Greene, Stephen J.

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.

Various pharmacotherapies exist for heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), but with unclear comparative efficacy. We searched EMBASE, Medline, and Cochrane Library from inception through August 2021 for all randomized clinical trials in HFpEF (EF >40%) that evaluated beta-blockers, mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist (MRA), angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACE), angiotensin receptor blockers (ARB), angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI), and sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors (SGLT2i). Outcomes assessed were cardiovascular mortality, all-cause mortality, and HF hospitalization. A frequentist network meta-analysis was performed with a random-effects model. We included 22 randomized clinical trials (30,673 participants; mean age = 71.7 ± 4.2 years; females = 49.3 ± 7.7%; median follow-up = 24.4 ± 11.1 months). Compared with placebo, there was no statistically significant difference in cardiovascular mortality [beta-blockers; odds ratio (OR) 0.79 (0.46–1.34), MRA; OR 0.90 (0.70–1.14), ACE OR 0.95 (0.59–1.53), ARB; OR 1.02 (0.87–1.19), ARNI; OR 0.97 (0.74–1.26) and SGLT2i; OR 1.00 (0.84–1.18)] or all-cause mortality [beta blockers; OR 0.75 (0.54–1.04), MRA; OR 0.90 (0.75–1.08) ACE; OR 1.05 (0.71–1.54), ARB; OR 1.03 (0.91–1.15), ARNI; OR 0.99 (0.82–1.20) and SGLT2i; OR 1.00 (0.89–1.13)]. The certainty in these estimates was low or very low. There was a significantly reduction in HF hospitalization with the use of SGLT2i [OR 0.71 (0.62–0.82), moderate certainty], ARNI [OR 0.77 (0.63–0.94), low certainty], and MRA [OR 0.81 (0.66–0.98), moderate certainty]; with corresponding P scores of 0.84, 0.68, and 0.58, respectively. In HFpEF, the use of beta-blockers, MRA, ACE/ARB/ARNI, or SGLT2i was not associated with improved cardiovascular or all-cause mortality. SGLT2i, ARNI, and MRA reduced the risk of HF hospitalizations.

Abstract Aims There are several risk scores designed to predict mortality in patients with heart failure (HF). This study aimed to assess performance of risk scores validated for mortality prediction in patients with acute HF (AHF) and chronic HF. Methods and results MEDLINE and Scopus were searched from January 2015 to January 2021 for studies which internally or externally validated risk models for predicting all-cause mortality in patients with AHF and chronic HF. Discrimination data were analysed using C-statistics, and pooled using generic inverse-variance random-effects model. Nineteen studies (n = 494 156 patients; AHF: 24 762; chronic HF mid-term mortality: 62 000; chronic HF long-term mortality: 452 097) and 11 risk scores were included. Overall, discrimination of risk scores was good across the three subgroups: AHF mortality [C-statistic: 0.76 (0.68–0.83)], chronic HF mid-term mortality [1 year; C-statistic: 0.74 (0.68–0.79)], and chronic HF long-term mortality [≥2 years; C-statistic: 0.71 (0.69–0.73)]. MEESSI-AHF [C-statistic: 0.81 (0.80–0.83)] and MARKER-HF [C-statistic: 0.85 (0.80–0.89)] had an excellent discrimination for AHF and chronic HF mid-term mortality, respectively, whereas MECKI had good discrimination [C-statistic: 0.78 (0.73–0.83)] for chronic HF long-term mortality relative to other models. Overall, risk scores predicting short-term mortality in patients with AHF did not have evidence of poor calibration (Hosmer–Lemeshow P > 0.05). However, risk models predicting mid-term and long-term mortality in patients with chronic HF varied in calibration performance. Conclusions The majority of recently validated risk scores showed good discrimination for mortality in patients with HF. MEESSI-AHF demonstrated excellent discrimination in patients with AHF, and MARKER-HF and MECKI displayed an excellent discrimination in patients with chronic HF. However, modest reporting of calibration and lack of head-to-head comparisons in same populations warrant future studies.

Abstract Aims Associations between growth differentiation factor-15 (GDF-15), cardiovascular outcomes, and exercise capacity among patients with a recent hospitalization for heart failure (HHF) and heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) are unknown. We utilized data from the ‘Functional Impact of GLP-1 for Heart Failure Treatment’ (FIGHT) study to address these knowledge gaps. Methods and results FIGHT was a randomized clinical trial testing the effect of liraglutide (vs. placebo) among 300 participants with HFrEF and a recent HHF. Multivariable regression models evaluated associations between baseline GDF-15 and change in GDF-15 (per 1000 pg/mL increase from baseline to 30 days) with clinical outcomes (at 180 days) and declines in exercise capacity (6 min walk distance ≥ 45 m). At baseline (n = 249), median GDF-15 value was 3221 pg/mL (interquartile range 1938–5511 pg/mL). Participants in the highest tertile of baseline GDF-15 were more likely to be male and have more co-morbidities. After adjustment, an increase in GDF-15 over 30 days was associated with higher risk of death or HHF [hazard ratio 1.35, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.11–1.64]. In addition, higher baseline GDF-15 (per 1000 pg/mL until 6000 pg/mL) and an increase in GDF-15 over 30 days were associated with declining 6 min walk distance (odds ratio 1.26, 95% CI 1.02–1.55 and odds ratio 1.37, 95% CI 1.12–1.69, respectively). GDF-15 levels remained stable among participants randomized to liraglutide. Conclusions An increase in GDF-15 over 30 days among patients in HFrEF was independently associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular events and declining exercise capacity. These results support the value of longitudinal GDF-15 trajectory in informing risk of heart failure disease progression.

Abstract Aims Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) is a heterogeneous condition, and tissue congestion manifested by oedema is not present in all patients. We compared clinical characteristics, exercise capacity, and outcomes in patients with HFpEF with and without oedema. Methods and results This study was a post hoc analysis of pooled data of patients with left ventricular ejection fraction of ≥50% enrolled in the DOSE, CARRESS-HF, RELAX, ATHENA, ROSE, INDIE, and NEAT trials. Patients were dichotomized by the severity of oedema. Cox proportional hazard regression and generalized linear regression models were used to assess associations between oedema, symptoms, and clinical outcomes. The ambulatory cohort included 393 patients (228 with and 165 without oedema), and the hospitalized cohort included 338 patients (249 with ≥moderate oedema and 89 with mild or none). Among ambulatory patients, patients with oedema had a higher body mass index (35.2 kg/m2 [inter-quartile range, IQR 30.5, 41.6] vs. 31.6 kg/m2 [IQR 27.9, 36.3], P < 0.001), greater burden of co-morbidities, higher intravascular pressures estimated on physical examination (elevated jugular venous pressure: 50% vs. 24.7%, P < 0.001), poorer renal function (creatinine: 1.2 mg/dL [IQR 0.9, 1.5] vs. 1 mg/dL [IQR 0.8, 1.3], P = 0.003), and lower peak VO2 (adjusted mean difference −1.04 mL/kg/min, 95% confidence interval [−1.71, −0.37], P < 0.003). Among hospitalized patients, despite greater in-hospital fluid/weight loss in the ≥moderate oedema group, there was no difference in the improvement in dyspnoea by the visual analogue scale or well-being visual analogue scale from baseline to 3–4 days and no statistically significant difference in the rate of 60 day rehospitalization/death (adjusted hazard ratio 1.44, 95% confidence interval [0.87, 2.39], P = 0.156). Conclusions Patients with HFpEF and oedema display higher body mass, greater burden of co-morbidities, and more severe exercise intolerance, but clinical responses to treatment appear similar. Further research is required to better understand the nature of volume distribution in different HFpEF phenotypes.

Background: The FIGHT (Functional Impact of GLP-1 [glucagon-like peptide-1] for Heart Failure Treatment) trial randomized 300 patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and a recent hospitalization for heart failure to liraglutide versus placebo. While there was no difference in the primary outcome (rank score of time to death, time to rehospitalization for heart failure, and change in NT-proBNP [N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide]), there was a significant increase in cystatin C among patients randomized to liraglutide raising concern of adverse renal outcomes. We performed a post hoc analysis of FIGHT to investigate whether liraglutide was associated with worsening renal function (WRF). Methods: The relationship between randomization to liraglutide and WRF was evaluated using logistic regression models. Two hundred seventy-four patients (91%) had complete data to assess for WRF defined as: increase in SCr ≥0.3 mg/dL, or ≥25% decrease in estimated glomerular filtration rate, or an increase in cystatin C ≥0.3 mg/L from baseline to 180-days. Results: Patients with WRF (n=113, 41%), compared with those without, were older, had more comorbidities, and lower utilization of guideline-directed medical treatment. Logistic regression models showed that age and baseline cystatin C levels were associated with WRF. In adjusted models, liraglutide was not associated with excess risk of WRF compared with placebo (odds ratio, 1.02 [95% CI, 0.62–1.67]). There was also no difference in the rank score when WRF was added as a fourth-tier outcome. Conclusions: Liraglutide was not associated with WRF among patients with HFrEF and a recent hospitalization for heart failure. These data support the relative renal safety profile of liraglutide among patients with HFrEF. Registration: URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov . Unique identifier: NCT01800968.

ABSTRACT Aims Left atrial (LA) mechanical function may play a significant role in the development and progression of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate association of impaired LA function with outcomes in HFpEF. Methods and results Multiple databases were searched for original studies measuring different phases of LA function in HFpEF patients. Comparative LA function between HFpEF patients and healthy controls was assessed by pooling weighted mean differences (WMD). Adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals were pooled to evaluate the prognostic utility of LA function. Twenty-two studies (2 trials, 20 observational) comprising 1974 HFpEF patients and 751 healthy controls were included. HFpEF patients had decreased LA reservoir [WMD = −12.21% (−15.47, −8.95); P < 0.001], LA conduit [WMD = −5.68% (−8.56, −2.79); P < 0.001], and pump [WMD = −11.07% (−14.81, −7.34); P < 0.001] emptying fractions compared with controls. LA reservoir [WMD = −13.38% (−16.07, −10.68); P < 0.001], conduit [WMD = −4.09% (−6.77, −1.42); P = 0.003], and pump [WMD = −3.53% (−4.47, −2.59); P < 0.001] strains were also significantly lower in HFpEF patients. Decreased LA reservoir strain [HR 1.24 (1.02, 1.50); P = 0.03] was significantly associated with risk of composite all-cause mortality or heart failure hospitalization. Conclusions Impaired LA function appears to have diagnostic and prognostic value in HFpEF, but whether indices of LA function truly refine discrimination for diagnosis or prognosis remains to be fully determined. Larger studies are needed to better evaluate associations between LA function and clinical outcomes and the role of LA function as a target for novel HFpEF therapies.

Background We sought to study the prevalence of high‐sensitivity troponin and its association with cardiac structure and outcomes in ambulatory and hospitalized patients with heart failure with a preserved ejection fraction ( HF p EF ). Methods and Results A post hoc analysis utilized data from HF p EF patients: DOSE (Diuretic Optimization Strategies Evaluation) and CARRESS ‐ HF (Cardiorenal Rescue Study in Acute Decompensated Heart Failure) enrolled patients hospitalized with acute HF p EF , and RELAX (Phosphodiesterase‐5 Inhibition to Improve Clinical Status and Exercise Capacity in Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction) enrolled ambulatory patients with HF p EF . High‐sensitivity troponin I (hs‐TnI) was measured in hospitalized patients at baseline, at 72 to 96 hours, on day 7, and on day 60. In ambulatory patients hs‐TnI was measured at baseline and at week 24. In the ambulatory cohort, correlations between hs‐TnI and cardiac structure and function were assessed. The association between hs‐TnI and a 60‐day composite of emergency room visits, readmissions, and death was assessed for hospitalized patients using multivariable Cox proportional hazard models. The study population included 139 hospitalized and 212 ambulatory patients with HF p EF and hs‐TnI measured at baseline. The median (25th, 75th percentiles) baseline troponin was 17.6 (11.1, 41.0) ng/L in hospitalized patients and 9.5 (5.3, 19.7) ng/L in ambulatory patients ( P <0.001). The prevalence of elevated hs‐TnI (>99% percentile upper reference limit was 86% in hospitalized patients and 53% among ambulatory patients, with stable elevation in ambulatory patients during follow‐up. HF p EF patients with a hs‐TnI above the median were older with worse left ventricular hypertrophy and diastolic dysfunction. Continuously valued hs‐TnI (per doubling) was associated with increased risk of composite end point (adjusted hazard ratio 1.20, 95% confidence interval 1.00‐1.43; P =0.042). Conclusions Hs‐TnI is commonly elevated among both hospitalized and ambulatory patients with HF p EF . Increased hs‐TnI levels are associated with worse cardiac structure and increased risk of adverse events.