Pearson r = 0-0.18) and 6MWD (r = 0.01-0.10).

CONCLUSIONS

In the DETERMINE trials, accelerometer-based measures of physical activity correlated modestly with KCCQ summary scores and 6MWD. Accelerometer-based assessments of physical activity may provide additional information complementing that obtained from standard measures of functional limitation in patients with heart failure.

Sacubitril/Valsartan vs ACE Inhibitors or ARBs: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Trials

BACKGROUND

Sacubitril/valsartan (SAV) is crucial for managing heart failure (HF). Randomized clinical trials have shown SAV's superiority over angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEI) and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) in reducing N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide levels. However, results for cardiovascular (CV) mortality, HF rehospitalization, and all-cause mortality have been mixed.

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to determine hard endpoints among the population with HF treated with SAV vs ACEI/ARBs and conduct a comprehensive risk-benefit analysis of the safety profile for SAV vs ACEI/ARB.

METHODS

We queried PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials for randomized clinical trials from inception to November 2023. We included studies that compared SAV to ACEI or ARBs and reported hard endpoints, including all-cause mortality, CV mortality, and HF rehospitalizations. Random effect model was used, and categorical values were analyzed using risk ratios (RRs) and 95% CI. The I2 test was used to assess between-study heterogeneity. Publication bias was assessed via funnel plots and the Egger test. This study was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42024497661).

RESULTS

The study included a total of 14 trials (n = 25,167). SAV reduced all-cause mortality in the population with an ejection fraction (EF) ≤40% (RR: 0.88; 95% CI: 0.81-0.94; P = 0.0006), but not in those with EF >40% (RR: 0.97; 95% 0.85-1.11; P = 0.67). There was no difference in CV mortality across EF spectrums (RR: 0.9; 95% CI: 0.79-1.03; P = 0.13). HF readmission was lower in the SAV-treated group regardless of EF (RR: 0.85; 95% CI: 0.79-0.91; P = 0.00001).

CONCLUSIONS

The SAV-treated group, across all EF spectrum, was less likely to be rehospitalized than the ACEI/ARB-treated group. However, all-cause mortality reduction was only noted in the SAV group with EF <40%. No reduction in CV-related mortality was observed across the EF spectrum.

From Wristbands to Implants: The Transformative Role of Wearables in Heart Failure Care

BACKGROUND

Heart failure (HF) management increasingly relies on innovative solutions to enhance monitoring and care. Wearable devices, originally popularized for fitness tracking, show promise in clinical decision-making for HF. This study explores the application and potential for the broader integration of wearable technology in HF management, emphasizing remote monitoring and personalized care.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature review was performed to assess the role of wearables in HF management, focusing on functionalities like vital sign tracking, patient engagement, and clinical decision support. Clinical outcomes and barriers to adopting wearable technology in HF care were critically analyzed.

RESULTS

Wearable devices increasingly track physiological parameters relevant to HF, such as heart rate, physical activity, and sleep. They can identify at-risk patients, promote lifestyle changes, facilitate early diagnosis, and accurately detect arrhythmias that lead to decompensation. Additionally, wearables may assess fluid status, identifying early signs of decompensation to prevent hospitalization and supporting therapeutic adjustments. They also enhance physical activity and optimize cardiac rehabilitation programs, improving patient outcomes. Both wearable and implanted cardiac devices enable continuous, non-invasive monitoring through small devices. However, challenges like data integration, regulatory approval, and reimbursement impede their widespread adoption.

CONCLUSIONS

Wearable technology can transform HF management through continuous monitoring and early interventions. Collaboration among involved parties is essential to overcome integration challenges and validate most of these devices in clinical practice.

Sacubitril/valsartan compared to equivalent/sub-equivalent dose angiotensin receptor blocker or angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction: a meta-analysis of randomized trials

PURPOSE

The objective of this meta-analysis is to determine how sacubitril/valsartan (SV) compares to equivalent and sub-equivalent angiotensin receptor blockers (ARB) or angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEI) in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF).

METHODS

The databases of PubMed and EMBASE were used to identify those randomized controlled trials which compared SV to ARB/ACEI in patients with HFrEF. Only those trials that reported outcomes regarding total mortality, cardiovascular mortality, and worsening heart failure were considered. Meta-analysis was performed separately in those patients receiving equivalent doses of ARB/ACEI and those receiving sub-equivalent doses. Equivalent doses were SV 97/103 = valsartan 160 mg twice daily = enalapril 20 mg twice daily = ramipril 5 mg twice daily. Meta-analyses were performed using Review Manager 5.4.

RESULTS

Twelve randomized trials were identified involving 17,484 patients: 11,291 in the sub-equivalent group (8 trials) and 6193 in the equivalent group (4 trials). Meta-analyses showed there were no statistical differences regarding the outcomes of total mortality, cardiovascular mortality, and worsening heart failure in the equivalent dosing group. However, SV reduced total mortality (risk ratio (RR) = 0.85, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.78-0.93, p < 0.001), cardiovascular mortality (RR = 0.81, 95% CI = 0.73-0.90, p ≤ 0.001) and worsening heart failure (RR = 0.77, 95% CI = 0.64-0.92, p = 0.005) in the sub-equivalent group.

CONCLUSION

When compared to equivalent doses of ARB/ACEI, SV is not superior in reducing mortality and worsening heart failure. SV is superior when compared to sub-equivalent doses of ACEI.

Is Sacubitril/Valsartan a Superior Agent in Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction? A Review of Randomized Comparative Trials

Background: The PARADIGM HF trial showed sacubitril/valsartan (SV) to be superior to enalapril in patients with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). Since its publication, several other randomized trials have compared SV to either an angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor (ACEI) or angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) in HFrEF which showed conflicting results regarding mortality, hospitalizations, and quality of life scoring. Objective: To review randomized comparative trials of SV to either ACEI or ARB in patients with HFrEF. Methods: PubMed and Embase databases were used to identify randomized comparative trials. The text terms sacubitril, angiotensin neprilysin, and LCZ696 were used for both searches. Meta-analysis, retrospective, adhoc, and cohort studies were excluded. Results: 1476 and 3983 citations were reviewed on PubMed and Embase, respectively. Of these, 11 randomized comparative trials to either ACEI or ARB were included for analysis. The mortality/quality of life benefits of SV over enalapril in the PARADIGM HF were not corroborated in any of the other trials. The effect of hospitalizations for heart failure was inconsistent among trials. Exercise tolerance was not improved with SV versus enalapril. Conclusion: The results of the PARADIGM HF trial have largely not been confirmed in subsequent randomized comparative trials.

Wearable Sensors to Monitor Physical Activity in Heart Failure Clinical Trials: State-of-the-Art Review

BACKGROUND

Estimation of the effects that drugs or other interventions have on patients' symptoms and functions is crucial in heart failure trials. Traditional symptoms and functions clinical outcome assessments have important limitations. Actigraphy may help to overcome these limitations due to its objective nature and the potential for continuous recording of data. However, actigraphy is not currently accepted as clinically relevant by key stakeholders.

METHODS AND RESULTS

In this state-of-the-art study, the key aspects to consider when implementing actigraphy in heart failure trials are discussed. They include which actigraphy-derived measures should be considered, how to build endpoints using them, how to measure and analyze them, and how to handle the patients' and sites' logistics of integrating devices into trials. A comprehensive recommendation based on the current evidence is provided.

CONCLUSION

Actigraphy is technically feasible in clinical trials involving heart failure, but successful implementation and use to demonstrate clinically important differences in physical functioning with drug or other interventions require careful consideration of many design choices.

Effect of Dapagliflozin Versus Placebo on Symptoms and 6-Minute Walk Distance in Patients With Heart Failure: The DETERMINE Randomized Clinical Trials

BACKGROUND

Sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors reduce the risk of worsening heart failure (HF) and cardiovascular death in patients with HF irrespective of left ventricular ejection fraction. It is important to determine whether therapies for HF improve symptoms and functional capacity.

METHODS

The DETERMINE (Dapagliflozin Effect on Exercise Capacity Using a 6-Minute Walk Test in Patients With Heart Failure) double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter trials assessed the efficacy of the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor dapagliflozin on the Total Symptom Score (TSS) and Physical Limitation Scale (PLS) of the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ) and 6-minute walk distance (6MWD) in 313 patients with HF with reduced ejection fraction (DETERMINE-Reduced) and in 504 patients with HF with preserved ejection fraction (DETERMINE-Preserved) with New York Heart Association class II or III symptoms and elevated natriuretic peptide levels. The primary outcomes were changes in the KCCQ-TSS, KCCQ-PLS, and 6MWD after 16 weeks of treatment.

RESULTS

Among the 313 randomized patients with HF with reduced ejection fraction, the median placebo-corrected difference in KCCQ-TSS from baseline at 16 weeks was 4.2 (95% CI, 1.0, 8.2; P=0.022) in favor of dapagliflozin. The median placebo-corrected difference in KCCQ-PLS was 4.2 (95% CI, 0.0, 8.3; P=0.058). The median placebo-corrected difference in 6MWD from baseline at 16 weeks was 3.2 meters (95% CI, -6.5, 13.0; P=0.69). In the 504 patients with HF with preserved ejection fraction, the median placebo-corrected 16-week difference in KCCQ-TSS and KCCQ-PLS was 3.2 (95% CI, 0.4, 6.0; P=0.079) and 3.1 (-0.1, 5.4; P=0.23), respectively. The median 16-week difference in 6MWD was 1.6 meters (95% CI, -5.9, 9.0; P=0.67). In an exploratory post hoc analysis of both trials combined (DETERMINE-Pooled), the median placebo-corrected difference from baseline at 16 weeks was 3.7 (1.5, 5.9; P=0.005) for KCCQ-TSS, 4.0 (0.3, 4.9; P=0.036) for KCCQ-PLS, and 2.5 meters (-3.5, 8.4; P=0.50) for 6MWD.

CONCLUSIONS

Dapagliflozin improved the KCCQ-TSS in patients with HF with reduced ejection fraction but did not improve KCCQ-PLS or 6MWD. Dapagliflozin did not improve these outcomes in patients with HF with preserved ejection fraction. In a post hoc analysis including all patients across the full spectrum of ejection fraction, there was a beneficial effect of dapagliflozin on KCCQ-TSS and KCCQ-PLS but not 6MWD.

REGISTRATION

URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifiers: NCT03877237 and NCT03877224.

Sacubitril/Valsartan in the Treatment of Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction Focusing on the Impact on the Quality of Life: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Clinical Trials

There exists a paucity of research data reported by analyses performed on randomized clinical trials (RCTs) that encompass quality of life (QOL) and the aftermath for patients suffering from heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). This systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) have been done to evaluate the drug sacubitril/valsartan in the treatment of heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) with a clear focus on the effect it bestows on measures of physical exercise tolerance and quality of life. A thorough systematic search was done in databases including Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), ClinicalTrials.gov, Embase, and PubMed from 1 January 2010 to 1 January 2023. The search only included published RCTs on adult patients aged 18 and above, with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). Data analysis was performed by using the software RevMan 5.4 (Cochrane Collaboration, London, United Kingdom). The included studies' bias risk was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration's Risk of Bias tool. The quality of evidence for the primary outcome was done using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations (GRADE) framework. This systematic review and meta-analysis of RCTs yielded 458 studies, of which eight randomized clinical trials were included and analyzed. The meta-analysis of the included trials shows that the I2 value is 61% (i.e., I2 > 50%), demonstrating a substantial heterogeneity within the studies. The left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) expressed in percentage was reported in the five studies, and thereby, a subgroup analysis that yielded a confidence interval (CI) of 95% had the standard mean difference of 0.02 (-0.02, 0.07). The trials had disparity between the reporting of effect on peak oxygen consumption (VO2), measured through cardiopulmonary exercise testing (CPET) methods, six-minute walking test (6MWT), overall physical activity, and exercise capacity. Sacubitril/valsartan did not exponentially improve peak VO2 or 6MWT in these trials; however, the patient-reported data suggested that the quality of life was modestly influenced by the drug. A subgroup analysis was performed using the pooled effect value by the random effects model. The findings showed that the sacubitril/valsartan group significantly was better than the control group in improving HFrEF-associated health-related quality of life (HRQoL). This study is a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials that evaluated the drug sacubitril/valsartan in treating heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and focused on its tangible effect on the measures of physical exercise tolerance and quality of life. It depicts that the statistical scrutiny due to the lack of significant data and parity across studies did not impart significant improvement of either LVEF, peak VO2, or 6MWT with the use of sacubitril/valsartan; however, the reported exercise tolerance, including daytime physical activity, had a modest impact with the said drug. The pooled values demonstrated that the sacubitril/valsartan group significantly outperformed the control group in improving HFrEF HRQoL.

Angiotensin Receptor-Neprilysin Inhibitor Effects on Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease Events: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Sacubitril-valsartan is an angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI) associated with a decreased risk of death and hospitalization for selected patients with heart failure (HF). However, its association with improved atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) events remains unclear. We performed a meta-analysis to evaluate the association of ARNI with ASCVD events in patients with HF. We systematically searched PubMed, Embase, Cochrane, and ClinicalTrials.gov for studies comparing ARNIs with angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) or angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) in terms of myocardial infarction, stroke, angina pectoris, peripheral artery disease, and the composite end point in patients with HF. A total of 8 randomized controlled trials were included, with 17,541 patients assigned to either the ARNI (8,764 patients) or ACEi/ARB (8,777 patients) groups. The incidence of composite end point (risk ratio [RR] 1.03, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.93 to 1.13, p = 0.63), myocardial infarction (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.30, p = 0.85), angina pectoris (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.17, p = 0.70), and stroke (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.16, p = 0.93) were not statistically different between the ARNI and ACEi/ARB groups. However, ARNI was associated with a higher incidence of peripheral artery disease (RR 1.63, 95% CI 1.05 to 2.52, p = 0.03). In conclusion, this meta-analysis found no association between ARNI therapy and improved ASCVD events in patients with HF.

Wearable technology and the cardiovascular system: the future of patient assessment

The past decade has seen a dramatic rise in consumer technologies able to monitor a variety of cardiovascular parameters. Such devices initially recorded markers of exercise, but now include physiological and health-care focused measurements. The public are keen to adopt these devices in the belief that they are useful to identify and monitor cardiovascular disease. Clinicians are therefore often presented with health app data accompanied by a diverse range of concerns and queries. Herein, we assess whether these devices are accurate, their outputs validated, and whether they are suitable for professionals to make management decisions. We review underpinning methods and technologies and explore the evidence supporting the use of these devices as diagnostic and monitoring tools in hypertension, arrhythmia, heart failure, coronary artery disease, pulmonary hypertension, and valvular heart disease. Used correctly, they might improve health care and support research.

Wearable Devices in Cardiovascular Medicine

Wearable devices, such as smartwatches and activity trackers, are commonly used by patients in their everyday lives to manage their health and well-being. These devices collect and analyze long-term continuous data on measures of behavioral or physiologic function, which may provide clinicians with a more comprehensive view of a patients' health compared with the traditional sporadic measures captured by office visits and hospitalizations. Wearable devices have a wide range of potential clinical applications ranging from arrhythmia screening of high-risk individuals to remote management of chronic conditions such as heart failure or peripheral artery disease. As the use of wearable devices continues to grow, we must adopt a multifaceted approach with collaboration among all key stakeholders to effectively and safely integrate these technologies into routine clinical practice. In this Review, we summarize the features of wearable devices and associated machine learning techniques. We describe key research studies that illustrate the role of wearable devices in the screening and management of cardiovascular conditions and identify directions for future research. Last, we highlight the challenges that are currently hindering the widespread use of wearable devices in cardiovascular medicine and provide short- and long-term solutions to promote increased use of wearable devices in clinical care.

The evolving landscape of pulmonary arterial hypertension clinical trials

Although it is a rare disease, the number of available therapeutic options for treating pulmonary arterial hypertension has increased since the late 1990s, with multiple drugs developed that are shown to be effective in phase 3 randomised controlled trials. Despite considerable advancements in pulmonary arterial hypertension treatment, prognosis remains poor. Existing therapies target pulmonary endothelial dysfunction with vasodilation and anti-proliferative effects. Novel therapies that target proliferative vascular remodelling and affect important outcomes are urgently needed. There is need for additional innovations in clinical trial design so that all emerging candidate therapies can be rigorously studied. Pulmonary arterial hypertension trial design has shifted from short-term submaximal exercise capacity as a primary endpoint, to larger clinical event-driven trial outcomes. Event-driven pulmonary arterial hypertension trials could face feasibility and efficiency issues in the future because increasing sample sizes and longer follow-up durations are needed, which would be problematic in such a rare disease. Enrichment strategies, innovative and alternative trial designs, and novel trial endpoints are potential solutions that could improve the efficiency of future pulmonary arterial hypertension trials while maintaining robustness and clinically meaningful evidence.

Efficacy and safety profile of angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitors in the management of heart failure: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Several guidelines have recommended the use of angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitors (ARNIs) as replacement for angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors in the management of heart failure. Till date, there are no reviews done that comprehensively cover different aspects of efficacy and safety parameters. Hence, we have performed a comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis on role of ARNIs for the management of heart failure patients. Searches were done in Embase, Scopus, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Chinese Biomedical Literature Database, PubMed Central, Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, Google Scholar, ScienceDirect and Clinicaltrials.gov until June 2022. Risk of bias assessment was done with Cochrane's risk of bias tool. Meta-analysis was carried out using random-effects model. Pooled standardized mean difference (SMD)/mean difference (MD) and/or risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) was reported. In total, we analysed 34 studies, with almost all of them had a high risk of bias. Pooled RR was 0.88 (95% CI: 0.82-0.95) for all-cause mortality, 0.84 (95% CI: 0.77-0.92) for cardiovascular mortality and 0.78 (95% CI: 0.70-0.87) for hospitalization. Pooled MD was 3.74 (95% CI: 1.93-5.55) for left ventricular ejection fraction, -2.16 (95% CI: -3.58 to -0.74) for left atrial volume index, -3.80 (95% CI: -6.60 to -1.00) for left ventricular end-diastolic dimension and -1.16 (95% CI: -1.98 to -0.35) for E/E' ratio. Regarding adverse events, pooled RR was 1.55 (95% CI: 1.31-1.85) for symptomatic hypotension, 0.93 (95% CI: 0.78-1.11) for worsening renal function, 1.09 (95% CI: 0.94-1.26) for hyperkalaemia and 1.29 (95% CI: 0.67-2.50) for angioedema. ARNIs had beneficial efficacy and safety profile on the management of heart failure especially patients with reduced ejection fraction.

Effects of sacubitril/valsartan on life quality in chronic heart failure: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Aims

Sacubitril/valsartan has been demonstrated to have cardiovascular benefits in patients with chronic heart failure (CHF). We aimed to conduct a meta-analysis of its effects on life quality in patients with CHF, in comparison with the angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor/angiotensin receptor blocker (ACEI/ARB).

Methods

PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched from inception through March 2022 for all relevant randomized controlled trials assessing the impact of sacubitril/valsartan and ACEI/ARB on health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in patients with CHF. Two reviewers independently conducted study selection, data extraction, and assessment of bias and quality of evidence. Review Manager 5.3 software was used for meta-analysis.

Results

We included 10 clinical studies involving 10,426 patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and 7,689 patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). Meta-analysis results showed that, in terms of the primary outcome, the sacubitril/valsartan group was superior than the ACEI/ARB group in improving HRQoL of HFrEF, and the difference was statistically significant (SMD 1.26; 95% CI: 0.14, 2.37; p = 0.03), while there was no significant difference between the two groups in HFpEF (SMD 0.37; 95% CI: −0.35, 1.09; p = 0.32). The effect of sacubitril/valsartan on the secondary outcome of the minimal important improvement rate of HRQoL in HFrEF was consistent with the primary outcome, while the effect in HFpEF was not clear. The descriptive analysis of individual studies indicated no significant difference in the improvement of 6-min walk distance between the two groups.

Conclusion

Sacubitril/valsartan is beneficial to improve HRQoL outcome in patients with HFrEF with high quality of evidence. Compared with ACEI/ARB, sacubitril/valsartan was more effective. While in patients with HFpEF, this improvement was similar between the two groups.

Benefits and adverse effects of sacubitril/valsartan in patients with chronic heart failure: A systematic review and meta-analysis

This review aims to assess the benefits and adverse effects of sacubitril/valsartan in heart failure, with a focus on important patient outcomes. A systematic review was conducted of double-blind randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing sacubitril/valsartan versus a reference drug, in heart failure patients with reduced (HFrEF) and preserved (HFpEF) ejection fraction, published in French or English. Searches were undertaken of Medline, Cochrane Central, and Embase. The primary outcomes were all-cause mortality and adverse events. From 2 082 articles analyzed, 5 were included. For all-cause mortality, the absolute numbers for HFrEF (2 RCTs, 4627 patients) were 16% on sacubitril/valsartan and 18% on enalapril, with a risk ratio (RR) of 0.85 [CI = 0.78, 0.93], and 13% vs 14% in with HFpEF (2 RCTs, 5097 patients), with no statistical difference. Under the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach, the evidence for HFrEF patients was of moderate quality. For HFrEF patients, an increased risk of symptomatic hypotension and angioedema (low quality of evidence) was shown. There was no statistical difference for the risk of hyperkalemia or worsening renal function. There was a protective RR (0.50 [0.34, 0.75]) for worsening renal function for patients with HFpEF, with a high quality of evidence despite similar absolute numbers (1.4% vs. 2.8%). To keep in mind for shared decision-making, sacubitril/valsartan reduces all-cause mortality in HFrEF patients but for HFpEF further data are needed. Take into consideration the small number of studies to date to assess the risks.

Use of Actigraphy (Wearable Digital Sensors to Monitor Activity) in Heart Failure Randomized Clinical Trials: A Scoping Review

BACKGROUND

Actigraphy-based measurements of physiologic parameters may enable design of patient-centric heart failure (HF) clinical trials. Recently, the Heart Failure Collaboratory focused on recommendations for meaningful change and use of actigraphy as an end point in HF clinical trials. We aimed to evaluate randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that have quantified the impact of HF interventions using actigraphy.

METHODS

Using a scoping review strategy, we evaluated the use of actigraphy in HF RCTs. Studies were identified through electronic searches of Embase, OVID Medline, PubMed, and Cochrane Review. Data on trial characteristics and results were collected.

RESULTS

We identified 11 RCTs with a total of 1,455 participants. The risk of bias across the included trials was high overall. All trials had the primary outcomes reflecting measures of either physical activity (n = 8), sleep (n = 2), or both (n = 1). Five trials evaluated response to pharmacologic therapies compared with placebo, 3 evaluated physical activity interventions, 2 evaluated group or cognitive therapy, and 1 evaluated sleep-ventilation strategy. Sample sizes ranged from 30 to 619 participants. There was significant heterogeneity relating to device type, body placement site, and handling of missing actigraphy data. Duration of monitoring ranged from 48 hours to 12 weeks. None of the studies evaluating pharmacologic therapies (n = 5) demonstrated a significant improvement of actigraphy-based primary end point measurements.

CONCLUSIONS

There is significant heterogeneity in the use, methodology, and results of actigraphy-based HF RCTs. Our results highlight the need to develop, standardize, and validate actigraphy-specific outcomes for use in HF clinical trials.