Baseline characteristics including blood and urine metal levels in the Trial to Assess Chelation Therapy 2 (TACT2)

BACKGROUND

The reduction in cardiovascular disease (CVD) events with edetate disodium (EDTA) in the Trial to Assess Chelation Therapy (TACT) suggested that chelation of toxic metals might provide novel opportunities to reduce CVD in patients with diabetes. Lead and cadmium are vasculotoxic metals chelated by EDTA. We present baseline characteristics for participants in TACT2, a randomized, double-masked, placebo-controlled trial designed as a replication of the TACT trial limited to patients with diabetes.

METHODS

TACT2 enrolled 1,000 participants with diabetes and prior myocardial infarction, age 50 years or older between September 2016 and December 2020. Among 959 participants with at least one infusion, 933 had blood and/or urine metals measured at the Centers for Diseases Control and Prevention using the same methodology as in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES). We compared metal levels in TACT2 to a contemporaneous subset of NHANES participants with CVD, diabetes and other inclusion criteria similar to TACT2's participants.

RESULTS

At baseline, the median (interquartile range, IQR) age was 67 (60, 72) years, 27% were women, 78% reported white race, mean (SD) BMI was 32.7 (6.6) kg/m2, 4% reported type 1 diabetes, 46.8% were treated with insulin, 22.3% with GLP1-receptor agonists or SGLT-2 inhibitors, 90.2% with aspirin, warfarin or P2Y12 inhibitors, and 86.5% with statins. Blood lead was detectable in all participants; median (IQR) was 9.19 (6.30, 13.9) μg/L. Blood and urine cadmium were detectable in 97% and median (IQR) levels were 0.28 (0.18, 0.43) μg/L and 0.30 (0.18, 0.51) μg/g creatinine, respectively. Metal levels were largely similar to those in the contemporaneous NHANES subset.

CONCLUSIONS

TACT2 participants were characterized by high use of medication to treat CVD and diabetes and similar baseline metal levels as in the general US population. TACT2 will determine whether chelation therapy reduces the occurrence of subsequent CVD events in this high-risk population.

CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov. Identifier: NCT02733185. https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT02733185.

Evaluating registry-based trial economics: Results from the STRESS clinical trial

Background

Registry-based trials have the potential to reduce randomized clinical trial (RCT) costs. However, observed cost differences also may be achieved through pragmatic trial designs. A systematic comparison of trial costs across different designs has not been previously performed.

Methods

We conducted a study to compare the current Steroids to Reduce Systemic inflammation after infant heart surgery (STRESS) registry-based RCT vs. two established designs: pragmatic RCT and explanatory RCT. The primary outcome was total RCT design costs. Secondary outcomes included: RCT duration and personnel hours. Costs were estimated using the Duke Clinical Research Institute's pricing model.

Results

The Registry-Based RCT estimated duration was 31.9 weeks greater than the other designs (259.5 vs. 227.6 weeks). This delay was caused by the Registry-Based design's periodic data harvesting that delayed site closing and statistical reporting. Total personnel hours were greatest for the Explanatory design followed by the Pragmatic design and the Registry-Based design (52,488 vs 29,763 vs. 24,480 h, respectively). Total costs were greatest for the Explanatory design followed by the Pragmatic design and the Registry-Based design ($10,140,263 vs. $4,164,863 vs. $3,268,504, respectively). Thus, Registry-Based total costs were 32 % of the Explanatory and 78 % of the Pragmatic design.

Conclusion

Total costs for the STRESS RCT with a registry-based design were less than those for a pragmatic design and much less than an explanatory design. Cost savings reflect design elements and leveraging of registry resources to improve cost efficiency, but delays to trial completion should be considered.

Torsemide Versus Furosemide After Discharge in Patients Hospitalized With Heart Failure Across the Spectrum of Ejection Fraction: Findings From TRANSFORM-HF

BACKGROUND

The TRANSFORM-HF trial (Torsemide Comparison With Furosemide for Management of Heart Failure) found no significant difference in all-cause mortality or hospitalization among patients randomized to a strategy of torsemide versus furosemide following a heart failure (HF) hospitalization. However, outcomes and responses to some therapies differ by left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). Thus, we sought to explore the effect of torsemide versus furosemide by baseline LVEF and to assess outcomes across LVEF groups.

METHODS

We compared baseline patient characteristics and randomized treatment effects for various end points in TRANSFORM-HF stratified by LVEF: HF with reduced LVEF, ≤40% versus HF with mildly reduced LVEF, 41% to 49% versus HF with preserved LVEF, ≥50%. We also evaluated associations between LVEF and clinical outcomes. Study end points were all-cause mortality or hospitalization at 30 days and 12 months, total hospitalizations at 12 months, and change from baseline in Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire clinical summary score.

RESULTS

Overall, 2635 patients (median 64 years, 36% female, 34% Black) had LVEF data. Compared with HF with reduced LVEF, patients with HF with mildly reduced LVEF and HF with preserved LVEF had a higher prevalence of comorbidities. After adjusting for covariates, there was no significant difference in risk of clinical outcomes across the LVEF groups (adjusted hazard ratio for 12-month all-cause mortality, 0.91 [95% CI, 0.59-1.39] for HF with mildly reduced LVEF versus HF with reduced LVEF and 0.91 [95% CI, 0.70-1.17] for HF with preserved LVEF versus HF with reduced LVEF; P=0.73). In addition, there was no significant difference between torsemide and furosemide (1) for mortality and hospitalization outcomes, irrespective of LVEF group and (2) in changes in Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire clinical summary score in any LVEF subgroup.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite baseline demographic and clinical differences between LVEF cohorts in TRANSFORM-HF, there were no significant differences in the clinical end points with torsemide versus furosemide across the LVEF spectrum. There was a substantial risk for all-cause mortality and subsequent hospitalization independent of baseline LVEF.

REGISTRATION

URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT03296813.

Accelerometer vs. other activity measures in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: the VITALITY-HFpEF trial

AIMS

The relationship between accelerometry data and changes in Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire-Physical Limitation Score (KCCQ-PLS) or 6 min walk test (6MWT) is not well understood.

METHODS AND RESULTS

VITALITY-HFpEF accelerometry substudy (n = 69) data were assessed at baseline and 24 weeks. Ordinal logistic regression models were used to assess the association between accelerometry activity and deterioration, improved, or unchanged KCCQ-PLS (≥8.33 and ≤ -4.17 points) and 6MWT (≥32 vs. ≤ -32 m). KCCQ-PLS score deteriorated in 16 patients, improved in 34, and was unchanged in 19. 6MWT deteriorated in 8 patients, improved in 21, and was unchanged in 19. Mean accelerometer wear was 21.4 (±2.1) h/day. Changes in hours active from baseline to 24 weeks were not significantly different among patients who exhibited deterioration, improvement, or no change in KCCQ-PLS [odds ratio (OR) 0.91, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.71-1.18; P = 0.48] or 6MWT (OR 1.21, 95% CI 0.91-1.60; P = 0.18). Similar lack of association was observed for other accelerometry metrics and change in KCCQ and 6MWT. These findings were unaffected when KCCQ and 6MWT were examined as continuous variables.

CONCLUSIONS

Accelerometer-based activity measures did not correlate with subjective or objective standard measures of health status and functional capacity in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction. Further investigation of their relationships to clinical outcomes is required.

Torsemide vs Furosemide Among Patients With New-Onset vs Worsening Chronic Heart Failure: A Substudy of the TRANSFORM-HF Randomized Clinical Trial

Importance

Differences in clinical profiles, outcomes, and diuretic treatment effects may exist between patients with de novo heart failure (HF) and worsening chronic HF (WHF).

Objectives

To compare clinical characteristics and treatment outcomes of torsemide vs furosemide in patients hospitalized with de novo HF vs WHF.

Design, Setting, and Participants

All patients with a documented ejection fraction who were randomized in the Torsemide Comparison With Furosemide for Management of Heart Failure (TRANSFORM-HF) trial, conducted from June 18 through March 2022, were included in this post hoc analysis. Study data were analyzed March to May 2023.

Exposure

Patients were categorized by HF type and further divided by loop diuretic strategy.

Main Outcomes and Measures

End points included all-cause mortality and hospitalization outcomes over 12 months, as well as change from baseline in the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire Clinical Summary Score (KCCQ-CSS).

Results

Among 2858 patients (mean [SD] age, 64.5 [14.0] years; 1803 male [63.1%]), 838 patients (29.3%) had de novo HF, and 2020 patients (70.7%) had WHF. Patients with de novo HF were younger (mean [SD] age, 60.6 [14.5] years vs 66.1 [13.5] years), had a higher glomerular filtration rate (mean [SD], 68.6 [24.9] vs 57.0 [24.0]), lower levels of natriuretic peptides (median [IQR], brain-type natriuretic peptide, 855.0 [423.0-1555.0] pg/mL vs 1022.0 [500.0-1927.0] pg/mL), and tended to be discharged on lower doses of loop diuretic (mean [SD], 50.3 [46.2] mg vs 63.8 [52.4] mg). De novo HF was associated with lower all-cause mortality at 12 months (de novo, 65 of 838 [9.1%] vs WHF, 408 of 2020 [25.4%]; adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 0.50; 95% CI, 0.38-0.66; P < .001). Similarly, lower all-cause first rehospitalization at 12 months and greater improvement from baseline in KCCQ-CSS at 12 months were noted among patients with de novo HF (median [IQR]: de novo, 29.94 [27.35-32.54] vs WHF, 23.68 [21.62-25.74]; adjusted estimated difference in means: 6.26; 95% CI, 3.72-8.81; P < .001). There was no significant difference in mortality with torsemide vs furosemide in either de novo (No. of events [rate per 100 patient-years]: torsemide, 27 [7.4%] vs furosemide, 38 [10.9%]; aHR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.40-1.14; P = .15) or WHF (torsemide 212 [26.8%] vs furosemide, 196 [24.0%]; aHR, 1.08; 95% CI, 0.89-1.32; P = .42; P for interaction = .10), In addition, no significant differences in hospitalizations, first all-cause hospitalization, or total hospitalizations at 12 months were noted with a strategy of torsemide vs furosemide in either de novo HF or WHF.

Conclusions and Relevance

Among patients discharged after hospitalization for HF, de novo HF was associated with better clinical and patient-reported outcomes when compared with WHF. Regardless of HF type, there was no significant difference between torsemide and furosemide with respect to 12-month clinical or patient-reported outcomes.

Recurrent Hospitalizations and Response to Vericiguat in Heart Failure and Reduced Ejection Fraction

BACKGROUND

In VICTORIA (Vericiguat Global Study in Subjects With Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction), vericiguat compared with placebo reduced cardiovascular death or heart failure (HF) hospitalization in patients with HF with reduced ejection fraction.

OBJECTIVES

This study explored the association between vericiguat and recurrent hospitalizations and subsequent mortality after HF hospitalization.

METHODS

The treatment effect of vericiguat on the burden of HF hospitalizations was evaluated by assessing total HF hospitalization and cardiovascular death in the overall trial and based on baseline N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide levels with and without adjustment for VICTORIA model covariates (ie, baseline variables associated with the primary endpoint) assessed via the Andersen-Gill method. Associations between vericiguat and recurrent hospitalization and mortality adjusted for VICTORIA model covariates are reported.

RESULTS

There were 1,222 total HF hospitalizations and cardiovascular deaths among 2,526 patients in the vericiguat group and 1,336 total events among 2,524 patients in the placebo group (unadjusted HR: 0.89 [95% CI: 0.81-0.97] and adjusted HR: 0.92 [95% CI: 0.84-1.01]). In the subgroup with N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide levels ≤2,816 pg/mL (ie, Q1 and Q2; median or below), there was a suggestion of a benefit with vericiguat (adjusted HRs of 0.80 [95% CI: 0.64-1.01] and 0.77 [95% CI: 0.62-0.94], respectively) compared with those above this value (adjusted HRs of 1.12 [95% CI: 0.93-1.34] and 0.87 [95% CI: 0.74-1.04] for Q3 and Q4). There was no significant difference in treatment effect between patients with vs without an HF hospitalization. After HF hospitalization, the all-cause mortality rate (events per 100 patient-years) was 48.6 for vericiguat and 44.1 for placebo.

CONCLUSIONS

Additional investigation of the association between vericiguat and cardiovascular death and total HF hospitalizations by recurrent event analysis did not show a statistically significant reduction in events. Mortality was high after HF hospitalization, emphasizing the need for further therapies to reduce morbidity and mortality. (Vericiguat Global Study in Subjects With Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction [VICTORIA]; NCT02861534).

Comparison of Pirfenidone and Nintedanib: Post Hoc Analysis of the CleanUP-IPF Study

BACKGROUND

Antifibrotics are effective in slowing FVC decline in idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF). However, whether antifibrotic type is differentially associated with FVC decline remains inconclusive.

RESEARCH QUESTION

Are there significant differences in 12-month FVC decline between pirfenidone and nintedanib?

STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS

A post hoc analysis was performed using the Clinical Efficacy of Antimicrobial Therapy Strategy Using Pragmatic Design in IPF (CleanUP-IPF) trial (No. NCT02759120). Participants who reported using pirfenidone or nintedanib on enrollment into the trial were in the primary analysis. Spirometry was scheduled at baseline and the 12- and 24-month study visits. Linear mixed-effects models with random intercept and slope were used to examine changes in FVC over time. Models were adjusted for age, sex, smoking history, coronary artery disease history, baseline FVC, and 12-month spline term. Survival and nonelective respiratory hospitalization by antifibrotic type were determined using Cox regression models with adjustment for age, sex, smoking history, coronary artery disease history, and baseline FVC and diffusing capacity for carbon monoxide.

RESULTS

Out of the 513 participants with IPF randomized in the CleanUP-IPF trial, 407 reported using pirfenidone (n = 264, 65%) or nintedanib (n = 143, 35%). The pirfenidone group had more participants with a history of coronary artery disease than the nintedanib group (34.1% vs 20.3%, respectively). Patients treated with nintedanib had a higher 12-month visit FVC than patients treated with pirfenidone (mean difference, 106 mL; 95% CI, 34-178). This difference was attenuated at the 24-month study visit. There were no significant differences in overall survival and nonelective respiratory hospitalization between the pirfenidone- and nintedanib-treated groups.

INTERPRETATION

Patients with IPF who used nintedanib had a slower 12-month FVC decline than pirfenidone in a post hoc analysis of a clinical trial.

Cost-Effectiveness of Vericiguat in Patients With Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction: The VICTORIA Randomized Clinical Trial

BACKGROUND

The VICTORIA trial (Vericiguat Global Study in Subjects With Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction) demonstrated that, in patients with high-risk heart failure, vericiguat reduced the primary composite outcome of cardiovascular death or heart failure hospitalization relative to placebo. The hazard ratio for all-cause mortality was 0.95 (95% CI, 0.84-1.07). In a prespecified analysis, treatment effects varied substantially as a function of baseline NT-proBNP (N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide) levels, with survival benefit for vericiguat in the lower NT-proBNP quartiles (hazard ratio, 0.82 [95% CI, 0.69-0.97]) and no benefit in the highest NT-proBNP quartile (hazard ratio, 1.14 [95% CI, 0.95-1.38]). An economic analysis was a major secondary objective of the VICTORIA research program.

METHODS

Medical resource use data were collected for all VICTORIA patients (N=5050). Costs were estimated by applying externally derived US cost weights to resource use counts. Life expectancy was projected from patient-level empirical trial survival results with the use of age-based survival modeling methods. Quality-of-life adjustments were based on prospectively collected EQ-5D-based utilities. The primary outcome was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, comparing vericiguat with placebo, assessed from the US health care sector perspective over a lifetime horizon. Cost-effectiveness was estimated using the total VICTORIA cohort, both with and without interaction between treatment and baseline NT-proBNP.

RESULTS

Life expectancy modeling results varied according to whether the observed heterogeneity of treatment effect by baseline NT-proBNP values was incorporated into the modeling. Including the interaction term, the vericiguat arm had an estimated quality-adjusted life expectancy of 4.56 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) compared with 4.13 QALYs for placebo (incremental discounted QALY, 0.43). Without the treatment heterogeneity/interaction term, vericiguat had 4.50 QALYs compared with 4.33 QALYs for placebo (incremental discounted QALY, 0.17). Incremental discounted costs (vericiguat minus placebo) were $28 546 with the treatment interaction and $20 948 without it. Corresponding incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were $66 509 per QALY allowing for treatment heterogeneity and $124 512 without heterogeneity.

CONCLUSIONS

Vericiguat use in the VICTORIA trial met criteria for intermediate value, but the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio estimates were sensitive to whether the analysis accounted for observed NT-proBNP treatment effect heterogeneity. The cost-effectiveness of vericiguat was driven by the projected incremental life expectancy among patients in the lowest 3 quartiles of NT-proBNP.

REGISTRATION

URL: https://www.

CLINICALTRIALS

gov; Unique identifier: NCT02861534.

Deferred Testing in Stable Outpatients With Suspected Coronary Artery Disease: A Prespecified Secondary Analysis of the PRECISE Randomized Clinical Trial

Importance

Guidelines recommend deferral of testing for symptomatic people with suspected coronary artery disease (CAD) and low pretest probability. To our knowledge, no randomized trial has prospectively evaluated such a strategy.

Objective

To assess process of care and health outcomes in people identified as minimal risk for CAD when testing is deferred.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This randomized, pragmatic effectiveness trial included prespecified subgroup analysis of the PRECISE trial at 65 North American and European sites. Participants identified as minimal risk by the validated PROMISE minimal risk score (PMRS) were included.

Intervention

Randomization to a precision strategy using the PMRS to assign those with minimal risk to deferred testing and others to coronary computed tomography angiography with selective computed tomography-derived fractional flow reserve, or to usual testing (stress testing or catheterization with PMRS masked). Randomization was stratified by PMRS risk.

Main Outcome

Composite of all-cause death, nonfatal myocardial infarction (MI), or catheterization without obstructive CAD through 12 months.

Results

Among 2103 participants, 422 were identified as minimal risk (20%) and randomized to deferred testing (n = 214) or usual testing (n = 208). Mean age (SD) was 46 (8.6) years; 304 were women (72%). During follow-up, 138 of those randomized to deferred testing never had testing (64%), whereas 76 had a downstream test (36%) (at median [IQR] 48 [15-78] days) for worsening (30%), uncontrolled (10%), or new symptoms (6%), or changing clinician preference (19%) or participant preference (10%). Results were normal for 96% of these tests. The primary end point occurred in 2 deferred testing (0.9%) and 13 usual testing participants (6.3%) (hazard ratio, 0.15; 95% CI, 0.03-0.66; P = .01). No death or MI was observed in the deferred testing participants, while 1 noncardiovascular death and 1 MI occurred in the usual testing group. Two participants (0.9%) had catheterizations without obstructive CAD in the deferred testing group and 12 (5.8%) with usual testing (P = .02). At baseline, 70% of participants had frequent angina and there was similar reduction of frequent angina to less than 20% at 12 months in both groups.

Conclusion and Relevance

In symptomatic participants with suspected CAD, identification of minimal risk by the PMRS guided a strategy of initially deferred testing. The strategy was safe with no observed adverse outcome events, fewer catheterizations without obstructive CAD, and similar symptom relief compared with usual testing.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03702244.

Comparison of an Initial Risk-Based Testing Strategy vs Usual Testing in Stable Symptomatic Patients With Suspected Coronary Artery Disease: The PRECISE Randomized Clinical Trial

Importance

Trials showing equivalent or better outcomes with initial evaluation using coronary computed tomography angiography (cCTA) compared with stress testing in patients with stable chest pain have informed guidelines but raise questions about overtesting and excess catheterization.

Objective

To test a modified initial cCTA strategy designed to improve clinical efficiency vs usual testing (UT).

Design, Setting, and Participants

This was a pragmatic randomized clinical trial enrolling participants from December 3, 2018, to May 18, 2021, with a median of 11.8 months of follow-up. Patients from 65 North American and European sites with stable symptoms of suspected coronary artery disease (CAD) and no prior testing were randomly assigned 1:1 to precision strategy (PS) or UT.

Interventions

PS incorporated the Prospective Multicenter Imaging Study for the Evaluation of Chest Pain (PROMISE) minimal risk score to quantitatively select minimal-risk participants for deferred testing, assigning all others to cCTA with selective CT-derived fractional flow reserve (FFR-CT). UT included site-selected stress testing or catheterization. Site clinicians determined subsequent care.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Outcomes were clinical efficiency (invasive catheterization without obstructive CAD) and safety (death or nonfatal myocardial infarction [MI]) combined into a composite primary end point. Secondary end points included safety components of the primary outcome and medication use.

Results

A total of 2103 participants (mean [SD] age, 58.4 [11.5] years; 1056 male [50.2%]) were included in the study, and 422 [20.1%] were classified as minimal risk. The primary end point occurred in 44 of 1057 participants (4.2%) in the PS group and in 118 of 1046 participants (11.3%) in the UT group (hazard ratio [HR], 0.35; 95% CI, 0.25-0.50). Clinical efficiency was higher with PS, with lower rates of catheterization without obstructive disease (27 [2.6%]) vs UT participants (107 [10.2%]; HR, 0.24; 95% CI, 0.16-0.36). The safety composite of death/MI was similar (HR, 1.52; 95% CI, 0.73-3.15). Death occurred in 5 individuals (0.5%) in the PS group vs 7 (0.7%) in the UT group (HR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.23-2.23), and nonfatal MI occurred in 13 individuals (1.2%) in the PS group vs 5 (0.5%) in the UT group (HR, 2.65; 95% CI, 0.96-7.36). Use of lipid-lowering (450 of 900 [50.0%] vs 365 of 873 [41.8%]) and antiplatelet (321 of 900 [35.7%] vs 237 of 873 [27.1%]) medications at 1 year was higher in the PS group compared with the UT group (both P < .001).

Conclusions and Relevance

An initial diagnostic approach to stable chest pain starting with quantitative risk stratification and deferred testing for minimal-risk patients and cCTA with selective FFR-CT in all others increased clinical efficiency relative to UT at 1 year. Additional randomized clinical trials are needed to verify these findings, including safety.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03702244.

Background Medical Therapy and Clinical Outcomes From the VICTORIA Trial

BACKGROUND

We examined whether the primary composite outcome (cardiovascular death or heart failure hospitalization) was related to differences in background use and dosing of guideline-directed medical therapy in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction enrolled in VICTORIA (Vericiguat Global Study in Subjects with Heart Failure with Reduced Ejection Fraction), a randomized trial of vericiguat versus placebo.

METHODS

We evaluated the adherence to guideline use of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, angiotensin-receptor blockers, angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitors, beta-blockers, and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists. We assessed basic adherence; indication-corrected adherence accounting for guideline indications and contraindications; and dose-corrected adherence (indication-corrected adherence+≥50% of drug dose target). Associations between study treatment and the primary composite outcome according to the adherence to guidelines were assessed using multivariable adjustment; adjusted hazard ratios with 95% CIs and Pinteraction are reported.

RESULTS

Of 5050 patients, 5040 (99.8%) had medication data at baseline. For angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor, angiotensin-receptor blockers, and angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitors, basic adherence to guidelines was 87.4%, indication-corrected was 95.7%, and dose-corrected was 50.9%. For beta-blockers, basic adherence was 93.1%, indication-corrected was 96.2%, and dose-corrected was 45.4%. For mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists, basic adherence was 70.3%, indication-corrected was 87.1%, and dose-corrected was 82.2%. For triple therapy (angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, angiotensin-receptor blockers, or angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitors+beta-blocker+mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist), basic adherence was 59.7%, indication-corrected was 83.3%, and dose-corrected was 25.5%. Using basic or dose-corrected adherence, the treatment effect of vericiguat was consistent across adherence to guidelines groups, with or without multivariable adjustment with no treatment heterogeneity.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients in VICTORIA were well treated with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction medications. The efficacy of vericiguat was consistent across background therapy with very high adherence to guidelines accounting for patient-level indications, contraindications, and tolerance.

REGISTRATION

URL: https://www.

CLINICALTRIALS

gov; Unique identifier: NCT02861534.

Classification of Heart Failure Events by Severity: Insights From the VICTORIA Trial

BACKGROUND

Hospitalization due to heart failure (HFH) is a major source of morbidity, consumes significant economic resources and is a key endpoint in HF clinical trials. HFH events vary in severity and implications, but they are typically considered equivalent when analyzing clinical trial outcomes.

OBJECTIVES

We aimed to evaluate the frequency and severity of HF events, assess treatment effects and describe differences in outcomes by type of HF event in VICTORIA (Vericiguat Global Study in Subjects with Heart Failure with Reduced Ejection Fraction).

METHODS

VICTORIA compared vericiguat with placebo in patients with HF with reduced ejection fraction (< 45%) and a recent worsening HF event. All HFHs were prospectively adjudicated by an independent clinical events committee (CEC) whose members were blinded to treatment assignment. We evaluated the frequency and clinical impact of HF events by severity, categorized by highest intensity of HF treatment (urgent outpatient visit or hospitalization treated with oral diuretics, intravenous diuretics, intravenous vasodilators, intravenous inotropes, or mechanical support) and treatment effect by event categories.

RESULTS

In VICTORIA, 2948 HF events occurred in 5050 enrolled patients. Overall total CEC HF events for vericiguat vs placebo were 43.9 vs 49.1 events/100 patient-years (P = 0.01). Hospitalization for intravenous diuretics was the most common type of HFH event (54%). HF event types differed markedly in their clinical implications for both in-hospital and post-discharge events. We observed no difference in the distribution of HF events between randomized treatment groups (P = 0.78).

CONCLUSION

HF events in large global trials vary significantly in severity and clinical implications, which may have implications for more nuanced trial design and interpretation.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02861534).

Abatacept, Cenicriviroc, or Infliximab for Treatment of Adults Hospitalized With COVID-19 Pneumonia: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Importance

Immune dysregulation contributes to poorer outcomes in COVID-19.

Objective

To investigate whether abatacept, cenicriviroc, or infliximab provides benefit when added to standard care for COVID-19 pneumonia.

Design, Setting, and Participants

Randomized, double-masked, placebo-controlled clinical trial using a master protocol to investigate immunomodulators added to standard care for treatment of participants hospitalized with COVID-19 pneumonia. The results of 3 substudies are reported from 95 hospitals at 85 clinical research sites in the US and Latin America. Hospitalized patients 18 years or older with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection within 14 days and evidence of pulmonary involvement underwent randomization between October 2020 and December 2021.

Interventions

Single infusion of abatacept (10 mg/kg; maximum dose, 1000 mg) or infliximab (5 mg/kg) or a 28-day oral course of cenicriviroc (300-mg loading dose followed by 150 mg twice per day).

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary outcome was time to recovery by day 28 evaluated using an 8-point ordinal scale (higher scores indicate better health). Recovery was defined as the first day the participant scored at least 6 on the ordinal scale.

Results

Of the 1971 participants randomized across the 3 substudies, the mean (SD) age was 54.8 (14.6) years and 1218 (61.8%) were men. The primary end point of time to recovery from COVID-19 pneumonia was not significantly different for abatacept (recovery rate ratio [RRR], 1.12 [95% CI, 0.98-1.28]; P = .09), cenicriviroc (RRR, 1.01 [95% CI, 0.86-1.18]; P = .94), or infliximab (RRR, 1.12 [95% CI, 0.99-1.28]; P = .08) compared with placebo. All-cause 28-day mortality was 11.0% for abatacept vs 15.1% for placebo (odds ratio [OR], 0.62 [95% CI, 0.41-0.94]), 13.8% for cenicriviroc vs 11.9% for placebo (OR, 1.18 [95% CI 0.72-1.94]), and 10.1% for infliximab vs 14.5% for placebo (OR, 0.59 [95% CI, 0.39-0.90]). Safety outcomes were comparable between active treatment and placebo, including secondary infections, in all 3 substudies.

Conclusions and Relevance

Time to recovery from COVID-19 pneumonia among hospitalized participants was not significantly different for abatacept, cenicriviroc, or infliximab vs placebo.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04593940.

Effect of Torsemide Versus Furosemide on Symptoms and Quality of Life Among Patients Hospitalized for Heart Failure: The TRANSFORM-HF Randomized Clinical Trial

BACKGROUND

Loop diuretics are a primary therapy for the symptomatic treatment of heart failure (HF), but whether torsemide improves patient symptoms and quality of life better than furosemide remains unknown. As prespecified secondary end points, the TRANSFORM-HF trial (Torsemide Comparison With Furosemide for Management of Heart Failure) compared the effect of torsemide versus furosemide on patient-reported outcomes among patients with HF.

METHODS

TRANSFORM-HF was an open-label, pragmatic, randomized trial of 2859 patients hospitalized for HF (regardless of ejection fraction) across 60 hospitals in the United States. Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to a loop diuretic strategy of torsemide or furosemide with investigator-selected dosage. This report examined effects on prespecified secondary end points, which included Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire Clinical Summary Score (KCCQ-CSS; assessed as adjusted mean difference in change from baseline; range, 0-100 with 100 indicating best health status; clinically important difference, ≥5 points) and Patient Health Questionnaire-2 (range, 0-6; score ≥3 supporting evaluation for depression) over 12 months.

RESULTS

Baseline data were available for 2787 (97.5%) patients for KCCQ-CSS and 2624 (91.8%) patients for Patient Health Questionnaire-2. Median (interquartile range) baseline KCCQ-CSS was 42 (27-60) in the torsemide group and 40 (24-59) in the furosemide group. At 12 months, there was no significant difference between torsemide and furosemide in change from baseline in KCCQ-CSS (adjusted mean difference, 0.06 [95% CI, -2.26 to 2.37]; P=0.96) or the proportion of patients with Patient Health Questionnaire-2 score ≥3 (15.1% versus 13.2%: P=0.34). Results for KCCQ-CSS were similar at 1 month (adjusted mean difference, 1.36 [95% CI, -0.64 to 3.36]; P=0.18) and 6-month follow-up (adjusted mean difference, -0.37 [95% CI, -2.52 to 1.78]; P=0.73), and across subgroups by ejection fraction phenotype, New York Heart Association class at randomization, and loop diuretic agent before hospitalization. Irrespective of baseline KCCQ-CSS tertile, there was no significant difference between torsemide and furosemide on change in KCCQ-CSS, all-cause mortality, or all-cause hospitalization.

CONCLUSIONS

Among patients discharged after hospitalization for HF, a strategy of torsemide compared with furosemide did not improve symptoms or quality of life over 12 months. The effects of torsemide and furosemide on patient-reported outcomes were similar regardless of ejection fraction, previous loop diuretic use, and baseline health status.

REGISTRATION

URL: https://www.

CLINICALTRIALS

gov; Unique identifier: NCT03296813.

Safety and efficacy of hydroxychloroquine as prophylactic against COVID-19 in healthcare workers: a meta-analysis of randomised clinical trials

OBJECTIVE

We studied the safety and efficacy of hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) as pre-exposure prophylaxis for COVID-19 in healthcare workers (HCWs), using a meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs).

DATA SOURCES

PubMed and EMBASE databases were searched to identify randomised trials studying HCQ.

STUDY SELECTION

Ten RCTs were identified (n=5079 participants).

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines were used in this systematic review and meta-analysis between HCQ and placebo using a Bayesian random-effects model. A pre-hoc statistical analysis plan was written.

MAIN OUTCOMES

The primary efficacy outcome was PCR-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection and the primary safety outcome was incidence of adverse events. The secondary outcome included clinically suspected SARS-CoV-2 infection.

RESULTS

Compared with placebo, HCWs randomised to HCQ had no significant difference in PCR-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection (OR 0.92, 95% credible interval (CI): 0.58, 1.37) or clinically suspected SARS-CoV-2 infection (OR 0.78, 95% CI: 0.57, 1.10), but significant difference in adverse events (OR 1.35, 95% CI: 1.03, 1.73).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Our meta-analysis of 10 RCTs investigating the safety and efficacy of HCQ as pre-exposure prophylaxis in HCWs found that compared with placebo, HCQ does not significantly reduce the risk of confirmed or clinically suspected SARS-CoV-2 infection, while HCQ significantly increases adverse events.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42021285093.

Effect of Thromboprophylaxis on Clinical Outcomes After COVID-19 Hospitalization

BACKGROUND

Patients hospitalized with COVID-19 have an increased incidence of thromboembolism. The role of extended thromboprophylaxis after hospital discharge is unclear.

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether anticoagulation is superior to placebo in reducing death and thromboembolic complications among patients discharged after COVID-19 hospitalization.

DESIGN

Prospective, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04650087).

SETTING

Done during 2021 to 2022 among 127 U.S. hospitals.

PARTICIPANTS

Adults aged 18 years or older hospitalized with COVID-19 for 48 hours or more and ready for discharge, excluding those with a requirement for, or contraindication to, anticoagulation.

INTERVENTION

2.5 mg of apixaban versus placebo twice daily for 30 days.

MEASUREMENTS

The primary efficacy end point was a 30-day composite of death, arterial thromboembolism, and venous thromboembolism. The primary safety end points were 30-day major bleeding and clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding.

RESULTS

Enrollment was terminated early, after 1217 participants were randomly assigned, because of a lower than anticipated event rate and a declining rate of COVID-19 hospitalizations. Median age was 54 years, 50.4% were women, 26.5% were Black, and 16.7% were Hispanic; 30.7% had a World Health Organization severity score of 5 or greater, and 11.0% had an International Medical Prevention Registry on Venous Thromboembolism risk prediction score of greater than 4. Incidence of the primary end point was 2.13% (95% CI, 1.14 to 3.62) in the apixaban group and 2.31% (CI, 1.27 to 3.84) in the placebo group. Major bleeding occurred in 2 (0.4%) and 1 (0.2%) and clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding occurred in 3 (0.6%) and 6 (1.1%) apixaban-treated and placebo-treated participants, respectively. By day 30, thirty-six (3.0%) participants were lost to follow-up, and 8.5% of apixaban and 11.9% of placebo participants permanently discontinued the study drug treatment.

LIMITATIONS

The introduction of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines decreased the risk for hospitalization and death. Study enrollment spanned the peaks of the Delta and Omicron variants in the United States, which influenced illness severity.

CONCLUSION

The incidence of death or thromboembolism was low in this cohort of patients discharged after hospitalization with COVID-19. Because of early enrollment termination, the results were imprecise and the study was inconclusive.

PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE

National Institutes of Health.

Hydroxychloroquine for pre-exposure prophylaxis of COVID-19 in health care workers: a randomized, multicenter, placebo-controlled trial Healthcare Worker Exposure Response and Outcomes of Hydroxychloroquine (HERO-HCQ)

OBJECTIVES

To determine whether hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) is safe and effective at preventing COVID-19 infections among health care workers (HCWs).

METHODS

In a 1: 1 randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind, parallel-group, superiority trial at 34 US clinical centers, 1360 HCWs at risk for COVID-19 infection were enrolled between April and November 2020. Participants were randomized to HCQ or matched placebo. The HCQ dosing included a loading dose of HCQ 600 mg twice on day 1, followed by 400 mg daily for 29 days. The primary outcome was a composite of confirmed or suspected COVID-19 clinical infection by day 30, defined as new-onset fever, cough, or dyspnea and either a positive SARS-CoV-2 polymerase chain reaction test (confirmed) or a lack of confirmatory testing due to local restrictions (suspected).

RESULTS

Study enrollment closed before full accrual due to recruitment challenges. The primary end point occurred in 41 (6.0%) participants receiving HCQ and 53 (7.8%) participants receiving placebo. No difference in the proportion of participants experiencing clinical infection (estimated difference of -1.8%, 95% confidence interval -4.6-0.9%, P = 0.20) was identified nor any significant safety issues.

CONCLUSION

Oral HCQ taken as prescribed appeared safe among HCWs. No significant clinical benefits were observed. The study was not powered to detect a small but potentially important reduction in infection.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT04334148.

Effects of Ablation Versus Drug Therapy on Quality of Life by Sex in Atrial Fibrillation: Results From the CABANA Trial

Background Women with atrial fibrillation (AF) demonstrate more AF-related symptoms and worse quality of life (QOL). Whether increased use of ablation in women reduces sex-related QOL differences is unknown. Sex-related outcomes for ablation versus drug therapy was a prespecified analysis in the CABANA (Catheter Ablation Versus Antiarrhythmic Drug Therapy for Atrial Fibrillation) trial. Methods and Results Symptoms were assessed periodically over 60 months with the Mayo AF-Specific Symptom Inventory (MAFSI) frequency score, and QOL was assessed with the Atrial Fibrillation Effect on Quality of Life (AFEQT) summary and component scores. Women had lower baseline QOL scores than men (mean AFEQT scores 55.9 and 65.6, respectively). Ablation patients improved more than drug therapy patients with similar treatment effect by sex: AFEQT 12-month mean adjusted treatment difference in women 6.1 points (95% CI, 3.5-8.6) and men 4.9 points (95% CI, 3.0-6.9). Participants with baseline AFEQT summary scores <70 had greater QOL improvement, with a mean treatment difference at 12 months of 7.6 points for women (95% CI, 4.3-10.9) and 6.4 points for men (95% CI, 3.3-9.4). The mean adjusted difference in MAFSI frequency score between women randomized to ablation versus drug therapy at 12 months was -2.5 (95% CI, -3.4 to -1.6); for men, the difference was -1.3 (95% CI, -2.0 to -0.6). Conclusions Compared with drug therapy for AF, ablation resulted in more QOL improvement in both sexes, primarily driven by improvements in those with lower baseline QOL. Ablation did not eliminate the AF-related QOL gap between women and men. Registration URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT00911508.

Effect of Torsemide vs Furosemide After Discharge on All-Cause Mortality in Patients Hospitalized With Heart Failure: The TRANSFORM-HF Randomized Clinical Trial

IMPORTANCE

Although furosemide is the most commonly used loop diuretic in patients with heart failure, some studies suggest a potential benefit for torsemide.

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether torsemide results in decreased mortality compared with furosemide among patients hospitalized for heart failure.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

TRANSFORM-HF was an open-label, pragmatic randomized trial that recruited 2859 participants hospitalized with heart failure (regardless of ejection fraction) at 60 hospitals in the United States. Recruitment occurred from June 2018 through March 2022, with follow-up through 30 months for death and 12 months for hospitalizations. The final date for follow-up data collection was July 2022.

INTERVENTIONS

Loop diuretic strategy of torsemide (n = 1431) or furosemide (n = 1428) with investigator-selected dosage.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The primary outcome was all-cause mortality in a time-to-event analysis. There were 5 secondary outcomes with all-cause mortality or all-cause hospitalization and total hospitalizations assessed over 12 months being highest in the hierarchy. The prespecified primary hypothesis was that torsemide would reduce all-cause mortality by 20% compared with furosemide.

RESULTS

TRANSFORM-HF randomized 2859 participants with a median age of 65 years (IQR, 56-75), 36.9% were women, and 33.9% were Black. Over a median follow-up of 17.4 months, a total of 113 patients (53 [3.7%] in the torsemide group and 60 [4.2%] in the furosemide group) withdrew consent from the trial prior to completion. Death occurred in 373 of 1431 patients (26.1%) in the torsemide group and 374 of 1428 patients (26.2%) in the furosemide group (hazard ratio, 1.02 [95% CI, 0.89-1.18]). Over 12 months following randomization, all-cause mortality or all-cause hospitalization occurred in 677 patients (47.3%) in the torsemide group and 704 patients (49.3%) in the furosemide group (hazard ratio, 0.92 [95% CI, 0.83-1.02]). There were 940 total hospitalizations among 536 participants in the torsemide group and 987 total hospitalizations among 577 participants in the furosemide group (rate ratio, 0.94 [95% CI, 0.84-1.07]). Results were similar across prespecified subgroups, including among patients with reduced, mildly reduced, or preserved ejection fraction.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Among patients discharged after hospitalization for heart failure, torsemide compared with furosemide did not result in a significant difference in all-cause mortality over 12 months. However, interpretation of these findings is limited by loss to follow-up and participant crossover and nonadherence.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03296813.

The Back Pain Consortium (BACPAC) Research Program: Structure, Research Priorities, and Methods

In 2019, the National Health Interview survey found that nearly 59% of adults reported pain some, most, or every day in the past 3 months, with 39% reporting back pain, making back pain the most prevalent source of pain, and a significant issue among adults. Often, identifying a direct, treatable cause for back pain is challenging, especially as it is often attributed to complex, multifaceted issues involving biological, psychological, and social components. Due to the difficulty in treating the true cause of chronic low back pain (cLBP), an over-reliance on opioid pain medications among cLBP patients has developed, which is associated with increased prevalence of opioid use disorder and increased risk of death. To combat the rise of opioid-related deaths, the NIH initiated the Helping to End Addiction Long-TermSM (HEAL) initiative, whose goal is to address the causes and treatment of opioid use disorder while also seeking to better understand, diagnose, and treat chronic pain. The NIH Back Pain Consortium (BACPAC) Research Program, a network of 14 funded entities, was launched as a part of the HEAL initiative to help address limitations surrounding the diagnosis and treatment of cLBP. This paper provides an overview of the BACPAC research program's goals and overall structure, and describes the harmonization efforts across the consortium, define its research agenda, and develop a collaborative project which utilizes the strengths of the network. The purpose of this paper is to serve as a blueprint for other consortia tasked with the advancement of pain related science.

Patient-Reported Frailty and Functional Status in Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction: Insights From VITALITY-HFpEF

BACKGROUND

The association between frailty and health status in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) is not well known.

OBJECTIVES

The authors examined the association between: 1) patient-reported frailty, measured by the Fried frailty phenotype, Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire physical limitation score (KCCQ-PLS), 6-minute walking distance (6MWD), and other baseline characteristics; 2) baseline frailty compared with KCCQ-PLS and 24-week 6MWD; 3) frailty and changes in KCCQ-PLS and 6MWD; and 4) vericiguat and frailty at 24 weeks.

METHODS

In a post hoc analysis, patients in the VITALITY-HFpEF (Patient-reported Outcomes in Vericiguat-treated Patients With HFpEF) trial were categorized as not frail (0 symptoms), prefrail (1-2 symptoms), and frail (≥3 symptoms) according to patient-reported number of frailty symptoms. Correlations and linear regression models were used to examine the association between frailty and other measures, and between frailty and KCCQ-PLS at baseline with 24-week 6MWD.

RESULTS

Among 739 patients, 27.3% were not frail, 37.6% were prefrail, and 35.0% were frail at baseline. Frail patients were older, more likely to be women, and less likely to be from Asia. Baseline KCCQ-PLS and 6MWD (mean ± SD) among not frail, prefrail, and frail patients was 68.2 ± 23.2, 61.7 ± 22.6, and 48.4 ± 23.8 and 328.5 ± 117.1 m, 310.8 ± 98.9 m, and 250.7 ± 104.3 m (P < 0.01 for both). After accounting for baseline 6MWD, frailty status at baseline, but not KCCQ-PLS, was significantly associated with 6MWD at 24 weeks. By 24 weeks, 47.5% of patients had no change in frailty, 45.5% had become less frail, and 7.0% had become more frail. Treatment with vericiguat did not alter frailty status at 24 weeks.

CONCLUSIONS

Patient-reported frailty is modestly correlated with both the KCCQ-PLS and 6MWD but offers prognostic insight into 6MWD at 24 weeks. (Patient-reported Outcomes in Vericiguat-treated Patients With HFpEF [VITALITY-HFpEF]; NCT03547583).

LB1531B. Administration of the TNF-alpha inhibitor, infliximab, reduces mortality in hospitalized patients with COVID pneumonia. Results of a randomized controlled trial

Background

Severe COVID-19 infection is characterized by a dysregulated hyperinflammatory state that contributes to morbidity and mortality. Immunomodulatory therapy has been shown to improve outcomes. We investigated if the TNF-alpha inhibitor, infliximab (IFX), provides additional benefit over standard of care.

Methods

We conducted a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial of IFX (single infusion of 5 mg/kg) compared to standard of care (including remdesivir and dexamethasone) in patients hospitalized with COVID-19 pneumonia. The primary outcome was time to recovery by day 29. Key secondary endpoints included 14-day clinical status and 28-day mortality.

Results

A total of 1033 patients received study agent (517 assigned to IFX, 516 to common placebo), constituting the analyzed modified intention-to-treat cohort. Mean age 54.8 years, 60.3% were male, 48.6% Hispanic/Latino and 14% Black. Randomization was balanced for severity of illness and comorbidities. Participants randomized to IFX did not show a statistically significant difference in the primary endpoint with a recovery rate ratio of 1.13 (95% CI 0.99-1.27, p=0.0631) compared to placebo. The median (IQR) time to recovery was 8 days (7, 9) for IFX and 9 days (8, 10) for placebo. Patients assigned to IFX were more likely to have an improved clinical status at day 14 (OR 1.32; 95% CI 1.05, 1.66). The 28-day mortality was 10.1% in the IFX arm and 14.5% in the placebo (OR 0.59 (95% CI 0.39, 0.90)), with a 40.7% lower odds of dying in patients receiving IFX. The improvement in mortality was demonstrated in patients requiring low- or high-flow O2 at baseline but not in those requiring mechanical ventilation or ECMO. Subgroup analysis identified the strongest effect in those with baseline CRP &gt;75mg/ml. There was no imbalances in serious adverse events. Secondary infections were similar between groups (IFX 18.0%, placebo 16.5%).

Conclusion

Although single-dose IV IFX did not demonstrate statistically significant improvement in time to recovery, it was associated with improvement in clinical status at day 14 and showed a substantial reduction in 28 day mortality compared to standard of care.

Disclosures

Jane A. O'Halloran, MD PhD, Janssen Scientific Affairs, LLC: Grant/Research Support Richard Melsheimer, n/a, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, a Johnson & Johnson Company: Employee of Janssen/J&J|Janssen Pharmaceuticals, a Johnson & Johnson Company: Stocks/Bonds William G. Powderly, MD, Merck: Advisor/Consultant.

LB1531A. Administration of abatacept, reduces mortality in hospitalized patients with COVID pneumonia. Results of a randomized controlled trial

Background

Severe COVID-19 infection is characterized by a dysregulated hyperinflammatory state that contributes to morbidity and mortality. Immunomodulatory therapy has been shown to improve outcomes. We investigated if abatacept, CTLA-4-Ig, a selective costimulation modulator, provides additional benefit when added to standard of care.

Methods

We conducted a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial evaluating abatacept (given as a single infusion of 10mg/kg, to a maximum of 1000 mg) compared to standard of care (including remdesivir and dexamethasone) in patients hospitalized with COVID-19 pneumonia. The primary outcome was median time to recovery by day 29. Key secondary endpoints included 28-day mortality.

Results

A total of 1019 patients received an infusion (509 assigned to abatacept and 510 to placebo), constituting the analyzed modified intention-to-treat cohort. The mean age 54.9 years (SD 14.65), 60.5% were male, 44.2% Hispanic or Latino and 13.7% black. Patients were evenly matched in terms of severity of illness, and comorbidities. Participants randomized to abatacept did not show a statistically significant difference in the primary endpoint with a recovery rate ratio of 1.135 (95% CI 0.996-1.294, p=0.057) compared to placebo. The median (IQR) time to recovery was 9 days (8, 10) for both groups. The 28-day mortality in the abatacept arm was 11.0% and in control arm 15.0% (OR 0.62 (95% CI 0.41, 0.94)), with a 37.8% lower odds of dying in patients receiving abatacept. The improvement in mortality was demonstrated for patients requiring low or high flow O2 at baseline but was not seen in patients who required mechanical ventilation or ECMO at time of randomization. Subgroup analysis identified the strongest effect in those with baseline CRP >75mg/L, age >65 and diabetics. Safety data demonstrated slightly lower risk of adverse events. Rates of secondary infections were similar (abatacept 16.1% and placebo 14.3%).

Conclusion

Although single-dose IV abatacept did not demonstrate statistically significant improvement in time to recovery, it did show a substantial reduction in 28-day mortality compared to standard of care.

Disclosures

Reynold Panettieri, Jr., MD, AstraZeneca: Advisor/Consultant|AstraZeneca: Grant/Research Support|AstraZeneca: Honoraria|Equillium: Grant/Research Support|Genentech: Advisor/Consultant|Genentech: Grant/Research Support|Janssen: Grant/Research Support|MedImmune: Grant/Research Support|Merck: Honoraria|Novartis: Grant/Research Support|Origo: Grant/Research Support|RIFM: Advisor/Consultant|RIFM: Grant/Research Support|Sanofi: Honoraria|Vault Health: Grant/Research Support Jane A. O'Halloran, MD PhD, Janssen Scientific Affairs, LLC: Grant/Research Support Michael A. Maldonado, MD, Bristol Myers Squibb: Employee|Bristol Myers Squibb: Stocks/Bonds William G. Powderly, MD, Merck: Advisor/Consultant.

Soluble guanylate cyclase stimulators in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction across the risk spectrum

Patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) have a high residual risk of adverse outcomes, even when treated with optimal guideline-directed medical therapy and in a clinically stable state. Soluble guanylate cyclase (sGC) stimulators have the potential to lower this risk by modifying the nitric oxide-sGC-cyclic guanosine monophosphate cascade - a pathophysiological pathway that has been targeted with limited success in HFrEF previously. Vericiguat, an sGC stimulator, was shown to improve outcomes in patients with HFrEF in the VICTORIA (Vericiguat Global Study in Subjects with Heart Failure with Reduced Ejection Fraction) trial. However, this trial included patients with recently worsening disease. In this brief review, we discuss the rationale of evaluating sGC stimulators in lower-risk HFrEF patients. First, all key HFrEF medications have been evaluated in both higher- and lower-risk populations, and the treatment effect is not always consistent across the risk spectrum. Second, pre-clinical studies and post-hoc studies of the VICTORIA trial have suggested that sGC stimulators may have cardioprotective effects - these effects may be more apparent when the medication is initiated earlier in the disease process. Third, the effect of vericiguat on cardiovascular mortality remains uncertain and a trial with a longer follow-up in a lower-risk population may allow better assessment of its effect on cardiovascular mortality. Therefore, there is a pertinent need to investigate the effects of vericiguat in optimally treated, low-risk HFrEF patients (i.e. those without recently worsening heart failure).

Ascertaining Death Events in a Pragmatic Clinical Trial: Insights From the TRANSFORM-HF Trial

BACKGROUND

Death ascertainment can be challenging for pragmatic clinical trials that limit site follow-up activities to usual clinical care.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We used blinded aggregate data from the ongoing ToRsemide comparison with furoSemide FOR Management of Heart Failure (TRANSFORM-HF) pragmatic clinical trial in patients with heart failure to evaluate the agreement between centralized call center death event identification and the United States National Death Index (NDI). Of 2284 total patients randomized through April 12, 2021, 1480 were randomized in 2018-2019 and 804 in 2020-2021. The call center identified 416 total death events (177 in 2018-2019 and 239 in 2020-2021). The NDI 2018-2019 final file identified 178 death events, 165 of which were also identified by the call center. The study's inter-rater reliability metric (Cohen's kappa coefficient, 0.920; 95% confidence interval, 0.889-0.951) demonstrates a high level of agreement. The time between a death event and its identification was less for the call center (median, 47 days; interquartile range, 11-103 days) than for the NDI (median, 270 days; interquartile range, 186-391 days).

CONCLUSIONS

There is substantial agreement between deaths identified by a centralized call center and the NDI. However, the time between a death event and its identification is significantly less for the call center.

The trial to assess chelation therapy 2 (TACT2): Rationale and design

BACKGROUND

Intravenous edetate disodium-based infusions reduced cardiovascular events in a prior clinical trial. The Trial to Assess Chelation Therapy 2 (TACT2) will replicate the initial study design.

METHODS

TACT2 is an NIH-sponsored, randomized, 2x2 factorial, double masked, placebo-controlled, multicenter clinical trial testing 40 weekly infusions of a multi-component edetate disodium (disodium ethylenediamine tetra-acetic acid, or Na2EDTA)-based chelation solution and twice daily oral, high-dose multivitamin and mineral supplements in patients with diabetes and a prior myocardial infarction (MI). TACT2 completed enrollment of 1000 subjects in December 2020, and infusions in December 2021. Subjects are followed for 2.5 to 5 years. The primary endpoint is time to first occurrence of all-cause mortality, MI, stroke, coronary revascularization, or hospitalization for unstable angina. The trial has >;85% power to detect a 30% relative reduction in the primary endpoint. TACT2 also includes a Trace Metals and Biorepository Core Lab, to test whether benefits of treatment, if present, are due to chelation of lead and cadmium from patients. Design features of TACT2 were chosen to replicate selected features of the first TACT, which demonstrated a significant reduction in cardiovascular outcomes in the EDTA chelation arm compared with placebo among patients with a prior MI, with the largest effect in patients with diabetes.

RESULTS

Results are expected in 2024.

CONCLUSION

TACT2 may provide definitive evidence of the benefit of edetate disodiumbased chelation on cardiovascular outcomes, as well as the clinical importance of longitudinal changes in toxic metal levels of participants.

Infliximab for Treatment of Adults Hospitalized with Moderate or Severe Covid-19

Background

Immune dysregulation contributes to poorer outcomes in severe Covid-19. Immunomodulators targeting various pathways have improved outcomes. We investigated whether infliximab provides benefit over standard of care.

Methods

We conducted a master protocol investigating immunomodulators for potential benefit in treatment of participants hospitalized with Covid-19 pneumonia. We report results for infliximab (single dose infusion) versus shared placebo both with standard of care. Primary outcome was time to recovery by day 29 (28 days after randomization). Key secondary endpoints included 14-day clinical status and 28-day mortality.

Results

A total of 1033 participants received study drug (517 infliximab, 516 placebo). Mean age was 54.8 years, 60.3% were male, 48.6% Hispanic or Latino, and 14% Black. No statistically significant difference in the primary endpoint was seen with infliximab compared with placebo (recovery rate ratio 1.13, 95% CI 0.99-1.29; p=0.063). Median (IQR) time to recovery was 8 days (7, 9) for infliximab and 9 days (8, 10) for placebo. Participants assigned to infliximab were more likely to have an improved clinical status at day 14 (OR 1.32, 95% CI 1.05-1.66). Twenty-eight-day mortality was 10.1% with infliximab versus 14.5% with placebo, with 41% lower odds of dying in those receiving infliximab (OR 0.59, 95% CI 0.39-0.90). No differences in risk of serious adverse events including secondary infections.

Conclusions

Infliximab did not demonstrate statistically significant improvement in time to recovery. It was associated with improved 14-day clinical status and substantial reduction in 28- day mortality compared with standard of care.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov ( NCT04593940 ).

Abatacept for Treatment of Adults Hospitalized with Moderate or Severe Covid-19

BACKGROUND

We investigated whether abatacept, a selective costimulation modulator, provides additional benefit when added to standard-of-care for patients hospitalized with Covid-19.

METHODS

We conducted a master protocol to investigate immunomodulators for potential benefit treating patients hospitalized with Covid-19 and report results for abatacept. Intravenous abatacept (one-time dose 10 mg/kg, maximum dose 1000 mg) plus standard of care (SOC) was compared with shared placebo plus SOC. Primary outcome was time-to-recovery by day 28. Key secondary endpoints included 28-day mortality.

RESULTS

Between October 16, 2020 and December 31, 2021, a total of 1019 participants received study treatment (509 abatacept; 510 shared placebo), constituting the modified intention-to-treat cohort. Participants had a mean age 54.8 (SD 14.6) years, 60.5% were male, 44.2% Hispanic/Latino and 13.7% Black. No statistically significant difference for the primary endpoint of time-to-recovery was found with a recovery-rate-ratio of 1.14 (95% CI 1.00-1.29; p=0.057) compared with placebo. We observed a substantial improvement in 28-day all-cause mortality with abatacept versus placebo (11.0% vs. 15.1%; odds ratio [OR] 0.62 [95% CI 0.41- 0.94]), leading to 38% lower odds of dying. Improvement in mortality occurred for participants requiring oxygen/noninvasive ventilation at randomization. Subgroup analysis identified the strongest effect in those with baseline C-reactive protein >75mg/L. We found no statistically significant differences in adverse events, with safety composite index slightly favoring abatacept. Rates of secondary infections were similar (16.1% for abatacept; 14.3% for placebo).

CONCLUSIONS

Addition of single-dose intravenous abatacept to standard-of-care demonstrated no statistically significant change in time-to-recovery, but improved 28-day mortality.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov ( NCT04593940 ).

Cost-Effectiveness of Catheter Ablation Versus Antiarrhythmic Drug Therapy in Atrial Fibrillation: The CABANA Randomized Clinical Trial

BACKGROUND

In the CABANA trial (Catheter Ablation vs Antiarrhythmic Drug Therapy for Atrial Fibrillation), catheter ablation did not significantly reduce the primary end point of death, disabling stroke, serious bleeding, or cardiac arrest compared with drug therapy by intention-to-treat, but did improve the quality of life and freedom from atrial fibrillation recurrence. In the heart failure subgroup, ablation improved both survival and quality of life. Cost-effectiveness was a prespecified CABANA secondary end point.

METHODS

Medical resource use data were collected for all CABANA patients (N=2204). Costs for hospital-based care were assigned using prospectively collected bills from US patients (n=1171); physician and medication costs were assigned using the Medicare Fee Schedule and National Average Drug Acquisition Costs, respectively. Extrapolated life expectancies were estimated using age-based survival models. Quality-of-life adjustments were based on EQ-5D-based utilities measured during the trial. The primary outcome was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, comparing ablation with drug therapy on the basis of intention-to-treat, and assessed from the US health care sector perspective.

RESULTS

Costs in the first 3 months averaged $20 794±SD 1069 higher with ablation compared with drug therapy. The cumulative within-trial 5-year cost difference was $19 245 (95% CI, $11 360-$27 170) and the lifetime mean cost difference was $15 516 (95% CI, -$2963 to $35,512) higher with ablation than with drug therapy. The drug therapy arm accrued an average of 12.5 life-years (LYs) and 10.7 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). For the ablation arm, the corresponding estimates were 12.6 LYs and 11.0 QALYs. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was $57 893 per QALY gained, with 75% of bootstrap replications yielding an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio <$100 000 per QALY gained. With no quality-of-life/utility adjustments, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was $183 318 per LY gained.

CONCLUSIONS

Catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation was economically attractive compared with drug therapy in the CABANA Trial overall at present benchmarks for health care value in the United States on the basis of projected incremental QALYs but not LYs alone.

Tolerability of Sacubitril/Valsartan in Patients With Advanced Heart Failure: Analysis of the LIFE Trial Run-In

BACKGROUND

The LIFE (LCZ696 In Hospitalized Advanced Heart FailurE) trial, which evaluated sacubitril/valsartan in patients with advanced heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction and recent New York Heart Association functional class IV symptomatology, did not require tolerance to a renin angiotensin system antagonist before initiating sacubitril/valsartan, thus affording an opportunity to study the tolerability of sacubitril/valsartan in advanced HF with reduced ejection fraction.

OBJECTIVES

The goal of this analysis of the LIFE trial is to characterize the tolerability of initiating sacubitril/valsartan in patients with chronic advanced HF with reduced ejection fraction.

METHODS

In the LIFE trial, 445 subjects with advanced HF entered an unblinded run-in period of 3-7 days with sacubitril/valsartan 24/26 mg twice a day. The authors compared characteristics of subjects completing and failing run-in, performed multivariable analysis of clinical parameters associated with run-in failure, and developed a predictive model for short-term intolerance to sacubitril/valsartan.

RESULTS

Of 445 subjects entering run-in, 73 (18%) were intolerant of sacubitril/valsartan. Reasons for intolerance included systolic blood pressure <90 mm Hg (59%), symptoms of hypotension/dizziness with systolic blood pressure >90 mm Hg (19%), and renal dysfunction (creatinine >2.0 mg/dL) (12%). Multivariable predictors of intolerance included lower mean arterial pressure, lower serum chloride, presence of an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator and/or cardiac resynchronization device, moderate or greater mitral regurgitation, nonuse of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker at the screening visit, and use of insulin at screening. Subjects with 4 or more predictors had a 48.9% probability of sacubitril/valsartan intolerance.

CONCLUSIONS

Intolerance to low doses of sacubitril/valsartan is common in patients with advanced chronic HF with reduced ejection fraction and may be predicted by the presence of certain risk factors. (EntrestoTM [LCZ696] in Advanced Heart Failure [LIFE Study] [HFN-LIFE] NCT02816736).

Vericiguat and Health-Related Quality of Life in Patients With Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction: Insights From the VICTORIA Trial

BACKGROUND

We examined the effects of vericiguat compared with placebo in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction enrolled in VICTORIA (Vericiguat Global Study in Patients With Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction) on health status outcomes measured by the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ) and evaluated whether clinical outcomes varied by baseline KCCQ score.

METHODS

KCCQ was completed at baseline and 4, 16, and 32 weeks. We assessed treatment effect on KCCQ using a mixed-effects model adjusting for baseline KCCQ and stratification variables. Cox proportional-hazards modeling was performed to evaluate the effect of vericiguat on clinical outcomes by tertiles of baseline KCCQ clinical summary score (CSS), total symptom score (TSS), and overall summary score (OSS).

RESULTS

Of 5050 patients, 4664, 4741, and 4470 had KCCQ CSS (median [25th to 75th], 65.6 [45.8-81.8]), TSS (68.8 [47.9-85.4]), and OSS (59.9 [42.0-77.1]) at baseline; 94%, 88%, and 82% had data at 4, 16, and 32 weeks. At 16 weeks, CSS improved by a median of 6.3 in both arms; no significant differences in improvement were seen for TSS and OSS between the 2 groups (P=0.69, 0.97, and 0.13 for CSS, TSS, and OSS). Trends were similar at 4 and 32 weeks. Vericiguat versus placebo reduced cardiovascular death or heart failure hospitalization risk similarly across tertiles of baseline KCCQ CSS, TSS, and OSS (interaction P=0.13, 0.21, and 0.65).

CONCLUSIONS

Vericiguat did not significantly improve KCCQ scores compared with placebo. Vericiguat reduced the risk of cardiovascular death or heart failure hospitalization across the range of baseline health status.

REGISTRATION

URL: https://www.

CLINICALTRIALS

gov; Unique identifier: NCT02861534.

Comprehensive Quality-of-Life Outcomes With Invasive Versus Conservative Management of Chronic Coronary Disease in ISCHEMIA

BACKGROUND

ISCHEMIA (International Study of Comparative Health Effectiveness with Medical and Invasive Approaches) compared an initial invasive treatment strategy (INV) with an initial conservative strategy in 5179 participants with chronic coronary disease and moderate or severe ischemia. The ISCHEMIA research program included a comprehensive quality-of-life (QOL) substudy.

METHODS

In 1819 participants (907 INV, 912 conservative strategy), we collected a battery of disease-specific and generic QOL instruments by structured interviews at baseline; at 3, 12, 24, and 36 months postrandomization; and at study closeout. Assessments included angina-related QOL (19-item Seattle Angina Questionnaire), generic health status (EQ-5D), depressive symptoms (Patient Health Questionnaire-8), and, for North American patients, cardiac functional status (Duke Activity Status Index).

RESULTS

Median age was 67 years, 19.2% were female, and 15.9% were non-White. The estimated mean difference for the 19-item Seattle Angina Questionnaire Summary score favored INV (1.4 points [95% CI, 0.2-2.5] over all follow-up). No differences were observed in patients with rare/absent baseline angina (SAQ Angina Frequency score >80). Among patients with more frequent angina at baseline (SAQ Angina Frequency score <80, 744 patients, 41%), those randomly assigned to INV had a mean 3.7-point higher 19-item Seattle Angina Questionnaire Summary score than conservative strategy (95% CI, 1.6-5.8) with consistent effects across SAQ subscales: Physical Limitations 3.2 points (95% CI, 0.2-6.1), Angina Frequency 3.2 points (95% CI, 1.2-5.1), Quality of Life/Health Perceptions 5.3 points (95% CI, 2.8-7.8). For the Duke Activity Status Index, no difference was estimated overall by treatment, but in patients with baseline SAQ Angina Frequency scores <80, Duke Activity Status Index scores were higher for INV (3.2 points [95% CI, 0.6-5.7]), whereas patients with rare/absent baseline angina showed no treatment-related differences. Moderate to severe depression was infrequent at randomization (11.5%-12.8%) and was unaffected by treatment assignment.

CONCLUSIONS

In the ISCHEMIA comprehensive QOL substudy, patients with more frequent baseline angina reported greater improvements in the symptom, physical functioning, and psychological well-being dimensions of QOL when treated with an invasive strategy, whereas patients who had rare/absent angina at baseline reported no consistent treatment-related QOL differences.

REGISTRATION

URL: https://www.

CLINICALTRIALS

gov; Unique identifier: NCT01471522.

Cost-Effectiveness of Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery Versus Medicine in Ischemic Cardiomyopathy: The STICH Randomized Clinical Trial

BACKGROUND

The STICH Randomized Clinical Trial (Surgical Treatment for Ischemic Heart Failure) demonstrated that coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) reduced all-cause mortality rates out to 10 years compared with medical therapy alone (MED) in patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy and reduced left ventricular function (ejection fraction ≤35%). We examined the economic implications of these results.

METHODS

We used a decision-analytic patient-level simulation model to estimate the lifetime costs and benefits of CABG and MED using patient-level resource use and clinical data collected in the STICH trial. Patient-level costs were calculated by applying externally derived US cost weights to resource use counts during trial follow-up. A 3% discount rate was applied to both future costs and benefits. The primary outcome was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio assessed from the US health care sector perspective.

RESULTS

For the CABG arm, we estimated 6.53 quality-adjusted life-years (95% CI, 5.70-7.53) and a lifetime cost of $140 059 (95% CI, $106 401 to $180 992). For the MED arm, the corresponding estimates were 5.52 (95% CI, 5.06-6.09) quality-adjusted life-years and $74 894 lifetime cost (95% CI, $58 372 to $93 541). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for CABG compared with MED was $63 989 per quality-adjusted life-year gained. At a societal willingness-to-pay threshold of $100 000 per quality-adjusted life-year gained, CABG was found to be economically favorable compared with MED in 87% of microsimulations.

CONCLUSIONS

In the STICH trial, in patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy and reduced left ventricular function, CABG was economically attractive relative to MED at current benchmarks for value in the United States.

REGISTRATION

URL: https://www.

CLINICALTRIALS

gov; Unique identifier: NCT00023595.

Chelation Therapy in Patients With Cardiovascular Disease: A Systematic Review

Background EDTA is an intravenous chelating agent with high affinity to divalent cations (lead, cadmium, and calcium) that may be beneficial in the treatment of cardiovascular disease (CVD). Although a large randomized clinical trial showed benefit, smaller studies were inconsistent. We conducted a systematic review of published studies to examine the effect of repeated EDTA on clinical outcomes in adults with CVD. Methods and Results We searched 3 databases (MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane) from database inception to October 2021 to identify all studies involving EDTA treatment in patients with CVD. Predetermined outcomes included mortality, disease severity, plasma biomarkers of disease chronicity, and quality of life. Twenty-four studies (4 randomized clinical trials, 15 prospective before/after studies, and 5 retrospective case series) assessed the use of repeated EDTA chelation treatment in patients with preexistent CVD. Of these, 17 studies (1 randomized clinical trial) found improvement in their respective outcomes following EDTA treatment. The largest improvements were observed in studies with high prevalence of participants with diabetes and/or severe occlusive arterial disease. A meta-analysis conducted with 4 studies reporting ankle-brachial index indicated an improvement of 0.08 (95% CI, 0.06-0.09) from baseline. Conclusions Overall, 17 studies suggested improved outcomes, 5 reported no statistically significant effect of treatment, and 2 reported no qualitative benefit. Repeated EDTA for CVD treatment may provide more benefit to patients with diabetes and severe peripheral arterial disease. Differences across infusion regimens, including dosage, solution components, and number of infusions, limit comparisons across studies. Additional research is necessary to confirm these findings and to evaluate the potential mediating role of metals. Registration URL: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/; Unique identifier: CRD42020166505.

Medical Therapy During Hospitalization for Heart Failure with Reduced Ejection Fraction: The VICTORIA Registry: Medical Therapy During Hospitalization for HFrEF

BACKGROUND

For patients hospitalized for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), guidelines recommend optimization of medical therapy prior to discharge. The degree to which changes in medical therapy occur during hospitalizations for HFrEF in North American clinical practice is unclear.

METHODS

The VICTORIA registry enrolled patients hospitalized for worsening chronic HFrEF across 51 sites in the US and Canada from February 2018-January 2019. Among patients with complete medication data and not receiving dialysis, use and dose of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor (ACEI)/ angiotensin II receptor blocker (ARB), angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI), beta-blocker, mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist (MRA), and sodium glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors (SGLT2i) were assessed at admission and discharge.

RESULTS

Among 1,695 patients, median (IQR) age was 69 (59-79) years and 33% were women. Among eligible patients, 33%, 25%, and 55% were not prescribed ACEI/ARB/ARNI, beta-blocker, and MRA at discharge, respectively; 99% were not prescribed SGLT2i. For each medication, >50% of patients remained on stable sub-target doses or no medication during hospitalization. In-hospital rates of initiation/dose increase were 20% for ACEI/ARB, 4% for ARNI, 20% for beta-blocker, 22% for MRA, and <1% for SGLT2i; corresponding rates of dose decrease/discontinuation were 11%, 2%, 9%, 5%, and <1%, respectively. Overall, 17% and 28% of eligible patients were prescribed triple therapy prior to admission and at discharge, respectively. At both admission and discharge, 1% of patients were prescribed triple therapy at target doses. Across classes of medication, multiple factors were independently associated with higher likelihood of in-hospital initiation/dosing increase (e.g., Canadian enrollment, White race, intensive care admission) and discontinuation/dosing decrease (e.g., worse renal function, intensive care admission).

CONCLUSIONS

In this contemporary North American registry of patients hospitalized for worsening chronic HFrEF, for each recommended medical therapy, the large majority of eligible patients remained on stable sub-target doses or without medication at admission and discharge. Although most patients had no alterations in medical therapy, hospitalization in Canada and multiple patient characteristics were associated with higher likelihood of favorable in-hospital medication changes.

Defining Changes in Physical Limitation from the Patient Perspective: Insights from the VITALITY-HFpEF Randomized Trial

BACKGROUND

Clinically important thresholds in patient-reported outcomes measures like the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ) have not been defined for patients with heart failure and preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). The aim of this study was to estimate meaningful thresholds for improvement or worsening in the KCCQ-Physical Limitation Score (PLS) in patients with HFpEF.

METHODS

In this pre-specified analysis from VITALITY-HFpEF, anchor- and distribution-based approaches were used to estimate thresholds for improvement or worsening in the KCCQ-PLS using Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC) as an anchor. The KCCQ-PLS contains 6 elements, with each increment in response resulting in a change of 4.17 points when converted to a 0-100 scale. The mean change in KCCQ-PLS from baseline to week 12 was calculated for each PGIC group to estimate a meaningful within-patient change.

RESULTS

Of 789 patients enrolled, 698 had complete KCCQ-PLS and PGIC data at week 12. The mean (±SD) changes in KCCQ-PLS corresponding to PGIC changes of "a little better," "better," and "much better" were 5.7±18.6, 11.6±19.3, and 18.4±25.3 points, respectively. The scores of patients who responded "a little better" (n=177) overlapped substantially with those who reported "no change" (n=193; mean change 2.8±18.9). The mean change in KCCQ-PLS for patients responding "a little worse" (n=32) was -2.6±18.0 points. The threshold for meaningful within-patient change in KCCQ-PLS based on distribution-based analyses was 12.3 points. Using area-under-curve (AUC) analyses of KCCQ-PLS, the sensitivity and specificity of a 4.17-point change were 0.61 and 0.57, for an 8.33-point change they were 0.49 and 0.64, and for a 12.5-point change were 0.44 and 0.72 for being at least a little better on the PGIC (AUC=0.54).

CONCLUSION

In the VITALITY-HFpEF trial, a change in KCCQ-PLS of ≥8.33 points (corresponding to an improvement in ≥2 response categories of KCCQ-PLS) may represent the minimal clinically important difference for improvement and a change of ≤ -4.17 points (corresponding to a worsening in ≥1 response category of KCCQ-PLS) may suggest deterioration in patients with HFpEF.

Vericiguat in Patients with Coronary Artery Disease and Heart Failure with Reduced Ejection Fraction

AIMS

Coronary artery disease (CAD) portends worse outcomes in heart failure (HF). We aimed to characterize patients with CAD and worsening HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and evaluate post hoc whether vericiguat's treatment effect varied according to CAD.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Cox proportional hazards were generated for the primary endpoint of cardiovascular death or HF hospitalization (CVD/HFH). CAD was defined as previous myocardial infarction, percutaneous coronary intervention, or coronary artery bypass grafting. Of 5048 patients in VICTORIA with available data on CAD status, 2704 had CAD and were older, were more frequently male, diabetic, and had a lower glomerular filtration rate than those without CAD (all p <0.0001). Use of implantable cardioverter defibrillators and cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) was higher in patients with versus without CAD (33.5 vs. 21.1%; p <0.0001 and 16.3 vs. 12.8%; p = 0.0006). The primary endpoint of CVD/HFH was higher in those with versus without CAD (40.6 vs. 30.1/100 patient-years; adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 1.23; p <0.001) as was all-cause mortality (17.9% vs. 12.7%; adjusted HR 1.32; p <0.001). The primary outcome of CVD/HFH associated with vericiguat in patients with or without CAD was 38.8 vs. 27.6 per 100 patient-years and for placebo was 42.6 vs. 32.7 per 100 patient-years (interaction p = 0.78).

CONCLUSION

In this post hoc study, CAD was associated with more CVD and HFH in patients with HFrEF and worsening HF. Vericiguat was beneficial and safe regardless of concomitant CAD. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Race Differences in Quality of Life following a Palliative Care Intervention in Patients with Advanced Heart Failure: Insights from the Palliative Care in Heart Failure Trial

Introduction: Black patients have a higher incidence of heart failure (HF) and worse outcomes than white patients. Guidelines recommend palliative care for patients with advanced HF, but no studies have examined outcomes in a black patient cohort. Methods: This is a post hoc analysis of the Palliative Care in Heart Failure trial, which randomized patients to usual care plus a palliative care intervention (UC+PAL) or usual care (UC). Quality of life (QoL) was measured using Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ) and Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Palliative Care scale (FACIT-Pal). Results: Black patients represented 41% of the 148 patients. At six months, QoL improved more in UC+PAL than UC for both racial subgroups. The difference was greater for black than white patients (difference: KCCQ 10.8 vs. 2.5; FACIT-Pal: 14.8 vs. 3.9). However, the findings were not statistically significant. Conclusions: Larger studies are needed to assess the benefits of palliative care for black patients with HF. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01589601.

Survival in Patients With Nonischemic Cardiomyopathy With Preserved vs Reduced Ejection Fraction

Background

Prior studies suggest similar long-term mortality rates for patients with heart failure (HF) with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) vs reduced ejection fraction. However, although coronary heart disease (CHD) is associated with worse prognosis in HF, clinical outcomes are less well characterized for HF without CHD. We investigated the characteristics and 5-year mortality outcomes among patients with HF without significant CHD, stratified by EF.

Methods

Patients with clinical heart failure who underwent coronary angiography at Duke University Medical Center from 1996 through 2009 and had no significant CHD with EF ≤ 40% were compared with patients without significant CHD with EF > 40%. Survival was examined using Kaplan-Meier methods and multivariable Cox proportional hazards modeling. Analyses were repeated using EF ≥ 50%.

Results

Of 3154 patients with HF without significant CHD, 1530 (48.5%) had HFpEF (EF > 40%). These patients were older and more likely to have a Charlson Index ≥ 2 than patients with reduced EF. Patients with HFpEF had a lower risk of death than those with reduced EF (unadjusted hazard ratio [HR] 0.85; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.74-0.99). From 1996 through 2009, the secular trend of death decreased among patients without CHD and with reduced EF (HR 0.92; 95% CI 0.88-0.97) but not among those with preserved EF (HR 0.99; 95% CI 0.93-1.05; P interaction 0.095). No finding was significant after multivariable risk adjustment. Results were consistent when defining preserved EF as EF ≥ 50%.

Conclusions

Among patients without significant CHD, those with HFpEF had similar risks of 5-year mortality as patients with HF with reduced ejection fraction.

Blood Pressure and Safety Events With Vericiguat in the VICTORIA Trial

Background

Although safety and tolerability of vericiguat were established in the VICTORIA (Vericiguat Global Study in Subjects With Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction) trial in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, some subgroups may be more susceptible to symptomatic hypotension, such as older patients, those with lower baseline systolic blood pressure (SBP), or those concurrently taking angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitors. We described the SBP trajectories over time and compared the occurrence of symptomatic hypotension or syncope by treatment arm in potentially vulnerable subgroups in VICTORIA. We also evaluated the relation between the efficacy of vericiguat and baseline SBP.

Methods and Results

Among patients receiving at least 1 dose of the study drug (n=5034), potentially vulnerable subgroups were those >75 years old (n=1395), those with baseline SBP 100–110 mm Hg (n=1344), and those taking angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitors (n=730). SBP trajectory was plotted as mean change from baseline over time. The treatment effect on time to symptomatic hypotension or syncope was evaluated overall and by subgroup, and the primary efficacy composite outcome (heart failure hospitalization or cardiovascular death) across baseline SBP was examined using Cox proportional hazards models. SBP trajectories showed a small initial decline in SBP with vericiguat in those >75 years old (versus younger patients), as well as those receiving angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitors (versus none), with SBP returning to baseline thereafter. Patients with SBP <110 mm Hg at baseline showed a trend to increasing SBP over time, which was similar in both treatment arms. Safety event rates were generally low and similar between treatment arms within each subgroup. In Cox proportional hazards analysis, there were similar numbers of safety events with vericiguat versus placebo (adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 1.18; 95% CI, 0.99–1.39; P=0.059).

No difference existed between treatment arms in landmark analysis beginning after the titration phase (ie, post 4 weeks) (adjusted HR, 1.14; 95% CI, 0.93–1.38; P=0.20). The benefit of vericiguat compared with placebo on the primary composite efficacy outcome was similar across the spectrum of baseline SBP (P for interaction=0.32).

Conclusions

These data demonstrate the safety of vericiguat in a broad population of patients with worsening heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, even among those predisposed to hypotension. Vericiguat’s efficacy persisted regardless of baseline SBP.

Registration

URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT02861534.

Effect of Treatment With Sacubitril/Valsartan in Patients With Advanced Heart Failure and Reduced Ejection Fraction: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Importance

The use of sacubitril/valsartan is not endorsed by practice guidelines for use in patients with New York Heart Association class IV heart failure with a reduced ejection fraction because of limited clinical experience in this population.

Objective

To compare treatment with sacubitril/valsartan treatment with valsartan in patients with advanced heart failure and a reduced ejection fraction and recent New York Heart Association class IV symptoms.

Design, Setting, and Participants

A double-blind randomized clinical trial was conducted; a total of 335 patients with advanced heart failure were included. The trial began on March 2, 2017, and was stopped early on March 23, 2020, owing to COVID-19 risk.

Intervention

Patients were randomized to receive sacubitril/valsartan (target dose, 200 mg twice daily) or valsartan (target dose, 160 mg twice daily) in addition to recommended therapy.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The area under the curve (AUC) for the ratio of N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) compared with baseline measured through 24 weeks of therapy.

Results

Of the 335 patients included in the analysis, 245 were men (73%); mean (SD) age was 59.4 (13.5) years. Seventy-two eligible patients (18%) were not able to tolerate sacubitril/valsartan, 100 mg/d, during the short run-in period, and 49 patients (29%) discontinued sacubitril/valsartan during the 24 weeks of the trial. The median NT-proBNP AUC for the valsartan treatment arm (n = 168) was 1.19 (IQR, 0.91-1.64), whereas the AUC for the sacubitril/valsartan treatment arm (n = 167) was 1.08 (IQR, 0.75-1.60). The estimated ratio of change in the NT-proBNP AUC was 0.95 (95% CI 0.84-1.08; P = .45). Compared with valsartan, treatment with sacubitril/valsartan did not improve the clinical composite of number of days alive, out of hospital, and free from heart failure events. Aside from a statistically significant increase in non-life-threatening hyperkalemia in the sacubitril/valsartan arm (28 [17%] vs 15 [9%]; P = .04), there were no observed safety concerns.

Conclusions and Relevance

The findings of this trial showed that, in patients with chronic advanced heart failure with a reduced ejection fraction, there was no statistically significant difference between sacubitril/valsartan and valsartan with respect to reducing NT-proBNP levels.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02816736.

Design of the healthcare worker exposure response and outcomes (HERO) research platform

BACKGROUND

The SARS CoV-2 virus has caused one of the deadliest pandemics in recent history, resulting in over 170 million deaths and global economic disruption. There remains an urgent need for clinical trials to test therapies for treatment and prevention.

DESIGN

An online research platform was created to support a registry community of healthcare workers (HCWs) to understand their experiences and conduct clinical studies to address their concerns. The first study, HERO-HCQ, was a double-blind, multicenter, randomized, pragmatic trial to evaluate the superiority of hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) vs placebo for pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) of COVID-19 clinical infection in HCWs. Secondary objectives were to assess the efficacy of HCQ in preventing viral shedding of COVID-19 among HCWs and to assess the safety and tolerability of HCQ.

METHODS

HCWs joined the Registry and were pre-screened for trial interest and eligibility. Trial participants were randomized 1:1 to receive HCQ or placebo. On-site baseline assessment included a COVID-19 nasopharyngeal PCR and blood serology test. Weekly follow-up was done via an online portal and included screening for symptoms of COVID-19, self-reported testing, adverse events, and quality of life assessments. The on-site visit was repeated at Day 30.

DISCUSSION

The HERO research platform offers an approach to rapidly engage, screen, invite and enroll into clinical studies using a novel participant-facing online portal interface and remote data collection, enabling limited onsite procedures for conduct of a pragmatic clinical trial. This platform may be an example for future clinical trials of common conditions to enable more rapid evidence generation.

Clinical Outcome Predictions for the VerICiguaT Global Study in Subjects With Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction (VICTORIA) Trial

BACKGROUND

The prediction of outcomes in patients with heart failure (HF) may inform prognosis, clinical decisions regarding treatment selection, and new trial planning. The VerICiguaT Global Study in Subjects With Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction included high-risk patients with HF with reduced ejection fraction and a recent worsening HF event. The study participants had a high event rate despite the use of contemporary guideline-based therapies. To provide generalizable predictive data for a broad population with a recent worsening HF event, we focused on risk prognostication in the placebo group.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Data from 2524 participants randomized to placebo with chronic HF (New York Heart Association functional class II-IV) and an ejection fraction of less than 45% were studied and backward variable selection was used to create Cox proportional hazards models for clinical end points, selecting from 66 candidate predictors. Final model results were produced, accounting for missing data, and nonlinearities. Optimism-corrected c-indices were calculated using 200 bootstrap samples. Over a median follow-up of 10.4 months, the primary outcome of HF hospitalization or cardiovascular death occurred in 972 patients (38.5%). Independent predictors of increased risk for the primary end point included HF characteristics (longer HF duration and worse New York Heart Association functional class), medical history (prior myocardial infarction), and laboratory values (higher N-terminal pro-hormone B-type natriuretic peptide, bilirubin, urate; lower chloride and albumin). Optimism-corrected c-indices were 0.68 for the HF hospitalization/cardiovascular death model, 0.68 for HF hospitalization/all-cause death, 0.72 for cardiovascular death, and 0.73 for all-cause death.

CONCLUSIONS

Predictive models developed in a large diverse clinical trial with comprehensive clinical and laboratory baseline data-including novel measures-performed well in high-risk patients with HF who were receiving excellent guideline-based clinical care.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

Clinicaltrials.gov identifier, NCT02861534.Lay Summary: Patients with heart failure may benefit from tools that help clinicians to better understand a patient's risk for future events like hospitalization. Relatively few risk models have been created after the worsening of heart failure in a contemporary cohort. We provide insights on the risk factors for clinical events from a recent, large, global trial of patients with worsening heart failure to help clinicians better understand and communicate prognosis and select treatment options.

Renal function and the effects of vericiguat in patients with worsening heart failure with reduced ejection fraction: insights from the VICTORIA (Vericiguat Global Study in Subjects with HFrEF) trial

Aims

Vericiguat reduced the primary composite outcome of cardiovascular death or heart failure (HF) hospitalization in patients with worsening HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and a lower limit of baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) of 15 mL/min/1.73 m². We evaluated the relationship between the efficacy of vericiguat and baseline and subsequent changes in renal function.

Methods and results

In VICTORIA, core laboratory serum creatinine was measured at baseline (n = 4956) and weeks 16, 32, and 48. Worsening renal function (WRF), defined as an increase ≥0.3 mg/dL in creatinine from baseline to week 16, was assessed via a Cox model with respect to subsequent primary events. Mean age was 69 years, 24% were female, and mean baseline eGFR was 61 mL/min/1.73 m². During 48 weeks of treatment, the trajectories in eGFR and creatinine with vericiguat were similar to placebo (P = 0.50 and 0.18). The beneficial effects of vericiguat on the primary outcome were not influenced by baseline eGFR (interaction P = 0.48). WRF occurred in 15% of patients and was associated with worse outcomes (adjusted hazard ratio 1.28, 95% confidence interval 1.11–1.47; P < 0.001), but the beneficial effects of vericiguat on the primary outcome were similar in patients with or without WRF (interaction P = 0.76).

Conclusion

Renal function trajectories were similar between vericiguat‐ and placebo‐treated patients and the beneficial effects of vericiguat on the primary outcome were consistent across the full range of eGFR and irrespective of WRF.

Clinical Outcomes and Response to Vericiguat According to Index Heart Failure Event: Insights From the VICTORIA Trial

Importance

The period following heart failure hospitalization (HFH) is a vulnerable time with high rates of death or recurrent HFH.

Objective

To evaluate clinical characteristics, outcomes, and treatment response to vericiguat according to prespecified index event subgroups and time from index HFH in the Vericiguat Global Study in Subjects With Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction (VICTORIA) trial.

Design, Setting, and Participants

Analysis of an international, randomized, placebo-controlled trial. All VICTORIA patients had recent (<6 months) worsening HF (ejection fraction <45%). Index event subgroups were less than 3 months after HFH (n = 3378), 3 to 6 months after HFH (n = 871), and those requiring outpatient intravenous diuretic therapy only for worsening HF (without HFH) in the previous 3 months (n = 801). Data were analyzed between May 2, 2020, and May 9, 2020.

Intervention

Vericiguat titrated to 10 mg daily vs placebo.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary outcome was time to a composite of HFH or cardiovascular death; secondary outcomes were time to HFH, cardiovascular death, a composite of all-cause mortality or HFH, all-cause death, and total HFH.

Results

Among 5050 patients in the VICTORIA trial, mean age was 67 years, 24% were women, 64% were White, 22% were Asian, and 5% were Black. Baseline characteristics were balanced between treatment arms within each subgroup. Over a median follow-up of 10.8 months, the primary event rates were 40.9, 29.6, and 23.4 events per 100 patient-years in the HFH at less than 3 months, HFH 3 to 6 months, and outpatient worsening subgroups, respectively. Compared with the outpatient worsening subgroup, the multivariable-adjusted relative risk of the primary outcome was higher in HFH less than 3 months (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.48; 95% CI, 1.27-1.73), with a time-dependent gradient of risk demonstrating that patients closest to their index HFH had the highest risk. Vericiguat was associated with reduced risk of the primary outcome overall and in all subgroups, without evidence of treatment heterogeneity. Similar results were evident for all-cause death and HFH. Addtionally, a continuous association between time from HFH and vericiguat treatment showed a trend toward greater benefit with longer duration since HFH. Safety events (symptomatic hypotension and syncope) were infrequent in all subgroups, with no difference between treatment arms.

Conclusions and Relevance

Among patients with worsening chronic HF, those in closest proximity to their index HFH had the highest risk of cardiovascular death or HFH, irrespective of age or clinical risk factors. The benefit of vericiguat did not differ significantly across the spectrum of risk in worsening HF.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02861534.

Effect of Antimicrobial Therapy on Respiratory Hospitalization or Death in Adults With Idiopathic Pulmonary Fibrosis: The CleanUP-IPF Randomized Clinical Trial

IMPORTANCE

Alteration in lung microbes is associated with disease progression in idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the effect of antimicrobial therapy on clinical outcomes.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

Pragmatic, randomized, unblinded clinical trial conducted across 35 US sites. A total of 513 patients older than 40 years were randomized from August 2017 to June 2019 (final follow-up was January 2020).

INTERVENTIONS

Patients were randomized in a 1:1 allocation ratio to receive antimicrobials (n = 254) or usual care alone (n = 259). Antimicrobials included co-trimoxazole (trimethoprim 160 mg/sulfamethoxazole 800 mg twice daily plus folic acid 5 mg daily, n = 128) or doxycycline (100 mg once daily if body weight <50 kg or 100 mg twice daily if ≥50 kg, n = 126). No placebo was administered in the usual care alone group.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The primary end point was time to first nonelective respiratory hospitalization or all-cause mortality.

RESULTS

Among the 513 patients who were randomized (mean age, 71 years; 23.6% women), all (100%) were included in the analysis. The study was terminated for futility on December 18, 2019. After a mean follow-up time of 13.1 months (median, 12.7 months), a total of 108 primary end point events occurred: 52 events (20.4 events per 100 patient-years [95% CI, 14.8-25.9]) in the usual care plus antimicrobial therapy group and 56 events (18.4 events per 100 patient-years [95% CI, 13.2-23.6]) in the usual care group, with no significant difference between groups (adjusted HR, 1.04 [95% CI, 0.71-1.53; P = .83]. There was no statistically significant interaction between the effect of the prespecified antimicrobial agent (co-trimoxazole vs doxycycline) on the primary end point (adjusted HR, 1.15 [95% CI 0.68-1.95] in the co-trimoxazole group vs 0.82 [95% CI, 0.46-1.47] in the doxycycline group; P = .66). Serious adverse events occurring at 5% or greater among those treated with usual care plus antimicrobials vs usual care alone included respiratory events (16.5% vs 10.0%) and infections (2.8% vs 6.6%); adverse events of special interest included diarrhea (10.2% vs 3.1%) and rash (6.7% vs 0%).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Among adults with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis, the addition of co-trimoxazole or doxycycline to usual care, compared with usual care alone, did not significantly improve time to nonelective respiratory hospitalization or death. These findings do not support treatment with these antibiotics for the underlying disease.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02759120.