Butler, Javed

Abstract Aims Inter-atrial shunt device therapy has shown mixed results in clinical trials, with clinical ‘non-responders’ typically showing features of more advanced heart failure. We aimed to analyse the haemodynamic and clinical response of a novel left atrial to coronary sinus (LA-CS) shunt device in patients with higher natriuretic peptide (NP) levels, a marker of disease severity. Methods and results An analysis population (n = 95) of patients from the ALT-FLOW early feasibility study with left ventricular ejection fraction >40% and 1-year follow up was analysed. The cohort was divided into low and high subgroups based on NP levels [b-type natriuretic peptide (BNP) and n-terminal pro BNP (NT-proBNP)]. The mean BNP and NT-proBNP levels for low versus high subgroups were 64.2 ± 34.3 versus 261 ± 103 and 322 ± 269 versus 2050 ± 1070 pg/mL, respectively. Patients in the high NP subgroup had evidence of more advanced disease including worse haemodynamic profiles, lower estimated glomerular filtration rate, and higher percentages of atrial fibrillation. The high NP subgroup experienced significant improvements in KCCQ-OSS and NYHA functional class (P < 0.0001 and P < 0.001, respectively) and to a similar magnitude compared with the low NP subgroup. Compared with pre-implant baseline, workload adjusted pulmonary artery wedge pressure at peak exercise declined in the high NP subgroup (PCWL, 164.1 vs. 96.0 mmHg/W/kg at 6 months, P < 0.003) as well as the low NP subgroup (115.9 vs. 65.9 mmHg/W/keg at 6 months, P < 0.001). Importantly, in both NP subgroups, there was preservation of cardiac index through 6 months as well as right ventricular structure (right ventricular diastolic dimension) and function (tricuspid annular systolic plane excursion) through 1 year. Conclusions The quality-of-life, haemodynamic, and functional class improvements along with stable right heart function seen in ALT-FLOW study of LA-CS shunt remain consistent in the subgroup with highest NP levels. This suggests that shunting location could influence outcomes in symptomatic heart failure patients.

Abstract Aims To describe the baseline characteristics of the participants in the VICTOR (Vericiguat Global Study in Patients with Chronic Heart Failure; NCT05093933) trial and compare them to recent trials in patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). Methods and results Baseline characteristics were evaluated in 6105 patients randomized to vericiguat or placebo. The mean age of the participants was 67 ± 11 years, 23.6% were women, 64.4% were White, and 10.7% were self-identified Black. Overall, 29.1% of participants were enrolled in Latin and South America, 27.8% and 18.5% in Eastern and Western Europe, 14.0% in Asia-Pacific and 10.6% in North America. The mean left ventricular ejection fraction was 30 ± 7% and 79% had New York Heart Association class II symptoms. Mean estimated glomerular filtration rate was 70.9 ± 24.0 ml/min/1.73 m2. Median N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide level was 1476 (970–2495) pg/ml and 47.5% of participants had no prior hospitalization for heart failure. Baseline therapy included 94.4% beta-blockers, 94.3% renin–angiotensin system modulation (including 56.0% on an angiotensin receptor–neprilysin inhibitor), 77.7% mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists, 59.1% sodium–glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors, and 32.9% implantable cardioverter-defibrillators. Overall characteristics were relatively similar to other recent HFrEF trials but the VICTOR trial enrolled a higher proportion of participants receiving contemporary drug and device therapy. Conclusion The VICTOR trial enrolled the most optimally treated population in a phase III heart failure trial. These features will facilitate assessment of the benefit of vericiguat and elucidate the outcomes of patients on up-to-date medical therapy.

Abstract Aims In the VICTORIA (Vericiguat Global Study in Subjects with Heart Failure with Reduced Ejection Fraction) trial, the soluble guanylate cyclase stimulator vericiguat reduced the risk of hospitalization for heart failure (HHF) or cardiovascular death in patients with heart failure (HF) and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) with recent worsening HF. The effect of vericiguat in patients with HFrEF without recent worsening HF remains unknown. The VICTOR (Vericiguat Global Study in Participants with Chronic Heart Failure) trial was designed to assess the efficacy and safety of vericiguat in patients with ejection fraction ≤40% without recent worsening HF on a background of current foundational HFrEF therapy. Methods The primary endpoint for VICTOR is time to first event for the composite of HHF or cardiovascular death. The trial will also assess the effect of vericiguat on time to cardiovascular death, time to HHF, total HHF, and all-cause death. As an event-driven trial, at least 1080 primary events are expected, but follow-up will continue until the targeted number of at least 590 cardiovascular deaths has been reached. Approximately 6000 participants will be randomized to vericiguat or placebo. Conclusion VICTOR is the first large event-driven HFrEF trial performed in the contemporary era of quadruple foundational guideline-directed medical therapy, in a compensated ambulatory HF population. VICTOR will add important information to the evidence of the effects of vericiguat across the spectrum of patients with HFrEF.

Abstract Aims Ferric carboxymaltose (FCM) is guideline-recommended for iron deficiency (ID) in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). Despite a well-established safety profile, the magnitude and clinical significance of FCM-induced hypophosphataemia in HFrEF remains unclear. This pre-specified substudy of HEART-FID evaluated serum phosphate, 1,25-dihydroxyvitamin D, and plasma parathyroid hormone (PTH) subsequent to FCM. Methods and results HEART-FID was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of ambulatory patients with HFrEF and ID randomized to FCM versus placebo. This substudy assessed mean change from baseline across eight visits over 6 months for the following endpoints: serum phosphate, 25-hydroxyvitamin D, 1,25-dihydroxyvitamin D, and PTH, in addition to the clinical severity of potential hypophosphataemia. Overall, 133 patients (n = 62 FCM, n = 71 placebo) were prospectively enrolled. Mean age was 68 ± 11 years, 55 (41.4%) were women, and 29 (21.8%) had chronic kidney disease. Phosphate levels decreased in 34 (57.6%) patients in the FCM group compared with 7 (10.3%) in the placebo group. Mean change in phosphate levels reached a nadir at day 21 (−0.36 ± 0.27 mmol/L) subsequent to FCM infusion with 28 (51%) having moderate-to-severe hypophosphataemia. Reductions in 1,25-dihydroxyvitamin D were also observed, whilst PTH increased. These biochemical changes returned to baseline levels by day 91. Serum levels of 25-hydroxyvitamin D remained stable throughout the study. No serious adverse events associated with hypophosphataemia were reported. Conclusions Transient moderate-to-severe hypophosphataemia was frequent subsequent to FCM infusion, accompanied by 1,25-dihydroxyvitamin D decrease and PTH increase. Serum levels of 25-hydroxyvitamin D remained stable. No evidence of symptomatic hypophosphataemia was reported, collectively indicating FCM-related hypophosphataemia to be clinically benign and transient in HFrEF.

Abstract Background and Aims In the STEP-HFpEF trial programme, treatment with semaglutide resulted in multiple beneficial effects in patients with obesity-related heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). Efficacy may vary according to baseline diuretic use, and semaglutide treatment could modify diuretic dose. Methods In this pre-specified analysis of pooled data from the STEP-HFpEF and STEP-HFpEF-DM trials (n = 1145), which randomized participants with HFpEF and body mass index ≥ 30 kg/m2 to once weekly semaglutide 2.4 mg or placebo for 52 weeks, we examined whether efficacy and safety endpoints differed by baseline diuretic use, as well as the effect of semaglutide on loop diuretic use and dose changes over the 52-week treatment period. Results At baseline, across no diuretic (n = 220), non-loop diuretic only (n = 223), and loop diuretic [<40 (n = 219), 40 (n = 309), and >40 (n = 174) mg/day furosemide equivalents] groups, there was progressively higher prevalence of hypertension and atrial fibrillation; and greater severity of obesity and heart failure. Over 52 weeks of treatment, semaglutide had a consistent beneficial effect on change in body weight across diuretic use categories (adjusted mean difference vs. placebo ranged from −8.8% [95% confidence interval (CI) −10.3, −6.3] to −6.9% [95% CI −9.1, −4.7] from no diuretics to the highest loop diuretic dose category; interaction P = .39). Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire clinical summary score improvement was greater in patients on loop diuretics compared to those not on loop diuretics (adjusted mean difference vs. placebo: +9.3 [6.5; 12.1] vs. +4.7 points [1.3, 8.2]; P = .042). Semaglutide had consistent beneficial effects on all secondary efficacy endpoints (including 6 min walk distance) across diuretic subgroups (interaction P = .24–.92). Safety also favoured semaglutide vs. placebo across the diuretic subgroups. From baseline to 52 weeks, loop diuretic dose decreased by 17% in the semaglutide group vs. a 2.4% increase in the placebo group (P < .0001). Semaglutide (vs. placebo) was more likely to result in loop diuretic dose reduction (odds ratio [OR] 2.67 [95% CI 1.70, 4.18]) and less likely dose increase (OR 0.35 [95% CI 0.23, 0.53]; P < .001 for both) from baseline to 52 weeks. Conclusions In patients with obesity-related HFpEF, semaglutide improved heart failure-related symptoms and physical limitations across diuretic use subgroups, with more pronounced benefits among patients receiving loop diuretics at baseline. Reductions in weight and improvements in exercise function with semaglutide vs. placebo were consistent in all diuretic use categories. Semaglutide also led to a reduction in loop diuretic use and dose between baseline and 52 weeks. Clinical Trial Registration NCT04788511 and NCT04916470.

BACKGROUND: Clinical trials in heart failure (HF) traditionally use time-to-event analyses focusing on death and hospitalization for HF. These time-to-first event analyses may have more limited abilities to assess the probability of benefiting from a therapy, especially if that benefit manifests as improved functional status rather than reduced risk of death or HF hospitalization. Hierarchical end points including clinical outcomes and patient status measures allow for ranked evaluation of outcomes in 1 metric assessing whether patients randomized to intervention or control are more likely to derive an overall benefit while also allowing more patients to contribute to the primary outcome. METHODS: We review the rationale for using hierarchical end points in HF trials, provide examples of HF trials that used this type of end point, and discuss its use in the HEART-FID trial (Randomized Placebo-Controlled Trial of Ferric Carboxymaltose as Treatment for Heart Failure With Iron Deficiency), the largest HF trial to date implementing a hierarchical end point analysis for the primary outcome. RESULTS: Using a hierarchical end point as the primary outcome allows for the inclusion of different types of outcomes in 1 ranked end point, making it possible to more holistically assess the potential utility of a new therapy on patient well-being and outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Hierarchical end points assess the potential utility of a new therapy on patient well-being and outcome more holistically than time-to-first event analysis. Trials that would not have been feasible due to decreasing rates of death and hospitalization in the HF population can use hierarchical end points to successfully power studies to identify promising HF therapies. The HEART-FID trial used hierarchical end points to better determine the role of intravenous ferric carboxymaltose in patients with HF. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov ; Unique identifier: NCT03037931.

BACKGROUND: Patients with heart failure (HF) with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) and obesity experience a high burden of symptoms and functional impairment, and a poor quality of life. In the STEP-HFpEF trial (Research Study to Investigate How Well Semaglutide Works in People Living With Heart Failure and Obesity), once-weekly semaglutide 2.4 mg improved symptoms, physical limitations, and exercise function, and reduced inflammation and body weight. This prespecified analysis investigated the effects of semaglutide on the primary and confirmatory secondary end points across the range of the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ) scores at baseline and on all key summary and individual KCCQ domains. METHODS: STEP-HFpEF randomly assigned 529 participants with symptomatic HF, an ejection fraction of ≥45%, and a body mass index of ≥30 kg/m 2 to once-weekly semaglutide 2.4 mg or placebo for 52 weeks. Dual primary end points change in KCCQ-Clinical Summary Score (CSS) and body weight. Confirmatory secondary end points included change in 6-minute walk distance, a hierarchical composite end point (death, HF events, and change in KCCQ-CSS and 6-minute walk distance) and change in C-reactive protein. Patients were stratified by KCCQ-CSS tertiles at baseline. Semaglutide effects on the primary, confirmatory secondary, and select exploratory end points (N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide) were examined across these subgroups. Semaglutide effects on additional KCCQ domains (Total Symptom Score [including symptom burden and frequency], Physical Limitations Score, Social Limitations Score, Quality of Life Score, and Overall Summary Score) were also evaluated. RESULTS: Baseline median KCCQ-CSS across tertiles was 37, 59, and 77 points, respectively. Semaglutide consistently improved primary end points across KCCQ tertiles 1 to 3 (estimated treatment differences [95% CI]: for KCCQ-CSS, 10.7 [5.4 to 16.1], 8.1 [2.7 to 13.4], and 4.6 [–0.6 to 9.9] points; for body weight, –11 [–13.2 to –8.8], –9.4 [–11.5 to –7.2], and –11.8 [–14.0 to –9.6], respectively; P interaction =0.28 and 0.29, respectively); the same was observed for confirmatory secondary and exploratory end points ( P interaction >0.1 for all). Semaglutide-treated patients experienced improvements in all key KCCQ domains (estimated treatment differences, 6.7–9.6 points across domains; P ≤0.001 for all). Greater proportion of semaglutide-treated versus placebo-treated patients experienced at least 5-, 10-, 15-, and 20-point improvements in all KCCQ domains (odds ratios, 1.6–2.9 across domains; P <0.05 for all). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with HFpEF and obesity, semaglutide produced large improvements in HF-related symptoms, physical limitations, exercise function, inflammation, body weight, and N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide, regardless of baseline health status. The benefits of semaglutide extended to all key KCCQ domains. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov ; Unique identifier: NCT04788511.

Abstract Endpoint adjudication (EA) is a common feature of contemporary randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in cardiovascular medicine. Endpoint adjudication refers to a process wherein a group of expert reviewers, known as the clinical endpoint committee (CEC), verify potential endpoints identified by site investigators. Events that are determined by the CEC to meet pre-specified trial definitions are then utilized for analysis. The rationale behind the use of EA is that it may lessen the potential misclassification of clinical events, thereby reducing statistical noise and bias. However, it has been questioned whether this is universally true, especially given that EA significantly increases the time, effort, and resources required to conduct a trial. Herein, we compare the summary estimates obtained using adjudicated vs. non-adjudicated site designated endpoints in major cardiovascular RCTs in which both were reported. Based on these data, we lay out a framework to determine which trials may warrant EA and where it may be redundant. The value of EA is likely greater when cardiovascular trials have nuanced primary endpoints, endpoint definitions that align poorly with practice, sub-optimal data completeness, greater operator variability, and lack of blinding. EA may not be needed if the primary endpoint is all-cause death or all-cause hospitalization. In contrast, EA is likely merited for more nuanced endpoints such as myocardial infarction, bleeding, worsening heart failure as an outpatient, unstable angina, or transient ischaemic attack. A risk-based approach to adjudication can potentially allow compromise between costs and accuracy. This would involve adjudication of a small proportion of events, with further adjudication done if inconsistencies are detected.