Standardized Definitions for Evaluation of Acute Decompensated Heart Failure Therapies: HF-ARC Expert Panel Paper

Acute decompensated heart failure (ADHF) is one of the most common reasons for hospitalizations or urgent care and is associated with poor outcomes. Therapies shown to improve outcomes are limited, however, and innovation in pharmacologic and device-based therapeutics are therefore actively being sought. Standardizing definitions for ADHF and its trajectory is complex, limiting the generalizability and translation of clinical trials to effect clinical care and policy change. The Heart Failure Collaboratory is a multistakeholder organization comprising clinical investigators, clinicians, patients, government representatives (including U.S. Food and Drug Administration and National Institutes of Health participants), payors, and industry collaborators. The following expert consensus document is the product of the Heart Failure Collaboratory convening with the Academic Research Consortium, including members from academia, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, and industry, for the purposes of proposing standardized definitions for ADHF and highlighting important endpoint considerations to inform the design and conduct of clinical trials for drugs and devices in this clinical arena.

Natriuretic peptides: role in the diagnosis and management of heart failure: a scientific statement from the Heart Failure Association of the European Society of Cardiology, Heart Failure Society of America and Japanese Heart Failure Society

Natriuretic peptides, brain (B-type) natriuretic peptide (BNP) and N-terminal prohormone of brain natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) are globally and most often used for the diagnosis of heart failure (HF). In addition, they can have an important complementary role in the risk stratification of its prognosis. Since the development of angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitors (ARNIs), the use of natriuretic peptides as therapeutic agents has grown in importance. The present document is the result of the Trilateral Cooperation Project among the Heart Failure Association of the European Society of Cardiology, the Heart Failure Society of America and the Japanese Heart Failure Society. It represents an expert consensus that aims to provide a comprehensive, up-to-date perspective on natriuretic peptides in the diagnosis and management of HF, with a focus on the following main issues: (1) history and basic research: discovery, production and cardiovascular protection; (2) diagnostic and prognostic biomarkers: acute HF, chronic HF, inclusion/endpoint in clinical trials, and natriuretic peptide-guided therapy; (3) therapeutic use: nesiritide (BNP), carperitide (ANP) and ARNIs; and (4) gaps in knowledge and future directions.

Natriuretic Peptides: Role in the Diagnosis and Management of Heart Failure: A Scientific Statement From the Heart Failure Association of the European Society of Cardiology, Heart Failure Society of America and Japanese Heart Failure Society

Natriuretic peptides, brain (B-type) natriuretic peptide (BNP) and N-terminal prohormone of brain natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) are globally and most often used for the diagnosis of heart failure (HF). In addition, they can have an important complementary role in the risk stratification of its prognosis. Since the development of angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitors (ARNIs), the use of natriuretic peptides as therapeutic agents has grown in importance. The present document is the result of the Trilateral Cooperation Project among the Heart Failure Association of the European Society of Cardiology, the Heart Failure Society of America and the Japanese Heart Failure Society. It represents an expert consensus that aims to provide a comprehensive, up-to-date perspective on natriuretic peptides in the diagnosis and management of HF, with a focus on the following main issues: (1) history and basic research: discovery, production and cardiovascular protection; (2) diagnostic and prognostic biomarkers: acute HF, chronic HF, inclusion/endpoint in clinical trials, and natriuretic peptides-guided therapy; (3) therapeutic use: nesiritide (BNP), carperitide (ANP) and ARNIs; and (4) gaps in knowledge and future directions.

Biomarkers in heart failure clinical trials. A review from the Biomarkers Working Group of the Heart Failure Association of the European Society of Cardiology

The approval of new heart failure (HF) therapies has slowed over the past two decades in part due to the high costs of conducting large randomized clinical trials that are needed to adequately power major clinical endpoint studies. Several biomarkers have been identified reflecting different elements of HF pathophysiology, with possible applications in diagnosis, risk stratification, treatment monitoring, and even in the design of clinical trials. Biomarkers could potentially be used to refine study inclusion criteria to enable enrolment of patients who are more likely to respond to a therapeutic intervention, despite being at sufficient risk to meet pre-determined study endpoint rates. When there is a close relationship between biomarker levels and clinical endpoints, changes in biomarker levels after a given treatment can act as a surrogate endpoint, potentially reducing the duration and cost of a clinical trial. Natriuretic peptides have been widely used in clinical trials with a variable amount of added value, which such variation being probably due to the absence of a close pathophysiological connection to the study drug. Notable exceptions to this include sacubitril/valsartan and vericiguat. Future studies should seek to adopt unbiased approaches for discovery of true companion diagnostics; with -omics-based tools, biomarkers might be more precisely selected for use in clinical trials to identify responses that closely reflect the biological effects of the drug under investigation. Finally, biomarkers associated with cardiac damage and remodelling, such as cardiac troponin, could be employed as safety endpoints provided that standardization between different assays is achieved.

Drug Layering in Heart Failure: Phenotype-Guided Initiation

Medications with proven benefit in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction are recommended, according to prospective large clinical trials, in the stable patient after careful up-titration in a strict sequential order. Although the relevance of careful clinical up-titration is unproven, there is evidence that after recompensation and shortly after hospital discharge, the rate of cardiovascular death and hospitalization is high. Clinical studies provided evidence that the onset of treatment effects is rapid, occurring within 28 days with most of these drugs used, and in some trials, early treatment after discharge or already started in the hospital has provided benefits. Therefore, early treatment without deferring it to the stable outpatient may be useful to reduce cardiac-related events further. This expert opinion proposes treatment layering according to individual patient phenotypes involving heart rate, blood pressure, impaired renal function, and electrolyte disturbances, as well as dedicated subgroups of patients with specific requirements for treatment initiation. This complements other approaches that suggest starting sequential treatment according to the size of treatment effects of drugs, specific cardiac diseases, and patient wishes. Patient phenotyping may guide personalized drug layering in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction that provides the best outcomes, whereas pragmatic clinical trials are warranted to scrutinize the effectiveness of these approaches.

Endpoints in Heart Failure Drug Development: History and Future

Heart failure (HF) patients experience a high burden of symptoms and functional limitations, and morbidity and mortality remain high despite successful therapies. The majority of HF drugs in the United States are approved for reducing hospitalization and mortality, while only a few have indications for improving quality of life, physical function, or symptoms. Patient-reported outcomes that directly measure patient's perception of health status (symptoms, physical function, or quality of life) are potentially approvable endpoints in drug development. This paper summarizes the history of endpoints used for HF drug approvals in the United States and reviews endpoints that measure symptoms, physical function, or quality of life in HF patients.

P3522Vagus nerve stimulation for chronic heart failure: differences in therapy delivery and clinical efficacy in ANTHEM-HF, INOVATE-HF, and NECTAR-HF

Background

Vagus Nerve Stimulation (VNS) is meant to deliver Autonomic Regulation Therapy (ART) to neurological targets with sufficient neuromodulation (NM) to ameliorate chronic heart failure (CHF). VNS delivery consists of its intensity (a combination of pulse amplitude, pulse frequency, and pulse duration), polarity, duty cycle (DC; stimulation “on” time and “off” time), and mode (continuous, or intermittent and periodic). In the ANTHEM-HF Pilot Study patients with CHF and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), VNS intensity was up-titrated until a change in heart rate (HR) dynamics was objectively confirmed. This did not require any change in GDMT and was associated with significant improvements in LVEF, 6-minute walk distance (6MWD), Minnesota Living with HF (MLWHF) score, and HR variability.

Methods

Qualitative and quantitative analyses used data from peer-reviewed publications and other sources in the public domain to compare VNS delivery in ANTHEM-HF, INOVATE-HF, and NECTAR-HF.

Results (Table): Up-titration of VNS intensity was attempted in all 3 studies. In contrast to ANTHEM-HF, INOVATE-HF aimed only at peripheral neural targets. VNS intensity was delivered at a lower pulse frequency, and had a variable DC as a consequence of R-wave synchronization and only intermittent, periodic stimulation. In NECTAR-HF VNS intensity was delivered at a higher pulse frequency, and this was associated with intolerable adverse off-target effects which restricted VNS up-titration. Significant improvements in EF, 6MWD, MLWHF, and SDNN occurred in ANTHEM-HF relative to the other studies.

ANTHEM-HF (n=60) INOVATE-HF (n=436) NECTAR-HF (n=63) Neural Target Central/Peripheral Peripheral Central/Peripheral Delivery Site Left or right CVN Right CVN Right CVN Delivery Intensity:   Amplitude (milliamperes) 2.0±0.6 3.9±1.0 1.4±0.8   Frequency (Hertz) 10 1–2 20   Duration (microseconds) 250 500 300 Electrode Polarity (Cathode) Caudal Cephalad Caudal Duty Cycle 23% 25% 17% On Time/Off Time (seconds) 18/62 Variable 10/50 Mode of Delivery Cyclic/Continuous Intermittent/Periodic Cyclic/Continuous Clinical Efficacy at 6 Months:   EF 32.4±7.2 to 37.2±10.4 Not available 30.5±6.0 to 32.7±6.4   6MWD 287±66 to 346±78 317±109 to 347±123 Not available   MLWHFS 40±14 to 21±10 Not available 44.2±22.2 to 35.8±20.8   SDNN 94±26 to 111±50 Not available 146±48 to 130±52 Values reported as mean ± standard deviation; CVN = Cervical vagus nerve. *p<0.05 versus NECTAR-HF; **p<0.05 versus INOVATE-HF; ***p<0.025 versus NECTAR-HF; ****p<0.001 versus NECTAR-HF (Analysis using two-sample t-test of the means).

Conclusion

VNS differed in ANTHEM-HF when compared to INOVATE-HF and NECTAR-HF. The neural targets, pulse frequencies for titration, and the DC for NM were different. VNS in ANTHEM-HF was clinically efficacious. The ongoing ANTHEM-HFrEF Pivotal Study uses a similar paradigm.

Acknowledgement/Funding

LivaNova PLC

Abstract 315: Use of Echocardiography and Nuclear Scintigraphy for Patients with Heart Failure in the Veterans Administration and Medicare Systems

Background: The high use of cardiac imaging in the United States is increasingly scrutinized. We sought to determine differences in cardiac imaging between the Veterans Healthcare Administration (VA) and Medicare for veterans with heart failure (HF).

Methods: We analyzed VA and Medicare data from 2002 to 2009 to identify 2,536,556 unique veterans age 65 and older with a known diagnosis of HF for at least one year (those with care in both systems are excluded). The fraction of patients with an echocardiogram (ECHO) or nuclear scintigraphy (NUC) test was determined. Logistic regression was used to adjust for patient characteristics.

Results: More veterans received care in Medicare (82%) than in the VA (18%) The mean age was 79 years, 93% were male and comorbidities were common: diabetes mellitus (44%), ischemic heart disease (67%), and chronic kidney disease (25%). Imaging per year was higher in Medicare compared to the VA for ECHO (51% vs. 21%) and NUC (18% vs. 8%, both p<0.0001). Use plateaued or decreased for all procedures after 2006 except for VA ECHO (Figure). After adjustment for patient characteristics the use odds ratio in Medicare (compared to VA) was 3.61 for ECHO (95% CI 3.58-3.64) and 2.82 for NUC (2.79-2.86). Adjusted 1 year mortality was lower in the VA, OR 0.80 (0.81-0.79).

Conclusion: There is much greater use of imaging procedures among veterans in Medicare than in the VA not explained by patient characteristics and not associated with improved survival.

Abstract 217: Racial Disparities in Echocardiography Use Within The Veterans Administration and Medicare Systems

Background: There is increasing interest in understanding the factors that influence the use of diagnostic imaging in heart failure in US health systems. However, there is limited data examining overall use and the impact of racial disparities in the VA and Medicare.

Methods: We analyzed Veterans Healthcare Administration (VA) and Medicare data from 2002 to 2009 to identify veteran patients above the age of sixty-five with a diagnosis of heart failure for at least 1 year. Patients receiving care in both systems were excluded. We examined patients undergoing echocardiography and scintigraphy each year by race and system of care. Multivariate logistic regression analyses were performed adjusting for age, gender and comorbidities.

Results: A total of 2,917,307 veteran patients were included (263,778 in VA and 1,698,497 in Medicare). Overall use of echocardiography each year was 45.6% for Whites, 51.9% for Asians, 43.2% for Blacks, 39.7% for Hispanics, 42.0% for Pacific Islanders, 40.9% for Native-American and 48.1% for Other. The adjusted odds ratio of undergoing echocardiography was higher for Asians in both systems compared to Whites (Figure). In Medicare, use was lower for Native Americans, Blacks and Hispanics compared to Whites. In the VA, use among Blacks and Hispanics was higher than Whites.

Conclusion: There are significant differences in echocardiography use between the VA and Medicare systems by race for veterans with heart failure. Whites were more likely to receive echocardiography compared to most races in Medicare but not in the VA.

Acute heart failure syndromes and coronary perfusion

Acute heart failure syndromes (AHFS), with a high post-discharge mortality and rehospitalization rate, represent a significant public health burden. The treatment of patients hospitalized with AHFS often includes the use of vasoactive medications such as inotropes and vasodilators. Although such agents are frequently used, their safety and efficacy remain controversial. A significant number of patients with heart failure have underlying coronary artery disease and may be at greater risk from hemodynamic alterations that can diminish coronary perfusion. In AHFS, the relationship among vasoactive medications, coronary perfusion, and potential myocardial injury needs further investigation. Newer techniques now available to evaluate coronary perfusion should provide guidance for the evaluation of existing and future vasoactive therapies for AHFS.

Tezosentan in patients with acute heart failure and acute coronary syndromes: results of the Randomized Intravenous TeZosentan Study (RITZ-4)

OBJECTIVES

We sought to determine the effect of tezosentan in patients with acute decompensated heart failure (HF) associated with acute coronary syndrome (ACS).

BACKGROUND

Tezosentan is a dual endothelin receptor antagonist that has been shown to improve cardiac output, decrease pulmonary capillary wedge pressure, and reduce pulmonary and systemic vascular resistance in initial clinical studies in acute decompensated HF.

METHODS

The Randomized Intravenous TeZosentan (RITZ)-4 study was a multicenter, randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled study of tezosentan in patients with acute decompensated HF associated with ACS. A total of 193 patients were randomized to receive tezosentan (25 mg/h for 1 h, then 50 mg/h for 23 to 47 h) or placebo. Patients with evidence of acute decompensated HF and ACS were eligible to participate. The primary end point was the composite of death, worsening HF, recurrent ischemia, and recurrent or new myocardial infarction within 72 h.

RESULTS

No significant differences were observed between placebo and 50 mg/h tezosentan in the composite primary end point: 24.2% (95% confidence interval [CI] 16.0% to 34.1%) and 28.9% (95% CI 20.1% to 39.0%), respectively (p = 0.5152). Symptomatic hypotension was more frequent in the treatment group.

CONCLUSIONS

At the doses studied, tezosentan did not result in a significant improvement in the composite primary clinical end point in the RITZ-4 trial. Tezosentan did not demonstrate pro-ischemic effects in this population. Symptomatic hypotension may have resulted in an increased number of adverse events in the treatment group. Further studies with lower tezosentan doses are warranted.