OUTSTEP-HF: randomised controlled trial comparing short-term effects of sacubitril/valsartan versus enalapril on daily physical activity in patients with chronic heart failure with reduced ejection fraction

Use of Actigraphy (Wearable Digital Sensors to Monitor Activity) in Heart Failure Randomized Clinical Trials: A Scoping Review

BACKGROUND

Actigraphy-based measurements of physiologic parameters may enable design of patient-centric heart failure (HF) clinical trials. Recently, the Heart Failure Collaboratory focused on recommendations for meaningful change and use of actigraphy as an end point in HF clinical trials. We aimed to evaluate randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that have quantified the impact of HF interventions using actigraphy.

METHODS

Using a scoping review strategy, we evaluated the use of actigraphy in HF RCTs. Studies were identified through electronic searches of Embase, OVID Medline, PubMed, and Cochrane Review. Data on trial characteristics and results were collected.

RESULTS

We identified 11 RCTs with a total of 1,455 participants. The risk of bias across the included trials was high overall. All trials had the primary outcomes reflecting measures of either physical activity (n = 8), sleep (n = 2), or both (n = 1). Five trials evaluated response to pharmacologic therapies compared with placebo, 3 evaluated physical activity interventions, 2 evaluated group or cognitive therapy, and 1 evaluated sleep-ventilation strategy. Sample sizes ranged from 30 to 619 participants. There was significant heterogeneity relating to device type, body placement site, and handling of missing actigraphy data. Duration of monitoring ranged from 48 hours to 12 weeks. None of the studies evaluating pharmacologic therapies (n = 5) demonstrated a significant improvement of actigraphy-based primary end point measurements.

CONCLUSIONS

There is significant heterogeneity in the use, methodology, and results of actigraphy-based HF RCTs. Our results highlight the need to develop, standardize, and validate actigraphy-specific outcomes for use in HF clinical trials.

Sacubitril/valsartan versus enalapril on exercise capacity in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction: A randomized, double-blind, active-controlled study

Sacubitril/valsartan reduces mortality in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) when compared with enalapril. However, it is unknown the effect of both treatments on exercise capacity. We compared sacubitril/valsartan versus enalapril in patients with HFrEF based on peak oxygen consumption (VO₂) and 6-minute walk test (6-MWT).

METHODS

We included 52 participants with HFrEF with a left ventricular ejection fraction <40% to receive either sacubitril/valsartan (target dose of 400 mg daily) or enalapril (target dose of 40 mg daily). Peak VO₂ was measured by using cardiopulmonary exercise testing. Six-minute walk test was also performed.

RESULTS

At 12 weeks, the sacubitril/valsartan (mean dose 382.6 ± 57.6 mg daily) group had increased peak VO₂ of 13.1% (19.35 ± 0.99 to 21.89 ± 1.04 mL/kg/min) and enalapril (mean dose 34.4 ± 9.2 mg daily) 5.6% (18.58 ± 1.19 to 19.62 ± 1.25 mL/kg/min). However, no difference was found between groups (P = .332 interaction). At 24 weeks, peak VO₂ increased 13.5% (19.35 ± 0.99 to 21.96 ± 0.98 mL/kg/min) and 12.0% (18.58 ± 1.19 to 20.82 ± 1.18 mL/kg/min) in sacubitril/valsartan (mean dose 400 ± 0 mg daily) and enalapril (mean dose 32.7 ± 11.0 mg daily), respectively. However, no differences were found between groups (P= .332 interaction). At 12 weeks, 6-MWT increased in both groups (sacubitril/valsartan: 459 ± 18 to 488 ± 17 meters [6.3%] and enalapril: 443 ± 22 to 477 ± 21 meters [7.7%]). At 24 weeks, sacubitril/valsartan increased 18.3% from baseline (543 ± 26 meters) and enalapril decreased slightly to 6.8% (473 ± 31 meters), but no differences existed between groups (P= .257 interaction).

CONCLUSIONS

Compared to enalapril, sacubitril/valsartan did not substantially improve peak VO₂ or 6-MWT after 12 or 24 weeks in participants with HFrEF. (NEPRIExTol-HF Trial, ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03190304).

Angiotensin Receptor-Neprilysin Inhibitor (ARNI) and Cardiac Arrhythmias

The renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS) plays a major role in cardiovascular health and disease. Short-term RAAS activation controls water and salt retention and causes vasoconstriction, which are beneficial for maintaining cardiac output in low blood pressure and early stage heart failure. However, prolonged RAAS activation is detrimental, leading to structural remodeling and cardiac dysfunction. Natriuretic peptides (NPs) are activated to counterbalance the effect of RAAS and sympathetic nervous system by facilitating water and salt excretion and causing vasodilation. Neprilysin is a major NP-degrading enzyme that degrades multiple vaso-modulatory substances. Although the inhibition of neprilysin alone is not sufficient to counterbalance RAAS activation in cardiovascular diseases (e.g., hypertension and heart failure), a combination of angiotensin receptor blocker and neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI) was highly effective in several clinical trials and may modulate the risk of atrial and ventricular arrhythmias. This review summarizes the possible link between ARNI and cardiac arrhythmias and discusses potential underlying mechanisms, providing novel insights about the therapeutic role and safety profile of ARNI in the cardiovascular system.

New Drugs for Heart Failure: What is the Evidence in Older Patients?

Heart failure (HF) is a major public health concern, with a high prevalence in the older population. The majority of randomized clinical trials evaluating new emerging pharmacologic agents for HF (eg, angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitors, sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors, intravenous iron for deficiency treatment, transthyretin stabilizers, soluble guanylate cyclase stimulators, cardiac myosin activators, and new potassium binders) have found positive results on various clinical outcomes, particularly in patients with reduced ejection fraction. These treatments might have an important role in the management of older patients as well. Nevertheless, trials demonstrating benefit of these drugs have involved patients significantly younger (on average, approximately 10 years) and fewer comorbidities than those commonly encountered in clinical practice. We describe the recent evidence regarding the newest HF drugs and their applicability to older individuals in terms of efficacy and safety, and we discuss their effects on outcomes particularly valuable to older patients, such as preservation of cognitive function, functional status, independence, and quality of life. Although available subgroup analyses seem to confirm efficacy and safety across the age spectrum for some of these drugs, their effects on older patients centered outcomes often have been neglected. Future HF trials should be designed to include older patients more representative of the real clinical practice, to overcome generalizability biases.

Efficacy of motivational interviewing on enhancing self-care behaviors among patients with chronic heart failure: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Although motivational interviewing (MI) seems to be promising for enhancing self-care behaviors (i.e., daily disease management and responses to symptoms) in patients with heart failure (HF), no quantitative pooling of effect sizes has been described to summarize and test its efficacy on self-care. Given that self-care behaviors of patients with HF are essential to enhance pharmacological adherence and disease management and optimize clinical outcomes, we sought to perform a systematic review of randomized control trials (RCTs) regarding MI's efficacy on enhancing self-care behaviors among patients with HF, synthesizing MI effects on self-care through meta-analyses. Nine randomized controlled trials were included. MI showed moderate effects on enhancing self-care confidence (Hedge's g = 0.768; 95%CI = 0.326-1.210; P = 0.001) and self-care management (i.e., responses to symptoms) (Hedge's g = 0.744; 95%CI = 0.256-1.232; P = 0.003) and large effects on improving self-care maintenance (i.e., adherence to treatment and symptom monitoring) (Hedge's g = 0.873; 95%CI  = 0.430-1.317; P < 0.001). No significant effects were found for enhancing the self-reported physical functioning (Hedge's g = -0.385; 95%CI = -1.063-0.294; P = 0.267) or the directly assessed physical functioning using the 6-min walking test (Hedge's g = -0.131; 95%CI = -0.981-0.720; P = 0.072). Although future research is still required to identify situation-specific indications regarding how MI should be implemented in relation to specific clinical conditions, this study showed that MI is an effective strategy to improve self-care in patients with HF.