Explore the vast range of titles available.

Heart failure is common in adults, accounting for substantial morbidity and mortality worldwide. Its prevalence is increasing because of ageing of the population and improved treatment of acute cardiovascular events, despite the efficacy of many therapies for patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, such as angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors, angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs), β blockers, and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists, and advanced device therapies. Combined angiotensin receptor blocker neprilysin inhibitors (ARNIs) have been associated with improvements in hospital admissions and mortality from heart failure compared with enalapril, and guidelines now recommend substitution of ACE inhibitors or ARBs with ARNIs in appropriate patients. Improved safety of left ventricular assist devices means that these are becoming more commonly used in patients with severe symptoms. Antidiabetic therapies might further improve outcomes in patients with heart failure. New drugs with novel mechanisms of action, such as cardiac myosin activators, are under investigation for patients with heart failure with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction. Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction is a heterogeneous disorder that remains incompletely understood and will continue to increase in prevalence with the ageing population. Although some data suggest that spironolactone might improve outcomes in these patients, no therapy has conclusively shown a significant effect. Hopefully, future studies will address these unmet needs for patients with heart failure. Admissions for acute heart failure continue to increase but, to date, no new therapies have improved clinical outcomes.

Impaired contractility is a feature of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction. We assessed the pharmacokinetics and effects on cardiac function and structure of the cardiac myosin activator, omecamtiv mecarbil. In this randomised, double-blind study, done at 87 sites in 13 countries, we recruited patients with stable, symptomatic chronic heart failure and left ventricular ejection fraction 40% or lower. Patients were randomly assigned equally, via an interactive web response system, to receive 25 mg oral omecamtiv mecarbil twice daily (fixed-dose group), 25 mg twice daily titrated to 50 mg twice daily guided by pharmacokinetics (pharmacokinetic-titration group), or placebo for 20 weeks. We assessed the maximum concentration of omecamtiv mecarbil in plasma (primary endpoint) and changes in cardiac function and ventricular diameters. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01786512. From March 17, 2014, to March 5, 2015, we enrolled 150 patients in the fixed-dose omecamtiv mecarbil group and 149 in the pharmacokinetic-titration and placebo groups. Mean maximum concentration of omecamtiv mecarbil at 12 weeks was 200 (SD 71) ng/mL in the fixed-dose group and 318 (129) ng/mL in the pharmacokinetic-titration group. For the pharmacokinetic-titration group versus placebo group at 20 weeks, least square mean differences were as follows: systolic ejection time 25 ms (95% CI 18–32, p<0·0001), stroke volume 3·6 mL (0·5–6·7, p=0·0217), left ventricular end-systolic diameter −1·8 mm (−2·9 to −0·6, p=0·0027), left ventricular end-diastolic diameter −1·3 mm, (−2·3 to 0·3, p=0·0128), heart rate −3·0 beats per min (−5·1 to −0·8, p=0·0070), and N-terminal pro B-type natriuretic peptide concentration in plasma −970 pg/mL (−1672 to −268, p=0·0069). The frequency of adverse clinical events did not differ between groups. Omecamtiv mecarbil dosing guided by pharmacokinetics achieved plasma concentrations associated with improved cardiac function and decreased ventricular diameter. Amgen.

Serelaxin, recombinant human relaxin-2, is a vasoactive peptide hormone with many biological and haemodynamic effects. In a pilot study, serelaxin was safe and well tolerated with positive clinical outcome signals in patients with acute heart failure. The RELAX-AHF trial tested the hypothesis that serelaxin-treated patients would have greater dyspnoea relief compared with patients treated with standard care and placebo. RELAX-AHF was an international, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, enrolling patients admitted to hospital for acute heart failure who were randomly assigned (1:1) via a central randomisation scheme blocked by study centre to standard care plus 48-h intravenous infusions of placebo or serelaxin (30 μg/kg per day) within 16 h from presentation. All patients had dyspnoea, congestion on chest radiograph, increased brain natriuretic peptide (BNP) or N-terminal prohormone of BNP, mild-to-moderate renal insufficiency, and systolic blood pressure greater than 125 mm Hg. Patients, personnel administering study drug, and those undertaking study-related assessments were masked to treatment assignment. The primary endpoints evaluating dyspnoea improvement were change from baseline in the visual analogue scale area under the curve (VAS AUC) to day 5 and the proportion of patients with moderate or marked dyspnoea improvement measured by Likert scale during the first 24 h, both analysed by intention to treat. This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00520806. 1161 patients were randomly assigned to serelaxin (n=581) or placebo (n=580). Serelaxin improved the VAS AUC primary dyspnoea endpoint (448 mm × h, 95% CI 120–775; p=0·007) compared with placebo, but had no significant effect on the other primary endpoint (Likert scale; placebo, 150 patients [26%]; serelaxin, 156 [27%]; p=0·70). No significant effects were recorded for the secondary endpoints of cardiovascular death or readmission to hospital for heart failure or renal failure (placebo, 75 events [60-day Kaplan-Meier estimate, 13·0%]; serelaxin, 76 events [13·2%]; hazard ratio [HR] 1·02 [0·74–1·41], p=0·89] or days alive out of the hospital up to day 60 (placebo, 47·7 [SD 12·1] days; serelaxin, 48·3 [11·6]; p=0·37). Serelaxin treatment was associated with significant reductions of other prespecified additional endpoints, including fewer deaths at day 180 (placebo, 65 deaths; serelaxin, 42; HR 0·63, 95% CI 0·42–0·93; p=0·019). Treatment of acute heart failure with serelaxin was associated with dyspnoea relief and improvement in other clinical outcomes, but had no effect on readmission to hospital. Serelaxin treatment was well tolerated and safe, supported by the reduced 180-day mortality. Corthera, a Novartis affiliate company.

Most patients admitted for acute heart failure have normal or increase blood pressure. Relaxin is a natural human peptide that affects multiple vascular control pathways, suggesting potential mechanisms of benefit for such patients. We assessed the dose response of relaxin's effect on symptom relief, other clinical outcomes, and safety. In a placebo-controlled, parallel-group, dose-ranging study, 234 patients with acute heart failure, dyspnoea, congestion on chest radiograph, and increased brain natriuretic peptide (BNP) or N-terminal prohormone of BNP, mild-to-moderate renal insufficiency, and systolic blood pressure greater than 125 mm Hg were recruited from 54 sites in eight countries and enrolled within 16 h of presentation. Patients were randomly assigned, in a double-blind manner via a telephone-based interactive voice response system, to standard care plus 48-h intravenous infusion of placebo (n=62) or relaxin 10 μg/kg (n=40), 30 μg/kg (n=43), 100 μg/kg (n=39), or 250 μg/kg (n=50) per day. Several clinical endpoints were explored to assess whether intravenous relaxin should be pursued in larger studies of acute heart failure, to identify an optimum dose, and to help to assess endpoint selection and power calculations. Analysis was by modified intention to treat. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00520806. In the modified intention-to-treat population, 61 patients were assessed in the placebo group, 40 in the relaxin 10 μg/kg per day group, 42 in the relaxin 30 μg/kg per day group, 37 in the relaxin 100 μg/kg per day group, and 49 in the relaxin 250 μg/kg per day group. Dyspnoea improved with relaxin 30 μg/kg compared with placebo, as assessed by Likert scale (17 of 42 patients [40%] moderately or markedly improved at 6 h, 12 h, and 24 h vs 14 of 61 [23%]; p=0·044) and visual analogue scale through day 14 (8214 mm×h [SD 8712] vs 4622 mm×h [9003]; p=0·053). Length of stay was 10·2 days (SD 6·1) for relaxin-treated patients versus 12·0 days (7·3) for those given placebo, and days alive out of hospital were 47·9 (10·1) versus 44·2 (14·2). Cardiovascular death or readmission due to heart or renal failure at day 60 was reduced with relaxin (2·6% [95% CI 0·4–16·8] vs 17·2% [9·6–29·6]; p=0·053). The number of serious adverse events was similar between groups. When given to patients with acute heart failure and normal-to-increased blood pressure, relaxin was associated with favourable relief of dyspnoea and other clinical outcomes, with acceptable safety. Corthera (USA).

Understanding of contemporary pharmacological therapy for chronic heart failure continues to evolve. In this Review, we discuss how findings from clinical trials have caused the roles of old therapies to be expanded and past treatment algorithms to be challenged. Several trials investigating preserved ejection fraction as a measure of heart failure had disappointing results, although important studies are in progress. Many novel therapeutic approaches for heart failure have emerged and are discussed in this review. The pharmacological treatments for heart failure continue to change, with many exciting possibilities for the future.

Many patients with heart failure remain symptomatic and have a poor prognosis despite existing treatments. Decreases in myocardial contractility and shortening of ventricular systole are characteristic of systolic heart failure and might be improved by a new therapeutic class, cardiac myosin activators. We report the first study of the cardiac myosin activator, omecamtiv mecarbil, in patients with systolic heart failure. We undertook a double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover, dose-ranging, phase 2 trial investigating the effects of omecamtiv mecarbil (formerly CK-1827452), given intravenously for 2, 24, or 72 h to patients with stable heart failure and left ventricular systolic dysfunction receiving guideline-indicated treatment. Clinical assessment (including vital signs, echocardiograms, and electrocardiographs) and testing of plasma drug concentrations took place during and after completion of each infusion. The primary aim was to assess safety and tolerability of omecamtiv mecarbil. This study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00624442. 45 patients received 151 infusions of active drug or placebo. Placebo-corrected, concentration-dependent increases in left ventricular ejection time (up to an 80 ms increase from baseline) and stroke volume (up to 9·7 mL) were recorded, associated with a small reduction in heart rate (up to 2·7 beats per min; p<0·0001 for all three measures). Higher plasma concentrations were also associated with reductions in end-systolic (decrease of 15 mL at >500 ng/mL, p=0·0026) and end-diastolic volumes (16 mL, p=0·0096) that might have been more pronounced with increased duration of infusion. Cardiac ischaemia emerged at high plasma concentrations (two patients, plasma concentrations roughly 1750 ng/mL and 1350 ng/mL). For patients tolerant of all study drug infusions, no consistent pattern of adverse events with either dose or duration emerged. Omecamtiv mecarbil improved cardiac function in patients with heart failure caused by left ventricular dysfunction and could be the first in class of a new therapeutic agent. Cytokinetics Inc.

Decreased systolic function is central to the pathogenesis of heart failure in millions of patients worldwide, but mechanism-related adverse effects restrict existing inotropic treatments. This study tested the hypothesis that omecamtiv mecarbil, a selective cardiac myosin activator, will augment cardiac function in human beings. In this dose-escalating, crossover study, 34 healthy men received a 6-h double-blind intravenous infusion of omecamtiv mecarbil or placebo once a week for 4 weeks. Each sequence consisted of three ascending omecamtiv mecarbil doses (ranging from 0·005 to 1·0 mg/kg per h) with a placebo infusion randomised into the sequence. Vital signs, blood samples, electrocardiographs (ECGs), and echocardiograms were obtained before, during, and after each infusion. The primary aim was to establish maximum tolerated dose (the highest infusion rate tolerated by at least eight participants) and plasma concentrations of omecamtiv mecarbil; secondary aims were evaluation of pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic characteristics, safety, and tolerability. This study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01380223. The maximum tolerated dose of omecamtiv mecarbil was 0·5 mg/kg per h. Omecamtiv mecarbil infusion resulted in dose-related and concentration-related increases in systolic ejection time (mean increase from baseline at maximum tolerated dose, 85 [SD 5] ms), the most sensitive indicator of drug effect ( r 2=0·99 by dose), associated with increases in stroke volume (15 [2] mL), fractional shortening (8% [1]), and ejection fraction (7% [1]; all p<0·0001). Omecamtiv mecarbil increased atrial contractile function, and there were no clinically relevant changes in diastolic function. There were no clinically significant dose-related adverse effects on vital signs, serum chemistries, ECGs, or adverse events up to a dose of 0·625 mg/kg per h. The dose-limiting toxic effect was myocardial ischaemia due to excessive prolongation of systolic ejection time. These first-in-man data show highly dose-dependent augmentation of left ventricular systolic function in response to omecamtiv mecarbil and support potential clinical use of the drug in patients with heart failure. Cytokinetics Inc.

Aims Clinical studies of vagal nerve stimulation (VNS) for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction have had mixed results to date. We sought to compare VNS delivery and associated changes in symptoms and function in autonomic regulation therapy via left or right cervical vagus nerve stimulation in patients with chronic heart failure (ANTHEM‐HF), increase of vagal tone in heart failure (INOVATE‐HF), and neural cardiac therapy for heart failure (NECTAR‐HF) for hypothesis generation. Methods and results Descriptive statistics were used to analyse data from the public domain for differences in proportions using Pearson's chi‐square test, differences in mean values using Student's unpaired t‐test, and differences in changes of mean values using two‐sample t‐tests. Guideline‐directed medical therapy recommendations were similar across studies. Fewer patients were in New York Heart Association 3, and baseline heart rate (HR) was higher in ANTHEM‐HF. In INOVATE‐HF, VNS was aimed at peripheral neural targets, using closed‐loop delivery that required synchronization of VNS to R‐wave sensing by an intracardiac lead. Pulse frequency was low (1–2 Hz) because of a timing schedule allowing ≤3 pulses of VNS following at most 25% of detected R waves. NECTAR‐HF and ANTHEM‐HF used open‐loop VNS delivery (i.e. independent of any external signal) aimed at both central and peripheral targets. In NECTAR‐HF, VNS delivery at 20 Hz caused off‐target effects that limited VNS up‐titration in a majority of patients. In ANTHEM‐HF, VNS delivery at 10 Hz allowed up‐titration until changes in HR dynamics were confirmed. Six months after VNS titration, significant improvements in both HR and HR variability occurred only in ANTHEM‐HF. When ANTHEM‐HF and NECTAR‐HF were compared, greater improvements from baseline were observed in ANTHEM‐HF in standard deviation in normal‐to‐normal R‐R intervals (94 ± 26 to 111 ± 50 vs. 146 ± 48 to 130 ± 52 ms; P < 0.001), left ventricular ejection fraction (32 ± 7 to 37 ± 0.4 vs. 31 ± 6 to 33 ± 6; P < 0.05), and Minnesota Living with Heart Failure mean score (40 ± 14 to 21 ± 10 vs. 44 ± 22 to 36 ± 21; P < 0.002). When compared with INOVATE‐HF, greater improvement in 6‐min walk distance was observed in ANTHEM‐HF (287 ± 66 to 346 ± 78 vs. 304 ± 111 to 334 ± 111 m; P < 0.04). Conclusions In this post‐hoc analysis, differences in patient demographics were seen and may have caused the differential responses in symptoms and function observed in association with VNS. Major differences in technology platforms, neural targets, VNS delivery, and HR and HR variability responses could have also potentially played a very important role. Further study is underway in a randomized controlled trial with these considerations in mind.

In international trials, glucagon-like protein-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RAs) and sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors (SGLT2Is) were effective in improving cardiovascular (CV) outcomes. We assessed the effect of GLP-1RAs and SGLT2Is treatment effect on CV endpoints by geographical region in multiple international trials using random effects weighted least squares meta-regressions. The estimated effects of both SGLT2Is and GLP-1RAs on major adverse CV events (MACE) in North America (SGLT2Is n = 12,399, HR 0.90, 95% CI 0.81-1.01; GLP-1RAs n = 12,515, HR 0.95, 95% CI 0.83- 1.09) and in Europe (SGLT2Is n = 19,435, HR 0.93, 95% CI 0.85-1.02; GLP-1RAs n = 22,812, HR 0.88, 95% CI 0.79-0.99) were numerically lower but not statistically different to the rest of the world (ROW) (SGLT2Is n = 15,127, HR 0.83, 95% CI 0.75-0.92, p-value for interaction 0.26; GLP-1RAs n = 17,494, HR 0.82, 95% CI 0.73-0.92, p-value for interaction 0.28). Effects of SGLT2Is on heart failure readmission or CV death varied significantly by region (P = 0.0094). The effect of SGLT2Is was significantly smaller in Europe (n = 18,653, HR 0.86, 95% CI 0.78-0.95) than in the ROW (n = 12,463, HR 0.68, 95% CI 0.61-0.76, P = 0.0024). The smaller effect in North America (n = 9776, HR 0.76, 95% CI 0.66-0.87) did not differ significantly from that in the ROW (P = 0.2370). The effects of SGLT2Is on HF events are larger in the ROW. Further analyses and studies are needed to better elucidate the differential effects of SGLTIs and GLP-1RAs by geographical regions.

The sodium–glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor empagliflozin reduces the risk of cardiovascular death or heart failure hospitalization in patients with chronic heart failure, but whether empagliflozin also improves clinical outcomes when initiated in patients who are hospitalized for acute heart failure is unknown. In this double-blind trial (EMPULSE; NCT04157751 ), 530 patients with a primary diagnosis of acute de novo or decompensated chronic heart failure regardless of left ventricular ejection fraction were randomly assigned to receive empagliflozin 10 mg once daily or placebo. Patients were randomized in-hospital when clinically stable (median time from hospital admission to randomization, 3 days) and were treated for up to 90 days. The primary outcome of the trial was clinical benefit, defined as a hierarchical composite of death from any cause, number of heart failure events and time to first heart failure event, or a 5 point or greater difference in change from baseline in the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire Total Symptom Score at 90 days, as assessed using a win ratio. More patients treated with empagliflozin had clinical benefit compared with placebo (stratified win ratio, 1.36; 95% confidence interval, 1.09–1.68; P  = 0.0054), meeting the primary endpoint. Clinical benefit was observed for both acute de novo and decompensated chronic heart failure and was observed regardless of ejection fraction or the presence or absence of diabetes. Empagliflozin was well tolerated; serious adverse events were reported in 32.3% and 43.6% of the empagliflozin- and placebo-treated patients, respectively. These findings indicate that initiation of empagliflozin in patients hospitalized for acute heart failure is well tolerated and results in significant clinical benefit in the 90 days after starting treatment. In a multinational trial, empagliflozin has clinical benefit when administered to hospitalized patients with acute heart failure, extending the reach of SGLT2 inhibitor therapy to this patient population.