Biomarker-guided therapies in heart failure: a forum for unified strategies.

The complexity of standard medical treatment for heart failure is growing, and such therapy typically involves 5 or more different medications. Given these pressures, there is increasing interest in harnessing cardiovascular biomarkers for clinical application to more effectively guide diagnosis, risk stratification, and therapy. It may be possible to realize an era of personalized medicine for heart failure treatment in which therapy is optimized and costs are controlled. The direct mechanistic coupling of biologic processes and therapies achieved in cancer treatment remains elusive in heart failure. Recent clinical trials and meta-analyses of biomarkers in heart failure have produced conflicting evidence. In this article, which comprises a summary of discussions from the Global Cardiovascular Clinical Trialists Forum held in Paris, France, we offer a brief overview of the background and rationale for biomarker testing in heart failure, describe opportunities and challenges from a regulatory perspective, and summarize current positions from government agencies in the United States and European Union.

Effect of phosphodiesterase-5 inhibition on exercise capacity and clinical status in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: a randomized clinical trial.

IMPORTANCE: Studies in experimental and human heart failure suggest that phosphodiesterase-5 inhibitors may enhance cardiovascular function and thus exercise capacity in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFPEF). OBJECTIVE: To determine the effect of the phosphodiesterase-5 inhibitor sildenafil compared with placebo on exercise capacity and clinical status in HFPEF. DESIGN: Multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group, randomized clinical trial of 216 stable outpatients with HF, ejection fraction ≥50%, elevated N-terminal brain-type natriuretic peptide or elevated invasively measured filling pressures, and reduced exercise capacity. Participants were randomized from October 2008 through February 2012 at 26 centers in North America. Follow-up was through August 30, 2012. INTERVENTIONS: Sildenafil (n = 113) or placebo (n = 103) administered orally at 20 mg, 3 times daily for 12 weeks, followed by 60 mg, 3 times daily for 12 weeks. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary end point was change in peak oxygen consumption after 24 weeks of therapy. Secondary end points included change in 6-minute walk distance and a hierarchical composite clinical status score (range, 1-n, a higher value indicates better status; expected value with no treatment effect, 95) based on time to death, time to cardiovascular or cardiorenal hospitalization, and change in quality of life for participants without cardiovascular or cardiorenal hospitalization at 24 weeks. RESULTS: Median age was 69 years, and 48% of patients were women. At baseline, median peak oxygen consumption (11.7 mL/kg/min) and 6-minute walk distance (308 m) were reduced. The median E/e' (16), left atrial volume index (44 mL/m2), and pulmonary artery systolic pressure (41 mm Hg) were consistent with chronically elevated left ventricular filling pressures. At 24 weeks, median (IQR) changes in peak oxygen consumption (mL/kg/min) in patients who received placebo (-0.20 [IQR, -0.70 to 1.00]) or sildenafil (-0.20 [IQR, -1.70 to 1.11]) were not significantly different (P = .90) in analyses in which patients with missing week-24 data were excluded, and in sensitivity analysis based on intention to treat with multiple imputation for missing values (mean between-group difference, 0.01 mL/kg/min, [95% CI, -0.60 to 0.61]). The mean clinical status rank score was not significantly different at 24 weeks between placebo (95.8) and sildenafil (94.2) (P = .85). Changes in 6-minute walk distance at 24 weeks in patients who received placebo (15.0 m [IQR, -26.0 to 45.0]) or sildenafil (5.0 m [IQR, -37.0 to 55.0]; P = .92) were also not significantly different. Adverse events occurred in 78 placebo patients (76%) and 90 sildenafil patients (80%). Serious adverse events occurred in 16 placebo patients (16%) and 25 sildenafil patients (22%). CONCLUSION AND RELEVANCE: Among patients with HFPEF, phosphodiesterase-5 inhibition with administration of sildenafil for 24 weeks, compared with placebo, did not result in significant improvement in exercise capacity or clinical status. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00763867.

Ultrafiltration in decompensated heart failure with cardiorenal syndrome.

BACKGROUND: Ultrafiltration is an alternative strategy to diuretic therapy for the treatment of patients with acute decompensated heart failure. Little is known about the efficacy and safety of ultrafiltration in patients with acute decompensated heart failure complicated by persistent congestion and worsened renal function. METHODS: We randomly assigned a total of 188 patients with acute decompensated heart failure, worsened renal function, and persistent congestion to a strategy of stepped pharmacologic therapy (94 patients) or ultrafiltration (94 patients). The primary end point was the bivariate change from baseline in the serum creatinine level and body weight, as assessed 96 hours after random assignment. Patients were followed for 60 days. RESULTS: Ultrafiltration was inferior to pharmacologic therapy with respect to the bivariate end point of the change in the serum creatinine level and body weight 96 hours after enrollment (P=0.003), owing primarily to an increase in the creatinine level in the ultrafiltration group. At 96 hours, the mean change in the creatinine level was -0.04±0.53 mg per deciliter (-3.5±46.9 µmol per liter) in the pharmacologic-therapy group, as compared with +0.23±0.70 mg per deciliter (20.3±61.9 µmol per liter) in the ultrafiltration group (P=0.003). There was no significant difference in weight loss 96 hours after enrollment between patients in the pharmacologic-therapy group and those in the ultrafiltration group (a loss of 5.5±5.1 kg [12.1±11.3 lb] and 5.7±3.9 kg [12.6±8.5 lb], respectively; P=0.58). A higher percentage of patients in the ultrafiltration group than in the pharmacologic-therapy group had a serious adverse event (72% vs. 57%, P=0.03). CONCLUSIONS: In a randomized trial involving patients hospitalized for acute decompensated heart failure, worsened renal function, and persistent congestion, the use of a stepped pharmacologic-therapy algorithm was superior to a strategy of ultrafiltration for the preservation of renal function at 96 hours, with a similar amount of weight loss with the two approaches. Ultrafiltration was associated with a higher rate of adverse events. (Funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00608491.).

Are central institutional review boards the solution? The National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute Working Group's report on optimizing the IRB process.

The National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI) of the National Institutes of Health convened a working group in June 2011 to examine alternative institutional review board (IRB) models. The working group was held in response to proposed changes in the regulations for government-supported research and the proliferation of multicenter clinical trials where multiple individual reviews may be inefficient. Group members included experts in heart, lung, and blood research, research oversight, bioethics, health economics, regulations, and information technology (IT). The group discussed alternative IRB models, ethical concerns, metrics for evaluating IRBs, IT needs, and economic considerations. Participants noted research gaps in IRB best practices and in metrics. The group arrived at recommendations for process changes, such as defining specific IRB performance requirements in funding announcements, requiring funded researchers to use more efficient alternative IRB models, and developing IT systems to facilitate information sharing and collaboration among IRBs. Despite the success of the National Cancer Institute's central IRB (CIRB), the working group, concerned about the creation costs and unknown cost-efficiency of a new CIRB, and about the risk of shifting the burden of dealing with multiple IRBs from sponsors to research institutions, did not recommend the creation of an NHLBI-funded CIRB.

Diuretic strategies in patients with acute decompensated heart failure.

BACKGROUND: Loop diuretics are an essential component of therapy for patients with acute decompensated heart failure, but there are few prospective data to guide their use. METHODS: In a prospective, double-blind, randomized trial, we assigned 308 patients with acute decompensated heart failure to receive furosemide administered intravenously by means of either a bolus every 12 hours or continuous infusion and at either a low dose (equivalent to the patient's previous oral dose) or a high dose (2.5 times the previous oral dose). The protocol allowed specified dose adjustments after 48 hours. The coprimary end points were patients' global assessment of symptoms, quantified as the area under the curve (AUC) of the score on a visual-analogue scale over the course of 72 hours, and the change in the serum creatinine level from baseline to 72 hours. RESULTS: In the comparison of bolus with continuous infusion, there was no significant difference in patients' global assessment of symptoms (mean AUC, 4236±1440 and 4373±1404, respectively; P=0.47) or in the mean change in the creatinine level (0.05±0.3 mg per deciliter [4.4±26.5 µmol per liter] and 0.07±0.3 mg per deciliter [6.2±26.5 µmol per liter], respectively; P=0.45). In the comparison of the high-dose strategy with the low-dose strategy, there was a nonsignificant trend toward greater improvement in patients' global assessment of symptoms in the high-dose group (mean AUC, 4430±1401 vs. 4171±1436; P=0.06). There was no significant difference between these groups in the mean change in the creatinine level (0.08±0.3 mg per deciliter [7.1±26.5 µmol per liter] with the high-dose strategy and 0.04±0.3 mg per deciliter [3.5±26.5 µmol per liter] with the low-dose strategy, P=0.21). The high-dose strategy was associated with greater diuresis and more favorable outcomes in some secondary measures but also with transient worsening of renal function. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with acute decompensated heart failure, there were no significant differences in patients' global assessment of symptoms or in the change in renal function when diuretic therapy was administered by bolus as compared with continuous infusion or at a high dose as compared with a low dose. (Funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00577135.).

Rationale, design, and governance of Prospective Randomized Evaluation of Celecoxib Integrated Safety versus Ibuprofen Or Naproxen (PRECISION), a cardiovascular end point trial of nonsteroidal antiinflammatory agents in patients with arthritis.

BACKGROUND: Pain management in patients with osteoarthritis or rheumatoid arthritis often requires long-term use of nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs (NSAIDs). However, the relative cardiovascular safety of these therapies remains uncertain. METHODS: The Prospective Randomized Evaluation of Celecoxib Integrated Safety versus Ibuprofen Or Naproxen (PRECISION) trial will evaluate the cardiovascular safety of celecoxib, ibuprofen, and naproxen. Approximately 20,000 patients with symptomatic osteoarthritis or rheumatoid arthritis at high risk for, or with, established cardiovascular disease will be randomized in this double-blind, triple dummy, multinational, multicenter study. The primary end point is the composite of cardiovascular death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or nonfatal stroke. The trial will continue until 762 primary events occur with at least 18 months follow-up. Noninferiority of any of the regimens will require a 97.5% upper CI of the hazard ratio (HR) < or =1.33 and point estimate < or =1.12 for both intent-to-treat (ITT) and modified ITT populations. CONCLUSION: PRECISION, the first study of patients with high cardiovascular risk chronically treated with a cyclooxygenase-2 selective inhibitor or nonselective NSAID, will define the relative cardiovascular safety profile of celecoxib, ibuprofen, and naproxen and provide data to help guide NSAID use for pain management for this population.

Prevention of atrial fibrillation: report from a national heart, lung, and blood institute workshop.

The National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute convened an expert panel April 28 to 29, 2008, to identify gaps and recommend research strategies to prevent atrial fibrillation (AF). The panel reviewed the existing basic scientific, epidemiological, and clinical literature about AF and identified opportunities to advance AF prevention research. After discussion, the panel proposed the following recommendations: (1) enhance understanding of the epidemiology of AF in the population by systematically and longitudinally investigating symptomatic and asymptomatic AF in cohort studies; (2) improve detection of AF by evaluating the ability of existing and emerging methods and technologies to detect AF; (3) improve noninvasive modalities for identifying key components of cardiovascular remodeling that promote AF, including genetic, fibrotic, autonomic, structural, and electrical remodeling markers; (4) develop additional animal models reflective of the pathophysiology of human AF; (5) conduct secondary analyses of already-completed clinical trials to enhance knowledge of potentially effective methods to prevent AF and routinely include AF as an outcome in ongoing and future cardiovascular studies; and (6) conduct clinical studies focused on secondary prevention of AF recurrence, which would inform future primary prevention investigations.

Coronary intervention for persistent occlusion after myocardial infarction.

BACKGROUND: It is unclear whether stable, high-risk patients with persistent total occlusion of the infarct-related coronary artery identified after the currently accepted period for myocardial salvage has passed should undergo percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in addition to receiving optimal medical therapy to reduce the risk of subsequent events. METHODS: We conducted a randomized study involving 2166 stable patients who had total occlusion of the infarct-related artery 3 to 28 days after myocardial infarction and who met a high-risk criterion (an ejection fraction of <50% or proximal occlusion). Of these patients, 1082 were assigned to routine PCI and stenting with optimal medical therapy, and 1084 were assigned to optimal medical therapy alone. The primary end point was a composite of death, myocardial reinfarction, or New York Heart Association (NYHA) class IV heart failure. RESULTS: The 4-year cumulative primary event rate was 17.2% in the PCI group and 15.6% in the medical therapy group (hazard ratio for death, reinfarction, or heart failure in the PCI group as compared with the medical therapy group, 1.16; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.92 to 1.45; P=0.20). Rates of myocardial reinfarction (fatal and nonfatal) were 7.0% and 5.3% in the two groups, respectively (hazard ratio, 1.36; 95% CI, 0.92 to 2.00; P=0.13). Rates of nonfatal reinfarction were 6.9% and 5.0%, respectively (hazard ratio, 1.44; 95% CI, 0.96 to 2.16; P=0.08); only six reinfarctions (0.6%) were related to assigned PCI procedures. Rates of NYHA class IV heart failure (4.4% vs. 4.5%) and death (9.1% vs. 9.4%) were similar. There was no interaction between treatment effect and any subgroup variable (age, sex, race or ethnic group, infarct-related artery, ejection fraction, diabetes, Killip class, and the time from myocardial infarction to randomization). CONCLUSIONS: PCI did not reduce the occurrence of death, reinfarction, or heart failure, and there was a trend toward excess reinfarction during 4 years of follow-up in stable patients with occlusion of the infarct-related artery 3 to 28 days after myocardial infarction. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00004562 [ClinicalTrials.gov].).