AIMS: Prognostic enrichment strategies can make trials more efficient, although potentially at the cost of diminishing external validity. Whether using a risk score to identify a population at increased mortality risk could improve trial efficiency is uncertain. We aimed to assess whether Machine learning Assessment of RisK and EaRly mortality in Heart Failure (MARKER-HF), a previously validated risk score, could improve clinical trial efficiency. METHODS AND RESULTS: Mortality rates and association of MARKER-HF with all-cause death by 1 year were evaluated in four community-based heart failure (HF) and five HF clinical trial cohorts. Sample size required to assess effects of an investigational therapy on mortality was calculated assuming varying underlying MARKER-HF risk and proposed treatment effect profiles. Patients from community-based HF cohorts (n = 11 297) had higher observed mortality and MARKER-HF scores than did clinical trial patients (n = 13 165) with HF with either reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) or preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). MARKER-HF score was strongly associated with risk of 1-year mortality both in the community (hazard ratio [HR] 1.48, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.44-1.52) and clinical trial cohorts with HFrEF (HR 1.41, 95% CI 1.30-1.54), and HFpEF (HR 1.74, 95% CI 1.53-1.98), per 0.1 increase in MARKER-HF. Using MARKER-HF to identify patients for a hypothetical clinical trial assessing mortality reduction with an intervention, enabled a reduction in sample size required to show benefit. CONCLUSION: Using a reliable predictor of mortality such as MARKER-HF to enrich clinical trial populations provides a potential strategy to improve efficiency by requiring a smaller sample size to demonstrate a clinical benefit.

Background

Due to the overlapping clinical features of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and influenza, parallels are often drawn between the two diseases. Patients with pre-existing cardiovascular diseases (CVD) are at a higher risk for severe manifestations of both illnesses. Considering the high transmission rate of COVID-19 and with the seasonal influenza approaching in late 2020, the dual epidemics of COVID-19 and influenza pose serious cardiovascular implications. This review highlights the similarities and differences between influenza and COVID-19 and the potential risks associated with coincident pandemics.

Main body

COVID-19 has a higher mortality compared to influenza with case fatality rate almost 15 times more than that of influenza. Additionally, a significantly increased risk of adverse outcomes has been noted in patients with CVD, with ~ 15 to 70% of COVID-19 related deaths having an underlying CVD. The critical care need have ranged from 5 to 79% of patients hospitalized due to COVID-19, a proportion substantially higher than with influenza. Similarly, the frequency of vascular thrombosis including deep venous thrombosis and pulmonary embolism is markedly higher in COVID-19 patients compared with influenza in which vascular complications are rarely seen. Unexpectedly, while peak influenza season is associated with increased cardiovascular hospitalizations, a decrease of ~ 50% in cardiovascular hospitalizations has been observed since the first diagnosed case of COVID-19, owing in part to deferred care.

Conclusion

In the coming months, increasing efforts towards evaluating new interventions will be vital to curb COVID-19, especially as peak influenza season approaches. Currently, not enough data exist regarding co-infection of COVID-19 with influenza or how it would progress clinically, though it may cause a significant burden on an already struggling health care system. Until an effective COVID-19 vaccination is available, high coverage of influenza vaccination should be of utmost priority.

With few notable exceptions, drug development for heart failure (HF) has become progressively more challenging, and there remain no definitively proven therapies for patients with acute HF or HF with preserved ejection fraction. Inspection of temporal trends suggests an increasing rate of disagreement between early-phase and phase III trial end points. Preliminary results from phase II HF trials are frequently promising, but increasingly followed by disappointing phase III results. Given this potential disconnect, it is reasonable to carefully re-evaluate the purpose, design, and execution of phase II HF trials, with particular attention directed toward the surrogate end points commonly used by these studies. In this review, we offer a critical reappraisal of the role of phase II HF trials and surrogate end points, highlighting challenges in their use and interpretation, lessons learned from past experiences, and specific strengths and weaknesses of various surrogate outcomes. We conclude by proposing a series of approaches that should be considered for the goal of optimizing the efficiency of HF drug development. This review is based on discussions between scientists, clinical trialists, industry and government sponsors, and regulators that took place at the Cardiovascular Clinical Trialists Forum in Washington, DC, on December 2, 2016.

AIMS: AUGMENT-HF was an international, multi-centre, prospective, randomized, controlled trial to evaluate the benefits and safety of a novel method of left ventricular (LV) modification with alginate-hydrogel. METHODS: Alginate-hydrogel is an inert permanent implant that is directly injected into LV heart muscle and serves as a prosthetic scaffold to modify the shape and size of the dilated LV. Patients with advanced chronic heart failure (HF) were randomized (1 : 1) to alginate-hydrogel (n = 40) in combination with standard medical therapy or standard medical therapy alone (Control, n = 38). The primary endpoint of AUGMENT-HF was the change in peak VO2 from baseline to 6 months. Secondary endpoints included changes in 6-min walk test (6MWT) distance and New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional class, as well as assessments of procedural safety. RESULTS: Enrolled patients were 63 ± 10 years old, 74% in NYHA functional class III, had a LV ejection fraction of 26 ± 5% and a mean peak VO2 of 12.2 ± 1.8 mL/kg/min. Thirty-five patients were successfully treated with alginate-hydrogel injections through a limited left thoracotomy approach without device-related complications; the 30-day surgical mortality was 8.6% (3 deaths). Alginate-hydrogel treatment was associated with improved peak VO2 at 6 months-treatment effect vs. CONTROL: +1.24 mL/kg/min (95% confidence interval 0.26-2.23, P = 0.014). Also 6MWT distance and NYHA functional class improved in alginate-hydrogel-treated patients vs. Control (both P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Alginate-hydrogel in addition to standard medical therapy for patients with advanced chronic HF was more effective than standard medical therapy alone for improving exercise capacity and symptoms. The results of AUGMENT-HF provide proof of concept for a pivotal trial. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT01311791.

AIM: Patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction and low systolic blood pressure (SBP) have high mortality, hospitalizations, and poorly tolerate evidence-based medical treatment. Omecamtiv mecarbil may be particularly helpful in such patients. This study examined its efficacy and tolerability in patients with SBP ≤100 mmHg enrolled in the Global Approach to Lowering Adverse Cardiac outcomes Through Improving Contractility in Heart Failure (GALACTIC-HF). METHODS AND RESULTS: The GALACTIC-HF enrolled patients with baseline SBP ≥85 mmHg with a primary outcome of time to cardiovascular death or first heart failure event. In this analysis, patients were divided according to their baseline SBP (≤100 vs. >100 mmHg). Among the 8232 analysed patients, 1473 (17.9%) had baseline SBP ≤100 mmHg and 6759 (82.1%) had SBP >100 mmHg. The primary outcome occurred in 715 (48.5%) and 2415 (35.7%) patients with SBP ≤100 and >100 mmHg, respectively. Patients with lower SBP were at higher risk of adverse outcomes. Omecamtiv mecarbil, compared with placebo, appeared to be more effective in reducing the primary composite endpoint in patients with SBP ≤100 mmHg [hazard ratio (HR), 0.81; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.70-0.94] compared with those with SBP >100 mmHg (HR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.88-1.03; P-value for interaction = 0.051). In both groups, omecamtiv mecarbil did not change SBP values over time and did not increase the risk of adverse events, when compared with placebo. CONCLUSION: In GALACTIC-HF, risk reduction of heart failure outcomes with omecamtiv mecarbil compared with placebo was large and significant in patients with low SBP. Omecamtiv mecarbil did not affect SBP and was well tolerated independent of SBP values.

Aims

Change in NT-proBNP level is a common surrogate endpoint in early phase heart failure (HF) trials, but whether this endpoint is influenced by atrial fibrillation/flutter (AFF) is unclear.

Methods and results

This analysis included 1358 patients from the ASTRONAUT trial, which randomized patients hospitalized for HF with EF ≤40% to aliskiren or placebo in addition to standard care. Patients were stratified by presence of AFF on baseline ECG. NT-proBNP was measured longitudinally by a core laboratory at baseline, 1 month, 6 months, and 12 months. Compared with non-AFF patients, AFF patients experienced greater reduction from baseline in log-transformed NT-proBNP (interaction P < 0.001), but this difference was not significant after adjustment (interaction P = 0.726). The ability of aliskiren to lower NT-proBNP during follow-up differed by AFF status (interaction P = 0.001), with aliskiren lowering NT-proBNP more than placebo among non-AFF patients only. After adjustment, baseline AFF was not associated with mortality or HF hospitalization at 12 months (all P ≥ 0.152).

Conclusion

In this hospitalized HF cohort, AFF status did not influence post-discharge NT-proBNP trajectory or clinical outcomes after adjustment for patient characteristics. Aliskiren lowered follow-up NT-proBNP levels in patients without AFF, but had no influence among patients with AFF. This study generates the hypothesis that the ability of a HF trial to meet an NT-proBNP defined endpoint may be influenced by the prevalence of AFF in the population. Because aliskiren did not improve outcomes in patients without AFF, this analysis suggests changes in NT-proBNP induced by investigational therapies may be dissociated from clinical effects.

Aims

The direct renin inhibitor, aliskiren, is known to reduce plasma renin activity (PRA), but whether the efficacy of aliskiren varies based on an individual's baseline PRA in patients hospitalized for heart failure (HF) is presently unknown. We characterized the prognostic value of PRA and determined if this risk is modifiable with use of aliskiren.

Methods and results

This pre-specified neurohormonal substudy of ASTRONAUT analysed all patients hospitalized for HF with ejection fraction (EF) ≤40% with available baseline PRA data (n = 1306, 80.9%). Risk associated with baseline PRA and short-term changes in PRA from baseline to 1 month was modelled with respect to 12-month clinical events. Median baseline PRA was 3.0 (interquartile range 0.6-16.4) ng/mL/h. Aliskiren significantly reduced PRA early after treatment initiation through 12-month follow-up compared with placebo (P < 0.001). The lowest baseline PRA quartile (<0.6 ng/mL/h) was independently predictive of lower all-cause mortality [adjusted hazard ratio (HR) 0.50, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.31-0.81] and the composite of cardiovascular mortality and HF hospitalization (adjusted HR 0.57, 95% CI 0.40-0.79). Delta log-normalized PRA (from baseline to 1 month) was not predictive of either primary endpoint at 12 months (P ≥ 0.43). The prognostic value of baseline PRA and short-term changes in PRA did not vary by randomization to aliskiren or placebo (interaction P ≥ 0.13).

Conclusions

Plasma renin activity is reduced early and durably by aliskiren, but this did not translate into improved clinical outcomes in ASTRONAUT. Baseline PRA or short-term reduction in PRA do not identify a subgroup who may preferentially benefit from direct renin inhibition. Clinical Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov Unique Identifier: NCT00894387.

With the current landscape of approved therapies for heart failure (HF), there is a need to determine the role of a standard background therapy against which novel therapies are studied. The Heart Failure Collaboratory convened a multistakeholder group of clinical investigators, clinicians, patients, government representatives including U.S. Food and Drug Administration and National Institutes of Health participants, payers, and industry in March 2021 to discuss whether standardization of background drug therapy is necessary in clinical trials in patients with HF. The current paper summarizes the discussion and provides potential conceptual approaches, with a focus on therapies indicated for HF with reduced ejection fraction.

BACKGROUND: Absence of a dicrotic notch on finger photoplethysmography is an easily ascertainable and inexpensive trait that has been associated with age and prevalent cardiovascular disease. However, the trait exists along a continuum, and little is known about its genetic underpinnings or prognostic value for incident cardiovascular disease. METHODS: In 169 787 participants in the UK Biobank, we identified absent dicrotic notch on photoplethysmography and created a novel continuous trait reflecting notch smoothness using machine learning. Next, we determined the heritability, genetic basis, polygenic risk, and clinical relations for the binary absent notch trait and the newly derived continuous notch smoothness trait. RESULTS: Heritability of the continuous notch smoothness trait was 7.5%, compared with 5.6% for the binary absent notch trait. A genome-wide association study of notch smoothness identified 15 significant loci, implicating genes including NT5C2 (P=1.2×10-26), IGFBP3 (P=4.8×10-18), and PHACTR1 (P=1.4×10-13), compared with 6 loci for the binary absent notch trait. Notch smoothness stratified risk of incident myocardial infarction or coronary artery disease, stroke, heart failure, and aortic stenosis. A polygenic risk score for notch smoothness was associated with incident cardiovascular disease and all-cause death in UK Biobank participants without available photoplethysmography data. CONCLUSIONS: We found that a machine learning derived continuous trait reflecting dicrotic notch smoothness on photoplethysmography was heritable and associated with genes involved in vascular stiffness. Greater notch smoothness was associated with greater risk of incident cardiovascular disease. Raw digital phenotyping may identify individuals at risk for disease via specific genetic pathways.

Haploidentical transplantation performed with post-transplantation cyclophosphamide (PTCy)-based graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) prophylaxis has been associated with favorable outcomes for patients with acute myeloid leukemia and lymphomas. However, it remains unclear if such approach is effective for patients with acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL). We analyzed outcomes of 109 consecutively treated ALL patients 18 years of age and older at 5 institutions. The median age was 32 years and the median follow-up for survivors was 13 months. Thirty-two patients were in first complete remission (CR1), while the rest were beyond CR1. Neutrophil engraftment occurred in 95% of the patients. The cumulative incidences of grades II to IV and III and IV acute GVHD at day 100 after transplantation were 32% and 11%, respectively, whereas chronic GVHD, nonrelapse mortality, relapse rate, and disease-free survival (DFS) at 1 year after transplantation were 32%, 21%, 27%, and 51%, respectively. Patients in CR1 had 52% DFS at 3 years. These results suggest that haploidentical transplants performed with PTCy-based GVHD prophylaxis provide a very suitable alternative to HLA-matched transplantations for patients with ALL.