Effect of Natriuretic Peptide-Guided Therapy on Hospitalization or Cardiovascular Mortality in High-Risk Patients With Heart Failure and Reduced Ejection Fraction: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: The natriuretic peptides are biochemical markers of heart failure (HF) severity and predictors of adverse outcomes. Smaller studies have evaluated adjusting HF therapy based on natriuretic peptide levels ( guided therapy ) with inconsistent results. Objective: To determine whether an amino-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP)-guided treatment strategy improves clinical outcomes vs usual care in high-risk patients with HF and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). Design, Settings, and Participants: The Guiding Evidence Based Therapy Using Biomarker Intensified Treatment in Heart Failure (GUIDE-IT) study was a randomized multicenter clinical trial conducted between January 16, 2013, and September 20, 2016, at 45 clinical sites in the United States and Canada. This study planned to randomize 1100 patients with HFrEF (ejection fraction ≤40%), elevated natriuretic peptide levels within the prior 30 days, and a history of a prior HF event (HF hospitalization or equivalent) to either an NT-proBNP-guided strategy or usual care. Interventions: Patients were randomized to either an NT-proBNP-guided strategy or usual care. Patients randomized to the guided strategy (n = 446) had HF therapy titrated with the goal of achieving a target NT-proBNP of less than 1000 pg/mL. Patients randomized to usual care (n = 448) had HF care in accordance with published guidelines, with emphasis on titration of proven neurohormonal therapies for HF. Serial measurement of NT-proBNP testing was discouraged in the usual care group. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was the composite of time-to-first HF hospitalization or cardiovascular mortality. Prespecified secondary end points included all-cause mortality, total hospitalizations for HF, days alive and not hospitalized for cardiovascular reasons, the individual components on the primary end point, and adverse events. Results: The data and safety monitoring board recommended stopping the study for futility when 894 (median age, 63 years; 286 [32%] women) of the planned 1100 patients had been enrolled with follow-up for a median of 15 months. The primary end point occurred in 164 patients (37%) in the biomarker-guided group and 164 patients (37%) in the usual care group (adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 0.98; 95% CI, 0.79-1.22; P = .88). Cardiovascular mortality was 12% (n = 53) in the biomarker-guided group and 13% (n = 57) in the usual care group (HR, 0.94; 95% CI; 0.65-1.37; P = .75). None of the secondary end points nor the decreases in the NT-proBNP levels achieved differed significantly between groups. Conclusions and Relevance: In high-risk patients with HFrEF, a strategy of NT-proBNP-guided therapy was not more effective than a usual care strategy in improving outcomes. Trial Registration: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01685840

Rationale and design of the GUIDE-IT study: Guiding Evidence Based Therapy Using Biomarker Intensified Treatment in Heart Failure.

OBJECTIVES: The GUIDE-IT (Guiding Evidence Based Therapy Using Biomarker Intensified Treatment in Heart Failure) study is designed to determine the safety, efficacy, and cost-effectiveness of a strategy of adjusting therapy with the goal of achieving and maintaining a target N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) level of BACKGROUND: Elevations in natriuretic peptide (NP) levels provide key prognostic information in patients with HF. Therapies proven to improve outcomes in patients with HF are generally associated with decreasing levels of NPs, and observational data show that decreases in NP levels over time are associated with favorable outcomes. Results from smaller prospective, randomized studies of this strategy thus far have been mixed, and current guidelines do not recommend serial measurement of NP levels to guide therapy in patients with HF. METHODS: GUIDE-IT is a prospective, randomized, controlled, unblinded, multicenter clinical trial designed to randomize approximately 1,100 high-risk subjects with systolic HF (left ventricular ejection fraction ≤40%) to either usual care (optimized guideline-recommended therapy) or a strategy of adjusting therapy with the goal of achieving and maintaining a target NT-proBNP level of CONCLUSIONS: The GUIDE-IT study is designed to definitively assess the effects of an NP-guided strategy in high-risk patients with systolic HF on clinically relevant endpoints of mortality, hospitalization, quality of life, and medical resource use. (Guiding Evidence Based Therapy Using Biomarker Intensified Treatment in Heart Failure [GUIDE-IT]; NCT01685840)

Effect of Oral Iron Repletion on Exercise Capacity in Patients With Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction and Iron Deficiency: The IRONOUT HF Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Iron deficiency is present in approximately 50% of patients with heart failure with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (HFrEF) and is an independent predictor of reduced functional capacity and mortality. However, the efficacy of inexpensive readily available oral iron supplementation in heart failure is unknown. Objective: To test whether therapy with oral iron improves peak exercise capacity in patients with HFrEF and iron deficiency. Design, Setting, and Participants: Phase 2, double-blind, placebo-controlled randomized clinical trial of patients with HFrEF ( Interventions: Oral iron polysaccharide (n = 111) or placebo (n = 114), 150 mg twice daily for 16 weeks. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was a change in peak oxygen uptake (V̇o2) from baseline to 16 weeks. Secondary end points were change in 6-minute walk distance, plasma N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) levels, and health status as assessed by Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ, range 0-100, higher scores reflect better quality of life). Results: Among 225 randomized participants (median age, 63 years; 36% women) 203 completed the study. The median baseline peak V̇o2 was 1196 mL/min (interquartile range [IQR], 887-1448 mL/min) in the oral iron group and 1167 mL/min (IQR, 887-1449 mL/min) in the placebo group. The primary end point, change in peak V̇o2 at 16 weeks, did not significantly differ between the oral iron and placebo groups (+23 mL/min vs -2 mL/min; difference, 21 mL/min [95% CI, -34 to +76 mL/min]; P = .46). Similarly, at 16 weeks, there were no significant differences between treatment groups in changes in 6-minute walk distance (-13 m; 95% CI, -32 to 6 m), NT-proBNP levels (159; 95% CI, -280 to 599 pg/mL), or KCCQ score (1; 95% CI, -2.4 to 4.4), all P \u3e .05. Conclusions and Relevance: Among participants with HFrEF with iron deficiency, high-dose oral iron did not improve exercise capacity over 16 weeks. These results do not support use of oral iron supplementation in patients with HFrEF. Trial Registration: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT02188784

Isosorbide Mononitrate in Heart Failure with Preserved Ejection Fraction.

BACKGROUND: Nitrates are commonly prescribed to enhance activity tolerance in patients with heart failure and a preserved ejection fraction. We compared the effect of isosorbide mononitrate or placebo on daily activity in such patients. METHODS: In this multicenter, double-blind, crossover study, 110 patients with heart failure and a preserved ejection fraction were randomly assigned to a 6-week dose-escalation regimen of isosorbide mononitrate (from 30 mg to 60 mg to 120 mg once daily) or placebo, with subsequent crossover to the other group for 6 weeks. The primary end point was the daily activity level, quantified as the average daily accelerometer units during the 120-mg phase, as assessed by patient-worn accelerometers. Secondary end points included hours of activity per day during the 120-mg phase, daily accelerometer units during all three dose regimens, quality-of-life scores, 6-minute walk distance, and levels of N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP). RESULTS: In the group receiving the 120-mg dose of isosorbide mononitrate, as compared with the placebo group, there was a nonsignificant trend toward lower daily activity (-381 accelerometer units; 95% confidence interval [CI], -780 to 17; P=0.06) and a significant decrease in hours of activity per day (-0.30 hours; 95% CI, -0.55 to -0.05; P=0.02). During all dose regimens, activity in the isosorbide mononitrate group was lower than that in the placebo group (-439 accelerometer units; 95% CI, -792 to -86; P=0.02). Activity levels decreased progressively and significantly with increased doses of isosorbide mononitrate (but not placebo). There were no significant between-group differences in the 6-minute walk distance, quality-of-life scores, or NT-proBNP levels. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with heart failure and a preserved ejection fraction who received isosorbide mononitrate were less active and did not have better quality of life or submaximal exercise capacity than did patients who received placebo. (Funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02053493.)

Efficacy of infliximab, abatacept, and cenicriviroc for the treatment of adults hospitalized with COVID-19 pneumonia

A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial was conducted to investigate the efficacy of infliximab, abatacept, and cenicriviroc in treating patients hospitalized with COVID-19. The patient's clinical status was assessed daily on an 8-point ordinal scale. We evaluated the totality of evidence on the efficacy of the 3 immunomodulators by considering all possible changes in the clinical status of each patient over time. We demonstrated that infliximab accelerated improvement and reduced deterioration of clinical status when added to standard of care. There was also evidence for the benefit of abatacept. There was no evidence for the benefit of cenicriviroc

SARS-CoV-2 N protein and anti-spike serologies: insights into COVID-19 disease severity and mortality—a secondary analysis of the ACTIV-1 trial

Background: Understanding factors that predict progression to severe COVID-19 is critical. Antibodies targeting SARS-CoV-2 spike protein confer protection, while the N protein of SARS-CoV-2 plays roles in viral replication and immune dysfunction. This study explores the significance of N protein and anti-spike antibodies on disease severity, progression, and mortality. Objectives: To evaluate the relationship between SARS-CoV-2 N protein and anti-spike antibody levels with disease severity, clinical outcomes, and mortality in hospitalized patients with COVID-19. Design: A secondary analysis of serologic data from participants in the ACTIV-1 randomized clinical trial, which evaluated immunomodulators for the treatment of hospitalized patients with COVID-19. Methods: A subanalysis of the ACTIV-1 immune modulator trial was conducted. Samples collected at randomization were tested for N protein levels and anti-spike antibodies. Logistic regression and linear models were employed to examine the association between serological measures and clinical outcomes, including 28-day mortality as well as progression to high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) and invasive mechanical ventilation (MV). Results: Among the 496 participants with detectable serum N protein, the median was 1143 ng/dL, and levels decreased from 2559 ng/dL in participants randomized at 6 days of symptom onset to 477.6 ng/dL at 11 days. Higher anti-spike antibody levels were seen as the days from symptom onset progressed or disease severity increased. Greater disease severity at randomization was associated with 28-day mortality, prolonged days of oxygenation, ventilation, hospitalization, and risk of new non-invasive ventilation, HFNC, MV, or extracorporeal membrane oxygenation use. N protein levels were associated with a higher risk of new non-invasive ventilation or HFNC use, longer oxygenation duration, and extended hospitalization. Anti-spike antibody serologies were not associated with clinical outcomes. Conclusion: N protein levels could provide insights into COVID-19 disease progression and prognosis. Further research is needed to explore the clinical implications of these findings to optimize patient care and enhance outcomes. Plain language summary Understanding COVID-19 severity: the role of viral proteins and antibodies COVID-19 severity can vary widely, and predicting who will develop severe disease is crucial for effective treatment. This study looks at two key components of the virus: the N protein, which helps the virus replicate, and anti-spike antibodies, which help the body fight off the virus. We studied blood samples from participants in a clinical trial to see how levels of these two components related to disease severity and outcomes, such as the need for advanced respiratory support or death. The study found that higher levels of the N protein were associated with more severe disease and worse outcomes, including a higher risk of requiring advanced respiratory support and longer hospital stays. On the other hand, anti-spike antibodies, which are typically seen as protective, did not show a clear relationship with the severity of illness or outcomes in this study. These findings suggest that the N protein might be a useful indicator for predicting how severe a person's COVID-19 illness might become, which could help doctors better manage and treat the disease. However, more research is needed to fully understand the role of these viral components in COVID-19 and how they can be used to improve patient care

High-risk subgroups were not identified to benefit from thromboprophylaxis after hospitalization for COVID-19

Background: The Accelerating COVID-19 Therapeutic Interventions and Vaccines-4c (ACTIV-4c) trial investigated prophylactic apixaban for 30 days following hospitalization for COVID-19. The overall incidence of early postdischarge death or thromboembolism was low, and the trial was closed early. Objectives: To identify a high-risk patient population who might benefit from postdischarge thromboprophylaxis through subgroup analyses stratified by age, race/ethnicity, obesity, D-dimer elevation, World Health Organization score, and modified International Medical Prevention Registry on Venous Thromboembolism score on 30-day composite outcome of all-cause death, arterial thromboembolism (ATE), and venous thromboembolism (VTE). Methods: Cumulative incidences of all-cause death, ATE, and VTE within 30 days were described for each subgroup. Time to death, ATE, or VTE by 30 days was analyzed using Cox proportional hazard models with interaction testing for each subgroup. Results: Among 1217 patients randomized to apixaban or placebo group, 32% were >60 years old. Modified International Medical Prevention Registry on Venous Thromboembolism score was ≥4 in 2% and 2 or 3 with an elevated D-dimer in an additional 9% of participants. The overall incidence of the primary endpoint was 2.13% in the apixaban group and 2.31% in the placebo group. At day 30, similar rates of the primary endpoint occurred within subgroups, except for participants aged >60 years. No benefit of thromboprophylaxis was seen in any subgroup. Conclusion: The combined incidence of 30-day death, ATE, and VTE was low in patients who survived COVID-19 hospitalization, except in patients over age 60 years. Due to the limited number of events, the findings remain inconclusive; nonetheless, the study did not identify a high-risk subgroup that would derive benefits from extended thromboprophylaxis

Comparing Analytical Methods for Composite End Points in Clinical Trials:Insights from the Vericiguat Global Study in Subjects with Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction Trial

Background: In VICTORIA (Vericiguat Global Study in Subjects with Heart Failure with Reduced Ejection Fraction), participants with heart failure (HF) and reduced ejection fraction, vericiguat decreased the primary composite outcome (time to first HF hospitalization [HFH] or cardiovascular death [CVD]) (897 events) compared with placebo (972 events) (hazard ratio, 0.90; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.82–0.98; P = .02). In this prespecified secondary analysis, we applied the weighted composite end point (WCE) and the win ratio (WR) methods to provide complementary assessments of treatment effect. Methods and Results: The WCE method estimated the mean HFH-adjusted survival based on prespecified weights from a Delphi panel of the VICTORIA executive committee and national leaders: mild (weight per event, 0.39), moderate (0.5), or severe (0.67) HFH, and CVD (1.0). The unmatched WR was estimated for the descending hierarchy of CVD, then recurrent HFH. The WCE used all 3412 primary clinical events: 875 severe HFH (vericiguat, 416/ placebo, 459), 1614 moderate HFH (767/847), 68 mild HFH (38/30), and 855 CVD (414/441). Improved HFH-adjusted survival occurred with vericiguat (mean 78.2% vs 75.6%, difference 2.4%, 95% CI, 1.7%–3.2%, P &lt; .0001). Based on a comparison of 6,375,624 pairs, the WR of 1.13 (95% CI 1.03–1.24, P = .01) also indicated improved clinical outcomes with vericiguat. Conclusions: The results of the WCE and WR methods were consistent with the primary analysis of the time to first HFH or CVD. Although both WCE and WR assessed recurrent events, the WCE allowed inclusion of all recurrent events, insights on the severity of HFH events, and an absolute measure of the participant–treatment experience. This approach complements conventional assessment, better informing consumers of new therapeutics and future trial designs.</p

Baseline features of the VICTORIA (Vericiguat Global Study in Subjects with Heart Failure with Reduced Ejection Fraction) trial

Aim Describe the distinguishing features of heart failure (HF) patients with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) in the VICTORIA (Vericiguat Global Study in Patients with Heart Failure with Reduced Ejection Fraction) trial. Methods and results Key background characteristics were evaluated in 5050 patients randomized in VICTORIA and categorized into three cohorts reflecting their index worsening HF event. Differences within the VICTORIA population were assessed and compared with PARADIGM-HF (Prospective comparison of ARNI with ACEI to Determine Impact on Global Mortality and Morbidity in Heart Failure) and COMMANDER HF (A Study to Assess the Effectiveness and Safety of Rivaroxaban in Reducing the Risk of Death, Myocardial Infarction, or Stroke in Participants with Heart Failure and Coronary Artery Disease Following an Episode of Decompensated Heart Failure). VICTORIA patients had increased risk of mortality and rehospitalization: New York Heart Association class (40% class III), atrial fibrillation (45%), diabetes (47%), hypertension (79%) and mean estimated glomerular filtration rate of 61.5 mL/min/1.73m2. Baseline standard of HF care was very good: 60% received triple therapy. Their N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide was 3377 pg/mL [interquartile range (IQR) 1992-6380]. Natriuretic peptides were 30% higher level in the 67% patients with HF hospitalization Conclusions VICTORIA comprises a broadly generalizable high-risk population of three unique clinical strata of worsening chronic HFrEF despite very good HF therapy. VICTORIA will establish the role of vericiguat, a soluble guanylate cyclase stimulator, in HFrEF