Comparison of Outcome Adjudication by Investigators and by a Central End Point Committee in Heart Failure Trials

Natural Language Processing for Adjudication of Heart Failure in a Multicenter Clinical Trial: A Secondary Analysis of a Randomized Clinical Trial

Importance

The gold standard for outcome adjudication in clinical trials is medical record review by a physician clinical events committee (CEC), which requires substantial time and expertise. Automated adjudication of medical records by natural language processing (NLP) may offer a more resource-efficient alternative but this approach has not been validated in a multicenter setting.

Objective

To externally validate the Community Care Cohort Project (C3PO) NLP model for heart failure (HF) hospitalization adjudication, which was previously developed and tested within one health care system, compared to gold-standard CEC adjudication in a multicenter clinical trial.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This was a retrospective analysis of the Influenza Vaccine to Effectively Stop Cardio Thoracic Events and Decompensated Heart Failure (INVESTED) trial, which compared 2 influenza vaccines in 5260 participants with cardiovascular disease at 157 sites in the US and Canada between September 2016 and January 2019. Analysis was performed from November 2022 to October 2023.

Exposures

Individual sites submitted medical records for each hospitalization. The central INVESTED CEC and the C3PO NLP model independently adjudicated whether the cause of hospitalization was HF using the prepared hospitalization dossier. The C3PO NLP model was fine-tuned (C3PO + INVESTED) and a de novo NLP model was trained using half the INVESTED hospitalizations.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Concordance between the C3PO NLP model HF adjudication and the gold-standard INVESTED CEC adjudication was measured by raw agreement, κ, sensitivity, and specificity. The fine-tuned and de novo INVESTED NLP models were evaluated in an internal validation cohort not used for training.

Results

Among 4060 hospitalizations in 1973 patients (mean [SD] age, 66.4 [13.2] years; 514 [27.4%] female and 1432 [72.6%] male]), 1074 hospitalizations (26%) were adjudicated as HF by the CEC. There was good agreement between the C3PO NLP and CEC HF adjudications (raw agreement, 87% [95% CI, 86-88]; κ, 0.69 [95% CI, 0.66-0.72]). C3PO NLP model sensitivity was 94% (95% CI, 92-95) and specificity was 84% (95% CI, 83-85). The fine-tuned C3PO and de novo NLP models demonstrated agreement of 93% (95% CI, 92-94) and κ of 0.82 (95% CI, 0.77-0.86) and 0.83 (95% CI, 0.79-0.87), respectively, vs the CEC. CEC reviewer interrater reproducibility was 94% (95% CI, 93-95; κ, 0.85 [95% CI, 0.80-0.89]).

Conclusions and Relevance

The C3PO NLP model developed within 1 health care system identified HF events with good agreement relative to the gold-standard CEC in an external multicenter clinical trial. Fine-tuning the model improved agreement and approximated human reproducibility. Further study is needed to determine whether NLP will improve the efficiency of future multicenter clinical trials by identifying clinical events at scale.

Hierarchical End Points in Prior Heart Failure Trials and the HEART-FID Trial

BACKGROUND

Clinical trials in heart failure (HF) traditionally use time-to-event analyses focusing on death and hospitalization for HF. These time-to-first event analyses may have more limited abilities to assess the probability of benefiting from a therapy, especially if that benefit manifests as improved functional status rather than reduced risk of death or HF hospitalization. Hierarchical end points including clinical outcomes and patient status measures allow for ranked evaluation of outcomes in 1 metric assessing whether patients randomized to intervention or control are more likely to derive an overall benefit while also allowing more patients to contribute to the primary outcome.

METHODS

We review the rationale for using hierarchical end points in HF trials, provide examples of HF trials that used this type of end point, and discuss its use in the HEART-FID trial (Randomized Placebo-Controlled Trial of Ferric Carboxymaltose as Treatment for Heart Failure With Iron Deficiency), the largest HF trial to date implementing a hierarchical end point analysis for the primary outcome.

RESULTS

Using a hierarchical end point as the primary outcome allows for the inclusion of different types of outcomes in 1 ranked end point, making it possible to more holistically assess the potential utility of a new therapy on patient well-being and outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

Hierarchical end points assess the potential utility of a new therapy on patient well-being and outcome more holistically than time-to-first event analysis. Trials that would not have been feasible due to decreasing rates of death and hospitalization in the HF population can use hierarchical end points to successfully power studies to identify promising HF therapies. The HEART-FID trial used hierarchical end points to better determine the role of intravenous ferric carboxymaltose in patients with HF.

REGISTRATION

URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT03037931.

Endpoint adjudication in cardiovascular clinical trials

Endpoint adjudication (EA) is a common feature of contemporary randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in cardiovascular medicine. Endpoint adjudication refers to a process wherein a group of expert reviewers, known as the clinical endpoint committee (CEC), verify potential endpoints identified by site investigators. Events that are determined by the CEC to meet pre-specified trial definitions are then utilized for analysis. The rationale behind the use of EA is that it may lessen the potential misclassification of clinical events, thereby reducing statistical noise and bias. However, it has been questioned whether this is universally true, especially given that EA significantly increases the time, effort, and resources required to conduct a trial. Herein, we compare the summary estimates obtained using adjudicated vs. non-adjudicated site designated endpoints in major cardiovascular RCTs in which both were reported. Based on these data, we lay out a framework to determine which trials may warrant EA and where it may be redundant. The value of EA is likely greater when cardiovascular trials have nuanced primary endpoints, endpoint definitions that align poorly with practice, sub-optimal data completeness, greater operator variability, and lack of blinding. EA may not be needed if the primary endpoint is all-cause death or all-cause hospitalization. In contrast, EA is likely merited for more nuanced endpoints such as myocardial infarction, bleeding, worsening heart failure as an outpatient, unstable angina, or transient ischaemic attack. A risk-based approach to adjudication can potentially allow compromise between costs and accuracy. This would involve adjudication of a small proportion of events, with further adjudication done if inconsistencies are detected.

Reliability of major bleeding events in UK routine data versus clinical trial adjudicated follow-up data

OBJECTIVE

To assess how reliable UK routine data are for ascertaining major bleeding events compared with adjudicated follow-up.

METHODS

The ASCEND (A Study of Cardiovascular Events iN Diabetes) primary prevention trial randomised 15 480 UK people with diabetes to aspirin versus matching placebo. The primary safety outcome was major bleeding (including intracranial haemorrhage, sight-threatening eye bleeding, serious gastrointestinal bleeding and other major bleeding (epistaxis, haemoptysis, haematuria, vaginal and other bleeding)) ascertained by direct-participant mail-based follow-up, with >90% of outcomes undergoing adjudication. Nearly all participants were linked to routinely collected hospitalisation and death data (ie, routine data). An algorithm categorised bleeding events from routine data as major/minor. Kappa statistics were used to assess agreement between data sources, and randomised comparisons were re-run using routine data.

RESULTS

When adjudicated follow-up and routine data were compared, there was agreement for 318 major bleeding events, with routine data identifying 281 additional-potential events, and not identifying 241 participant-reported events (kappa 0.53, 95% CI 0.49 to 0.57). Repeating ASCEND's randomised comparisons using routine data only found estimated relative and absolute effects of allocation to aspirin versus placebo on major bleeding similar to adjudicated follow-up (adjudicated follow-up: aspirin 314 (4.1%) vs placebo 245 (3.2%); rate ratio (RR) 1.29, 95% CI 1.09 to 1.52; absolute excess +6.3/5000 person-years (mean SE±2.1); vs routine data: 327 (4.2%) vs 272 (3.5%); RR 1.21, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.41; absolute excess +5.0/5000 (±2.2)).

CONCLUSIONS

Analyses of the ASCEND randomised trial found that major bleeding events ascertained via UK routine data sources provided relative and absolute treatment effects similar to adjudicated follow-up.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ISRCTN60635500; NCT00135226.

Effect of Canagliflozin on Heart Failure Hospitalization in Diabetes According to Baseline Heart Failure Risk

BACKGROUND

In the CANVAS (Canagliflozin Cardiovascular Assessment Study) program, canagliflozin reduced the risk of heart failure (HF) hospitalization among individuals with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM).

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this study was to evaluate heterogeneity in absolute and relative treatment effects of canagliflozin on HF hospitalization according to baseline HF risk as assessed by diabetes-specific HF risk scores (WATCH-DM [Weight (body mass index), Age, hyperTension, Creatinine, HDL-C, Diabetes control (fasting plasma glucose) and QRS Duration, MI and CABG] and TRS-HF_DM [TIMI Risk Score for HF in Diabetes]).

METHODS

Participants in the CANVAS trial were categorized into low, medium, and high risk for HF using the WATCH-DM score (for participants without prevalent HF) and the TRS-HF_DM score (for all participants). The outcome of interest was time to first HF hospitalization. The treatment effect of canagliflozin vs placebo for HF hospitalization was compared across risk strata.

RESULTS

Among 10,137 participants with available HF data, 1,446 (14.3%) had HF at baseline. Among participants without baseline HF, WATCH-DM risk category did not modify the treatment effect of canagliflozin (vs placebo) on HF hospitalization (P interaction = 0.56). However, the absolute and relative risk reduction with canagliflozin was numerically greater in the high-risk group (cumulative incidence, canagliflozin vs placebo: 8.1% vs 12.7%; HR: 0.62 [95% CI: 0.37-0.93]; P = 0.03; number needed to treat: 22) than in the low- and intermediate-risk groups. When overall study participants were categorized according to the TRS-HF_DM score, a statistically significant difference in the treatment effect of canagliflozin across risk strata was observed (P interaction = 0.04). Canagliflozin significantly reduced the risk of HF hospitalization by 39% in the high-risk group (HR: 0.61 [95% CI: 0.48-0.78]; P < 0.001; number needed to treat: 20) but not in the intermediate- or low-risk groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Among participants with T2DM, the WATCH-DM and TRS-HF_DM can reliably identify those at high risk for HF hospitalization and most likely to benefit from canagliflozin.

Lung Ultrasound to Assess Pulmonary Congestion in Patients with Acute Exacerbation of COPD

Purpose

Heart failure (HF) often coexists with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and is associated with worse outcomes. We aimed to assess the feasibility of detecting vertical artifacts (B-lines) on lung ultrasound (LUS) to identify concurrent HF in patients hospitalized with acute exacerbation of COPD (AECOPD). Second, we wanted to assess the association between B-lines and the risk of rehospitalization for AECOPD or death.

Patients and Methods

In a prospective cohort study, 123 patients with AECOPD underwent 8-zone bedside LUS within 24h after admission. A positive LUS was defined by ≥3 B-lines in ≥2 zones bilaterally. The ability to detect concurrent HF (adjudicated by a cardiologist committee) and association with events were evaluated by logistic- and Cox regression models.

Results

Forty-eight of 123 patients with AECOPD (age 75±9 years, 57[46%] men) had concurrent HF. Sixteen (13%) patients had positive LUS, and the prevalence of positive LUS was similar between patients with and without concurrent HF (8[17%] vs 8[11%], respectively, p=0.34). The number of B-lines was higher in concurrent HF: median 10(IQR 6-16) vs 7(IQR 5-12), p=0.03. The sensitivity and specificity for a positive LUS to detect concurrent HF were 17% and 89%, respectively. Positive LUS was not associated with rehospitalization and mortality: Adjusted HR: 0.93(0.49-1.75), p=0.81.

Conclusion

LUS did not detect concurrent HF or predict risk in patients with AECOPD.

Comparison of Investigator-Reported and Centrally Adjudicated Heart Failure Outcomes in the EMPEROR-Reduced Trial

BACKGROUND

There is limited published information on outcome adjudication in heart failure (HF).

OBJECTIVE

The authors sought to compare investigator reports (IRs) to a Clinical Events Committee (CEC) and the impact of Standardized Clinical Trial Initiative definitions (SCTI).

METHODS

In EMPEROR-Reduced, the authors compared IR to CEC for concordance; treatment effect on primary composite outcome events; and the components first event hospitalization primarily for HF (HHF) or cardiovascular mortality (CVM), prognosis after HHF, total HHFs, and trial duration with and without SCTI.

RESULTS

The CEC confirmed 76.3% of IR events for the primary outcome (CVM: 89.1%; HHF: 73.7%). The HR for treatment effect did not differ between adjudication methods for the primary outcome (IR: 0.75 [95% CI: 0.66-0.85]; CEC: 0.75 [95% CI: 0.65-0.86]), its components, or total HHFs. The prognosis after first HHF for all-cause mortality and CVM also did not differ between IR or CEC. Interestingly, IR primary HHF with different CEC primary cause had the highest subsequent fatal event rate. Full SCTI criteria were present in 90% of CEC HHFs-with a similar treatment effect to non-SCTI. The IR primary event reached the protocol target number (841) 3 months earlier than CEC (4 months with full SCTI criteria).

CONCLUSIONS

Investigator adjudication is an alternative to a CEC with similar accuracy and faster event accumulation. The use of granular (SCTI) criteria did not improve trial performance. Finally, our data suggest that consideration be given to broadening the HHF definition to include "for or with" worsening disease. (Empagliflozin Outcome Trial in Patients With Chronic Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction [EMPEROR-Reduced]; NCT03057977).

Proposed Cardiac End Points for Clinical Trials in Immunoglobulin Light Chain Amyloidosis: Report From the Amyloidosis Forum Cardiac Working Group

Immunoglobulin light chain amyloidosis is a rare, multisystemic, phenotypically heterogenous disease affecting cardiovascular, renal, neurological, and gastrointestinal systems to varying degrees. Its underlying cause is a plasma cell dyscrasia characterized by misfolding of monoclonal immunoglobulin light chains which leads to aggregation and deposition of insoluble amyloid fibrils in target organs. Prognosis is primarily dependent on extent of cardiac involvement and depth of hematologic response to treatment. To facilitate development of new therapies, a public-private partnership was formed between the nonprofit Amyloidosis Research Consortium and the US Food and Drug Administration Center for Drug Evaluation and Research. In 2020, the Amyloidosis Forum launched an initiative to identify novel/composite end points and analytic strategies to expedite clinical trials for development of new therapies for the primary hematologic disorder and organ system manifestations. Specialized working groups identified organ-specific end points; additional working groups reviewed health-related quality of life measures and statistical approaches to data analysis. Each working group comprised amyloidosis experts, patient representatives, statisticians, and representatives from the Food and Drug Administration, the UK Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency, and pharmaceutical companies. This review summarizes the proceedings and recommendations of the Cardiac Working Group. Using a modified Delphi method, the group identified, reviewed, and prioritized cardiac end points relevant to immunoglobulin light chain amyloidosis in the context of an antiplasma cell therapy. Prioritized cardiovascular end points included overall survival, hospitalization, N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide level, 6-minute walk test, Kansas City Cardiac Questionnaire, and cardiac deterioration progression-free survival. These recommended components will be further explored through evaluation of clinical trial datasets and formal guidance from regulatory authorities.

Endpoints in Heart Failure Drug Development

Heart failure (HF) is a major health problem worldwide. The development of effective drug and/or device therapy is crucial to mitigate the significant morbidity, mortality and healthcare costs associated with HF. The choice of endpoint in clinical trials has important practical and clinical implications. Outcomes of interest including mortality and HF hospitalisations provide robust evidence for regulatory approval granted there is sufficiency of safety data. At the same time, it is important to recognise that HF patients experience significant impairments in functional capacity and quality of life, underscoring the need to incorporate parameters of symptoms and patient-reported outcomes in clinical trials. In this review, the authors summarise the evolution and definition of cardiovascular endpoints used in clinical trials, discuss approaches to study design to allow the incorporation of mortality, morbidity and functional endpoints and, finally, examine the current challenges and suggest steps for the development of cardiovascular endpoints that are effective, meaningful and meet the needs of all relevant stakeholders, including patients, physicians regulators and sponsors.

Effect of Empagliflozin on Worsening Heart Failure Events in Patients With Heart Failure and Preserved Ejection Fraction: EMPEROR-Preserved Trial

BACKGROUND

Empagliflozin reduces the risk of cardiovascular death or hospitalization for heart failure in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction, but additional data are needed about its effect on inpatient and outpatient heart failure events.

METHODS

We randomly assigned 5988 patients with class II through IV heart failure with an ejection fraction of >40% to double-blind treatment with placebo or empagliflozin (10 mg once daily), in addition to usual therapy, for a median of 26 months. We prospectively collected information on inpatient and outpatient events reflecting worsening heart failure and prespecified their analysis in individual and composite end points.

RESULTS

Empagliflozin reduced the combined risk of cardiovascular death, hospitalization for heart failure, or an emergency or urgent heart failure visit requiring intravenous treatment (432 versus 546 patients [empagliflozin versus placebo, respectively]; hazard ratio, 0.77 [95% CI, 0.67-0.87]; P<0.0001). This benefit reached statistical significance at 18 days after randomization. Empagliflozin reduced the total number of heart failure hospitalizations that required intensive care (hazard ratio, 0.71 [95% CI, 0.52-0.96]; P=0.028) and the total number of all hospitalizations that required a vasopressor or positive inotropic drug (hazard ratio, 0.73 [95% CI, 0.55-0.97]; P=0.033). Compared with patients in the placebo group, fewer patients in the empagliflozin group reported outpatient intensification of diuretics (482 versus 610; hazard ratio, 0.76 [95% CI, 0.67-0.86]; P<0.0001), and patients assigned to empagliflozin were 20% to 50% more likely to have a better New York Heart Association functional class, with significant effects at 12 weeks that were maintained for at least 2 years. The benefit on total heart failure hospitalizations was similar in patients with an ejection fraction of >40% to <50% and 50% to <60%, but was attenuated at higher ejection fractions.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction, empagliflozin produced a meaningful, early, and sustained reduction in the risk and severity of a broad range of inpatient and outpatient worsening heart failure events. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT03057977.

Comparative Reductions in Investigator-Reported and Adjudicated Ischemic Events in REDUCE-IT

BACKGROUND

REDUCE-IT (Reduction of Cardiovascular Events With Icosapent Ethyl-Intervention Trial) randomized statin-treated patients with elevated triglycerides to icosapent ethyl (IPE) or placebo. There was a significant reduction in adjudicated events, including the primary endpoint (cardiovascular [CV] death, myocardial infarction [MI], stroke, coronary revascularization, unstable angina requiring hospitalization) and key secondary endpoint (CV death, MI, stroke) with IPE.

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this study was to determine the effects of IPE on investigator-reported events.

METHODS

Potential endpoints were collected by blinded site investigators and subsequently adjudicated by a blinded Clinical Endpoint Committee (CEC) according to a prespecified charter. Investigator-reported events were compared with adjudicated events for concordance.

RESULTS

There was a high degree of concordance between investigator-reported and adjudicated endpoints. The simple Kappa statistic between CEC-adjudicated vs site-reported events for the primary endpoint was 0.89 and for the key secondary endpoint was 0.90. Based on investigator-reported events in 8,179 randomized patients, IPE significantly reduced the rate of the primary endpoint (19.1% vs 24.6%; HR: 0.74 [95% CI: 0.67-0.81]; P < 0.0001) and the key secondary endpoint (10.5% vs 13.6%; HR: 0.75 [95% CI: 0.66-0.85]; P < 0.0001). Among adjudicated events, IPE similarly reduced the rate of the primary and key secondary endpoints.

CONCLUSIONS

IPE led to consistent, significant reductions in CV events, including MI and coronary revascularization, as determined by independent, blinded CEC adjudication as well as by blinded investigator-reported assessment. These results highlight the robust evidence for the substantial CV benefits of IPE seen in REDUCE-IT and further raise the question of whether adjudication of CV outcome trial endpoints is routinely required in blinded, placebo-controlled trials. (Evaluation of the Effect of AMR101 on Cardiovascular Health and Mortality in Hypertriglyceridemic Patients With Cardiovascular Disease or at High Risk for Cardiovascular Disease: REDUCE-IT [Reduction of Cardiovascular Events With EPA - Intervention Trial]; NCT01492361).

Importance of Internal Variability in Clinical Trials of Cardiovascular Disease

A well conducted randomised controlled trial (RCT) is extremely important in the field of cardiovascular medicine. At the same time, it is equally important to understand the strengths and limitations of any RCT, and internal variability is a concept in clinical trials that is poorly understood. Variability in a clinical trial may be introduced at an individual level or during measurement, sampling, or conduct of the trial. It is not the same as internal validity, which is a broader concept of accuracy; to be valid, a study should minimise variability and have sound methodology. There are various steps that may be followed to minimise the internal variability in a clinical trial. One aspect of great importance is the adjudication process, which should be done meticulously and is often a step that is overlooked. It is important to standardise each step as much as possible, to ensure consistency and reduce noise at all levels. The concepts discussed in this review may serve as a roadmap to limit the influence of internal variability and maximise internal validity of RCT results.

Mechanisms Underlying the Association of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease With Heart Failure

OBJECTIVES

The purposes of this study were to determine why chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is associated with heart failure (HF). Specific objectives included whether COPD is associated with myocardial fibrosis, whether myocardial fibrosis is associated with hospitalization for HF and death in COPD, and whether COPD and smoking are associated with myocardial inflammation.

BACKGROUND

COPD is associated with HF independent of shared risk factors. The underlying pathophysiological mechanism is unknown.

METHODS

A prospective, multicenter, longitudinal cohort study of 572 patients undergoing cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR), including 450 patients with COPD and 122 age- and sex-matched patients with a median: 726 days (interquartile range: 492 to 1,160 days) follow-up. Multivariate analysis was used to examine the relationship between COPD and myocardial fibrosis, measured using cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR). Cox regression analysis was used to examine the relationship between myocardial fibrosis and outcomes; the primary endpoint was composite of hospitalizations for HF or all-cause mortality; secondary endpoints included hospitalizations for HF and all-cause mortality. Fifteen patients with COPD, 15 current smokers, and 15 healthy volunteers underwent evaluation for myocardial inflammation, including ultrasmall superparamagnetic particles of iron oxide CMR.

RESULTS

COPD was independently associated with myocardial fibrosis (p < 0.001). Myocardial fibrosis was independently associated with the primary outcome (hazard ratio [HR]: 1.14; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.08 to 1.20; p < 0.001), hospitalization for HF (HR: 1.25 [95% CI: 1.14 to 1.36]); p < 0.001), and all-cause mortality. Myocardial fibrosis was associated with outcome measurements more strongly than any other variable. Acute and stable COPD were associated with myocardial inflammation.

CONCLUSIONS

The associations between COPD, myocardial inflammation and myocardial fibrosis, and the independent prognostic value of myocardial fibrosis elucidate a potential pathophysiological link between COPD and HF.

Effect of Empagliflozin on the Clinical Stability of Patients With Heart Failure and a Reduced Ejection Fraction: The EMPEROR-Reduced Trial

BACKGROUND

Empagliflozin reduces the risk of cardiovascular death or hospitalization for heart failure in patients with heart failure and a reduced ejection fraction, with or without diabetes, but additional data are needed about the effect of the drug on inpatient and outpatient events that reflect worsening heart failure.

METHODS

We randomly assigned 3730 patients with class II to IV heart failure with an ejection fraction of ≤40% to double-blind treatment with placebo or empagliflozin (10 mg once daily), in addition to recommended treatments for heart failure, for a median of 16 months. We prospectively collected information on inpatient and outpatient events reflecting worsening heart failure and prespecified their analysis in individual and composite end points.

RESULTS

Empagliflozin reduced the combined risk of death, hospitalization for heart failure or an emergent/urgent heart failure visit requiring intravenous treatment (415 versus 519 patients; empagliflozin versus placebo, respectively; hazard ratio [HR], 0.76; 95% CI, 0.67-0.87; P<0.0001). This benefit reached statistical significance at 12 days after randomization. Empagliflozin reduced the total number of heart failure hospitalizations that required intensive care (HR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.50-0.90; P=0.008) and that required a vasopressor or positive inotropic drug or mechanical or surgical intervention (HR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.47-0.87; P=0.005). As compared with placebo, fewer patients in the empagliflozin group reported intensification of diuretics (297 versus 414 [HR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.56-0.78; P<0.0001]). Additionally, patients assigned to empagliflozin were 20% to 40% more likely to experience an improvement in New York Heart Association functional class and were 20% to 40% less likely to experience worsening of New York Heart Association functional class, with statistically significant effects that were apparent 28 days after randomization and maintained during long-term follow-up. The risk of any inpatient or outpatient worsening heart failure event in the placebo group was high (48.1 per 100 patient-years of follow-up), and it was reduced by empagliflozin (HR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.63-0.78; P<0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with heart failure and a reduced ejection fraction, empagliflozin reduced the risk and total number of inpatient and outpatient worsening heart failure events, with benefits seen early after initiation of treatment and sustained for the duration of double-blind therapy. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT03057977.

Sotagliflozin in Patients with Diabetes and Chronic Kidney Disease

BACKGROUND

The efficacy and safety of sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors such as sotagliflozin in preventing cardiovascular events in patients with diabetes with chronic kidney disease with or without albuminuria have not been well studied.

METHODS

We conducted a multicenter, double-blind trial in which patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (glycated hemoglobin level, ≥7%), chronic kidney disease (estimated glomerular filtration rate, 25 to 60 ml per minute per 1.73 m² of body-surface area), and risks for cardiovascular disease were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive sotagliflozin or placebo. The primary end point was changed during the trial to the composite of the total number of deaths from cardiovascular causes, hospitalizations for heart failure, and urgent visits for heart failure. The trial ended early owing to loss of funding.

RESULTS

Of 19,188 patients screened, 10,584 were enrolled, with 5292 assigned to the sotagliflozin group and 5292 assigned to the placebo group, and followed for a median of 16 months. The rate of primary end-point events was 5.6 events per 100 patient-years in the sotagliflozin group and 7.5 events per 100 patient-years in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.74; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.63 to 0.88; P<0.001). The rate of deaths from cardiovascular causes per 100 patient-years was 2.2 with sotagliflozin and 2.4 with placebo (hazard ratio, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.73 to 1.12; P = 0.35). For the original coprimary end point of the first occurrence of death from cardiovascular causes, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or nonfatal stroke, the hazard ratio was 0.84 (95% CI, 0.72 to 0.99); for the original coprimary end point of the first occurrence of death from cardiovascular causes or hospitalization for heart failure, the hazard ratio was 0.77 (95% CI, 0.66 to 0.91). Diarrhea, genital mycotic infections, volume depletion, and diabetic ketoacidosis were more common with sotagliflozin than with placebo.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with diabetes and chronic kidney disease, with or without albuminuria, sotagliflozin resulted in a lower risk of the composite of deaths from cardiovascular causes, hospitalizations for heart failure, and urgent visits for heart failure than placebo but was associated with adverse events. (Funded by Sanofi and Lexicon Pharmaceuticals; SCORED ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03315143.).

Sotagliflozin in Patients with Diabetes and Recent Worsening Heart Failure

BACKGROUND

Sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors reduce the risk of hospitalization for heart failure or death from cardiovascular causes among patients with stable heart failure. However, the safety and efficacy of SGLT2 inhibitors when initiated soon after an episode of decompensated heart failure are unknown.

METHODS

We performed a multicenter, double-blind trial in which patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus who were recently hospitalized for worsening heart failure were randomly assigned to receive sotagliflozin or placebo. The primary end point was the total number of deaths from cardiovascular causes and hospitalizations and urgent visits for heart failure (first and subsequent events). The trial ended early because of loss of funding from the sponsor.

RESULTS

A total of 1222 patients underwent randomization (608 to the sotagliflozin group and 614 to the placebo group) and were followed for a median of 9.0 months; the first dose of sotagliflozin or placebo was administered before discharge in 48.8% and a median of 2 days after discharge in 51.2%. Among these patients, 600 primary end-point events occurred (245 in the sotagliflozin group and 355 in the placebo group). The rate (the number of events per 100 patient-years) of primary end-point events was lower in the sotagliflozin group than in the placebo group (51.0 vs. 76.3; hazard ratio, 0.67; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.52 to 0.85; P<0.001). The rate of death from cardiovascular causes was 10.6 in the sotagliflozin group and 12.5 in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.58 to 1.22); the rate of death from any cause was 13.5 in the sotagliflozin group and 16.3 in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.59 to 1.14). Diarrhea was more common with sotagliflozin than with placebo (6.1% vs. 3.4%), as was severe hypoglycemia (1.5% vs. 0.3%). The percentage of patients with hypotension was similar in the sotagliflozin group and the placebo group (6.0% and 4.6%, respectively), as was the percentage with acute kidney injury (4.1% and 4.4%, respectively). The benefits of sotagliflozin were consistent in the prespecified subgroups of patients stratified according to the timing of the first dose.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with diabetes and recent worsening heart failure, sotagliflozin therapy, initiated before or shortly after discharge, resulted in a significantly lower total number of deaths from cardiovascular causes and hospitalizations and urgent visits for heart failure than placebo. (Funded by Sanofi and Lexicon Pharmaceuticals; SOLOIST-WHF ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03521934.).