The eligible population of the PARADIGM-HF trial in a real-world outpatient clinic and its cardiovascular risk between 2005 and 2016

Secondary Prevention Therapies in Real-World Patients with Myocardial Infarction: Eligibility Based on Randomized Trials Supporting European and American Guidelines

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to evaluate the applicability of the eligibility criteria of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) cited in guideline recommendations in a real-world cohort of patients receiving secondary prevention after acute myocardial infarction from the EPICOR registries.

METHODS

Recommendations provided by American and European guidelines for acute myocardial infarction were classified into general (applying to all patients) and specific (applying to patients with left ventricular dysfunction or heart failure). Randomized controlled trials cited in these recommendations were selected, and their entry criteria were applied to our international cohort of 18,117 patients.

RESULTS

There were 91.5% patients eligible for beta blockers (84.6% for general, and 5.9% for specific recommendations), 97.7% eligible for renin-angiotensin system inhibitor (angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and angiotensin II receptor blockers [ACEI/ARB]) recommendations (69.9% for general, 27.9% for specific) and 4.1% eligible for mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (only specific recommendations). The percentages of patients with eligibility criteria who were discharged with a prescription of the recommended therapies were 80%-85% for beta blockers, 70%-75% for ACEI/ARB, and 29% for mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists. There were large regional variations in the percentage of eligible patients and in those receiving the medications (eg, 95% in Northern Europe and 57% in Southeast Asia for beta blockers).

CONCLUSION

Most real-world acute myocardial infarction patients are eligible for secondary prevention therapy in both general and specific guideline recommendations, and the percentage of those on beta blockers and ACEI/ARB at hospital discharge is high. There are large regional variations in the proportion of patients receiving recommended therapies. Local targeted interventions are needed for quality improvement.

Eligibility for vericiguat in a real-world heart failure population according to trial, guideline and label criteria: Data from the Swedish Heart Failure Registry

AIM

We investigated the eligibility for vericiguat in a real-world heart failure (HF) population based on trial, guideline and label criteria.

METHODS AND RESULTS

From the Swedish HF registry, 23 573 patients with HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) enrolled between 2000 and 2018, with a HF duration ≥6 months, were considered. Eligibility for vericiguat was calculated based on criteria from (i) the Vericiguat Global Study in Subjects with Heart Failure and Reduced Ejection Fraction (VICTORIA) trial; (ii) European and American guidelines on HF; (iii) product labelling according to the Food and Drug Administration and European Medicines Agency. Estimated eligibility for vericiguat in the trial, guidelines, and label scenarios was 21.4%, 47.4%, and 47.4%, respectively. Prior HF hospitalization within 6 months was the criterion limiting eligibility the most in all scenarios (met by 49.1% of the population). In the trial scenario, other criteria meaningfully limiting eligibility were elevated N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide levels and nitrate use. In all scenarios, eligibility was higher among patients hospitalized for HF at baseline (44.3% vs. 21.4% [trial scenario] and 97.3% vs. 47.4% [guideline/label scenarios] for hospitalized vs. non-hospitalized patients). Overall, eligible patients were older, had more severe HF, more comorbidities, and consequently higher cardiovascular mortality and HF hospitalization rates compared with ineligible patients across all scenarios.

CONCLUSION

In a large and contemporary real-world HFrEF cohort, we estimated that 21.4% of patients would be eligible for vericiguat according to the VICTORIA trial selection criteria, 47.4% based on guidelines and labelling. Eligibility for vericiguat translated into the selection of a population at high risk of morbidity/mortality.

Updates in heart failure: sodium glucose co-transporter 2 inhibitors and beyond – major changes are coming

Prevalence of heart failure is increasing worldwide mainly due to the ageing of the population and the improvement in diagnosis and treatment. In recent years, huge progress has been made in the management of heart failure patients. A new definition of chronic heart failure based on left ventricular ejection fraction and its possible trajectories has been reported. New drug classes have been introduced for the treatment of chronic heart failure. In particular, the prognostic benefit of sodium glucose co-transporter 2 inhibitors was demonstrated across all the heart failure phenotypes. Therapies for patients with advanced heart failure (long-term mechanical circulatory supports and heart transplantation) are now indicated also in the case of mild-to-moderate symptoms but with high risk of progression. In patients with acute heart failure, monitoring of urinary sodium and the use of acetazolamide may lead to better decongestion. Importantly, pre- and postdischarge assessment should lead to optimal treatment. Devices and telemonitoring can also be of help. Cardiovascular and noncardiovascular comorbidities are major determinants of the clinical course and need proper management. This review will summarize these important advances.

Clinical trial recruiters' experiences working with trial eligibility criteria: results of an exploratory, cross-sectional, online survey in the UK

BACKGROUND

Eligibility criteria are a fundamental element of clinical trial design, defining who can and who should not participate in a trial. Problems with the design or application of criteria are known to occur and pose risks to participants' safety and trial integrity, sometimes also negatively impacting on trial recruitment and generalisability. We conducted a short, exploratory survey to gather evidence on UK recruiters' experiences interpreting and applying eligibility criteria and their views on how criteria are communicated and developed.

METHODS

Our survey included topics informed by a wider programme of work at the Clinical Trials Research Unit, University of Leeds, on assuring eligibility criteria quality. Respondents were asked to answer based on all their trial experience, not only on experiences with our trials. The survey was disseminated to recruiters collaborating on trials run at our trials unit, and via other mailing lists and social media. The quantitative responses were descriptively analysed, with inductive analysis of free-text responses to identify themes.

RESULTS

A total of 823 eligible respondents participated. In total, 79% of respondents reported finding problems with eligibility criteria in some trials, and 9% in most trials. The main themes in the types of problems experienced were criteria clarity (67% of comments), feasibility (34%), and suitability (14%). In total, 27% of those reporting some level of problem said these problems had led to patients being incorrectly included in trials; 40% said they had led to incorrect exclusions. Most respondents (56%) reported accessing eligibility criteria mainly in the trial protocol. Most respondents (74%) supported the idea of recruiter review of eligibility criteria earlier in the protocol development process.

CONCLUSIONS

Our survey corroborates other evidence about the existence of suboptimal trial eligibility criteria. Problems with clarity were the most often reported, but the number of comments on feasibility and suitability suggest some recruiters feel eligibility criteria and associated assessments can hinder recruitment to trials. Our proposal for more recruiter involvement in protocol development has strong support and some potential benefits, but questions remain about how best to implement this. We invite other trialists to consider our other suggestions for how to assure quality in trial eligibility criteria.

Early experience of Sacubitril-Valsartan in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction in real-world clinical setting

Aims

Sacubitril/Valsartan (Sac/Val) was proven more effective than enalapril for symptomatic patients with heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). This study aimed to investigate eligibility, titration, and tolerability for Sac/Val in a real‐world clinical setting.

Methods and results

This retrospective cohort study consists of two parts. In Part 1 (eligibility study), all patients discharged from Sahlgrenska University Hospital due to HF were consecutively included during 1 year. Data from the patients' medical records were collected. Patients were adjudicated to be eligible based on European Society of Cardiology (ESC) criteria for angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI) with the exception of N‐terminal (NT)‐proBNP levels. Patients who received <50% of target dose angiotensin‐converting enzyme/angiotensin receptor blocker and otherwise fulfilled ESC criteria were adjudicated to be potentially eligible. In Part 2 (tolerability study), all patients receiving Sac/Val during the same period were included. Medical data regarding dose, titration, and adverse effects and events were registered. A total of 1355 patients (mean age 78 ± 13 years) were hospitalized for HF and 619 patients had an EF ≤40%. Twenty percent were eligible for initiation of ARNI, and additionally 8% were potentially eligible. In all 95 patients (mean age 65 ± 12 years) were initiated with Sac/Val, which correlates to 13%. The patients who were initiated were younger (65 years), more often had dilated cardiomyopathy (31%), more often were on guideline‐directed medical therapy, and had a higher frequency of cardiac resynchronization therapy and implantable cardioverter–defibrillator compared with the patients who did not receive Sac/Val. Of the initiated patients, 59% reached target dose of Sac/Val, and 15% discontinued due to adverse effects. The most common cause of discontinuation was benign gastrointestinal adverse effects, followed by elevated creatinine, malaise, and vertigo. Female gender [odds ratio (OR) 3.58; 95% CI 1.07–2.00; P = 0.038] and NT‐proBNP ≥ median level (OR 0.48; 95% CI 0.26–0.90; P = 0.021) was associated with termination of the medication.

Conclusions

Among HFrEF patients in this real‐world cohort, 20% were eligible for ARNI; however, only 13% received the treatment. Sac/Val was well tolerated, but 41% of the patients did not reach target dose. How this affects outcome is not known and needs further investigation.