Incorporating development of a patient-reported outcome instrument in a clinical drug development program: examples from a heart failure program.

BackgroundPatient-reported outcome (PRO) measures can be used to support label claims if they adhere to US Food & Drug Administration guidance. The process of developing a new PRO measure is expensive and time-consuming. We report the results of qualitative studies to develop new PRO measures for use in clinical trials of omecamtiv mecarbil (a selective, small molecule activator of cardiac myosin) for patients with heart failure (HF), as well as the lessons learned from the development process.MethodsConcept elicitation focus groups and individual interviews were conducted with patients with HF to identify concepts for the instrument. Cognitive interviews with HF patients were used to confirm that no essential concepts were missing and to assess patient comprehension of the instrument and items.ResultsDuring concept elicitation, the most frequently reported HF symptoms were shortness of breath, tiredness, fluid retention, fatigue, dizziness/light-headedness, swelling, weight fluctuation, and trouble sleeping. Two measures were developed based on the concepts: the Heart Failure Symptom Diary (HF-SD) and the Heart Failure Impact Scale (HFIS). Findings from cognitive interviews suggested that the items in the HF-SD and HFIS were relevant and well understood by patients. Multiple iterations of concept elicitation and cognitive interviews were needed based on FDA request for a broader patient population in the qualitative study. Lessons learned from the omecamtiv mecarbil PRO/clinical development program are discussed, including challenges of qualitative studies, patient recruitment, expected and actual timelines, cost, and engagement with various stakeholders.ConclusionDevelopment of a new PRO measure to support a label claim requires significant investment and early planning, as demonstrated by the omecamtiv mecarbil program

Influence of Sacubitril/Valsartan (LCZ696) on 30-day readmission after heart failure hospitalization

Background: Patients with heart failure (HF) are at high risk for hospital readmission in the first 30 days following HF hospitalization. Objectives: This study sought to determine if treatment with sacubitril/valsartan (LCZ696) reduces rates of hospital readmission at 30-days following HF hospitalization compared with enalapril. Methods: We assessed the risk of 30-day readmission for any cause following investigator-reported hospitalizations for HF in the PARADIGM-HF trial, which randomized 8,399 participants with HF and reduced ejection fraction to treatment with LCZ696 or enalapril. Results: Accounting for multiple hospitalizations per patient, there were 2,383 investigator-reported HF hospitalizations, of which 1,076 (45.2%) occurred in subjects assigned to LCZ696 and 1,307 (54.8%) occurred in subjects assigned to enalapril. Rates of readmission for any cause at 30 days were 17.8% in LCZ696-assigned subjects and 21.0% in enalapril-assigned subjects (odds ratio: 0.74; 95% confidence interval: 0.56 to 0.97; p = 0.031). Rates of readmission for HF at 30-days were also lower in subjects assigned to LCZ696 (9.7% vs. 13.4%; odds ratio: 0.62; 95% confidence interval: 0.45 to 0.87; p = 0.006). The reduction in both all-cause and HF readmissions with LCZ696 was maintained when the time window from discharge was extended to 60 days and in sensitivity analyses restricted to adjudicated HF hospitalizations. Conclusions: Compared with enalapril, treatment with LCZ696 reduces 30-day readmissions for any cause following discharge from HF hospitalization

Systolic blood pressure reduction during the first 24 h in acute heart failure admission: friend or foe?

Aims: Changes in systolic blood pressure (SBP) during an admission for acute heart failure (AHF), especially those leading to hypotension, have been suggested to increase the risk for adverse outcomes. Methods and results: We analysed associations of SBP decrease during the first 24 h from randomization with serum creatinine changes at the last time-point available (72 h), using linear regression, and with 30- and 180-day outcomes, using Cox regression, in 1257 patients in the VERITAS study. After multivariable adjustment for baseline SBP, greater SBP decrease at 24 h from randomization was associated with greater creatinine increase at 72 h and greater risk for 30-day all-cause death, worsening heart failure (HF) or HF readmission. The hazard ratio (HR) for each 1 mmHg decrease in SBP at 24 h for 30-day death, worsening HF or HF rehospitalization was 1.01 [95% confidence interval (CI) 1.00–1.02; P = 0.021]. Similarly, the HR for each 1 mmHg decrease in SBP at 24 h for 180-day all-cause mortality was 1.01 (95% CI 1.00–1.03; P = 0.038). The associations between SBP decrease and outcomes did not differ by tezosentan treatment group, although tezosentan treatment was associated with a greater SBP decrease at 24 h. Conclusions: In the current post hoc analysis, SBP decrease during the first 24 h was associated with increased renal impairment and adverse outcomes at 30 and 180 days. Caution, with special attention to blood pressure monitoring, should be exercised when vasodilating agents are given to AHF patients

Predictors and associations with outcomes of length of hospital stay in patients with acute heart failure: results from VERITAS

Background: The length of hospital stay (LOS) is important in patients admitted for acute heart failure (AHF) because it prolongs an unpleasant experience for the patients and adds substantially to health care costs. Methods and Results: We examined the association between LOS and baseline characteristics, 10-day post-discharge HF readmission, and 90-day post-discharge mortality in 1347 patients with AHF enrolled in the VERITAS program. Longer LOS was associated with greater HF severity and disease burden at baseline; however, most of the variability of LOS could not be explained by these factors. LOS was associated with a higher HF risk of both HF readmission (odds ratio for 1-day increase: 1.08; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.01–1.16; P = .019) and 90-day mortality (hazard ratio for 1-day increase: 1.05; 95% CI 1.02–1.07; P < .001), although these associations are partially explained by concurrent end-organ damage and worsening heart failure during the first days of admission. Conclusions: In patients who have been admitted for AHF, longer length of hospital stay is associated with a higher rate of short-term mortality. Clinical Trial Registration: VERITAS-1 and -2: Clinicaltrials.gov identifiers NCT00525707 and NCT00524433

Acute treatment with omecamtiv mecarbil to increase contractility in acute heart failure

Background: Omecamtiv mecarbil (OM) is a selective cardiac myosin activator that increases myocardial function in healthy volunteers and in patients with chronic heart failure. Objectives: This study evaluated the pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, tolerability, safety, and efficacy of OM in patients with acute heart failure (AHF). Methods: Patients admitted for AHF with left ventricular ejection fraction ≤40%, dyspnea, and elevated plasma concentrations of natriuretic peptides were randomized to receive a double-blind, 48-h intravenous infusion of placebo or OM in 3 sequential, escalating-dose cohorts. Results: In 606 patients, OM did not improve the primary endpoint of dyspnea relief (3 OM dose groups and pooled placebo: placebo, 41%; OM cohort 1, 42%; cohort 2, 47%; cohort 3, 51%; p = 0.33) or any of the secondary outcomes studied. In supplemental, pre-specified analyses, OM resulted in greater dyspnea relief at 48 h (placebo, 37% vs. OM, 51%; p = 0.034) and through 5 days (p = 0.038) in the high-dose cohort. OM exerted plasma concentration-related increases in left ventricular systolic ejection time (p < 0.0001) and decreases in end-systolic dimension (p < 0.05). The adverse event profile and tolerability of OM were similar to those of placebo, without increases in ventricular or supraventricular tachyarrhythmias. Plasma troponin concentrations were higher in OM-treated patients compared with placebo (median difference at 48 h, 0.004 ng/ml), but with no obvious relationship with OM concentration (p = 0.95). Conclusions: In patients with AHF, intravenous OM did not meet the primary endpoint of dyspnea improvement, but it was generally well tolerated, it increased systolic ejection time, and it may have improved dyspnea in the high-dose group. (Acute Treatment with Omecamtiv Mecarbil to Increase Contractility in Acute Heart Failure [ATOMIC-AHF]; NCT01300013)

Agents with inotropic properties for the management of acute heart failure syndromes. Traditional agents and beyond

Treatment with inotropic agents is one of the most controversial topics in heart failure. Initial enthusiasm, based on strong pathophysiological rationale and apparent empirical efficacy, has been progressively limited by results of controlled trials and registries showing poorer outcomes of the patients on inotropic therapy. The use of these agents remains, however, potentially indicated in a significant proportion of patients with low cardiac output, peripheral hypoperfusion and end-organ dysfunction caused by heart failure. Limitations of inotropic therapy seem to be mainly related to their mechanisms of action entailing arrhythmogenesis, peripheral vasodilation, myocardial ischemia and damage, and possibly due to their use in patients without a clear indication, rather than to the general principle of inotropic therapy itself. This review will discuss the characteristics of the patients with a potential indication for inotropic therapy, the main data from registries and controlled trials, the mechanism of the untoward effects of these agents on outcomes and, lastly, perspectives with new agents with novel mechanisms of action

Rolofylline, an adenosine A1−receptor antagonist, in acute heart failure

Background: Worsening renal function, which is associated with adverse outcomes, often develops in patients with acute heart failure. Experimental and clinical studies suggest that counterregulatory responses mediated by adenosine may be involved. We tested the hypothesis that the use of rolofylline, an adenosine A1−receptor antagonist, would improve dyspnea, reduce the risk of worsening renal function, and lead to a more favorable clinical course in patients with acute heart failure. Methods: We conducted a multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial involving patients hospitalized for acute heart failure with impaired renal function. Within 24 hours after presentation, 2033 patients were randomly assigned, in a 2:1 ratio, to receive daily intravenous rolofylline (30 mg) or placebo for up to 3 days. The primary end point was treatment success, treatment failure, or no change in the patient’s clinical condition; this end point was defined according to survival, heart-failure status, and changes in renal function. Secondary end points were the post-treatment development of persistent renal impairment and the 60-day rate of death or readmission for cardiovascular or renal causes. Results: Rolofylline, as compared with placebo, did not provide a benefit with respect to the primary end point (odds ratio, 0.92; 95% confidence interval, 0.78 to 1.09; P=0.35). Persistent renal impairment developed in 15.0% of patients in the rolofylline group and in 13.7% of patients in the placebo group (P=0.44). By 60 days, death or readmission for cardiovascular or renal causes had occurred in similar proportions of patients assigned to rolofylline and placebo (30.7% and 31.9%, respectively; P=0.86). Adverse-event rates were similar overall; however, only patients in the rolofylline group had seizures, a known potential adverse effect of A1-receptor antagonists. Conclusions: Rolofylline did not have a favorable effect with respect to the primary clinical composite end point, nor did it improve renal function or 60-day outcomes. It does not show promise in the treatment of acute heart failure with renal dysfunction. (Funded by NovaCardia, a subsidiary of Merck; ClinicalTrials.gov numbers, NCT00328692 and NCT00354458.