Anstrom, Kevin J.

Abstract Aims The efficacy and safety of vericiguat in patients with chronic heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) on contemporary heart failure (HF) therapies and without recent worsening was investigated in the VICTOR trial, yet some subgroups may be more susceptible to symptomatic hypotension. Methods and results Among VICTOR trial participants that received at least one dose of study drug or placebo, we describe the systolic blood pressure (SBP) trajectories over time (mean change from baseline), symptomatic hypotension events and efficacy of vericiguat in potentially vulnerable patient subgroups: lower baseline blood pressure (SBP ≤110 mmHg), older patients (>75 years) and those taking angiotensin receptor–neprilysin inhibitors (ARNI) or sodium–glucose co-transporter 2 inhibitors (SGLT2i) at baseline. The efficacy outcomes of cardiovascular death and HF hospitalization and cardiovascular death alone across baseline SBP were examined using Cox proportional hazards models. Overall SBP trajectories showed a small initial decline from baseline in vericiguat-treated patients compared with placebo (placebo-corrected differences of −1.17 [−1.84, −0.50], p = 0.0007) that was relatively stable throughout follow-up. This trajectory was similar in those >75 years (vs. younger) as well as those receiving ARNI or SGLT2i (as compared with those not receiving these) or those with SBP ≤110 mmHg at baseline (compared with >110 mmHg). Symptomatic hypotension occurred in 11.3% of vericiguat-treated patients compared with 9.2% of placebo-treated patients with an adjusted hazard ratio of 1.24 (95% confidence interval 1.06–1.46), which was similar across age, SBP, SGLT2i and ARNI groups (all interaction p >0.05). The treatment effect of vericiguat compared with placebo on the efficacy outcomes was similar across the spectrum of baseline SBP (both interaction p >0.15). Conclusions Vericiguat showed a slight adjusted decrease in SBP and resulted in more symptomatic hypotension compared with placebo but was overall well-tolerated in a broad population with HFrEF on contemporary therapy even among those predisposed to hypotension. Treatment effects on efficacy outcomes were consistent regardless of baseline SBP.

Abstract Background and Aims In the VICTOR trial (NCT05093933), vericiguat was neutral for the primary composite endpoint of cardiovascular death or hospitalization for heart failure (HF). VICTOR was powered to independently assess cardiovascular death. This study reports detailed analysis on the effects of vericiguat on mortality. Methods VICTOR, a double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized trial, enrolled 6105 ambulatory patients with HF and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) without recent worsening and randomized them to vericiguat or placebo. The main outcome for this analysis was the pre-specified secondary endpoint of cardiovascular death. All-cause death, sudden cardiac death, and death related to HF were also assessed. Results Over a median of 19.7 months (inter-quartile range 14.6–25.4), cardiovascular deaths occurred in 292 patients (5.7 deaths per 100 patient-years) and 346 patients (6.8 deaths per 100 patient-years) in the vericiguat and placebo groups, respectively (hazard ratio [HR] 0.83, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.71–0.97; P = .020). Risk of death from any cause was lower with vericiguat vs placebo (377 [7.3 deaths per 100 patient-years] vs 440 [8.6 deaths per 100 patient-years]; HR 0.84, 95% CI 0.74–0.97; P = .015). Sudden cardiac death and HF-related deaths were lower with vericiguat vs placebo (1.6 vs 2.2 events per 100 patient-years; HR 0.75, 95% CI 0.56–0.99; P = .042 and 1.7 vs 2.4 events per 100 patient-years; HR 0.71, 95% CI 0.54–0.94; P = .016, respectively). Lower mortality rates were consistent across subgroups including baseline therapy. Consistent cardiovascular and all-cause mortality benefit was seen across baseline N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide levels. Conclusions In ambulatory well-treated participants with HFrEF, vericiguat was associated with clinically meaningful reductions in the key secondary outcome of cardiovascular death, as well as all-cause mortality.

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.

Introduction: Insulin-like growth factor-binding protein 7 (IGFBP7) was previously found to be associated with diastolic function in heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction (EF), but it is unclear whether such associations exist in HF with preserved EF (HFpEF), where diastolic function is of pivotal importance. Hypotheses: Baseline (BL) and change (Δ) in IGFBP7 will be significantly associated and correlated with BL and Δ in diastolic indices as well as peak oxygen consumption (VO2 max ) in patients with HFpEF. IGFBP7 will decrease with sildenafil therapy. Methods: At BL and 6 months (6M), IGFBP7, imaging studies, and VO2 max were obtained and compared in 160 HFpEF patients randomized to sildenafil or placebo. Results: Patients with supramedian BL IGFBP7 concentrations (>219 ng/mL) were more likely to be older, to have more congestion and worse renal function, and to have elevated concentrations of several emerging or established HF biomarkers including amino-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide, cystatin C, and highly sensitive troponin (all P<0.05). Higher BL IGFBP7 was correlated with indices of worse diastolic function, including higher E velocity (ρ=0.395, P<0.001), E/e’ (ρ=0.398, P<0.001), left atrial volume index (ρ=0.386, P<0.001), right ventricular systolic pressure (RVSP; ρ=0.413, P<0.001), and transmitral E/A (ρ=0.258, P=0.006). IGFBP7 was also inversely correlated with aortic distensability (ρ= -0.301, P=0.02). There was no association or correlation with measures of systolic function. Notably, in analyses adjusted for respective baseline variables, ΔIGFBP7 was significantly correlated with Δ in E (ρ=0.114), E/A (ρ=0.225), E/e’ (ρ=0.174), and RVSP (ρ=0.282; all P<0.03). Elevated BL IGFBP7 was associated with lower BL VO2 max (13.2 versus 11.1 mL/min/kg; P<0.001) and ΔIGFBP7 was inversely correlated with ΔVO2 max (ρ=-0.19, P=0.01). Subjects receiving sildenafil had a decrease in IGFBP7 over 6M in contrast to placebo-treated patients (median ΔIGFBP7 -1.5 versus +13.6 ng/mL; P<0.001). Conclusions: In patients with HFpEF, concentrations of IGFBP7 have unique relationships with measures of diastolic dysfunction and VO2 max . Rise in IGFBP7 may reflect worsening diastology and deteriorating VO2 max .

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.

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.

Introduction: Despite the use of different definitions for worsening heart failure (WHF) in prior clinical trials and registries, an in-hospital WHF event has consistently been associated with worse patient outcomes. WHF is being considered as a potential endpoint to support drug approval. We combined patients from two acute HF trials conducted by the HF Network (ROSE-AHF and DOSE-AHF) to understand how different WHF definitions are associated with event rates. Methods: WHF was defined as persistent or worsening HF requiring rescue therapy including IV vasoactive agents, ultrafiltration, or mechanical support over 72 hours after randomization in ROSE and also included additional open label loop or thiazide diuretic in DOSE. We assessed the relationship between WHF and the composite endpoint (CE) of re-hospitalization, emergency room visits for HF and mortality through 60 days. We also assessed for a differential relationship of WHF from 0-24 hours, 24-48 hours and 48-72 hours post-randomization. Results: The overall incidence of WHF was 14.6% (24.1% in DOSE and 6.3% in ROSE). Patients who developed WHF had lower baseline systolic blood pressure, less peripheral edema and higher BUN. In the combined dataset, WHF was associated with an increase in the CE (hazard ratio [HR] 1.64; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.11-2.42; p-value 0.01). However, the association between WHF and 60-day outcomes was significant in ROSE but not in DOSE (Table). The development of WHF between 48-72 hours compared with 0-24 hours or 24-48 hours was associated with improved outcomes ([HR] 0.48, 95% CI 0.27 - 0.88, p-value 0.02 and [HR] 0.45, 95% CI 0.26 - 0.78, p-value 0.004, respectively). Conclusions: A WHF definition that incorporated intensification of diuretics increased the event rate but was not associated with worse 60-day outcomes. The timing of a WHF event also had a differential association with outcomes. These data support the use of a standardized WHF definition in clinical trials.