A comparison of computational algorithms for the Bayesian analysis of clinical trials.

BACKGROUND: Clinical trials are increasingly using Bayesian methods for their design and analysis. Inference in Bayesian trials typically uses simulation-based approaches such as Markov Chain Monte Carlo methods. Markov Chain Monte Carlo has high computational cost and can be complex to implement. The Integrated Nested Laplace Approximations algorithm provides approximate Bayesian inference without the need for computationally complex simulations, making it more efficient than Markov Chain Monte Carlo. The practical properties of Integrated Nested Laplace Approximations compared to Markov Chain Monte Carlo have not been considered for clinical trials. Using data from a published clinical trial, we aim to investigate whether Integrated Nested Laplace Approximations is a feasible and accurate alternative to Markov Chain Monte Carlo and provide practical guidance for trialists interested in Bayesian trial design. METHODS: Data from an international Bayesian multi-platform adaptive trial that compared therapeutic-dose anticoagulation with heparin to usual care in non-critically ill patients hospitalized for COVID-19 were used to fit Bayesian hierarchical generalized mixed models. Integrated Nested Laplace Approximations was compared to two Markov Chain Monte Carlo algorithms, implemented in the software JAGS and stan, using packages available in the statistical software R. Seven outcomes were analysed: organ-support free days (an ordinal outcome), five binary outcomes related to survival and length of hospital stay, and a time-to-event outcome. The posterior distributions for the treatment and sex effects and the variances for the hierarchical effects of age, site and time period were obtained. We summarized these posteriors by calculating the mean, standard deviations and the 95% equitailed credible intervals and presenting the results graphically. The computation time for each algorithm was recorded. RESULTS: The average overlap of the 95% credible interval for the treatment and sex effects estimated using Integrated Nested Laplace Approximations was 96% and 97.6% compared with stan, respectively. The graphical posterior densities for these effects overlapped for all three algorithms. The posterior mean for the variance of the hierarchical effects of age, site and time estimated using Integrated Nested Laplace Approximations are within the 95% credible interval estimated using Markov Chain Monte Carlo but the average overlap of the credible interval is lower, 77%, 85.6% and 91.3%, respectively, for Integrated Nested Laplace Approximations compared to stan. Integrated Nested Laplace Approximations and stan were easily implemented in clear, well-established packages in R, while JAGS required the direct specification of the model. Integrated Nested Laplace Approximations was between 85 and 269 times faster than stan and 26 and 1852 times faster than JAGS. CONCLUSION: Integrated Nested Laplace Approximations could reduce the computational complexity of Bayesian analysis in clinical trials as it is easy to implement in R, substantially faster than Markov Chain Monte Carlo methods implemented in JAGS and stan, and provides near identical approximations to the posterior distributions for the treatment effect. Integrated Nested Laplace Approximations was less accurate when estimating the posterior distribution for the variance of hierarchical effects, particularly for the proportional odds model, and future work should determine if the Integrated Nested Laplace Approximations algorithm can be adjusted to improve this estimation.

Comparison of Bayesian and frequentist monitoring boundaries motivated by the Multiplatform Randomized Clinical Trial.

BACKGROUND: The coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic highlighted the need to conduct efficient randomized clinical trials with interim monitoring guidelines for efficacy and futility. Several randomized coronavirus disease 2019 trials, including the Multiplatform Randomized Clinical Trial (mpRCT), used Bayesian guidelines with the belief that they would lead to quicker efficacy or futility decisions than traditional "frequentist" guidelines, such as spending functions and conditional power. We explore this belief using an intuitive interpretation of Bayesian methods as translating prior opinion about the treatment effect into imaginary prior data. These imaginary observations are then combined with actual observations from the trial to make conclusions. Using this approach, we show that the Bayesian efficacy boundary used in mpRCT is actually quite similar to the frequentist Pocock boundary. METHODS: The mpRCT's efficacy monitoring guideline considered stopping if, given the observed data, there was greater than 99% probability that the treatment was effective (odds ratio greater than 1). The mpRCT's futility monitoring guideline considered stopping if, given the observed data, there was greater than 95% probability that the treatment was less than 20% effective (odds ratio less than 1.2). The mpRCT used a normal prior distribution that can be thought of as supplementing the actual patients' data with imaginary patients' data. We explore the effects of varying probability thresholds and the prior-to-actual patient ratio in the mpRCT and compare the resulting Bayesian efficacy monitoring guidelines to the well-known frequentist Pocock and O'Brien-Fleming efficacy guidelines. We also contrast Bayesian futility guidelines with a more traditional 20% conditional power futility guideline. RESULTS: A Bayesian efficacy and futility monitoring boundary using a neutral, weakly informative prior distribution and a fixed probability threshold at all interim analyses is more aggressive than the commonly used O'Brien-Fleming efficacy boundary coupled with a 20% conditional power threshold for futility. The trade-off is that more aggressive boundaries tend to stop trials earlier, but incur a loss of power. Interestingly, the Bayesian efficacy boundary with 99% probability threshold is very similar to the classic Pocock efficacy boundary. CONCLUSIONS: In a pandemic where quickly weeding out ineffective treatments and identifying effective treatments is paramount, aggressive monitoring may be preferred to conservative approaches, such as the O'Brien-Fleming boundary. This can be accomplished with either Bayesian or frequentist methods.

Use of win time for ordered composite endpoints in clinical trials.

Consider the choice of outcome for overall treatment benefit in a clinical trial which measures the first time to each of several clinical events. We describe several new variants of the win ratio that incorporate the time spent in each clinical state over the common follow-up, where clinical state means the worst clinical event that has occurred by that time. One version allows restriction so that death during follow-up is most important, while time spent in other clinical states is still accounted for. Three other variants are described; one is based on the average pairwise win time, one creates a continuous outcome for each participant based on expected win times against a reference distribution and another that uses the estimated distributions of clinical state to compare the treatment arms. Finally, a combination testing approach is described to give robust power for detecting treatment benefit across a broad range of alternatives. These new methods are designed to be closer to the overall treatment benefit/harm from a patient's perspective, compared to the ordinary win ratio. The new methods are compared to the composite event approach and the ordinary win ratio. Simulations show that when overall treatment benefit on death is substantial, the variants based on either the participants' expected win times (EWTs) against a reference distribution or estimated clinical state distributions have substantially higher power than either the pairwise comparison or composite event methods. The methods are illustrated by re-analysis of the trial heart failure: a controlled trial investigating outcomes of exercise training.

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).

Effect of therapeutic-dose heparin on severe acute kidney injury and death in noncritically ill patients hospitalized for COVID-19: a prespecified secondary analysis of the ACTIV4a and ATTACC randomized trial.

Background: Acute kidney injury (AKI) in patients with COVID-19 is partly mediated by thromboinflammation. In noncritically ill patients with COVID-19, therapeutic-dose anticoagulation with heparin increased the probability of survival to hospital discharge with reduced use of cardiovascular or respiratory organ support. Objectives: We investigated whether therapeutic-dose heparin reduces the incidence of AKI or death in noncritically ill patients hospitalized for COVID-19. Methods: We report a prespecified secondary analysis of the ACTIV4a and ATTACC open-label, multiplatform randomized trial of therapeutic-dose heparin vs usual-care pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis on the incidence of severe AKI (≥2-fold increase in serum creatinine or initiation of kidney replacement therapy (KDIGO stage 2 or 3) or all-cause mortality in noncritically ill patients hospitalized for COVID-19. Bayesian statistical models were adjusted for age, sex, D-dimer, enrollment period, country, site, and platform. Results: Among 1922 enrolled, 23 were excluded due to pre-existing end stage kidney disease and 205 were missing baseline or follow-up creatinine measurements. Severe AKI or death occurred in 4.4% participants assigned to therapeutic-dose heparin and 5.5% assigned to thromboprophylaxis (adjusted relative risk [aRR]: 0.72; 95% credible interval (CrI): 0.47, 1.10); the posterior probability of superiority for therapeutic-dose heparin (relative risk < 1.0) was 93.6%. Therapeutic-dose heparin was associated with a 97.7% probability of superiority to reduce the composite of stage 3 AKI or death (3.1% vs 4.6%; aRR: 0.64; 95% CrI: 0.40, 0.99) compared to thromboprophylaxis. Conclusion: Therapeutic-dose heparin was associated with a high probability of superiority to reduce the incidence of in-hospital severe AKI or death in patients hospitalized for COVID-19.

Effect of the P-Selectin Inhibitor Crizanlizumab on Survival Free of Organ Support in Patients Hospitalized for COVID-19: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 has been associated with endothelial injury, resultant microvascular inflammation and thrombosis. Activated endothelial cells release and express P-selectin and von Willebrand factor, both of which are elevated in severe COVID-19 and may be implicated in the disease pathophysiology. We hypothesized that crizanlizumab, a humanized monoclonal antibody to P-selectin, would reduce morbidity and death in patients hospitalized for COVID-19. METHODS: An international, adaptive, randomized controlled platform trial, funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, randomly assigned 422 patients hospitalized with COVID-19 with moderate or severe illness to receive either a single infusion of the P-selectin inhibitor crizanlizumab (at a dose of 5 mg/kg) plus standard of care or standard of care alone in an open-label 1:1 ratio. The primary outcome was organ support-free days, evaluated on an ordinal scale consisting of the number of days alive free of organ support through the first 21 days after trial entry. RESULTS: The study was stopped for futility by the data safety monitoring committee. Among 421 randomized patients with known 21-day outcomes, 163 patients (77%) randomized to the crizanlizumab plus standard-of-care arm did not require any respiratory or cardiovascular organ support compared with 169 (80%) in the standard-of-care-alone arm. The adjusted odds ratio for the effect of crizanlizumab on organ support-free days was 0.70 (95% CI, 0.43-1.16), where an odds ratio >1 indicates treatment benefit, yielding a posterior probability of futility (odds ratio <1.2) of 98% and a posterior probability of inferiority (odds ratio <1.0) of 91%. Overall, there were 37 deaths (17.5%) in the crizanlizumab arm and 27 deaths (12.8%) in the standard-of-care arm (hazard ratio, 1.33 [95% CrI, 0.85-2.21]; [probability of hazard ratio>1] = 0.879). CONCLUSIONS: Crizanlizumab, a P-selectin inhibitor, did not result in improvement in organ support-free days in patients hospitalized with COVID-19. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov; Unique identifier: NCT04505774.

Supervised Exercise Training for Chronic Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association and American College of Cardiology.

Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) is one of the most common forms of heart failure; its prevalence is increasing, and outcomes are worsening. Affected patients often experience severe exertional dyspnea and debilitating fatigue, as well as poor quality of life, frequent hospitalizations, and a high mortality rate. Until recently, most pharmacological intervention trials for HFpEF yielded neutral primary outcomes. In contrast, trials of exercise-based interventions have consistently demonstrated large, significant, clinically meaningful improvements in symptoms, objectively determined exercise capacity, and usually quality of life. This success may be attributed, at least in part, to the pleiotropic effects of exercise, which may favorably affect the full range of abnormalities-peripheral vascular, skeletal muscle, and cardiovascular-that contribute to exercise intolerance in HFpEF. Accordingly, this scientific statement critically examines the currently available literature on the effects of exercise-based therapies for chronic stable HFpEF, potential mechanisms for improvement of exercise capacity and symptoms, and how these data compare with exercise therapy for other cardiovascular conditions. Specifically, data reviewed herein demonstrate a comparable or larger magnitude of improvement in exercise capacity from supervised exercise training in patients with chronic HFpEF compared with those with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, although Medicare reimbursement is available only for the latter group. Finally, critical gaps in implementation of exercise-based therapies for patients with HFpEF, including exercise setting, training modalities, combinations with other strategies such as diet and medications, long-term adherence, incorporation of innovative and more accessible delivery methods, and management of recently hospitalized patients are highlighted to provide guidance for future research.

Effect of Thromboprophylaxis on Clinical Outcomes After COVID-19 Hospitalization.

BACKGROUND: Patients hospitalized with COVID-19 have an increased incidence of thromboembolism. The role of extended thromboprophylaxis after hospital discharge is unclear. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether anticoagulation is superior to placebo in reducing death and thromboembolic complications among patients discharged after COVID-19 hospitalization. DESIGN: Prospective, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04650087). SETTING: Done during 2021 to 2022 among 127 U.S. hospitals. PARTICIPANTS: Adults aged 18 years or older hospitalized with COVID-19 for 48 hours or more and ready for discharge, excluding those with a requirement for, or contraindication to, anticoagulation. INTERVENTION: 2.5 mg of apixaban versus placebo twice daily for 30 days. MEASUREMENTS: The primary efficacy end point was a 30-day composite of death, arterial thromboembolism, and venous thromboembolism. The primary safety end points were 30-day major bleeding and clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding. RESULTS: Enrollment was terminated early, after 1217 participants were randomly assigned, because of a lower than anticipated event rate and a declining rate of COVID-19 hospitalizations. Median age was 54 years, 50.4% were women, 26.5% were Black, and 16.7% were Hispanic; 30.7% had a World Health Organization severity score of 5 or greater, and 11.0% had an International Medical Prevention Registry on Venous Thromboembolism risk prediction score of greater than 4. Incidence of the primary end point was 2.13% (95% CI, 1.14 to 3.62) in the apixaban group and 2.31% (CI, 1.27 to 3.84) in the placebo group. Major bleeding occurred in 2 (0.4%) and 1 (0.2%) and clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding occurred in 3 (0.6%) and 6 (1.1%) apixaban-treated and placebo-treated participants, respectively. By day 30, thirty-six (3.0%) participants were lost to follow-up, and 8.5% of apixaban and 11.9% of placebo participants permanently discontinued the study drug treatment. LIMITATIONS: The introduction of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines decreased the risk for hospitalization and death. Study enrollment spanned the peaks of the Delta and Omicron variants in the United States, which influenced illness severity. CONCLUSION: The incidence of death or thromboembolism was low in this cohort of patients discharged after hospitalization with COVID-19. Because of early enrollment termination, the results were imprecise and the study was inconclusive. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: National Institutes of Health.

Supervised Exercise Training for Chronic Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association and American College of Cardiology.

Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) is one of the most common forms of heart failure; its prevalence is increasing, and outcomes are worsening. Affected patients often experience severe exertional dyspnea and debilitating fatigue, as well as poor quality of life, frequent hospitalizations, and a high mortality rate. Until recently, most pharmacological intervention trials for HFpEF yielded neutral primary outcomes. In contrast, trials of exercise-based interventions have consistently demonstrated large, significant, clinically meaningful improvements in symptoms, objectively determined exercise capacity, and usually quality of life. This success may be attributed, at least in part, to the pleiotropic effects of exercise, which may favorably affect the full range of abnormalities-peripheral vascular, skeletal muscle, and cardiovascular-that contribute to exercise intolerance in HFpEF. Accordingly, this scientific statement critically examines the currently available literature on the effects of exercise-based therapies for chronic stable HFpEF, potential mechanisms for improvement of exercise capacity and symptoms, and how these data compare with exercise therapy for other cardiovascular conditions. Specifically, data reviewed herein demonstrate a comparable or larger magnitude of improvement in exercise capacity from supervised exercise training in patients with chronic HFpEF compared with those with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, although Medicare reimbursement is available only for the latter group. Finally, critical gaps in implementation of exercise-based therapies for patients with HFpEF, including exercise setting, training modalities, combinations with other strategies such as diet and medications, long-term adherence, incorporation of innovative and more accessible delivery methods, and management of recently hospitalized patients are highlighted to provide guidance for future research.

Functional and Symptomatic Clinical Trial Endpoints: The HFC-ARC Scientific Expert Panel.

The Heart Failure Academic Research Consortium is a partnership between the Heart Failure Collaboratory (HFC) and the Academic Research Consortium (ARC) composed of patients, academic investigators from the United States and Europe, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, the National Institutes of Health, payers, and industry. Members discussed the measure, remote capture, and clinical utility of functional and quality-of-life endpoints for use in clinical trials of heart failure and cardiovascular therapeutics, with the goal of improving the efficiency of heart failure and cardiovascular clinical research, evidence generation, and thereby patient quality of life, functional status, and survival. Assessments of patient-reported outcomes and maximal and submaximal exercise tolerance are standardized and validated, but actigraphy remains inconsistent as a potential endpoint. This paper details those discussions and consensus recommendations.

Assessing race and ethnicity differences in outcomes based on GDMT and target NT-proBNP in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction: An analysis of the GUIDE-IT study.

BACKGROUND: The GUIDE-IT trial was, a multicenter, randomized, parallel group, unblinded study that randomized patients to having heart failure therapy titrated to achieve an NT-proBNP <1000 pg/mL or to usual clinical care. METHODS AND RESULTS: We performed pre-specified subgroup analysis to look for the race and ethnicity-based differences in clinical outcomes of patients who were able to achieve GDMT or target NT-proBNP concentration of ≤1000 pg/mL at 90 days of follow-up. There were 894 patients enrolled in GUIDE-IT study. Of these, 733 participants had available data on 90-day guideline directed triple therapy and 616 on NT-proBNP. 35% of the patients were Black and 6% were Hispanic. Black patients were younger, had more comorbidities, lower EF, and higher NYHA class compared with non-Black. Adjusting for 90-day NT-proBNP and important baseline covariates, Black patients were at a higher risk than non-Black patients for HF hospitalization [HR, 2.19; 95% CI, 1.51-3.17; p < 0.0001], but at a similar risk for mortality [HR, 0.85.; 95% CI, 0.44-1.66; p = 0.64]. Similar results were seen adjusting for 90-day GDMT [HF hospitalization: Black vs non-Black, HR: 1.97; 1.41-2.77, P < 0.0001; mortality: HR: 0.70; 0.39-1.26, p = 0.23]. There were no significant differences between Hispanic and non-Hispanic patients with respect to heart failure hospitalization, cardiovascular or all-cause mortality. Over the study period, Black and Hispanic patients experienced smaller changes in physical function and quality of life as measured by the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire overall score. CONCLUSION: Compared to non-Black patients, Black patients in GUIDE-IT study had a higher risk of heart failure hospitalization, but a comparable risk of mortality, despite improved use of GDMT and achievement of similar biomarker targets.

Improving Enrollment of Underrepresented Racial and Ethnic Populations in Heart Failure Trials: A Call to Action From the Heart Failure Collaboratory.

Importance: Despite bearing a disproportionate burden of heart failure (HF), Black and Hispanic individuals have been poorly represented in HF clinical trials. Underrepresentation in clinical trials limits the generalizability of the findings to these populations and may even introduce uncertainties and hesitancy when translating trial data to the care of people from underrepresented groups. The Heart Failure Collaboratory, a consortium of stakeholders convened to enhance HF therapeutic development, has been dedicated to improving recruitment strategies for patients from diverse and historically underrepresented groups. Observations: Despite federal policies from the US Food and Drug Administration and National Institutes of Health aimed at improving trial representation, gaps in trial enrollment proportionate to the racial and ethnic composition of the HF population have persisted. Increasing trial globalization with limited US enrollment is a major driver of these patterns. Additional barriers to representative enrollment include inequities in care access, logistical issues in participation, restrictive enrollment criteria, and English language requirements. Conclusions and Relevance: Strategies for improving diverse trial enrollment include methodical study design and site selection, diversification of research leadership and staff, broadening of eligibility criteria, community and patient engagement, and broad stakeholder commitment. In contemporary HF trials, diverse trial enrollment is not only feasible but can be efficiently achieved to improve the generalizability and translation of trial knowledge to clinical practice.

Umbilical Cord Blood or HLA-Haploidentical Transplantation: Real-World Outcomes versus Randomized Trial Outcomes.

Randomized clinical trials offer the highest-quality data for modifying clinical practice. Results of a phase III randomized trial of nonmyeloablative transplantation for adults with high-risk hematologic malignancies with 2 umbilical cord blood (UCB) units (n = 183) or HLA-haploidentical relative bone marrow (Haplo-BM; n = 154) revealed a 2-year progression-free survival (PFS) of 41% after Haplo-BM transplantation and 35% after 2-unit UCB transplantation (P = .41), with overall survival (OS) of 57% and 46%, respectively (P = .04). We sought to examine the generalizability of BMT CTN 1101 to a contemporaneous cohort beyond the trial's prespecified 2-year outcomes. All transplantations were performed between June 2012 and June 2018 in the United States. We hypothesized that the results of a rigorous phase III randomized trial would be generalizable. Changes in graft selection for HLA-haploidentical relative transplantation during the trial period allowed comparison of outcomes after transplantation with Haplo-BM with those after haploidentical peripheral blood (Haplo-PB). The trial's broad eligibility criteria were applied to the data source of the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research to select nontrial subjects. Extended follow-up of trial subjects was obtained from this data source. Three separate analyses were performed: (1) trial subjects beyond the trial's 2-year endpoint; (2) comparison of trial subjects with a contemporaneous cohort of nontrial subjects (195 2-unit UCB, 358 Haplo-BM, and 403 Haplo-PB); and (3) comparison of nontrial subjects by donor and graft type. Multivariate analyses were performed using Cox proportional hazards models for comparison of outcomes by treatment groups. With longer follow-up of the trial cohorts, 5-year PFS (37% versus 29%; P = .08) and OS (42% versus 36%; P = .06) were not significantly different between the treatment groups. We then compared the trial results with outcomes of comparable real-world transplantations. Five-year OS did not differ between trial and nontrial 2-unit UCB transplantations (36% versus 41%; P = .48) or between trial and nontrial Haplo-BM transplantations (42% versus 47%; P = .80), confirming generalizability. The randomized trial did not accrue as planned and therefore lacked the statistical power to detect a 15% difference in PFS. With substantially larger numbers of nontrial Haplo-BM transplantations, 5-year survival was higher after nontrial Haplo-BM compared with trial 2-unit UCB (47% versus 36%; P = .012). Nontrial patients who underwent Haplo-PB transplantation had higher 5-year survival (54%) compared with trial Haplo-BM (hazard ratio [HR], 0.76; P = .044) and nontrial Haplo-BM (HR, 0.78; P = .026). Similarly, survival was better after Haplo-PB compared with trial UCB (HR, 0.57; P < .0001) and nontrial UCB (HR, 0.63; P = .0002). When considering alternative donor low-intensity conditioning regimen transplantation, a haploidentical relative is preferred, and PB is the preferred graft source.

The influence of comorbidities on achieving an N-terminal pro-b-type natriuretic peptide target: a secondary analysis of the GUIDE-IT trial.

AIMS: N-terminal pro-b-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) values may be influenced by patient factors beyond the severity of illness, including atrial fibrillation (AF), renal dysfunction, or increased body mass index (BMI). We hypothesized that these factors may influence the achievement of NT-proBNP targets and clinical outcomes. METHODS: A total of 894 patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction were enrolled in The Guiding Evidence-Based Therapy Using Biomarker Intensified Treatment trial. NT-proBNP was analysed every 3 months. RESULTS: Forty per cent of patients had AF, the median estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) was 59 mL/min/1.73 m2 [interquartile range (IQR) 43-76], and median BMI was 29 kg/m2 (IQR 25-34). Patients with AF, eGFR < 60 mL/min/1.73 m2 , or a BMI < 29 kg/m2 had a higher level of NT-proBNP at randomization and over all study visits (all P values < 0.001). Over 18 months, the rate of change of NT-proBNP was less for patients with AF (compared with those without AF, P = 0.037) and patients with an eGFR < 60 mL/min/1.73 m2 (compared with eGFR > 60 mL/min/1.73 m2 , P < 0.001). The rate of change of NT-proBNP was similar for patients with a BMI above or below the median value. Using the 90 day NT-proBNP, patients with AF, lower eGFR, or lower BMI were less likely to achieve the target NT-proBNP < 1000 pg/mL than patients without AF, higher eGFR, or higher BMI, respectively. None of these differed between the Usual Care or Guided Care arm for AF, eGFR, or BMI (Pinteractions all NS). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with AF, a lower BMI, or worse renal function are less likely to achieve a lower or target NT-proBNP. Clinicians should be aware of these factors both when interpreting NT-proBNP levels and making therapeutic decisions about heart failure therapies.

Blood and Marrow Transplant Clinical Trials Network State of the Science Symposium 2021: Looking Forward as the Network Celebrates its 20th Year.

In 2021 the BMT CTN held the 4th State of the Science Symposium where the deliberations of 11 committees concerning major topics pertinent to a particular disease, modality, or complication of transplant, as well as two committees to consider clinical trial design and inclusion, diversity, and access as cross-cutting themes were reviewed. This article summarizes the individual committee reports and their recommendations on the highest priority questions in hematopoietic stem cell transplant and cell therapy to address in multicenter trials.

Joint testing of overall and simple effects for the two-by-two factorial trial design.

BACKGROUND/AIMS: The two-by-two factorial design randomizes participants to receive treatment A alone, treatment B alone, both treatments A and B(AB), or neither treatment (C). When the combined effect of A and B is less than the sum of the A and B effects, called a subadditive interaction, there can be low power to detect the A effect using an overall test, that is, factorial analysis, which compares the A and AB groups to the C and B groups. Such an interaction may have occurred in the Action to Control Cardiovascular Risk in Diabetes blood pressure trial (ACCORD BP) which simultaneously randomized participants to receive intensive or standard blood pressure, control and intensive or standard glycemic control. For the primary outcome of major cardiovascular event, the overall test for efficacy of intensive blood pressure control was nonsignificant. In such an instance, simple effect tests of A versus C and B versus C may be useful since they are not affected by a subadditive interaction, but they can have lower power since they use half the participants of the overall trial. We investigate multiple testing procedures which exploit the overall tests' sample size advantage and the simple tests' robustness to a potential interaction. METHODS: In the time-to-event setting, we use the stratified and ordinary logrank statistics' asymptotic means to calculate the power of the overall and simple tests under various scenarios. We consider the A and B research questions to be unrelated and allocate 0.05 significance level to each. For each question, we investigate three multiple testing procedures which allocate the type 1 error in different proportions for the overall and simple effects as well as the AB effect. The Equal Allocation 3 procedure allocates equal type 1 error to each of the three effects, the Proportional Allocation 2 procedure allocates 2/3 of the type 1 error to the overall A (respectively, B) effect and the remaining type 1 error to the AB effect, and the Equal Allocation 2 procedure allocates equal amounts to the simple A (respectively, B) and AB effects. These procedures are applied to ACCORD BP. RESULTS: Across various scenarios, Equal Allocation 3 had robust power for detecting a true effect. For ACCORD BP, all three procedures would have detected a benefit of intensive glycemia control. CONCLUSIONS: When there is no interaction, Equal Allocation 3 has less power than a factorial analysis. However, Equal Allocation 3 often has greater power when there is an interaction. The R package factorial2x2 can be used to explore the power gain or loss for different scenarios.

The Impact of Depression on Outcomes in Patients With Heart Failure and Reduced Ejection Fraction Treated in the GUIDE-IT Trial.

BACKGROUND: It remains unclear why depression is associated with adverse outcomes in patients with heart failure (HF). We examine the relationship between depression and clinical outcomes among patients with HF with reduced ejection fraction managed with guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT). METHODS AND RESULTS: Using the GUIDE-IT trial, 894 patients with HF with reduced ejection fraction were stratified according to a history of depression, and Cox proportional hazards regression modeling was used to examine the association with outcomes. There were 140 patients (16%) in the overall cohort who had depression. They tended to be female (29% vs 46%, P < .001) and White (67% vs 53%, P = .002). There were no differences in GDMT rates at baseline or at 90 days; nor were there differences in target doses of these therapies achieved at 90 days (NS, all). amino-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide levels at all time points were similar between the cohorts (P > .05, all). After adjustment, depression was associated with all-cause hospitalizations (hazard ratio, 1.42, 95% confidence interval 1.11-1.81, P < .01), cardiovascular death (hazard ratio, 1.69, 95% confidence interval 1.07-2.68, P = .025), and all-cause mortality (hazard ratio, 1.54, 95% confidence interval 1.03-2.32, P = .039). CONCLUSIONS: Depression impacts clinical outcomes in HF regardless of GDMT intensity and amino-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide levels. This finding underscores the need for a focus on mental health in parallel to achievement of optimal GDMT in these patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT01685840, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01685840.

Effects of Atrial Fibrillation on Heart Failure Outcomes and NT-proBNP Levels in the GUIDE-IT Trial.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate effects of atrial fibrillation (AF) on cardiac biomarkers and outcomes in a trial population of patients with heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction treated with optimal guideline-directed medical therapy. METHODS: We performed a secondary analysis of 894 patients in the Guiding Evidence-Based Therapy Using Biomarker-Intensified Treatment in Heart Failure (GUIDE-IT) trial (January 2013-July 2016). Patients were stratified by AF status and compared with regard to guideline-directed medical therapy use, longitudinal levels of N-terminal pro-B type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP), and outcomes including HF hospitalization and mortality. RESULTS: After adjustment, AF was associated with a significant increase in the risk of HF hospitalization or cardiovascular death (hazard ratio, 1.28; 95% CI, 1.02 to 1.61; P=0.04) and HF hospitalization (hazard ratio, 1.31; 95% CI, 1.02 to 1.68; P=.03) but with no difference in mortality during a median 15 months of follow-up. There were no significant differences in medication treatment between those with and those without AF. At 90 days, a higher proportion of patients with AF (89.4% vs 81.5%; P=.002) had an NT-proBNP level above 1000 pg/mL (to convert NT-proBNP values to pmol/L, multiply by 0.1182), and AF patients had higher NT-proBNP levels at all time points through 2 years of follow-up. CONCLUSION: Among patients with HF with reduced ejection fraction, prevalent AF was associated with higher NT-proBNP concentrations through 2 years of follow-up and higher risk for HF hospitalization despite no substantial differences in medical therapy.

Conduct of Clinical Trials in the Era of COVID-19: JACC Scientific Expert Panel.

The coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has profoundly changed clinical care and research, including the conduct of clinical trials, and the clinical research ecosystem will need to adapt to this transformed environment. The Heart Failure Academic Research Consortium is a partnership between the Heart Failure Collaboratory and the Academic Research Consortium, composed of academic investigators from the United States and Europe, patients, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, the National Institutes of Health, and industry members. A series of meetings were convened to address the challenges caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, review options for maintaining or altering best practices, and establish key recommendations for the conduct and analysis of clinical trials for cardiovascular disease and heart failure. This paper summarizes the discussions and expert consensus recommendations.