| 1. |
|
|
| 2. |
|
|
| 3. |
|
|
| 4. |
- Filippatos, G. S., et al.
(author)
-
Independent academic Data Monitoring Committees for clinical trials in cardiovascular and cardiometabolic diseases
- 2017
-
In: European Journal of Heart Failure. - : Wiley. - 1388-9842 .- 1879-0844. ; 19:4, s. 449-456
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Data Monitoring Committees (DMCs) play a crucial role in the conducting of clinical trials to ensure the safety of study participants and to maintain a trial's scientific integrity. Generally accepted standards exist for DMC composition and operational conduct. However, some relevant issues are not specifically addressed in current guidance documents, resulting in uncertainties regarding optimal approaches for communication between the DMC, steering committee, and sponsors, release of information, and liability protection for DMC members. The Heart Failure Association (HFA) of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC), in collaboration with the Clinical Trials Unit of the European Heart Agency (EHA) of the ESC convened a meeting of international experts in DMCs for cardiovascular and cardiometabolic clinical trials to identify specific issues and develop steps to resolve challenges faced by DMCs.The main recommendations from the meeting relate to methodological consistency, independence, managing conflicts of interest, liability protection, and training of future DMC members. This paper summarizes the key outcomes from this expert meeting, and describes the core set of activities that might be further developed and ultimately implemented by the ESC, HFA, and other interested ESC constituent bodies. The HFA will continue to work with stakeholders in cardiovascular and cardiometabolic clinical research to promote these goals.
|
|
| 5. |
|
|
| 6. |
- Kotecha, D., et al.
(author)
-
Effect of age and sex on efficacy and tolerability of beta blockers in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction: individual patient data meta-analysis
- 2016
-
In: Bmj-British Medical Journal. - : BMJ. - 1756-1833. ; 353
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- OBJECTIVES To determine the efficacy and tolerability of beta blockers in a broad age range of women and men with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) by pooling individual patient data from placebo controlled randomised trials. Prospectively designed meta-analysis of individual patient data from patients aged 40-85 in sinus rhythm at baseline, with left ventricular ejection fraction < 0.45. The primary outcome was all cause mortality; the major secondary outcome was admission to hospital for heart failure. Analysis was by intention to treat with an adjusted one stage Cox proportional hazards model. Compared with placebo, beta blockers were effective in reducing mortality across all ages: hazard ratios were 0.66 (95% confidence interval 0.53 to 0.83) for the first quarter of age distribution (median age 50); 0.71 (0.58 to 0.87) for the second quarter (median age 60); 0.65 (0.53 to 0.78) for the third quarter (median age 68); and 0.77 (0.64 to 0.92) for the fourth quarter (median age 75). There was no significant interaction when age was modelled continuously (P=0.1), and the absolute reduction in mortality was 4.3% over a median follow-up of 1.3 years (number needed to treat 23). Admission to hospital for heart failure was significantly reduced by beta blockers, although this effect was attenuated at older ages (interaction P=0.05). There was no evidence of an interaction between treatment effect and sex in any age group. Drug discontinuation was similar regardless of treatment allocation, age, or sex (14.4% in those give beta blockers, 15.6% in those receiving placebo). Irrespective of age or sex, patients with HFrEF in sinus rhythm should receive beta blockers to reduce the risk of death and admission to hospital.
|
|
| 7. |
|
|
| 8. |
- Zannad, F., et al.
(author)
-
Clinical outcome endpoints in heart failure trials: a European Society of Cardiology Heart Failure Association consensus document
- 2013
-
In: European Journal of Heart Failure. - : Wiley. - 1388-9842 .- 1879-0844. ; 15:10, s. 1082-1094
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Endpoint selection is a critically important step in clinical trial design. It poses major challenges for investigators, regulators, and study sponsors, and it also has important clinical and practical implications for physicians and patients. Clinical outcomes of interest in heart failure trials include all-cause mortality, cause-specific mortality, relevant non-fatal morbidity (e.g. all-cause and cause-specific hospitalization), composites capturing both morbidity and mortality, safety, symptoms, functional capacity, and patient-reported outcomes. Each of these endpoints has strengths and weaknesses that create controversies regarding which is most appropriate in terms of clinical importance, sensitivity, reliability, and consistency. Not surprisingly, a lack of consensus exists within the scientific community regarding the optimal endpoint(s) for both acute and chronic heart failure trials. In an effort to address these issues, the Heart Failure Association of the European Society of Cardiology (HFA-ESC) convened a group of expert heart failure clinical investigators, biostatisticians, regulators, and pharmaceutical industry scientists (Nice, France, 12-13 February 2012) to evaluate the challenges of defining heart failure endpoints in clinical trials and to develop a consensus framework. This report summarizes the group's recommendations for achieving common views on heart failure endpoints in clinical trials.
|
|
| 9. |
- Cleland, J. G. F., et al.
(author)
-
Beta-blockers for heart failure with reduced, mid-range, and preserved ejection fraction: an individual patient-level analysis of double-blind randomized trials
- 2018
-
In: European Heart Journal. - : Oxford University Press (OUP). - 0195-668X .- 1522-9645. ; 39:1, s. 26-35
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Aims Recent guidelines recommend that patients with heart failure and left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) 40-49% should be managed similar to LVEF >= 50%. We investigated the effect of beta-blockers according to LVEF in double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trials. Methods and results Individual patient data meta-analysis of 11 trials, stratified by baseline LVEF and heart rhythm (Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT0083244; PROSPERO: CRD42014010012). Primary outcomes were all-cause mortality and cardiovascular death over 1.3 years median follow-up, with an intention-to-treat analysis. For 14 262 patients in sinus rhythm, median LVEF was 27% (interquartile range 21-33%), including 575 patients with LVEF 40-49% and 244 >= 50%. Beta-blockers reduced all-cause and cardiovascular mortality compared to placebo in sinus rhythm, an effect that was consistent across LVEF strata, except for those in the small subgroup with LVEF >= 50%. For LVEF 40-49%, death occurred in 21/292 [7.2%] randomized to beta-blockers compared to 35/283 [12.4%] with placebo; adjusted hazard ratio (HR) 0.59 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.34-1.03]. Cardiovascular death occurred in 13/292 [4.5%] with beta-blockers and 26/283 [9.2%] with placebo; adjusted HR 0.48 (95% CI 0.24-0.97). Over a median of 1.0 years following randomization (n = 4601), LVEF increased with beta-blockers in all groups in sinus rhythm except LVEF >= 50%. For patients in atrial fibrillation at baseline (n = 3050), beta-blockers increased LVEF when < 50% at baseline, but did not improve prognosis. Conculations Beta-blockers improve LVEF and prognosis for patients with heart failure in sinus rhythm with a reduced LVEF. The data are most robust for LVEF < 40%, but similar benefit was observed in the subgroup of patients with LVEF 40-49%.
|
|
| 10. |
- Kotecha, D., et al.
(author)
-
Heart Rate and Rhythm and the Benefit of Beta-Blockers in Patients With Heart Failure
- 2017
-
In: Journal of the American College of Cardiology. - : Elsevier BV. - 0735-1097. ; 69:24, s. 2885-2896
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- BACKGROUND The relationship between mortality and heart rate remains unclear for patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction in either sinus rhythm or atrial fibrillation (AF). OBJECTIVES This analysis explored the prognostic importance of heart rate in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction in randomized controlled trials comparing beta-blockers and placebo. METHODS The Beta-Blockers in Heart Failure Collaborative Group performed a meta-analysis of harmonized individual patient data from 11 double-blind randomized controlled trials. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality, analyzed with Cox proportional hazard ratios (HR) modeling heart rate measured at baseline and approximately 6 months post-randomization. RESULTS A higher heart rate at baseline was associated with greater all-cause mortality for patients in sinus rhythm (n = 14,166; adjusted HR: 1.11 per 10 beats/min; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.07 to 1.15; p < 0.0001) but not in AF (n = 3,034; HR: 1.03 per 10 beats/min; 95% CI: 0.97 to 1.08; p = 0.38). Beta-blockers reduced ventricular rate by 12 beats/min in both sinus rhythm and AF. Mortality was lower for patients in sinus rhythm randomized to beta-blockers (HR: 0.73 vs. placebo; 95% CI: 0.67 to 0.79; p < 0.001), regardless of baseline heart rate (interaction p = 0.35). Beta-blockers had no effect on mortality in patients with AF (HR: 0.96, 95% CI: 0.81 to 1.12; p = 0.58) at any heart rate (interaction p = 0.48). A lower achieved resting heart rate, irrespective of treatment, was associated with better prognosis only for patients in sinus rhythm (HR: 1.16 per 10 beats/min increase, 95% CI: 1.11 to 1.22; p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS Regardless of pre-treatment heart rate, beta-blockers reduce mortality in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction in sinus rhythm. Achieving a lower heart rate is associated with better prognosis, but only for those in sinus rhythm. (C) 2017 by the American College of Cardiology Foundation.
|
|
