Sacubitril/valsartan and cardiovascular biomarkers among patients with recent COVID-19 infection: The PARACOR-19 randomized clinical trial.

AIMS: The PARACOR-19 randomized controlled trial (RCT) was designed to examine the effects of sacubitril/valsartan on markers of cardiac injury, inflammation, structure, and function among patients who have recovered from acute coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection. METHODS AND RESULTS: PARACOR-19 was a single-centre, double-blind RCT of patients with cardiovascular risk factors and a history of COVID-19 infection 4-16 weeks prior to enrolment. Patients were randomized to sacubitril/valsartan (titrated to the maximum dose of 97/103 mg twice daily) versus matching placebo. Co-primary endpoints were change from baseline to 12 weeks in high-sensitivity cardiac troponin T (hs-cTnT) and soluble ST2 (sST2). Exploratory endpoints included change from baseline to 12 weeks in additional circulating biomarkers. Overall, 42 patients were randomized between August 2021 and March 2023 (n = 20 sacubitril/valsartan, n = 22 placebo). Median (25th-75th) time from COVID-19 diagnosis to enrolment was 67 (48-80) days. Median age was 67 (62-71) years, 48% were female, and 91% were White. Compared with placebo, sacubitril/valsartan did not have a significant effect on the co-primary endpoints of change from baseline in hs-TnT and sST2 (all p ≥ 0.29). In exploratory analyses, sacubitril/valsartan led to a 46% greater reduction in N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) and 51% greater reduction in C-terminal telopeptide of collagen type I (CITP). Permanent drug discontinuation occurred in four patients in the sacubitril/valsartan group and three patients in the placebo group. There were no deaths and one patient was hospitalized in each group. CONCLUSION: In this pilot RCT of patients who recovered from acute COVID-19, sacubitril/valsartan did not lower hs-cTnT or sST2 compared with placebo. Exploratory analyses suggested potential benefits of sacubitril/valsartan on cardiac wall stress and collagen turnover as measured by NT-proBNP and CITP. Sacubitril/valsartan was well tolerated. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04883528.

IL-6 inhibition with clazakizumab in patients receiving maintenance dialysis: a randomized phase 2b trial.

Inflammation mediated by interleukin-6 (IL-6) is strongly associated with cardiovascular risk. Here we evaluated clazakizumab, a monoclonal antibody targeting the IL-6 ligand, in a phase 2b dose-finding study. Adults with cardiovascular disease and/or diabetes receiving maintenance dialysis with high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hs-CRP) ≥ 2 mg l-1 at baseline were randomized to receive clazakizumab (2.5 mg, 5 mg or 10 mg, n = 32 per dose group) or placebo (n = 31) every 4 weeks. The primary endpoint was the change from baseline in hs-CRP to week 12, expressed as the geometric mean ratio. Clazakizumab treatment signficantly reduced serum hs-CRP concentrations at week 12 by 86%, 90% and 92% relative to placebo in patients randomized to 2.5 mg, 5 mg or 10 mg clazakizumab, respectively (all P < 0.0001), meeting the primary outcome. With regard to secondary endpoints, clazakizumab treatment reduced serum fibrinogen, amyloid A, secretory phospholipase A2, and lipoprotein(a) concentrations, as well as increased mean serum albumin concentrations at 12 weeks, relative to placebo. The proportion of patients who achieved hs-CRP < 2.0 mg l-1 was 79%, 82% and 79% in the 2.5 mg, 5 mg and 10 mg clazakizumab groups, respectively, compared with 0% of placebo-treated patients. With regard to safety, no cases of sustained grade 3 or 4 thrombocytopenia or neutropenia were observed. Serious infections were seen with similar frequency in the placebo, clazakizumab 2.5 mg and clazakizumab 5 mg groups, but were numerically more frequent in the clazakizumab 10 mg group. The results of this trial indicate that in patients receiving maintenance dialysis, clazakizumab reduced inflammatory biomarkers associated with cardiovascular events. ClinicalTrials.gov registration: NCT05485961 .

Effect of Montelukast vs Placebo on Time to Sustained Recovery in Outpatients with COVID-19: The ACTIV-6 Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: The effect of montelukast in reducing symptom duration among outpatients with mild to moderate coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is uncertain. Objective: To assess the effectiveness of montelukast compared with placebo in treating outpatients with mild to moderate COVID-19. Design Setting and Participants: The ACTIV-6 platform randomized clinical trial aims to evaluate the effectiveness of repurposed medications in treating mild to moderate COVID-19. Between January 27, 2023, and June 23, 2023, 1250 participants ≥30 years of age with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection and ≥2 acute COVID-19 symptoms for ≤7 days, were included across 104 US sites to evaluate the use of montelukast. Interventions: Participants were randomized to receive montelukast 10 mg once daily or matched placebo for 14 days. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was time to sustained recovery (defined as at least 3 consecutive days without symptoms). Secondary outcomes included time to death; time to hospitalization or death; a composite of hospitalization, urgent care visit, emergency department visit, or death; COVID clinical progression scale; and difference in mean time unwell. Results: Among participants who were randomized and received study drug, the median age was 53 years (IQR 42-62), 60.2% were female, 64.6% identified as Hispanic/Latino, and 56.3% reported ≥2 doses of a SARS-CoV-2 vaccine. Among 628 participants who received montelukast and 622 who received placebo, differences in time to sustained recovery were not observed (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 1.02; 95% credible interval [CrI] 0.92-1.12; P(efficacy) = 0.63]). Unadjusted median time to sustained recovery was 10 days (95% confidence interval 10-11) in both groups. No deaths were reported and 2 hospitalizations were reported in each group; 36 participants reported healthcare utilization events (a priori defined as death, hospitalization, emergency department/urgent care visit); 18 in the montelukast group compared with 18 in the placebo group (HR 1.01; 95% CrI 0.45-1.84; P(efficacy)=0.48). Five participants experienced serious adverse events (3 with montelukast and 2 with placebo). Conclusions and Relevance: Among outpatients with mild to moderate COVID-19, treatment with montelukast does not reduce duration of COVID-19 symptoms. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov ( NCT04885530 ).

Remote Follow-up in a Heart Failure Pragmatic Trial: Insights From the CONNECT-HF.

BACKGROUND: Randomized controlled trials typically require study-specific visits, which can burden participants and sites. Remote follow-up, such as centralized call centers for participant-reported or site-reported, holds promise for reducing costs and enhancing the pragmatism of trials. In this secondary analysis of the CONNECT-HF (Care Optimization Through Patient and Hospital Engagement For HF) trial, we aimed to evaluate the completeness and validity of the remote follow-up process. METHODS AND RESULTS: The CONNECT-HF trial evaluated the effect of a post-discharge quality-improvement intervention for heart failure compared to usual care for up to 1 year. Suspected events were reported either by participants or by health care proxies through a centralized call center or by sites through medical-record queries. When potential hospitalization events were suspected, additional medical records were collected and adjudicated. Among 5942 potential hospitalizations, 18% were only participant-reported, 28% were reported by both participants and sites, and 50% were only site-reported. Concordance rates between the participant/site reports and adjudication for hospitalization were high: 87% participant-reported, 86% both, and 86% site-reported. Rates of adjudicated heart failure hospitalization events among adjudicated all-cause hospitalization were lower but also consistent: 45% participant-reported, 50% both, and 50% site-reported. CONCLUSIONS: Participant-only and site-only reports missed a substantial number of hospitalization events. We observed similar concordance between participant/site reports and adjudication for hospitalizations. Combining participant-reported and site-reported outcomes data is important to capture and validate hospitalizations effectively in pragmatic heart failure trials.

Utilizing Quality of Life Adjusted Days Alive and Out of Hospital in Heart Failure Clinical Trials.

BACKGROUND: In heart failure (HF) trials, there has been an emphasis on utilizing more patient-centered outcomes, including quality of life (QoL) and days alive and out of hospital. We aimed to explore the impact of QoL adjusted days alive and out of hospital as an outcome in 2 HF clinical trials. METHODS: Using data from 2 trials in HF (Guiding Evidence Based Therapy Using Biomarker Intensified Treatment in Heart Failure [GUIDE-IT] and Study of Dietary Intervention under 100 mmol in Heart Failure [SODIUM-HF]), we determined treatment differences using percentage days alive and out of hospital (%DAOH) adjusted for QoL at 18 months as the primary outcome. For each participant, %DAOH was calculated as a ratio between days alive and out of hospital/total follow-up. Using a regression model, %DAOH was subsequently adjusted for QoL measured by the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire Overall Summary Score. RESULTS: In the GUIDE-IT trial, 847 participants had a median baseline Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire Overall Summary Score of 59.0 (interquartile range, 40.8-74.3), which did not change over 18 months. %DAOH was 90.76%±22.09% in the biomarker-guided arm and 88.56%±25.27% in the usual care arm. No significant difference in QoL adjusted %DAOH was observed (1.09% [95% CI, -1.57% to 3.97%]). In the SODIUM-HF trial, 796 participants had a median baseline Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire Overall Summary Score of 69.8 (interquartile range, 49.3-84.3), which did not change over 18 months. %DAOH was 95.69%±16.31% in the low-sodium arm and 95.95%±14.76% in the usual care arm. No significant difference was observed (1.91% [95% CI, -0.85% to 4.77%]). CONCLUSIONS: In 2 large HF clinical trials, adjusting %DAOH for QoL was feasible and may provide complementary information on treatment effects in clinical trials.

Putting More Weight on Obesity Trials in Heart Failure.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: To review ongoing and planned clinical trials of weight loss among individuals with or at high risk of heart failure. RECENT FINDINGS: Intentional weight loss via semaglutide among persons with heart failure and preserved ejection fraction and obesity significantly improves weight loss and health status as assessed by the KCCQ-CSS score and is associated with improvements in 6-min walk test. Ongoing and planned trials will explore the role of intentional weight loss with treatments such as semaglutide or tirzepatide for individuals with heart failure across the entire ejection fraction spectrum.

Worth Their Weight? An Update on New and Emerging Pharmacologic Agents for Obesity and Their Potential Role for Persons with Cardiac Conditions.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Obesity is associated with cardiovascular (CV) conditions, including but not limited to atherosclerotic disease, heart failure, and atrial fibrillation. Despite this, the impact of intentional weight loss on CV outcomes for persons with obesity and established CV conditions remains poorly studied. New and emerging pharmacologic therapies for weight loss primarily targeting the incretin/nutrient sensing axes induce substantial and sustained weight loss. The glucagon-like-peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RA) liraglutide and semaglutide have US FDA approval for the treatment of obesity, and the application for an obesity indication for the dual GLP-1/glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP) receptor agonist tirzepatide is presently under FDA review. Extensive phase II and IIIa randomized controlled trials are underway evaluating permutations of combined GLP-1 RA, GIP receptor agonist, GIP receptor antagonist, and glucagon receptor agonists. Clinical outcome trials of these therapies in persons with obesity at high risk of established CV conditions should make it possible to estimate the role of intentional weight loss in managing CV risk via these medications. RECENT FINDINGS: High-dose once weekly injectable semaglutide (2.4 mg/week) use among persons with obesity and heart failure with preserved ejection fraction was effective at both reducing weight and improving health status; exercise capacity was also improved. Ongoing CV outcome trials of oral semaglutide and once weekly injectable tirzepatide will help to establish the role of these therapies among persons with other CV conditions. In addition to these two therapies targeting a CV claim or indication, many other new therapeutics for weight loss, as reviewed, are currently in development. The impact of pharmacologic-induced weight loss on CV conditions for persons with obesity and established CV conditions is currently under investigation for multiple agents. These therapies may offer new avenues to manage CV risk in persons with obesity and with established or at high risk for CV disease.

Tricuspid Regurgitation and Clinical Outcomes in Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction.

BACKGROUND: Tricuspid regurgitation (TR) is common and is associated with poor outcomes in patients with heart failure (HF). However, data with adjudicated events from fully characterized patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) are lacking. OBJECTIVES: This study sought to explore the association between mild or moderate/severe TR and clinical outcomes of patients with HFrEF. METHODS: GALACTIC-HF (Global Approach to Lowering Adverse Cardiac Outcomes Through Improving Contractility in Heart Failure) was a double-blind, placebo-controlled randomized trial comparing omecamtiv mecarbil vs placebo in patients with symptomatic HFrEF. RESULTS: Among the 8,232 patients analyzed in the GALACTIC-HF trial, 8,180 (99%) had data regarding baseline TR (none: n = 6,476 [79%], mild: n = 919 [11%], and moderate/severe: n = 785 [10%]). The primary composite outcome of a first HF event or cardiovascular death occurred in 2,368 (36.6%) patients with no TR, 353 (38.4%) patients with mild TR, and 389 (49.6%) patients with moderate/severe TR. Moderate/severe TR was independently associated with a higher relative risk of the primary composite outcome compared with either no TR (adjusted HR: 1.12 [95% CI: 1.01-1.26]; P = 0.046) or no/mild TR (adjusted HR: 1.14 [95% CI: 1.02-1.27]; P = 0.025) driven predominantly by HF events. The association between moderate/severe TR and clinical outcomes was more pronounced in outpatients with worse renal function, higher left ventricular ejection fraction, and lower N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide and bilirubin levels. The beneficial treatment effect of omecamtiv mecarbil vs placebo on clinical outcomes was not modified by TR. CONCLUSIONS: In symptomatic patients with HFrEF, baseline moderate/severe TR was independently associated with cardiovascular death or HF events driven predominantly by HF events. The beneficial treatment effect of omecamtiv mecarbil on the primary outcome was not modified by TR.

Cardiac Troponin and Treatment Effects of Omecamtiv Mecarbil: Results From the GALACTIC-HF Study.

BACKGROUND: Omecamtiv mecarbil improves outcomes in patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). We examined the relationship between baseline troponin levels, change in troponin levels over time and the treatment effect of omecamtiv mecarbil in patients enrolled in the Global Approach to Lowering Adverse Cardiac Outcomes through Improving Contractility in Heart Failure (GALACTIC-HF) trial (NCT02929329). METHODS: GALACTIC-HF was a double-blind, placebo-controlled trial that randomized 8256 patients with symptomatic HFrEF to omecamtiv mecarbil or placebo. High-sensitivity troponin I (cTnI) was measured serially at a core laboratory. We analyzed the relationship between both baseline cTnI and change in cTnI concentrations with clinical outcomes and the treatment effect of omecamtiv mecarbil. RESULTS: Higher baseline cTnI concentrations were associated with a risk of adverse outcomes (hazard ratio for the primary endpoint of time to first HF event or CV death = 1.30; 95% CI 1.28, 1.33; P < 0.001 per doubling of baseline cTnI). Although the incidence of safety outcomes was higher in patients with higher baseline cTnI, there was no difference between treatment groups. Treatment with omecamtiv mecarbil led to a modest increase in cTnI that was related to plasma concentrations of omecamtiv mecarbil, and it peaked at 6 weeks. An increase in troponin from baseline to week 6 was associated with an increased risk of the primary endpoint (P < 0.001), which was similar, regardless of treatment assignment (P value for interaction = 0.2). CONCLUSIONS: In a cohort of patients with HFrEF, baseline cTnI concentrations were strongly associated with adverse clinical outcomes. Although cTnI concentrations were higher in patients treated with omecamtiv mecarbil, we did not find a differential effect of omecamtiv mecarbil on either safety or efficacy based on baseline cTnI status or change in cTnI.

Standardized Definitions for Evaluation of Acute Decompensated Heart Failure Therapies: HF-ARC Expert Panel Paper.

Acute decompensated heart failure (ADHF) is one of the most common reasons for hospitalizations or urgent care and is associated with poor outcomes. Therapies shown to improve outcomes are limited, however, and innovation in pharmacologic and device-based therapeutics are therefore actively being sought. Standardizing definitions for ADHF and its trajectory is complex, limiting the generalizability and translation of clinical trials to effect clinical care and policy change. The Heart Failure Collaboratory is a multistakeholder organization comprising clinical investigators, clinicians, patients, government representatives (including U.S. Food and Drug Administration and National Institutes of Health participants), payors, and industry collaborators. The following expert consensus document is the product of the Heart Failure Collaboratory convening with the Academic Research Consortium, including members from academia, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, and industry, for the purposes of proposing standardized definitions for ADHF and highlighting important endpoint considerations to inform the design and conduct of clinical trials for drugs and devices in this clinical arena.

Managing Obesity in Heart Failure: A Chance to Tip the Scales?

Obesity is associated with incident heart failure (HF), independent of other cardiovascular risk factors. Despite rising rates of both obesity and incident HF, the associations remain poorly understood between: 1) obesity and HF outcomes; and 2) weight loss and HF outcomes. Evidence shows that patients with HF and obesity have high symptom burdens, lower exercise capacity, and higher rates of hospitalization for HF when compared with patients with HF without obesity. However, the impact of weight loss on these outcomes for patients with HF and obesity remains unclear. Recent advances in medical therapies for weight loss have offered a new opportunity for significant and sustained weight loss. Ongoing and recently concluded cardiovascular outcomes trials will offer new insights into the role of weight loss through these therapies in preventing HF and mitigating HF outcomes and symptom burdens among patients with established HF, particularly HF with preserved ejection fraction.

The Effect of Omecamtiv Mecarbil in Hospitalized Patients as Compared With Outpatients With HFrEF: An Analysis of GALACTIC-HF.

BACKGROUND: In the Global Approach to Lowering Adverse Cardiac Outcomes Through Improving Contractility in Heart Failure (GALACTIC-HF) trial, omecamtiv mecarbil, compared with placebo, reduced the risk of worsening heart failure (HF) events, or cardiovascular death in patients with HF and reduced ejection fraction. The primary aim of this prespecified analysis was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of omecamtiv mecarbil by randomization setting, that is, whether participants were enrolled as outpatients or inpatients. METHODS AND RESULTS: Patients were randomized either during a HF hospitalization or as an outpatient, within one year of a worsening HF event (hospitalization or emergency department visit). The primary outcome was a composite of worsening HF event (HF hospitalization or an urgent emergency department or clinic visit) or cardiovascular death. Of the 8232 patients analyzed, 2084 (25%) were hospitalized at randomization. Hospitalized patients had higher N-terminal prohormone of B-type natriuretic peptide concentrations, lower systolic blood pressure, reported more symptoms, and were less frequently treated with a renin-angiotensin system blocker or a beta-blocker than outpatients. The rate (per 100 person-years) of the primary outcome was higher in hospitalized patients (placebo group = 38.3/100 person-years) than in outpatients (23.1/100 person-years); adjusted hazard ratio 1.21 (95% confidence interval 1.12-1.31). The effect of omecamtiv mecarbil versus placebo on the primary outcome was similar in hospitalized patients (hazard ratio 0.89, 95% confidence interval 0.78-1.01) and outpatients (hazard ratio 0.94, 95% confidence interval 0.86-1.02) (interaction P = .51). CONCLUSIONS: Hospitalized patients with HF with reduced ejection fraction had a higher rate of the primary outcome than outpatients. Omecamtiv mecarbil decreased the risk of the primary outcome both when initiated in hospitalized patients and in outpatients.

Impact of vasodilators on diuretic response in patients with congestive heart failure: A mechanistic trial of cimlanod (BMS-986231).

AIM: To investigate the effects of Cimlanod, a nitroxyl donor with vasodilator properties, on water and salt excretion after an administration of an intravenos bolus of furosemide. METHODS AND RESULTS: In this randomized, double-blind, mechanistic, crossover trial, 21 patients with left ventricular ejection fraction <45%, increased plasma concentrations of N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) and receiving loop diuretics were given, on separate study days, either an 8 h intravenous (IV) infusion of cimlanod (12 µg/kg/min) or placebo. Furosemide was given as a 40 mg IV bolus four hours after the start of infusion. The primary endpoint was urine volume in the 4 h after the bolus of furosemide during infusion of cimlanod compared with placebo. Median NT-proBNP at baseline was 1487 (interquartile range: 847-2665) ng/L. Infusion of cimlanod increased cardiac output and reduced blood pressure without affecting cardiac power index consistent with its vasodilator effects. Urine volume in the 4 h post-furosemide was lower with cimlanod (1032 ± 393 ml) versus placebo (1481 ± 560 ml) (p = 0.002), as were total sodium excretion (p = 0.004), fractional sodium excretion (p = 0.016), systolic blood pressure (p < 0.001), estimated glomerular filtration rate (p = 0.012), and haemoglobin (p = 0.010), an index of plasma volume expansion. CONCLUSIONS: For patients with heart failure and congestion, vasodilatation with agents such as cimlanod reduces the response to diuretic agents, which may offset any benefit from acute reductions in cardiac preload and afterload.

Prognostic Impact of Repeated NT-proBNP Measurements in Patients With Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction.

BACKGROUND: Although clinical studies have demonstrated the association between a single N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) measurement and clinical outcomes in chronic heart failure, the biomarker is frequently measured serially in clinical practice. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to determine the added prognostic value of repeated NT-proBNP measurements compared with single measurements alone for chronic heart failure patients. METHODS: In the GUIDE-IT (Guiding Evidence Based Therapy Using Biomarker Intensified Treatment in Heart Failure) study, 894 study participants with chronic heart failure with reduced ejection fraction were enrolled at 45 outpatient sites in the United States and Canada. Repeated NT-proBNP levels were measured over a 2-year study period. Associations between repeated NT-proBNP measurements and trial endpoints were assessed using a joint longitudinal and survival model. RESULTS: After adjustment for baseline covariates, each doubling of the baseline NT-proBNP level was associated with a HR of 1.17 (95% CI: 1.08-1.28; P = 0.0003) for the primary trial endpoint of cardiovascular death or heart failure hospitalization. Serial measurements increased the adjusted HR for the primary trial endpoint to 1.66 (95% CI: 1.50-1.84; P < 0.0001), and a similar increased risk was observed across secondary trial endpoints. In joint modeling, an increase in NT-proBNP occurred weeks before the onset of adjudicated events. CONCLUSIONS: Repeated NT-proBNP measurements are a strong predictor of outcomes in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction with an increase in concentration occurring well before event onset. These results may support routine NT-proBNP monitoring to assist in clinical decision making. (Guiding Evidence Based Therapy Using Biomarker Intensified Treatment in Heart Failure [GUIDE-IT]; NCT01685840).

Left Ventricular Ejection Fraction and the Future of Heart Failure Phenotyping.

Heart failure (HF) is a complex syndrome traditionally classified by left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) cutpoints. Although LVEF is prognostic for risk of events and predictive of response to some HF therapies, LVEF is a continuous variable and cutpoints are arbitrary, often based on historical clinical trial enrichment decisions rather than physiology. Holistic evaluation of the treatment effects for therapies throughout the LVEF range suggests the standard categorization paradigm for HF merits modification. The multidisciplinary Heart Failure Collaboratory reviewed data from large-scale HF clinical trials and found that many HF therapies have demonstrated therapeutic benefit across a large range of LVEF, but specific treatment effects vary across that range. Therefore, HF should practically be classified by association with an LVEF that is reduced or not reduced, while acknowledging uncertainty around the precise LVEF cutpoint, and future research should evaluate new therapies across the continuum of LVEF.

Higher-Dose Fluvoxamine and Time to Sustained Recovery in Outpatients With COVID-19: The ACTIV-6 Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: The effect of higher-dose fluvoxamine in reducing symptom duration among outpatients with mild to moderate COVID-19 remains uncertain. Objective: To assess the effectiveness of fluvoxamine, 100 mg twice daily, compared with placebo, for treating mild to moderate COVID-19. Design, Setting, and Participants: The ACTIV-6 platform randomized clinical trial aims to evaluate repurposed medications for mild to moderate COVID-19. Between August 25, 2022, and January 20, 2023, a total of 1175 participants were enrolled at 103 US sites for evaluating fluvoxamine; participants were 30 years or older with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection and at least 2 acute COVID-19 symptoms for 7 days or less. Interventions: Participants were randomized to receive fluvoxamine, 50 mg twice daily on day 1 followed by 100 mg twice daily for 12 additional days (n = 601), or placebo (n = 607). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was time to sustained recovery (defined as at least 3 consecutive days without symptoms). Secondary outcomes included time to death; time to hospitalization or death; a composite of hospitalization, urgent care visit, emergency department visit, or death; COVID-19 clinical progression scale score; and difference in mean time unwell. Follow-up occurred through day 28. Results: Among 1208 participants who were randomized and received the study drug, the median (IQR) age was 50 (40-60) years, 65.8% were women, 45.5% identified as Hispanic/Latino, and 76.8% reported receiving at least 2 doses of a SARS-CoV-2 vaccine. Among 589 participants who received fluvoxamine and 586 who received placebo included in the primary analysis, differences in time to sustained recovery were not observed (adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 0.99 [95% credible interval, 0.89-1.09]; P for efficacy = .40]). Additionally, unadjusted median time to sustained recovery was 10 (95% CI, 10-11) days in both the intervention and placebo groups. No deaths were reported. Thirty-five participants reported health care use events (a priori defined as death, hospitalization, or emergency department/urgent care visit): 14 in the fluvoxamine group compared with 21 in the placebo group (HR, 0.69 [95% credible interval, 0.27-1.21]; P for efficacy = .86) There were 7 serious adverse events in 6 participants (2 with fluvoxamine and 4 with placebo) but no deaths. Conclusions and Relevance: Among outpatients with mild to moderate COVID-19, treatment with fluvoxamine does not reduce duration of COVID-19 symptoms. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04885530.

Isovolumic Contraction Velocity in Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction and Effect of Sacubitril/Valsartan: the PROVE-HF Study.

OBJECTIVES: To assess tissue Doppler-derived mitral annular isovolumic contraction velocity (ICV) after starting sacubitril/valsartan (sac/val) for the treatment of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and left ventricular [LV] EF < 40%). BACKGROUND: ICV may inform load-independent systolic function; combining ICV and LVEF may improve assessment of LV contractility. METHODS: Among 651 participants with HFrEF treated with sac/val, echocardiograms were performed at baseline, 6 and 12 months. Pretreatment median ICVs and LVEFs were used for classification to predict LV reverse remodeling, health status using the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire, and biomarker concentrations. RESULTS: The mean age was 64.6 ± 12.4 years, and 28% were women, baseline LVEF: 28.9% ± 6.9%. Compared to baseline, median ICV increased post sac/val therapy (4.6 [3.5, 6.1] vs 4.9 [3.6, 6.4]; P = 0.005). ICV added value to separate and combined models of biomarkers and clinical and echocardiographic variables for prediction of post-therapy EF recovery. Classification using baseline ICV/EF yielded relatively equal numbers in 4 groups based on low/high ICV or LVEF. Most deleterious results for remodeling, health status and biomarkers were found in patients with low ICV/low EF, whereas patients with high ICV/high EF had the best profiles; other groups were intermediate. Significant shifts toward better ICV/EF profiles were noted post sac/val treatment compared to baseline, with doubling of high ICV/high EF (241 [60%] vs 123 [31%]) and 78% reduction of low ICV/low EF (28 [7%] vs 125 [32%]). CONCLUSIONS: In HFrEF, ICV adds to the profiling of systolic function and represents an independent predictor of reverse cardiac remodeling after treatment with sac/val. ICV changes may be used for assessment of treatment responses.