TBD Meeting (5314-23)

In patients with acute heart failure, a urine sodium-guided diuretic protocol, currently recommended in guidelines from the Heart Failure Association of the European Society of Cardiology (HFA-ESC), led to significant increases in natriuresis and diuresis over 2 days in the prospective ENACT-HF clinical trial.

The guideline protocol was based on a 2019 HFA position paper with expert consensus, but it had not been tested prospectively, Jeroen Dauw, MD, of AZ Sint-Lucas Ghent (Belgium), explained in a presentation at HFA-ESC 2023.

“We had 282 millimoles of sodium excretion after one day, which is an increase of 64%, compared with standard of care,” Dr. Dauw told meeting attendees. “We wanted to power for 15%, so we’re way above it, with a P value of lower than 0.001.”

The effect was consistent across predefined subgroups, he said. “In addition, there’s an even higher benefit in patients with a lower eGFR [estimated glomerular filtration rate] and a higher home dose of loop diuretics, which might signal more diuretic resistance and more benefit of the protocol.”

After 2 days, the investigators saw 52% higher natriuresis and 33% higher diuresis, compared with usual care.

In an interview, Dr. Dauw said, “The protocol is feasible, safe, and very effective. Cardiologists might consider how to implement a similar protocol in their center to improve the care of their acute heart failure patients.”
 

Twice the oral home dose

The investigators conducted a multicenter, open-label, nonrandomized pragmatic trial at 29 centers in 18 countries globally. “We aimed to recruit 500 to detect a 15% difference in natriuresis,” Dr. Dauw said in his presentation, “but because we were a really low-budget trial, we had to stop after 3 years of recruitment.”

Therefore, 401 patients participated, 254 in the SOC arm and 147 in the protocol arm, because of the sequential nature of the study; that is, patients in the SOC arm of the two-phase study were recruited first.

Patients’ mean age was 70 years, 38% were women, and they all had at least one sign of volume overload. They were on a maintenance daily diuretic dose of 40 mg of furosemide for a month or more, and the NT-proBNP was above 1,000.

In phase 1 of the study, all centers treated 10 consecutive patients according to the local standard of care, at the discretion of the physician. In phase 2, the centers again recruited and treated at least 10 consecutive patients, this time according to the standardized diuretic protocol.

In the protocol phase, patients were treated with twice the oral home dose as an IV bolus. “This meant if, for example, you have 40 mg of furosemide at home, then you receive 80 mg as a first bolus,” Dr. Dauw told attendees. A spot urine sample was taken after 2 hours, and the response was evaluated after 6 hours. A urine sodium above 50 millimoles per liter was considered a good response.

On the second day, patients were reevaluated in the morning using urine output as a measure of diuretic response. If it was above 3 L, then the same bolus was repeated again twice daily, with 6-12 hours between administrations.

As noted, after one day, natriuresis was 174 millimoles in the SOC arm versus 282 millimoles in the protocol group – an increase of 64%. The effect was consistent across subgroups, and those with a lower eGFR and a higher home dose of loop diuretics benefited more.

Furthermore, Dr. Dauw said, there was no interaction on the endpoints with SGLT2 inhibitor use at baseline.

After two days, natriuresis was 52% higher in the protocol group and diuresis was 33% higher.

However, there was no significant difference in weight loss and no difference in the congestion score.

“We did expect to see a difference in weight loss between the study groups, as higher natriuresis and diuresis would normally be associated with higher weight loss in the protocol group,” Dr. Dauw told this news organization. “However, looking back at the study design, weight was collected from the electronic health records and not rigorously collected by study nurses. Previous studies have shown discrepancies between fluid loss and weight loss, so this is an ‘explainable’ finding.”

Participants also had a relatively high congestion score at baseline, with edema above the knee and also some pleural effusion, he told meeting attendees. Therefore, it might take more time to see a change in congestion score in those patients.

The protocol also led to a shorter length of stay – one day less in the hospital – and was very safe on renal endpoints, Dr. Dauw concluded.

A session chair asked why only patients already on diuretics were included in the study, noting that in his clinic, about half of the admissions are de novo.

Dr. Dauw said that patients already taking diuretics chronically would benefit most from the protocol. “If patients are diuretic-naive, they probably will respond well to whatever you do; if you just give a higher dose, they will respond well,” he said. “We expected that the largest benefit would be in patients already taking diuretics because they have a higher chance of not responding well.”

“There also was a big difference in the starting dose,” he added. “In the SOC arm, the baseline dose was about 60 mg, whereas we gave 120 mg, and we could already see a high difference in the effect. So, in those patients, I think the gain is bigger if you follow the protocol.”
 

More data coming

Looking ahead, “we only showed efficacy in the first 2 days of treatment and a shorter length of stay, probably reflecting a faster decongestion, but we don’t know for sure,” Dr. Dauw told this news organization.

“It would be important to have a study where the protocol is followed until full decongestion is reached,” he said. “That way, we can directly prove that decongestion is better and/or faster with the protocol.”

“A good decongestive strategy is one that is fast, safe and effective in decreasing signs and symptoms that patients suffer from,” he added. “We believe our protocol can achieve that, but our study is only one piece of the puzzle.”

More data on natriuresis-guided decongestion is coming this year, he said, with the PUSH-AHF study from Groningen, the European DECONGEST study, and the U.S. ESCALATE study.

The study had no funding. Dr. Dauw declared no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

In patients with acute heart failure, a urine sodium-guided diuretic protocol, currently recommended in guidelines from the Heart Failure Association of the European Society of Cardiology (HFA-ESC), led to significant increases in natriuresis and diuresis over 2 days in the prospective ENACT-HF clinical trial.

The guideline protocol was based on a 2019 HFA position paper with expert consensus, but it had not been tested prospectively, Jeroen Dauw, MD, of AZ Sint-Lucas Ghent (Belgium), explained in a presentation at HFA-ESC 2023.

“We had 282 millimoles of sodium excretion after one day, which is an increase of 64%, compared with standard of care,” Dr. Dauw told meeting attendees. “We wanted to power for 15%, so we’re way above it, with a P value of lower than 0.001.”

The effect was consistent across predefined subgroups, he said. “In addition, there’s an even higher benefit in patients with a lower eGFR [estimated glomerular filtration rate] and a higher home dose of loop diuretics, which might signal more diuretic resistance and more benefit of the protocol.”

After 2 days, the investigators saw 52% higher natriuresis and 33% higher diuresis, compared with usual care.

In an interview, Dr. Dauw said, “The protocol is feasible, safe, and very effective. Cardiologists might consider how to implement a similar protocol in their center to improve the care of their acute heart failure patients.”
 

Twice the oral home dose

The investigators conducted a multicenter, open-label, nonrandomized pragmatic trial at 29 centers in 18 countries globally. “We aimed to recruit 500 to detect a 15% difference in natriuresis,” Dr. Dauw said in his presentation, “but because we were a really low-budget trial, we had to stop after 3 years of recruitment.”

Therefore, 401 patients participated, 254 in the SOC arm and 147 in the protocol arm, because of the sequential nature of the study; that is, patients in the SOC arm of the two-phase study were recruited first.

Patients’ mean age was 70 years, 38% were women, and they all had at least one sign of volume overload. They were on a maintenance daily diuretic dose of 40 mg of furosemide for a month or more, and the NT-proBNP was above 1,000.

In phase 1 of the study, all centers treated 10 consecutive patients according to the local standard of care, at the discretion of the physician. In phase 2, the centers again recruited and treated at least 10 consecutive patients, this time according to the standardized diuretic protocol.

In the protocol phase, patients were treated with twice the oral home dose as an IV bolus. “This meant if, for example, you have 40 mg of furosemide at home, then you receive 80 mg as a first bolus,” Dr. Dauw told attendees. A spot urine sample was taken after 2 hours, and the response was evaluated after 6 hours. A urine sodium above 50 millimoles per liter was considered a good response.

On the second day, patients were reevaluated in the morning using urine output as a measure of diuretic response. If it was above 3 L, then the same bolus was repeated again twice daily, with 6-12 hours between administrations.

As noted, after one day, natriuresis was 174 millimoles in the SOC arm versus 282 millimoles in the protocol group – an increase of 64%. The effect was consistent across subgroups, and those with a lower eGFR and a higher home dose of loop diuretics benefited more.

Furthermore, Dr. Dauw said, there was no interaction on the endpoints with SGLT2 inhibitor use at baseline.

After two days, natriuresis was 52% higher in the protocol group and diuresis was 33% higher.

However, there was no significant difference in weight loss and no difference in the congestion score.

“We did expect to see a difference in weight loss between the study groups, as higher natriuresis and diuresis would normally be associated with higher weight loss in the protocol group,” Dr. Dauw told this news organization. “However, looking back at the study design, weight was collected from the electronic health records and not rigorously collected by study nurses. Previous studies have shown discrepancies between fluid loss and weight loss, so this is an ‘explainable’ finding.”

Participants also had a relatively high congestion score at baseline, with edema above the knee and also some pleural effusion, he told meeting attendees. Therefore, it might take more time to see a change in congestion score in those patients.

The protocol also led to a shorter length of stay – one day less in the hospital – and was very safe on renal endpoints, Dr. Dauw concluded.

A session chair asked why only patients already on diuretics were included in the study, noting that in his clinic, about half of the admissions are de novo.

Dr. Dauw said that patients already taking diuretics chronically would benefit most from the protocol. “If patients are diuretic-naive, they probably will respond well to whatever you do; if you just give a higher dose, they will respond well,” he said. “We expected that the largest benefit would be in patients already taking diuretics because they have a higher chance of not responding well.”

“There also was a big difference in the starting dose,” he added. “In the SOC arm, the baseline dose was about 60 mg, whereas we gave 120 mg, and we could already see a high difference in the effect. So, in those patients, I think the gain is bigger if you follow the protocol.”
 

More data coming

Looking ahead, “we only showed efficacy in the first 2 days of treatment and a shorter length of stay, probably reflecting a faster decongestion, but we don’t know for sure,” Dr. Dauw told this news organization.

“It would be important to have a study where the protocol is followed until full decongestion is reached,” he said. “That way, we can directly prove that decongestion is better and/or faster with the protocol.”

“A good decongestive strategy is one that is fast, safe and effective in decreasing signs and symptoms that patients suffer from,” he added. “We believe our protocol can achieve that, but our study is only one piece of the puzzle.”

More data on natriuresis-guided decongestion is coming this year, he said, with the PUSH-AHF study from Groningen, the European DECONGEST study, and the U.S. ESCALATE study.

The study had no funding. Dr. Dauw declared no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

In patients with acute heart failure, a urine sodium-guided diuretic protocol, currently recommended in guidelines from the Heart Failure Association of the European Society of Cardiology (HFA-ESC), led to significant increases in natriuresis and diuresis over 2 days in the prospective ENACT-HF clinical trial.

The guideline protocol was based on a 2019 HFA position paper with expert consensus, but it had not been tested prospectively, Jeroen Dauw, MD, of AZ Sint-Lucas Ghent (Belgium), explained in a presentation at HFA-ESC 2023.

“We had 282 millimoles of sodium excretion after one day, which is an increase of 64%, compared with standard of care,” Dr. Dauw told meeting attendees. “We wanted to power for 15%, so we’re way above it, with a P value of lower than 0.001.”

The effect was consistent across predefined subgroups, he said. “In addition, there’s an even higher benefit in patients with a lower eGFR [estimated glomerular filtration rate] and a higher home dose of loop diuretics, which might signal more diuretic resistance and more benefit of the protocol.”

After 2 days, the investigators saw 52% higher natriuresis and 33% higher diuresis, compared with usual care.

In an interview, Dr. Dauw said, “The protocol is feasible, safe, and very effective. Cardiologists might consider how to implement a similar protocol in their center to improve the care of their acute heart failure patients.”
 

Twice the oral home dose

The investigators conducted a multicenter, open-label, nonrandomized pragmatic trial at 29 centers in 18 countries globally. “We aimed to recruit 500 to detect a 15% difference in natriuresis,” Dr. Dauw said in his presentation, “but because we were a really low-budget trial, we had to stop after 3 years of recruitment.”

Therefore, 401 patients participated, 254 in the SOC arm and 147 in the protocol arm, because of the sequential nature of the study; that is, patients in the SOC arm of the two-phase study were recruited first.

Patients’ mean age was 70 years, 38% were women, and they all had at least one sign of volume overload. They were on a maintenance daily diuretic dose of 40 mg of furosemide for a month or more, and the NT-proBNP was above 1,000.

In phase 1 of the study, all centers treated 10 consecutive patients according to the local standard of care, at the discretion of the physician. In phase 2, the centers again recruited and treated at least 10 consecutive patients, this time according to the standardized diuretic protocol.

In the protocol phase, patients were treated with twice the oral home dose as an IV bolus. “This meant if, for example, you have 40 mg of furosemide at home, then you receive 80 mg as a first bolus,” Dr. Dauw told attendees. A spot urine sample was taken after 2 hours, and the response was evaluated after 6 hours. A urine sodium above 50 millimoles per liter was considered a good response.

On the second day, patients were reevaluated in the morning using urine output as a measure of diuretic response. If it was above 3 L, then the same bolus was repeated again twice daily, with 6-12 hours between administrations.

As noted, after one day, natriuresis was 174 millimoles in the SOC arm versus 282 millimoles in the protocol group – an increase of 64%. The effect was consistent across subgroups, and those with a lower eGFR and a higher home dose of loop diuretics benefited more.

Furthermore, Dr. Dauw said, there was no interaction on the endpoints with SGLT2 inhibitor use at baseline.

After two days, natriuresis was 52% higher in the protocol group and diuresis was 33% higher.

However, there was no significant difference in weight loss and no difference in the congestion score.

“We did expect to see a difference in weight loss between the study groups, as higher natriuresis and diuresis would normally be associated with higher weight loss in the protocol group,” Dr. Dauw told this news organization. “However, looking back at the study design, weight was collected from the electronic health records and not rigorously collected by study nurses. Previous studies have shown discrepancies between fluid loss and weight loss, so this is an ‘explainable’ finding.”

Participants also had a relatively high congestion score at baseline, with edema above the knee and also some pleural effusion, he told meeting attendees. Therefore, it might take more time to see a change in congestion score in those patients.

The protocol also led to a shorter length of stay – one day less in the hospital – and was very safe on renal endpoints, Dr. Dauw concluded.

A session chair asked why only patients already on diuretics were included in the study, noting that in his clinic, about half of the admissions are de novo.

Dr. Dauw said that patients already taking diuretics chronically would benefit most from the protocol. “If patients are diuretic-naive, they probably will respond well to whatever you do; if you just give a higher dose, they will respond well,” he said. “We expected that the largest benefit would be in patients already taking diuretics because they have a higher chance of not responding well.”

“There also was a big difference in the starting dose,” he added. “In the SOC arm, the baseline dose was about 60 mg, whereas we gave 120 mg, and we could already see a high difference in the effect. So, in those patients, I think the gain is bigger if you follow the protocol.”
 

More data coming

Looking ahead, “we only showed efficacy in the first 2 days of treatment and a shorter length of stay, probably reflecting a faster decongestion, but we don’t know for sure,” Dr. Dauw told this news organization.

“It would be important to have a study where the protocol is followed until full decongestion is reached,” he said. “That way, we can directly prove that decongestion is better and/or faster with the protocol.”

“A good decongestive strategy is one that is fast, safe and effective in decreasing signs and symptoms that patients suffer from,” he added. “We believe our protocol can achieve that, but our study is only one piece of the puzzle.”

More data on natriuresis-guided decongestion is coming this year, he said, with the PUSH-AHF study from Groningen, the European DECONGEST study, and the U.S. ESCALATE study.

The study had no funding. Dr. Dauw declared no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

Patients with an ejection fraction (EF) greater than 40% who were stabilized after recent worsening or de novo heart failure (HF) had a greater reduction in natriuretic peptides and less worsening renal function, but a higher rate of hypotension over 8 weeks with sacubitril-valsartan (Entresto) versus valsartan (Diovan) in the PARAGLIDE-HF trial.

A subgroup analysis showed evidence of a larger treatment effect among those with an EF of 60% or less, said Robert Mentz, MD, of the Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham, N.C.

Dr. Mentz presented the findings at the Heart Failure Association of the European Society of Cardiology (HFA-ESC) scientific sessions. The study was also published online simultaneously in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

“Next steps will involve further assessment of the cardiovascular and renal benefits, as well as further exploration of the symptomatic hypotension that we observed,” Dr. Mentz said in an interview.

Meanwhile, he said, “clinicians should be aware of these new data – specifically, the incremental reduction in natriuretic peptide level, compared with valsartan, and potential benefits on cardiovascular and renal events,” particularly in those with an EF greater than 40% to 60% or less.
 

Larger benefit for EF > 40% to < 60%

PARAGLIDE-HF was a double-blind, randomized controlled trial with 466 patients with EF greater than 40% enrolled within 30 days of a worsening HF event. The median age was 71 years, 52% were women, and 22% were Black.

The trial was a follow-up to PARAGON-HF, which had shown that, in patients with an EF of at least 45%, sacubitril-valsartan did not result in a significantly lower rate of total hospitalizations for HF or death from cardiovascular causes, compared with valsartan.

The primary endpoint for PARAGLIDE was the time-averaged proportional change in N-terminal of the prohormone brain natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) from baseline through weeks 4 and 8, as in the PIONEER-HF trial. That trial showed that among patients hospitalized for acute decompensated HF with reduced EF (< 40%), the angiotensin receptor/neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI) led to a greater reduction in NT-proBNP concentration than the angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB).

Similarly, for PARAGLIDE, the time-averaged reduction in NT-proBNP was greater with sacubitril-valsartan, with a change ratio of 0.85 (15% greater reduction).

A secondary hierarchical outcome for PARAGLIDE, using the win ratio, consisted of time to cardiovascular death, number and timing of HF hospitalizations, number and timing of urgent HF visits, and time-averaged proportional change in NT-proBNP from baseline to weeks 4 and 8.

The hierarchical outcome favored sacubitril-valsartan, but was not significant (unmatched win ratio, 1.19).

As noted, sacubitril-valsartan reduced worsening renal function, compared with valsartan (odds ratio, 0.61), but increased symptomatic hypotension (OR, 1.73).

“We will work to better characterize the hypotension events that were observed to help identify those patients at greater risk and to provide further clarity around the timing and implications of these events,” Dr. Mentz said in an interview.

The team hypothesized that such events may be prevented by optimizing volume status and background therapies commonly used to treat hypertension in these patients.

“For instance,” Dr. Mentz suggested, “calcium channel blockers like amlodipine could be dose reduced or discontinued in patients with lower baseline blood pressures to better support sacubitril/valsartan initiation and titration.”

He highlighted the subgroup analysis showing evidence of a larger treatment effect in study patients with an EF of 60% or less for the NT-proBNP change (0.78) and the hierarchical outcome (win ratio, 1.46). 

“These data may influence future guidance for sacubitril-valsartan in HF with EF greater than 40%, regardless of HF chronicity [acute or chronic vs. de novo] and treatment setting [hospital vs. clinic],” Dr. Mentz concluded.
 

Data ‘far from conclusive’

In a comment, Sean Pinney, MD, chief of cardiology at Mount Sinai Morningside, New York, said that the study results “help expand the current evidence base supporting the use of an ARNI in patients” with an EF greater than 40% up to 60%, and “provide confidence that ARNIs help to lower natriuretic peptides.

“It comes as little surprise that not everyone was able to tolerate these medications due to intolerable side effects like dizziness or hypotension,” he said.

Nevertheless, he added, “hopefully, these trial data help strengthen clinicians’ resolve to prescribe sacubitril/valsartan to a growing population of vulnerable patients.”

In a related editorial, Hector O. Ventura, MD, of the Ochsner Clinical School–University of Queensland, New Orleans, and colleagues express several concerns about the study.

Although the trial achieved significance for the primary endpoint, the margin of benefit was less than expected and the magnitude of the NT-proBNP reduction may not have been enough to reach the threshold for clinical benefit, they wrote.

Diuretic dosing in the two groups was not reported, and between-group differences may have contributed to both the differential NT-proBNP reduction and the rates of hypotension.

Furthermore, the sacubitril-valsartan group had a higher proportion of missing NT-proBNP data, which may have biased the results.

“In aggregate,” they wrote, “while the study suggests some evidence of a beneficial trend of sacubitril-valsartan in HFpEF and a recent episode of worsening HF, the data are far from conclusive.”

“Clinicians who elect to use sacubitril-valsartan in this population should be mindful of the risk for hypotension and select patients carefully, while providing close ambulatory follow up to ensure stability and adherence,” they noted.

“This important trial provides some wins that support selective use of sacubitril-valsartan in HFpEF [as well as] observed losses, which too may help to define better implementation strategies in appropriately selected patients,” the editorialists concluded.

The study was funded by Novartis. Dr. Mentz and other coauthors have received fees from Novartis. Dr. Pinney, Dr. Ventura, and the other editorialists disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

Patients with an ejection fraction (EF) greater than 40% who were stabilized after recent worsening or de novo heart failure (HF) had a greater reduction in natriuretic peptides and less worsening renal function, but a higher rate of hypotension over 8 weeks with sacubitril-valsartan (Entresto) versus valsartan (Diovan) in the PARAGLIDE-HF trial.

A subgroup analysis showed evidence of a larger treatment effect among those with an EF of 60% or less, said Robert Mentz, MD, of the Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham, N.C.

Dr. Mentz presented the findings at the Heart Failure Association of the European Society of Cardiology (HFA-ESC) scientific sessions. The study was also published online simultaneously in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

“Next steps will involve further assessment of the cardiovascular and renal benefits, as well as further exploration of the symptomatic hypotension that we observed,” Dr. Mentz said in an interview.

Meanwhile, he said, “clinicians should be aware of these new data – specifically, the incremental reduction in natriuretic peptide level, compared with valsartan, and potential benefits on cardiovascular and renal events,” particularly in those with an EF greater than 40% to 60% or less.
 

Larger benefit for EF > 40% to < 60%

PARAGLIDE-HF was a double-blind, randomized controlled trial with 466 patients with EF greater than 40% enrolled within 30 days of a worsening HF event. The median age was 71 years, 52% were women, and 22% were Black.

The trial was a follow-up to PARAGON-HF, which had shown that, in patients with an EF of at least 45%, sacubitril-valsartan did not result in a significantly lower rate of total hospitalizations for HF or death from cardiovascular causes, compared with valsartan.

The primary endpoint for PARAGLIDE was the time-averaged proportional change in N-terminal of the prohormone brain natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) from baseline through weeks 4 and 8, as in the PIONEER-HF trial. That trial showed that among patients hospitalized for acute decompensated HF with reduced EF (< 40%), the angiotensin receptor/neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI) led to a greater reduction in NT-proBNP concentration than the angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB).

Similarly, for PARAGLIDE, the time-averaged reduction in NT-proBNP was greater with sacubitril-valsartan, with a change ratio of 0.85 (15% greater reduction).

A secondary hierarchical outcome for PARAGLIDE, using the win ratio, consisted of time to cardiovascular death, number and timing of HF hospitalizations, number and timing of urgent HF visits, and time-averaged proportional change in NT-proBNP from baseline to weeks 4 and 8.

The hierarchical outcome favored sacubitril-valsartan, but was not significant (unmatched win ratio, 1.19).

As noted, sacubitril-valsartan reduced worsening renal function, compared with valsartan (odds ratio, 0.61), but increased symptomatic hypotension (OR, 1.73).

“We will work to better characterize the hypotension events that were observed to help identify those patients at greater risk and to provide further clarity around the timing and implications of these events,” Dr. Mentz said in an interview.

The team hypothesized that such events may be prevented by optimizing volume status and background therapies commonly used to treat hypertension in these patients.

“For instance,” Dr. Mentz suggested, “calcium channel blockers like amlodipine could be dose reduced or discontinued in patients with lower baseline blood pressures to better support sacubitril/valsartan initiation and titration.”

He highlighted the subgroup analysis showing evidence of a larger treatment effect in study patients with an EF of 60% or less for the NT-proBNP change (0.78) and the hierarchical outcome (win ratio, 1.46). 

“These data may influence future guidance for sacubitril-valsartan in HF with EF greater than 40%, regardless of HF chronicity [acute or chronic vs. de novo] and treatment setting [hospital vs. clinic],” Dr. Mentz concluded.
 

Data ‘far from conclusive’

In a comment, Sean Pinney, MD, chief of cardiology at Mount Sinai Morningside, New York, said that the study results “help expand the current evidence base supporting the use of an ARNI in patients” with an EF greater than 40% up to 60%, and “provide confidence that ARNIs help to lower natriuretic peptides.

“It comes as little surprise that not everyone was able to tolerate these medications due to intolerable side effects like dizziness or hypotension,” he said.

Nevertheless, he added, “hopefully, these trial data help strengthen clinicians’ resolve to prescribe sacubitril/valsartan to a growing population of vulnerable patients.”

In a related editorial, Hector O. Ventura, MD, of the Ochsner Clinical School–University of Queensland, New Orleans, and colleagues express several concerns about the study.

Although the trial achieved significance for the primary endpoint, the margin of benefit was less than expected and the magnitude of the NT-proBNP reduction may not have been enough to reach the threshold for clinical benefit, they wrote.

Diuretic dosing in the two groups was not reported, and between-group differences may have contributed to both the differential NT-proBNP reduction and the rates of hypotension.

Furthermore, the sacubitril-valsartan group had a higher proportion of missing NT-proBNP data, which may have biased the results.

“In aggregate,” they wrote, “while the study suggests some evidence of a beneficial trend of sacubitril-valsartan in HFpEF and a recent episode of worsening HF, the data are far from conclusive.”

“Clinicians who elect to use sacubitril-valsartan in this population should be mindful of the risk for hypotension and select patients carefully, while providing close ambulatory follow up to ensure stability and adherence,” they noted.

“This important trial provides some wins that support selective use of sacubitril-valsartan in HFpEF [as well as] observed losses, which too may help to define better implementation strategies in appropriately selected patients,” the editorialists concluded.

The study was funded by Novartis. Dr. Mentz and other coauthors have received fees from Novartis. Dr. Pinney, Dr. Ventura, and the other editorialists disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

Patients with an ejection fraction (EF) greater than 40% who were stabilized after recent worsening or de novo heart failure (HF) had a greater reduction in natriuretic peptides and less worsening renal function, but a higher rate of hypotension over 8 weeks with sacubitril-valsartan (Entresto) versus valsartan (Diovan) in the PARAGLIDE-HF trial.

A subgroup analysis showed evidence of a larger treatment effect among those with an EF of 60% or less, said Robert Mentz, MD, of the Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham, N.C.

Dr. Mentz presented the findings at the Heart Failure Association of the European Society of Cardiology (HFA-ESC) scientific sessions. The study was also published online simultaneously in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

“Next steps will involve further assessment of the cardiovascular and renal benefits, as well as further exploration of the symptomatic hypotension that we observed,” Dr. Mentz said in an interview.

Meanwhile, he said, “clinicians should be aware of these new data – specifically, the incremental reduction in natriuretic peptide level, compared with valsartan, and potential benefits on cardiovascular and renal events,” particularly in those with an EF greater than 40% to 60% or less.
 

Larger benefit for EF > 40% to < 60%

PARAGLIDE-HF was a double-blind, randomized controlled trial with 466 patients with EF greater than 40% enrolled within 30 days of a worsening HF event. The median age was 71 years, 52% were women, and 22% were Black.

The trial was a follow-up to PARAGON-HF, which had shown that, in patients with an EF of at least 45%, sacubitril-valsartan did not result in a significantly lower rate of total hospitalizations for HF or death from cardiovascular causes, compared with valsartan.

The primary endpoint for PARAGLIDE was the time-averaged proportional change in N-terminal of the prohormone brain natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) from baseline through weeks 4 and 8, as in the PIONEER-HF trial. That trial showed that among patients hospitalized for acute decompensated HF with reduced EF (< 40%), the angiotensin receptor/neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI) led to a greater reduction in NT-proBNP concentration than the angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB).

Similarly, for PARAGLIDE, the time-averaged reduction in NT-proBNP was greater with sacubitril-valsartan, with a change ratio of 0.85 (15% greater reduction).

A secondary hierarchical outcome for PARAGLIDE, using the win ratio, consisted of time to cardiovascular death, number and timing of HF hospitalizations, number and timing of urgent HF visits, and time-averaged proportional change in NT-proBNP from baseline to weeks 4 and 8.

The hierarchical outcome favored sacubitril-valsartan, but was not significant (unmatched win ratio, 1.19).

As noted, sacubitril-valsartan reduced worsening renal function, compared with valsartan (odds ratio, 0.61), but increased symptomatic hypotension (OR, 1.73).

“We will work to better characterize the hypotension events that were observed to help identify those patients at greater risk and to provide further clarity around the timing and implications of these events,” Dr. Mentz said in an interview.

The team hypothesized that such events may be prevented by optimizing volume status and background therapies commonly used to treat hypertension in these patients.

“For instance,” Dr. Mentz suggested, “calcium channel blockers like amlodipine could be dose reduced or discontinued in patients with lower baseline blood pressures to better support sacubitril/valsartan initiation and titration.”

He highlighted the subgroup analysis showing evidence of a larger treatment effect in study patients with an EF of 60% or less for the NT-proBNP change (0.78) and the hierarchical outcome (win ratio, 1.46). 

“These data may influence future guidance for sacubitril-valsartan in HF with EF greater than 40%, regardless of HF chronicity [acute or chronic vs. de novo] and treatment setting [hospital vs. clinic],” Dr. Mentz concluded.
 

Data ‘far from conclusive’

In a comment, Sean Pinney, MD, chief of cardiology at Mount Sinai Morningside, New York, said that the study results “help expand the current evidence base supporting the use of an ARNI in patients” with an EF greater than 40% up to 60%, and “provide confidence that ARNIs help to lower natriuretic peptides.

“It comes as little surprise that not everyone was able to tolerate these medications due to intolerable side effects like dizziness or hypotension,” he said.

Nevertheless, he added, “hopefully, these trial data help strengthen clinicians’ resolve to prescribe sacubitril/valsartan to a growing population of vulnerable patients.”

In a related editorial, Hector O. Ventura, MD, of the Ochsner Clinical School–University of Queensland, New Orleans, and colleagues express several concerns about the study.

Although the trial achieved significance for the primary endpoint, the margin of benefit was less than expected and the magnitude of the NT-proBNP reduction may not have been enough to reach the threshold for clinical benefit, they wrote.

Diuretic dosing in the two groups was not reported, and between-group differences may have contributed to both the differential NT-proBNP reduction and the rates of hypotension.

Furthermore, the sacubitril-valsartan group had a higher proportion of missing NT-proBNP data, which may have biased the results.

“In aggregate,” they wrote, “while the study suggests some evidence of a beneficial trend of sacubitril-valsartan in HFpEF and a recent episode of worsening HF, the data are far from conclusive.”

“Clinicians who elect to use sacubitril-valsartan in this population should be mindful of the risk for hypotension and select patients carefully, while providing close ambulatory follow up to ensure stability and adherence,” they noted.

“This important trial provides some wins that support selective use of sacubitril-valsartan in HFpEF [as well as] observed losses, which too may help to define better implementation strategies in appropriately selected patients,” the editorialists concluded.

The study was funded by Novartis. Dr. Mentz and other coauthors have received fees from Novartis. Dr. Pinney, Dr. Ventura, and the other editorialists disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

In patients with heart failure (HF) and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), the copper chelator trientine reduced NT-proBNP levels up to 8 weeks by restoring normal intracellular copper.

In models of HF, intracellular copper depletion is associated with myocardial hypertrophy and fibrosis, and thus an increased risk for cardiac remodeling, James Januzzi, MD, of Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School in Boston, told attendees at the Heart Failure Association of the European Society of Cardiology (HFA-ESC) 2023 sessions.

Although trientine has been used for over 40 years to treat Wilson disease – a rare inherited disease characterized by copper overload – “paradoxically, it acts as a copper chaperone and can restore intracellular copper concentrations at low doses,” Dr. Januzzi explained during his presentation of the TRACER-HF results.

Although the dose-ranging study found that at 300 mg twice daily trientine effectively reduced NT-proBNP levels at 4 and 8 weeks, by 12 weeks, the effect had disappeared.

Nevertheless, Dr. Januzzi told the meeting attendees that the same dose was “most consistently” associated with most favorable Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire Overall Summary Score (KCCQ-OSS) changes, as well as improvements in left ventricular (LV) function and 6-minute walk distance.
 

‘Challenging is an understatement’

Asked why the improvement in NT-proBNP levels was no longer evident at week 12, Dr. Januzzi acknowledged, “We just don’t know.” However, the team speculates that the disrupted nature of the study might play a role.

The phase 2, placebo-controlled trial started recruiting at 27 sites in North America in 2019. When the pandemic hit in 2020, enrollment was suspended, then pivoted to China in 2021. A total of 190 participants were ultimately enrolled.

However, 91% of participants in China were finishing their follow-up in late 2022, when the country was hit by a COVID-19 surge, which might have affected the 12-week outcomes – though this is speculation for now.

Overall, participants had a mean age of 57 years; about 80% were men; 91% were Asian; the mean left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) was 30%; and most (77%) were New York Heart Association class II. All were stable on optimal drug therapy, including chronic loop diuretics.

All had elevated NT-proBNP: ≥ 400 pg/mL without atrial fibrillation or flutter, or ≥ 1200 pg/mL with atrial fibrillation or flutter.

Participants were randomized to placebo or twice-daily trientine doses of 50 mg, 150 mg, or 300 mg.

The primary endpoint was the proportional change in NT-proBNP from baseline to 12 weeks. Key secondary endpoints included the effect of trientine compared with placebo on mechanistic outcomes such as change in cardiac remodeling indices, 6-minute walk distance, and the KCCQ-OSS.

As noted, the greatest reduction in NT-proBNP at 4 and 8 weeks was in the 300-mg group, with a geometric mean ratio of 0.82 at week 4 vs. 1.03 for placebo; 0.92 for 50 mg; and 0.83 for 150 mg; and 0.79 at week 8 vs 1.02 for placebo; 0.85 for 50 mg; and 0.91 for 150 mg.

LV volumes improved at all doses, though by the most at 50 mg (–11.7 mL).

The change in 6-minute walk distance was greatest at the 300-mg dose at 42 meters.

The responder analysis showed that 300 mg was most consistently associated with most of the favorable KCCQ changes.

From a safety standpoint, trientine was well tolerated without any adverse outcomes. Notably, Dr. Januzzi told meeting attendees, blood pressure and heart rate were not affected by the addition of trientine to background medical care.

In addition, a post hoc interaction was identified between treatment response and a baseline LVEF ≤ 30%, data that, for now, are “compelling but hypothesis-generating,” he said. Data on secondary endpoints specifically for that group “are forthcoming.”
 

Looking ahead

Dr. Januzzi said in an interview that the team is now finalizing the main report “and will turn our attention to the interaction analyses suggesting exaggerated benefit in those with lower LVEF.

“We are examining all possible options for this novel therapy, which may include progressing to phase 3,” he said.

Challenges going forward include the need to understand which patients are most appropriate for the drug. “Given that it does not affect blood pressure or heart rate, it is an attractive consideration for any patient on guideline-directed medical therapy, but we need to have more clarity about the mechanism of benefit and understanding about the subgroup interactions that we have detected.

“Even in a well-managed population of patients with heart failure, there may still be room for therapies with benefit,” he concluded.

Danyaal Moin, MD, assistant professor of medicine at NYU Langone Health in New York and a specialist in advanced heart failure and transplantation, commented on these findings for this article.

“It is always exciting to consider new pathways to treat patients with systolic dysfunction, given the residual risk even for patients on contemporary quadruple therapy for HFrEF,” he said. “However, certain challenges with this phase 2 study will need to be addressed in an eventual phase 3 clinical trial.

“The study sample was predominately recruited in China and is not necessarily representative of a heart failure population in many clinical practices,” he said.

“It would be important that future studies with trientine-HCL assess endpoints such as heart failure hospitalizations and mortality that would help elucidate where this therapy would stand relative to current established heart failure therapies.”

Longer follow-up is needed and, he noted, “while it appears the investigators will ultimately favor the 300-mg dosage, it is interesting that left ventricular volume indices changed most favorably with the 50-mg dose of the therapy.” 

The study was sponsored by Innolife Pharmaceuticals and coordinated by the Baim Institute for Clinical Research in Boston. Dr. Januzzi has received grant support from Innolife. Dr. Moin declared no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

In patients with heart failure (HF) and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), the copper chelator trientine reduced NT-proBNP levels up to 8 weeks by restoring normal intracellular copper.

In models of HF, intracellular copper depletion is associated with myocardial hypertrophy and fibrosis, and thus an increased risk for cardiac remodeling, James Januzzi, MD, of Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School in Boston, told attendees at the Heart Failure Association of the European Society of Cardiology (HFA-ESC) 2023 sessions.

Although trientine has been used for over 40 years to treat Wilson disease – a rare inherited disease characterized by copper overload – “paradoxically, it acts as a copper chaperone and can restore intracellular copper concentrations at low doses,” Dr. Januzzi explained during his presentation of the TRACER-HF results.

Although the dose-ranging study found that at 300 mg twice daily trientine effectively reduced NT-proBNP levels at 4 and 8 weeks, by 12 weeks, the effect had disappeared.

Nevertheless, Dr. Januzzi told the meeting attendees that the same dose was “most consistently” associated with most favorable Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire Overall Summary Score (KCCQ-OSS) changes, as well as improvements in left ventricular (LV) function and 6-minute walk distance.
 

‘Challenging is an understatement’

Asked why the improvement in NT-proBNP levels was no longer evident at week 12, Dr. Januzzi acknowledged, “We just don’t know.” However, the team speculates that the disrupted nature of the study might play a role.

The phase 2, placebo-controlled trial started recruiting at 27 sites in North America in 2019. When the pandemic hit in 2020, enrollment was suspended, then pivoted to China in 2021. A total of 190 participants were ultimately enrolled.

However, 91% of participants in China were finishing their follow-up in late 2022, when the country was hit by a COVID-19 surge, which might have affected the 12-week outcomes – though this is speculation for now.

Overall, participants had a mean age of 57 years; about 80% were men; 91% were Asian; the mean left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) was 30%; and most (77%) were New York Heart Association class II. All were stable on optimal drug therapy, including chronic loop diuretics.

All had elevated NT-proBNP: ≥ 400 pg/mL without atrial fibrillation or flutter, or ≥ 1200 pg/mL with atrial fibrillation or flutter.

Participants were randomized to placebo or twice-daily trientine doses of 50 mg, 150 mg, or 300 mg.

The primary endpoint was the proportional change in NT-proBNP from baseline to 12 weeks. Key secondary endpoints included the effect of trientine compared with placebo on mechanistic outcomes such as change in cardiac remodeling indices, 6-minute walk distance, and the KCCQ-OSS.

As noted, the greatest reduction in NT-proBNP at 4 and 8 weeks was in the 300-mg group, with a geometric mean ratio of 0.82 at week 4 vs. 1.03 for placebo; 0.92 for 50 mg; and 0.83 for 150 mg; and 0.79 at week 8 vs 1.02 for placebo; 0.85 for 50 mg; and 0.91 for 150 mg.

LV volumes improved at all doses, though by the most at 50 mg (–11.7 mL).

The change in 6-minute walk distance was greatest at the 300-mg dose at 42 meters.

The responder analysis showed that 300 mg was most consistently associated with most of the favorable KCCQ changes.

From a safety standpoint, trientine was well tolerated without any adverse outcomes. Notably, Dr. Januzzi told meeting attendees, blood pressure and heart rate were not affected by the addition of trientine to background medical care.

In addition, a post hoc interaction was identified between treatment response and a baseline LVEF ≤ 30%, data that, for now, are “compelling but hypothesis-generating,” he said. Data on secondary endpoints specifically for that group “are forthcoming.”
 

Looking ahead

Dr. Januzzi said in an interview that the team is now finalizing the main report “and will turn our attention to the interaction analyses suggesting exaggerated benefit in those with lower LVEF.

“We are examining all possible options for this novel therapy, which may include progressing to phase 3,” he said.

Challenges going forward include the need to understand which patients are most appropriate for the drug. “Given that it does not affect blood pressure or heart rate, it is an attractive consideration for any patient on guideline-directed medical therapy, but we need to have more clarity about the mechanism of benefit and understanding about the subgroup interactions that we have detected.

“Even in a well-managed population of patients with heart failure, there may still be room for therapies with benefit,” he concluded.

Danyaal Moin, MD, assistant professor of medicine at NYU Langone Health in New York and a specialist in advanced heart failure and transplantation, commented on these findings for this article.

“It is always exciting to consider new pathways to treat patients with systolic dysfunction, given the residual risk even for patients on contemporary quadruple therapy for HFrEF,” he said. “However, certain challenges with this phase 2 study will need to be addressed in an eventual phase 3 clinical trial.

“The study sample was predominately recruited in China and is not necessarily representative of a heart failure population in many clinical practices,” he said.

“It would be important that future studies with trientine-HCL assess endpoints such as heart failure hospitalizations and mortality that would help elucidate where this therapy would stand relative to current established heart failure therapies.”

Longer follow-up is needed and, he noted, “while it appears the investigators will ultimately favor the 300-mg dosage, it is interesting that left ventricular volume indices changed most favorably with the 50-mg dose of the therapy.” 

The study was sponsored by Innolife Pharmaceuticals and coordinated by the Baim Institute for Clinical Research in Boston. Dr. Januzzi has received grant support from Innolife. Dr. Moin declared no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

In patients with heart failure (HF) and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), the copper chelator trientine reduced NT-proBNP levels up to 8 weeks by restoring normal intracellular copper.

In models of HF, intracellular copper depletion is associated with myocardial hypertrophy and fibrosis, and thus an increased risk for cardiac remodeling, James Januzzi, MD, of Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School in Boston, told attendees at the Heart Failure Association of the European Society of Cardiology (HFA-ESC) 2023 sessions.

Although trientine has been used for over 40 years to treat Wilson disease – a rare inherited disease characterized by copper overload – “paradoxically, it acts as a copper chaperone and can restore intracellular copper concentrations at low doses,” Dr. Januzzi explained during his presentation of the TRACER-HF results.

Although the dose-ranging study found that at 300 mg twice daily trientine effectively reduced NT-proBNP levels at 4 and 8 weeks, by 12 weeks, the effect had disappeared.

Nevertheless, Dr. Januzzi told the meeting attendees that the same dose was “most consistently” associated with most favorable Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire Overall Summary Score (KCCQ-OSS) changes, as well as improvements in left ventricular (LV) function and 6-minute walk distance.
 

‘Challenging is an understatement’

Asked why the improvement in NT-proBNP levels was no longer evident at week 12, Dr. Januzzi acknowledged, “We just don’t know.” However, the team speculates that the disrupted nature of the study might play a role.

The phase 2, placebo-controlled trial started recruiting at 27 sites in North America in 2019. When the pandemic hit in 2020, enrollment was suspended, then pivoted to China in 2021. A total of 190 participants were ultimately enrolled.

However, 91% of participants in China were finishing their follow-up in late 2022, when the country was hit by a COVID-19 surge, which might have affected the 12-week outcomes – though this is speculation for now.

Overall, participants had a mean age of 57 years; about 80% were men; 91% were Asian; the mean left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) was 30%; and most (77%) were New York Heart Association class II. All were stable on optimal drug therapy, including chronic loop diuretics.

All had elevated NT-proBNP: ≥ 400 pg/mL without atrial fibrillation or flutter, or ≥ 1200 pg/mL with atrial fibrillation or flutter.

Participants were randomized to placebo or twice-daily trientine doses of 50 mg, 150 mg, or 300 mg.

The primary endpoint was the proportional change in NT-proBNP from baseline to 12 weeks. Key secondary endpoints included the effect of trientine compared with placebo on mechanistic outcomes such as change in cardiac remodeling indices, 6-minute walk distance, and the KCCQ-OSS.

As noted, the greatest reduction in NT-proBNP at 4 and 8 weeks was in the 300-mg group, with a geometric mean ratio of 0.82 at week 4 vs. 1.03 for placebo; 0.92 for 50 mg; and 0.83 for 150 mg; and 0.79 at week 8 vs 1.02 for placebo; 0.85 for 50 mg; and 0.91 for 150 mg.

LV volumes improved at all doses, though by the most at 50 mg (–11.7 mL).

The change in 6-minute walk distance was greatest at the 300-mg dose at 42 meters.

The responder analysis showed that 300 mg was most consistently associated with most of the favorable KCCQ changes.

From a safety standpoint, trientine was well tolerated without any adverse outcomes. Notably, Dr. Januzzi told meeting attendees, blood pressure and heart rate were not affected by the addition of trientine to background medical care.

In addition, a post hoc interaction was identified between treatment response and a baseline LVEF ≤ 30%, data that, for now, are “compelling but hypothesis-generating,” he said. Data on secondary endpoints specifically for that group “are forthcoming.”
 

Looking ahead

Dr. Januzzi said in an interview that the team is now finalizing the main report “and will turn our attention to the interaction analyses suggesting exaggerated benefit in those with lower LVEF.

“We are examining all possible options for this novel therapy, which may include progressing to phase 3,” he said.

Challenges going forward include the need to understand which patients are most appropriate for the drug. “Given that it does not affect blood pressure or heart rate, it is an attractive consideration for any patient on guideline-directed medical therapy, but we need to have more clarity about the mechanism of benefit and understanding about the subgroup interactions that we have detected.

“Even in a well-managed population of patients with heart failure, there may still be room for therapies with benefit,” he concluded.

Danyaal Moin, MD, assistant professor of medicine at NYU Langone Health in New York and a specialist in advanced heart failure and transplantation, commented on these findings for this article.

“It is always exciting to consider new pathways to treat patients with systolic dysfunction, given the residual risk even for patients on contemporary quadruple therapy for HFrEF,” he said. “However, certain challenges with this phase 2 study will need to be addressed in an eventual phase 3 clinical trial.

“The study sample was predominately recruited in China and is not necessarily representative of a heart failure population in many clinical practices,” he said.

“It would be important that future studies with trientine-HCL assess endpoints such as heart failure hospitalizations and mortality that would help elucidate where this therapy would stand relative to current established heart failure therapies.”

Longer follow-up is needed and, he noted, “while it appears the investigators will ultimately favor the 300-mg dosage, it is interesting that left ventricular volume indices changed most favorably with the 50-mg dose of the therapy.” 

The study was sponsored by Innolife Pharmaceuticals and coordinated by the Baim Institute for Clinical Research in Boston. Dr. Januzzi has received grant support from Innolife. Dr. Moin declared no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

In the first randomized clinical trial of remote pulmonary artery pressure–guided monitoring and management of chronic heart failure (HF) in Europe, the intervention “substantially” improved quality of life (QoL) and reduced HF hospitalizations, new data show.

The CardioMEMS-HF system (Abbot Laboratories) used in the trial, called MONITOR-HF, remotely monitors changes in pulmonary artery pressure and provides an early warning of worsening HF.

Jasper Brugts, MD, PhD, of Erasmus MC University Medical Centre, Rotterdam, the Netherlands, said in an interview, “The concordance on outcomes of the three CardioMEMS trials across different eras, evolving GDMT [guideline-directed medical therapy], different conditions (pandemic), and different health care systems is reassuring and supportive of technologies such as CardioMEMS to improve patient monitoring to prevent HF hospitalizations and improve QoL.”

Dr. Brugts presented the study at the Heart Failure Association of the European Society of Cardiology (HFA-ESC) 2023 sessions.

The system “improved QoL in all six domains of the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire” and resulted in fewer HF-related hospitalizations (117 vs. 212) and fewer urgent visits (11 vs. 17), in comparison with standard of care, Dr. Brugts told meeting attendees.

Furthermore, CardioMEMS monitors hypervolemia as well as hypovolemia, enabling “fine-tuning of diuretics.”

The presentation drew such applause that one chairperson described it as “close to a standing ovation.” The study was published simultaneously in The Lancet.
 

Aggregate evidence

Early clinical evidence of the benefits of remote monitoring with the CardioMEMS-HF system was provided by the CHAMPION trial, which included patients with New York Heart Association (NYHA) class III heart failure.

Results of the subsequent GUIDE-HF trial, which aimed to test a broader population of patients with NYHA class II–IV heart failure and either increased N-terminal-pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) concentrations or hospitalization, were inconclusive.

However, a pre–COVID-19 impact analysis of GUIDE-HF indicated a possible benefit, which was primarily driven by a lower HF hospitalization rate, compared with the control group. That finding was the basis for an expanded indication for the system from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

The 2022 FDA indication permits the use of CardioMEMS for patients with NYHA class II HF and for those with worsening HF, as assessed by elevated natriuretic peptide levels.
 

From United States to Europe

Aware that most CardioMEMS data came from U.S. trials, the investigators embarked on the current trial, MONITOR-HF, an open-label, randomized trial in 25 centers in the Netherlands. Eligible patients had chronic NYHA class III HF, irrespective of ejection fraction, and had previously undergone hospitalization for HF.

A total of 348 patients were randomly assigned to either CardioMEMS-HF or standard of care (SoC) between 2019 and 2022.The median age of the patients was 69 years, and the median ejection fraction was 30%.

All patients were scheduled to be seen by their clinician at 3 months, 6 months, and every 6 months thereafter for up to 48 months.

The primary endpoint was the mean difference in the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ) summary score at 12 months

That difference between groups was 7.13 (+7.05 in the CardioMEMS group and –0.08 in the SoC group).

In the responder analysis, the odds ratio of an improvement of at least 5 points in the KCCQ overall summary score was 1.69 in the CardioMEMS group vs. the SoC group; the OR of a deterioration of at least 5 points was 0.45.

Subgroup analyses showed no relevant heterogeneity in the treatment effect on total HF hospitalizations and, notably, no significant interaction in patients with an EF below 40% and an EF above 40%.

There was a significant reduction in the median NT-proBNP change from baseline only in the remote monitoring group (800 pg/mL) and a smaller, nonsignificant difference with SoC.

Both groups received highly appropriate background guideline–directed medical therapy throughout the study. There were no significant between-group differences at 12 months.

Freedom from device-related or system-related complications and sensor failure were 97.7% and 98.8%, respectively.

Two sensor failures occurred during a mean follow-up 1.8 years. The percentage of failures was comparable to CHAMPION and GUIDE-HF trials.

The trial was not powered to assess a mortality benefit.
 

Pick the right patients

“As in the U.S. trials, there will be side effects, so select the right patients, because [remote monitoring] is not without risk,” Dr. Brugts told meeting attendees.

That point also was made by Christiane E. Angermann of University and University Hospital Würzburg, Germany, in a related editorial in The Lancet.

“To reproduce these results on a large scale in real-life health care, diligent patient selection should identify those at high risk of heart failure–related hospitalization who agree with the concept of daily data collection and are able and motivated to comply with treatment recommendations even if asymptomatic,” Dr. Angermann writes.

“Without direct interaction between health care providers and patients, and timely treatment modification triggered by abnormal monitoring results, the care cycle might break and the potential benefits from early detection of decompensation would be lost.”

Val Rakita, MD, assistant professor of medicine at Temple University, Philadelphia, a specialist in advanced heart failure and main implanter of the CardioMEMS device at Temple University Hospital, commented on the study for this article.

“This study confirms the previous data that the device is very safe and effective in preventing HF hospitalizations and improving patients’ quality of life, even in a different population with more modern background guideline-directed medical therapy.”

Nevertheless, he noted, “Studies have yet to confirm a mortality benefit, despite logic telling us that preventing heart failure hospitalizations should also improve patient survival. More studies are needed to see if a survival benefit can be proven over a longer follow-up period.”

Overall, he said, “Remote monitoring allows more precise management of medications, prevention of hospitalizations, and improvement in quality of life, and I am an advocate for it in my practice.”

Not everyone is an advocate, however. In a commentary published last year, John M. Mandrola, MD, a cardiac electrophysiologist at Baptist Medical Associates in Louisville, Ky., said the expanded FDA indication for the device is the result of “dubious trial analysis, spin, lax regulation, and the growth of low-value care.”

Others also have questioned the device’s value in the clinic.

But at least for now, as Dr. Angermann writes, “Scientific evidence supports the use of the CardioMEMS-HF system to enhance remote patient management in heart failure care. For more widespread application, technological advancements are desirable to provide more comfort for patients and reusable external device components, thereby improving care experience and saving resources.”

The MONITOR-HF trial is funded by the Dutch Ministry of Health and Health Care institute. Dr. Brugts has an independent research grant from Abbott (investigator-sponsored study) and has had speaker engagements or has participated in advisory boards for Abbott and other pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Angermann has received personal fees from Abbott for serving as chair of the steering committee for the CardioMEMS European Monitoring Study for Heart Failure (MEMS-HF) and consulting fees, honoraria, and travel costs from Abbott. Dr. Rakita has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

In the first randomized clinical trial of remote pulmonary artery pressure–guided monitoring and management of chronic heart failure (HF) in Europe, the intervention “substantially” improved quality of life (QoL) and reduced HF hospitalizations, new data show.

The CardioMEMS-HF system (Abbot Laboratories) used in the trial, called MONITOR-HF, remotely monitors changes in pulmonary artery pressure and provides an early warning of worsening HF.

Jasper Brugts, MD, PhD, of Erasmus MC University Medical Centre, Rotterdam, the Netherlands, said in an interview, “The concordance on outcomes of the three CardioMEMS trials across different eras, evolving GDMT [guideline-directed medical therapy], different conditions (pandemic), and different health care systems is reassuring and supportive of technologies such as CardioMEMS to improve patient monitoring to prevent HF hospitalizations and improve QoL.”

Dr. Brugts presented the study at the Heart Failure Association of the European Society of Cardiology (HFA-ESC) 2023 sessions.

The system “improved QoL in all six domains of the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire” and resulted in fewer HF-related hospitalizations (117 vs. 212) and fewer urgent visits (11 vs. 17), in comparison with standard of care, Dr. Brugts told meeting attendees.

Furthermore, CardioMEMS monitors hypervolemia as well as hypovolemia, enabling “fine-tuning of diuretics.”

The presentation drew such applause that one chairperson described it as “close to a standing ovation.” The study was published simultaneously in The Lancet.
 

Aggregate evidence

Early clinical evidence of the benefits of remote monitoring with the CardioMEMS-HF system was provided by the CHAMPION trial, which included patients with New York Heart Association (NYHA) class III heart failure.

Results of the subsequent GUIDE-HF trial, which aimed to test a broader population of patients with NYHA class II–IV heart failure and either increased N-terminal-pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) concentrations or hospitalization, were inconclusive.

However, a pre–COVID-19 impact analysis of GUIDE-HF indicated a possible benefit, which was primarily driven by a lower HF hospitalization rate, compared with the control group. That finding was the basis for an expanded indication for the system from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

The 2022 FDA indication permits the use of CardioMEMS for patients with NYHA class II HF and for those with worsening HF, as assessed by elevated natriuretic peptide levels.
 

From United States to Europe

Aware that most CardioMEMS data came from U.S. trials, the investigators embarked on the current trial, MONITOR-HF, an open-label, randomized trial in 25 centers in the Netherlands. Eligible patients had chronic NYHA class III HF, irrespective of ejection fraction, and had previously undergone hospitalization for HF.

A total of 348 patients were randomly assigned to either CardioMEMS-HF or standard of care (SoC) between 2019 and 2022.The median age of the patients was 69 years, and the median ejection fraction was 30%.

All patients were scheduled to be seen by their clinician at 3 months, 6 months, and every 6 months thereafter for up to 48 months.

The primary endpoint was the mean difference in the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ) summary score at 12 months

That difference between groups was 7.13 (+7.05 in the CardioMEMS group and –0.08 in the SoC group).

In the responder analysis, the odds ratio of an improvement of at least 5 points in the KCCQ overall summary score was 1.69 in the CardioMEMS group vs. the SoC group; the OR of a deterioration of at least 5 points was 0.45.

Subgroup analyses showed no relevant heterogeneity in the treatment effect on total HF hospitalizations and, notably, no significant interaction in patients with an EF below 40% and an EF above 40%.

There was a significant reduction in the median NT-proBNP change from baseline only in the remote monitoring group (800 pg/mL) and a smaller, nonsignificant difference with SoC.

Both groups received highly appropriate background guideline–directed medical therapy throughout the study. There were no significant between-group differences at 12 months.

Freedom from device-related or system-related complications and sensor failure were 97.7% and 98.8%, respectively.

Two sensor failures occurred during a mean follow-up 1.8 years. The percentage of failures was comparable to CHAMPION and GUIDE-HF trials.

The trial was not powered to assess a mortality benefit.
 

Pick the right patients

“As in the U.S. trials, there will be side effects, so select the right patients, because [remote monitoring] is not without risk,” Dr. Brugts told meeting attendees.

That point also was made by Christiane E. Angermann of University and University Hospital Würzburg, Germany, in a related editorial in The Lancet.

“To reproduce these results on a large scale in real-life health care, diligent patient selection should identify those at high risk of heart failure–related hospitalization who agree with the concept of daily data collection and are able and motivated to comply with treatment recommendations even if asymptomatic,” Dr. Angermann writes.

“Without direct interaction between health care providers and patients, and timely treatment modification triggered by abnormal monitoring results, the care cycle might break and the potential benefits from early detection of decompensation would be lost.”

Val Rakita, MD, assistant professor of medicine at Temple University, Philadelphia, a specialist in advanced heart failure and main implanter of the CardioMEMS device at Temple University Hospital, commented on the study for this article.

“This study confirms the previous data that the device is very safe and effective in preventing HF hospitalizations and improving patients’ quality of life, even in a different population with more modern background guideline-directed medical therapy.”

Nevertheless, he noted, “Studies have yet to confirm a mortality benefit, despite logic telling us that preventing heart failure hospitalizations should also improve patient survival. More studies are needed to see if a survival benefit can be proven over a longer follow-up period.”

Overall, he said, “Remote monitoring allows more precise management of medications, prevention of hospitalizations, and improvement in quality of life, and I am an advocate for it in my practice.”

Not everyone is an advocate, however. In a commentary published last year, John M. Mandrola, MD, a cardiac electrophysiologist at Baptist Medical Associates in Louisville, Ky., said the expanded FDA indication for the device is the result of “dubious trial analysis, spin, lax regulation, and the growth of low-value care.”

Others also have questioned the device’s value in the clinic.

But at least for now, as Dr. Angermann writes, “Scientific evidence supports the use of the CardioMEMS-HF system to enhance remote patient management in heart failure care. For more widespread application, technological advancements are desirable to provide more comfort for patients and reusable external device components, thereby improving care experience and saving resources.”

The MONITOR-HF trial is funded by the Dutch Ministry of Health and Health Care institute. Dr. Brugts has an independent research grant from Abbott (investigator-sponsored study) and has had speaker engagements or has participated in advisory boards for Abbott and other pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Angermann has received personal fees from Abbott for serving as chair of the steering committee for the CardioMEMS European Monitoring Study for Heart Failure (MEMS-HF) and consulting fees, honoraria, and travel costs from Abbott. Dr. Rakita has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

In the first randomized clinical trial of remote pulmonary artery pressure–guided monitoring and management of chronic heart failure (HF) in Europe, the intervention “substantially” improved quality of life (QoL) and reduced HF hospitalizations, new data show.

The CardioMEMS-HF system (Abbot Laboratories) used in the trial, called MONITOR-HF, remotely monitors changes in pulmonary artery pressure and provides an early warning of worsening HF.

Jasper Brugts, MD, PhD, of Erasmus MC University Medical Centre, Rotterdam, the Netherlands, said in an interview, “The concordance on outcomes of the three CardioMEMS trials across different eras, evolving GDMT [guideline-directed medical therapy], different conditions (pandemic), and different health care systems is reassuring and supportive of technologies such as CardioMEMS to improve patient monitoring to prevent HF hospitalizations and improve QoL.”

Dr. Brugts presented the study at the Heart Failure Association of the European Society of Cardiology (HFA-ESC) 2023 sessions.

The system “improved QoL in all six domains of the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire” and resulted in fewer HF-related hospitalizations (117 vs. 212) and fewer urgent visits (11 vs. 17), in comparison with standard of care, Dr. Brugts told meeting attendees.

Furthermore, CardioMEMS monitors hypervolemia as well as hypovolemia, enabling “fine-tuning of diuretics.”

The presentation drew such applause that one chairperson described it as “close to a standing ovation.” The study was published simultaneously in The Lancet.
 

Aggregate evidence

Early clinical evidence of the benefits of remote monitoring with the CardioMEMS-HF system was provided by the CHAMPION trial, which included patients with New York Heart Association (NYHA) class III heart failure.

Results of the subsequent GUIDE-HF trial, which aimed to test a broader population of patients with NYHA class II–IV heart failure and either increased N-terminal-pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) concentrations or hospitalization, were inconclusive.

However, a pre–COVID-19 impact analysis of GUIDE-HF indicated a possible benefit, which was primarily driven by a lower HF hospitalization rate, compared with the control group. That finding was the basis for an expanded indication for the system from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

The 2022 FDA indication permits the use of CardioMEMS for patients with NYHA class II HF and for those with worsening HF, as assessed by elevated natriuretic peptide levels.
 

From United States to Europe

Aware that most CardioMEMS data came from U.S. trials, the investigators embarked on the current trial, MONITOR-HF, an open-label, randomized trial in 25 centers in the Netherlands. Eligible patients had chronic NYHA class III HF, irrespective of ejection fraction, and had previously undergone hospitalization for HF.

A total of 348 patients were randomly assigned to either CardioMEMS-HF or standard of care (SoC) between 2019 and 2022.The median age of the patients was 69 years, and the median ejection fraction was 30%.

All patients were scheduled to be seen by their clinician at 3 months, 6 months, and every 6 months thereafter for up to 48 months.

The primary endpoint was the mean difference in the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ) summary score at 12 months

That difference between groups was 7.13 (+7.05 in the CardioMEMS group and –0.08 in the SoC group).

In the responder analysis, the odds ratio of an improvement of at least 5 points in the KCCQ overall summary score was 1.69 in the CardioMEMS group vs. the SoC group; the OR of a deterioration of at least 5 points was 0.45.

Subgroup analyses showed no relevant heterogeneity in the treatment effect on total HF hospitalizations and, notably, no significant interaction in patients with an EF below 40% and an EF above 40%.

There was a significant reduction in the median NT-proBNP change from baseline only in the remote monitoring group (800 pg/mL) and a smaller, nonsignificant difference with SoC.

Both groups received highly appropriate background guideline–directed medical therapy throughout the study. There were no significant between-group differences at 12 months.

Freedom from device-related or system-related complications and sensor failure were 97.7% and 98.8%, respectively.

Two sensor failures occurred during a mean follow-up 1.8 years. The percentage of failures was comparable to CHAMPION and GUIDE-HF trials.

The trial was not powered to assess a mortality benefit.
 

Pick the right patients

“As in the U.S. trials, there will be side effects, so select the right patients, because [remote monitoring] is not without risk,” Dr. Brugts told meeting attendees.

That point also was made by Christiane E. Angermann of University and University Hospital Würzburg, Germany, in a related editorial in The Lancet.

“To reproduce these results on a large scale in real-life health care, diligent patient selection should identify those at high risk of heart failure–related hospitalization who agree with the concept of daily data collection and are able and motivated to comply with treatment recommendations even if asymptomatic,” Dr. Angermann writes.

“Without direct interaction between health care providers and patients, and timely treatment modification triggered by abnormal monitoring results, the care cycle might break and the potential benefits from early detection of decompensation would be lost.”

Val Rakita, MD, assistant professor of medicine at Temple University, Philadelphia, a specialist in advanced heart failure and main implanter of the CardioMEMS device at Temple University Hospital, commented on the study for this article.

“This study confirms the previous data that the device is very safe and effective in preventing HF hospitalizations and improving patients’ quality of life, even in a different population with more modern background guideline-directed medical therapy.”

Nevertheless, he noted, “Studies have yet to confirm a mortality benefit, despite logic telling us that preventing heart failure hospitalizations should also improve patient survival. More studies are needed to see if a survival benefit can be proven over a longer follow-up period.”

Overall, he said, “Remote monitoring allows more precise management of medications, prevention of hospitalizations, and improvement in quality of life, and I am an advocate for it in my practice.”

Not everyone is an advocate, however. In a commentary published last year, John M. Mandrola, MD, a cardiac electrophysiologist at Baptist Medical Associates in Louisville, Ky., said the expanded FDA indication for the device is the result of “dubious trial analysis, spin, lax regulation, and the growth of low-value care.”

Others also have questioned the device’s value in the clinic.

But at least for now, as Dr. Angermann writes, “Scientific evidence supports the use of the CardioMEMS-HF system to enhance remote patient management in heart failure care. For more widespread application, technological advancements are desirable to provide more comfort for patients and reusable external device components, thereby improving care experience and saving resources.”

The MONITOR-HF trial is funded by the Dutch Ministry of Health and Health Care institute. Dr. Brugts has an independent research grant from Abbott (investigator-sponsored study) and has had speaker engagements or has participated in advisory boards for Abbott and other pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Angermann has received personal fees from Abbott for serving as chair of the steering committee for the CardioMEMS European Monitoring Study for Heart Failure (MEMS-HF) and consulting fees, honoraria, and travel costs from Abbott. Dr. Rakita has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

A novel antibody, NI006 (Neurimmune), was safe for the treatment of transthyretin amyloid cardiomyopathy (ATTR-CM) in a phase 1 trial and appeared to reduce the amount of amyloid protein deposited in the heart, a new study suggests.

Currently, the only drug approved to treat ATTR is tafamidis, which improves survival and reduces hospitalizations, but does not reverse disease symptoms, the authors noted.

NI006 is a recombinant human anti-ATTR antibody given by infusion that was developed to trigger removal of ATTR by the body’s phagocytic immune cells.

Use of the drug was not associated with serious drug-related adverse events, though mild and moderate adverse events did occur.

Median N-terminal pro–B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) and troponin T levels also seemed to be reduced over the study period.

Given the success of the antibody in this initial 40-patient trial, a larger phase-3 placebo-controlled trial is planned and expected to launch in the second half of 2023, said lead author Pablo Garcia-Pavia, MD, of Hospital Universitario Puerta de Hierro and the Spanish National Cardiovascular Research Institute, Madrid.

However, “The design of appropriate phase-3 trials to demonstrate efficacy of drugs for ATTR-CM is becoming more complicated and challenging,” he said.

“Increased awareness of the disease and advances in cardiac imaging techniques have led to recognition of a larger number of patients with ATTR-CM who have a different clinical profile and a different prognosis than the patients who were diagnosed in previous years and were enrolled in the initial trials of stabilizers,” Dr. Garcia-Pavia added.

“Moreover, the availability of tafamidis, and hopefully soon other medications to treat ATTR-CM has complicated the design of new clinical trials because of the heterogenicity of treatments that patients might receive,” he said. “Therefore, it is critical to plan the design very well.”

Dr. Garcia-Pavia presented the findings on NI006 at the Heart Failure Association of the European Society of Cardiology (HFA-ESC) 2023 sessions. The study was published simultaneously in the New England Journal of Medicine.
 

No serious adverse events

For the phase-1, double-blind, multicenter study, the investigators randomly assigned (2:1 ratio) 40 patients (median age, 72 years; 98% men) with wild-type or variant ATTR cardiomyopathy and chronic heart failure to receive IV infusions of either NI006, at one of six doses ranging from 0.3 mg/kg to 60 mg/kg of body weight, or placebo every 4 weeks for 4 months.

After the four infusions, participants were enrolled in an open-label extension phase in which they received eight NI006 infusions with stepwise increases in the dose.

Participants had a confirmed diagnosis of ATTR-CM; left ventricular wall thickness of at least 14 mm; left ventricular ejection fraction of at least 40%; New York Heart Association class I, II, or III; estimated glomerular filtration rate of more than 30 mL/min per 1.73 m²; and an NT-proBNP level of 600 to 6,000 pg/mL.

Most (36) were receiving tafamidis, with a median treatment duration of 7 months; other ATTR-specific drugs were not permitted. Patients randomly assigned to receive NI006 seemed to have more advanced disease compared with those assigned to placebo.

Adherence to the trial protocol was high: Thirty-four patients received the four scheduled infusions during the ascending-dose phase, and 34 of 35 patients who completed this phase subsequently enrolled in the open-label extension.

No apparent drug-related serious adverse events were reported. However, during the ascending-dose phase, 38 patients had at least one adverse event, most of which were mild or moderate; of the 191 total events, 124 were grade 1 and 60 were grade 2 (most commonly heart failure and arrhythmias). Three patients had cytokine release syndrome; all three completed treatment through the extension phase.

Musculoskeletal events increased with ascending doses of NI006, which led two patients to withdraw from the trial.

At doses of at least 10 mg/kg, cardiac tracer uptake on scintigraphy and extracellular volume on cardiac MRI, both of which are imaging-based surrogate markers of cardiac amyloid load, appeared to be reduced over 12 months.

Because NI006 stimulates the patient’s own immune system to eliminate cardiac amyloid fibrils, one session chair at the meeting wondered whether NI006 represented the “rise of immunology in cardiology,” and whether biologics might follow.

Another questioned how removing amyloid might affect cardiac function. The echocardiographic findings gathered so far don’t indicate dysfunction, “but this is a small trial, and we need more data,” Dr. Garcia-Pavia said.
 

Tempered excitement

In a comment, Ronald Witteles, MD, professor of cardiovascular medicine, Stanford (Calif.) University, and founder/codirector of the Stanford Amyloid Center, said that “antibody-based amyloid removal strategies are not currently clinically available and represent a fundamentally different mechanism to treat the disease from what we currently have.

“While the data are encouraging and will generate excitement for later-phase studies, we’re talking about small numbers of patients and nothing definitive should be drawn from this data,” said Dr. Witteles, deputy editor of JACC: CardioOncology.

“The biggest caveat is that similar approaches of antibody removal of amyloid deposits for other forms of amyloidosis — most notably AL amyloidosis (amyloid light chain or primary amyloidosis) – have failed in late-phase trials. Although there is reason to believe that ATTR amyloidosis may be more amenable to improvements with amyloid fibril removal than AL amyloidosis, the unimpressive results in other forms of amyloidosis still do temper the excitement to a degree.”

Like Dr. Garcia-Pavia, Dr. Witteles said, “Ultimately, we are going to need to see a phase 3 clinical trial which shows that NI006 – on top of standard-of-care treatment – improves hard outcomes in the disease. As treatment options likely expand in the coming years, that is likely to be a harder and harder bar to reach.”

Furthermore, although the safety profile was favorable overall, it “wasn’t entirely clean,” given cytokine release syndrome in three patients, a lowering of platelet counts in a couple of patients, and musculoskeletal side effects that triggered two to withdraw from the study. “Unless that changes,” he said, “that will be a barrier for some patients.”

Overall, he noted, “With the vast majority of patients being able to be diagnosed noninvasively, and with treatment options now available, we have seen a true explosion in the number of patients being diagnosed.

“But we also know that the large majority ... are still not getting diagnosed or are having huge delays in diagnosis. As such, the biggest thing we can do for patients with the disease is to continue to educate people about it,” Dr. Witteles concluded.

The study was funded by Neurimmune. Dr. Garcia-Pavia disclosed ties to Alexion, Alnylam Pharmaceuticals, AstraZeneca, Attralus, BridgeBio, General Electric, Intellia, Ionis Pharmaceuticals, Neurimmune, Novo Nordisk, and Pfizer. Dr. Witteles reported ties to Alexion, Alnylam, AstraZeneca, BridgeBio, Intellia, Ionis, Janssen, Novo Nordisk, and Pfizer.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A novel antibody, NI006 (Neurimmune), was safe for the treatment of transthyretin amyloid cardiomyopathy (ATTR-CM) in a phase 1 trial and appeared to reduce the amount of amyloid protein deposited in the heart, a new study suggests.

Currently, the only drug approved to treat ATTR is tafamidis, which improves survival and reduces hospitalizations, but does not reverse disease symptoms, the authors noted.

NI006 is a recombinant human anti-ATTR antibody given by infusion that was developed to trigger removal of ATTR by the body’s phagocytic immune cells.

Use of the drug was not associated with serious drug-related adverse events, though mild and moderate adverse events did occur.

Median N-terminal pro–B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) and troponin T levels also seemed to be reduced over the study period.

Given the success of the antibody in this initial 40-patient trial, a larger phase-3 placebo-controlled trial is planned and expected to launch in the second half of 2023, said lead author Pablo Garcia-Pavia, MD, of Hospital Universitario Puerta de Hierro and the Spanish National Cardiovascular Research Institute, Madrid.

However, “The design of appropriate phase-3 trials to demonstrate efficacy of drugs for ATTR-CM is becoming more complicated and challenging,” he said.

“Increased awareness of the disease and advances in cardiac imaging techniques have led to recognition of a larger number of patients with ATTR-CM who have a different clinical profile and a different prognosis than the patients who were diagnosed in previous years and were enrolled in the initial trials of stabilizers,” Dr. Garcia-Pavia added.

“Moreover, the availability of tafamidis, and hopefully soon other medications to treat ATTR-CM has complicated the design of new clinical trials because of the heterogenicity of treatments that patients might receive,” he said. “Therefore, it is critical to plan the design very well.”

Dr. Garcia-Pavia presented the findings on NI006 at the Heart Failure Association of the European Society of Cardiology (HFA-ESC) 2023 sessions. The study was published simultaneously in the New England Journal of Medicine.
 

No serious adverse events

For the phase-1, double-blind, multicenter study, the investigators randomly assigned (2:1 ratio) 40 patients (median age, 72 years; 98% men) with wild-type or variant ATTR cardiomyopathy and chronic heart failure to receive IV infusions of either NI006, at one of six doses ranging from 0.3 mg/kg to 60 mg/kg of body weight, or placebo every 4 weeks for 4 months.

After the four infusions, participants were enrolled in an open-label extension phase in which they received eight NI006 infusions with stepwise increases in the dose.

Participants had a confirmed diagnosis of ATTR-CM; left ventricular wall thickness of at least 14 mm; left ventricular ejection fraction of at least 40%; New York Heart Association class I, II, or III; estimated glomerular filtration rate of more than 30 mL/min per 1.73 m²; and an NT-proBNP level of 600 to 6,000 pg/mL.

Most (36) were receiving tafamidis, with a median treatment duration of 7 months; other ATTR-specific drugs were not permitted. Patients randomly assigned to receive NI006 seemed to have more advanced disease compared with those assigned to placebo.

Adherence to the trial protocol was high: Thirty-four patients received the four scheduled infusions during the ascending-dose phase, and 34 of 35 patients who completed this phase subsequently enrolled in the open-label extension.

No apparent drug-related serious adverse events were reported. However, during the ascending-dose phase, 38 patients had at least one adverse event, most of which were mild or moderate; of the 191 total events, 124 were grade 1 and 60 were grade 2 (most commonly heart failure and arrhythmias). Three patients had cytokine release syndrome; all three completed treatment through the extension phase.

Musculoskeletal events increased with ascending doses of NI006, which led two patients to withdraw from the trial.

At doses of at least 10 mg/kg, cardiac tracer uptake on scintigraphy and extracellular volume on cardiac MRI, both of which are imaging-based surrogate markers of cardiac amyloid load, appeared to be reduced over 12 months.

Because NI006 stimulates the patient’s own immune system to eliminate cardiac amyloid fibrils, one session chair at the meeting wondered whether NI006 represented the “rise of immunology in cardiology,” and whether biologics might follow.

Another questioned how removing amyloid might affect cardiac function. The echocardiographic findings gathered so far don’t indicate dysfunction, “but this is a small trial, and we need more data,” Dr. Garcia-Pavia said.
 

Tempered excitement

In a comment, Ronald Witteles, MD, professor of cardiovascular medicine, Stanford (Calif.) University, and founder/codirector of the Stanford Amyloid Center, said that “antibody-based amyloid removal strategies are not currently clinically available and represent a fundamentally different mechanism to treat the disease from what we currently have.

“While the data are encouraging and will generate excitement for later-phase studies, we’re talking about small numbers of patients and nothing definitive should be drawn from this data,” said Dr. Witteles, deputy editor of JACC: CardioOncology.

“The biggest caveat is that similar approaches of antibody removal of amyloid deposits for other forms of amyloidosis — most notably AL amyloidosis (amyloid light chain or primary amyloidosis) – have failed in late-phase trials. Although there is reason to believe that ATTR amyloidosis may be more amenable to improvements with amyloid fibril removal than AL amyloidosis, the unimpressive results in other forms of amyloidosis still do temper the excitement to a degree.”

Like Dr. Garcia-Pavia, Dr. Witteles said, “Ultimately, we are going to need to see a phase 3 clinical trial which shows that NI006 – on top of standard-of-care treatment – improves hard outcomes in the disease. As treatment options likely expand in the coming years, that is likely to be a harder and harder bar to reach.”

Furthermore, although the safety profile was favorable overall, it “wasn’t entirely clean,” given cytokine release syndrome in three patients, a lowering of platelet counts in a couple of patients, and musculoskeletal side effects that triggered two to withdraw from the study. “Unless that changes,” he said, “that will be a barrier for some patients.”

Overall, he noted, “With the vast majority of patients being able to be diagnosed noninvasively, and with treatment options now available, we have seen a true explosion in the number of patients being diagnosed.

“But we also know that the large majority ... are still not getting diagnosed or are having huge delays in diagnosis. As such, the biggest thing we can do for patients with the disease is to continue to educate people about it,” Dr. Witteles concluded.

The study was funded by Neurimmune. Dr. Garcia-Pavia disclosed ties to Alexion, Alnylam Pharmaceuticals, AstraZeneca, Attralus, BridgeBio, General Electric, Intellia, Ionis Pharmaceuticals, Neurimmune, Novo Nordisk, and Pfizer. Dr. Witteles reported ties to Alexion, Alnylam, AstraZeneca, BridgeBio, Intellia, Ionis, Janssen, Novo Nordisk, and Pfizer.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A novel antibody, NI006 (Neurimmune), was safe for the treatment of transthyretin amyloid cardiomyopathy (ATTR-CM) in a phase 1 trial and appeared to reduce the amount of amyloid protein deposited in the heart, a new study suggests.

Currently, the only drug approved to treat ATTR is tafamidis, which improves survival and reduces hospitalizations, but does not reverse disease symptoms, the authors noted.

NI006 is a recombinant human anti-ATTR antibody given by infusion that was developed to trigger removal of ATTR by the body’s phagocytic immune cells.

Use of the drug was not associated with serious drug-related adverse events, though mild and moderate adverse events did occur.

Median N-terminal pro–B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) and troponin T levels also seemed to be reduced over the study period.

Given the success of the antibody in this initial 40-patient trial, a larger phase-3 placebo-controlled trial is planned and expected to launch in the second half of 2023, said lead author Pablo Garcia-Pavia, MD, of Hospital Universitario Puerta de Hierro and the Spanish National Cardiovascular Research Institute, Madrid.

However, “The design of appropriate phase-3 trials to demonstrate efficacy of drugs for ATTR-CM is becoming more complicated and challenging,” he said.

“Increased awareness of the disease and advances in cardiac imaging techniques have led to recognition of a larger number of patients with ATTR-CM who have a different clinical profile and a different prognosis than the patients who were diagnosed in previous years and were enrolled in the initial trials of stabilizers,” Dr. Garcia-Pavia added.

“Moreover, the availability of tafamidis, and hopefully soon other medications to treat ATTR-CM has complicated the design of new clinical trials because of the heterogenicity of treatments that patients might receive,” he said. “Therefore, it is critical to plan the design very well.”

Dr. Garcia-Pavia presented the findings on NI006 at the Heart Failure Association of the European Society of Cardiology (HFA-ESC) 2023 sessions. The study was published simultaneously in the New England Journal of Medicine.
 

No serious adverse events

For the phase-1, double-blind, multicenter study, the investigators randomly assigned (2:1 ratio) 40 patients (median age, 72 years; 98% men) with wild-type or variant ATTR cardiomyopathy and chronic heart failure to receive IV infusions of either NI006, at one of six doses ranging from 0.3 mg/kg to 60 mg/kg of body weight, or placebo every 4 weeks for 4 months.

After the four infusions, participants were enrolled in an open-label extension phase in which they received eight NI006 infusions with stepwise increases in the dose.

Participants had a confirmed diagnosis of ATTR-CM; left ventricular wall thickness of at least 14 mm; left ventricular ejection fraction of at least 40%; New York Heart Association class I, II, or III; estimated glomerular filtration rate of more than 30 mL/min per 1.73 m²; and an NT-proBNP level of 600 to 6,000 pg/mL.

Most (36) were receiving tafamidis, with a median treatment duration of 7 months; other ATTR-specific drugs were not permitted. Patients randomly assigned to receive NI006 seemed to have more advanced disease compared with those assigned to placebo.

Adherence to the trial protocol was high: Thirty-four patients received the four scheduled infusions during the ascending-dose phase, and 34 of 35 patients who completed this phase subsequently enrolled in the open-label extension.

No apparent drug-related serious adverse events were reported. However, during the ascending-dose phase, 38 patients had at least one adverse event, most of which were mild or moderate; of the 191 total events, 124 were grade 1 and 60 were grade 2 (most commonly heart failure and arrhythmias). Three patients had cytokine release syndrome; all three completed treatment through the extension phase.

Musculoskeletal events increased with ascending doses of NI006, which led two patients to withdraw from the trial.

At doses of at least 10 mg/kg, cardiac tracer uptake on scintigraphy and extracellular volume on cardiac MRI, both of which are imaging-based surrogate markers of cardiac amyloid load, appeared to be reduced over 12 months.

Because NI006 stimulates the patient’s own immune system to eliminate cardiac amyloid fibrils, one session chair at the meeting wondered whether NI006 represented the “rise of immunology in cardiology,” and whether biologics might follow.

Another questioned how removing amyloid might affect cardiac function. The echocardiographic findings gathered so far don’t indicate dysfunction, “but this is a small trial, and we need more data,” Dr. Garcia-Pavia said.
 

Tempered excitement

In a comment, Ronald Witteles, MD, professor of cardiovascular medicine, Stanford (Calif.) University, and founder/codirector of the Stanford Amyloid Center, said that “antibody-based amyloid removal strategies are not currently clinically available and represent a fundamentally different mechanism to treat the disease from what we currently have.

“While the data are encouraging and will generate excitement for later-phase studies, we’re talking about small numbers of patients and nothing definitive should be drawn from this data,” said Dr. Witteles, deputy editor of JACC: CardioOncology.

“The biggest caveat is that similar approaches of antibody removal of amyloid deposits for other forms of amyloidosis — most notably AL amyloidosis (amyloid light chain or primary amyloidosis) – have failed in late-phase trials. Although there is reason to believe that ATTR amyloidosis may be more amenable to improvements with amyloid fibril removal than AL amyloidosis, the unimpressive results in other forms of amyloidosis still do temper the excitement to a degree.”

Like Dr. Garcia-Pavia, Dr. Witteles said, “Ultimately, we are going to need to see a phase 3 clinical trial which shows that NI006 – on top of standard-of-care treatment – improves hard outcomes in the disease. As treatment options likely expand in the coming years, that is likely to be a harder and harder bar to reach.”

Furthermore, although the safety profile was favorable overall, it “wasn’t entirely clean,” given cytokine release syndrome in three patients, a lowering of platelet counts in a couple of patients, and musculoskeletal side effects that triggered two to withdraw from the study. “Unless that changes,” he said, “that will be a barrier for some patients.”

Overall, he noted, “With the vast majority of patients being able to be diagnosed noninvasively, and with treatment options now available, we have seen a true explosion in the number of patients being diagnosed.

“But we also know that the large majority ... are still not getting diagnosed or are having huge delays in diagnosis. As such, the biggest thing we can do for patients with the disease is to continue to educate people about it,” Dr. Witteles concluded.

The study was funded by Neurimmune. Dr. Garcia-Pavia disclosed ties to Alexion, Alnylam Pharmaceuticals, AstraZeneca, Attralus, BridgeBio, General Electric, Intellia, Ionis Pharmaceuticals, Neurimmune, Novo Nordisk, and Pfizer. Dr. Witteles reported ties to Alexion, Alnylam, AstraZeneca, BridgeBio, Intellia, Ionis, Janssen, Novo Nordisk, and Pfizer.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.