Search

Background: A primary goal in treating obstructive hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (oHCM) is to improve patients' health status: their symptoms, function, and quality of life. The health status benefits of aficamten, a novel cardiac myosin inhibitor, have not been comprehensively described., Objectives: This study sought to determine the effect of aficamten on patient-reported health status, including symptoms of fatigue, shortness of breath, chest pain, physical and social limitations, and quality of life., Methods: SEQUOIA-HCM (Phase 3 Trial to Evaluate the Efficacy and Safety of Aficamten Compared to Placebo in Adults With Symptomatic oHCM) randomized symptomatic adults with oHCM to 24 weeks of aficamten (n = 142) or placebo (n = 140), followed by a 4-week washout. The Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ) and Seattle Angina Questionnaire 7-item (SAQ7) were serially administered. Changes in mean KCCQ-Overall Summary Score (KCCQ-OSS) and SAQ7-Summary Score (SAQ7-SS) from baseline to 24 weeks and following treatment withdrawal were compared using linear regression adjusted for baseline scores and randomization strata. Proportions of patients with clinically important changes were compared., Results: Among 282 participants, the mean age was 59 ± 13 years, 115 (41%) were female, and 223 (79%) were White. Baseline KCCQ-OSS (69.3 ± 20.1 vs 67.3 ± 18.8) and SAQ7-SS (72.0 ± 21.0 vs 72.4 ± 18.3) were similar between aficamten and placebo groups. Treatment with aficamten, compared with placebo, improved both the mean KCCQ-OSS (13.3 ± 16.3 vs 6.1 ± 12.6; mean difference: 7.9; 95% CI: 4.8-11.0; P < 0.001) and SAQ7-SS (11.6 ± 17.4 vs 3.8 ± 14.4; mean difference: 7.8; 95% CI: 4.7-11.0; P < 0.001) at 24 weeks, with benefits emerging within 4 weeks. No heterogeneity in treatment effect was found across subgroups. A much larger proportion of participants experienced a very large health status improvement (≥20 points) with aficamten vs placebo (KCCQ-OSS: 29.7% vs 12.4%, number needed to treat: 5.8; SAQ7-SS: 31.2% vs 13.9%, number needed to treat: 5.8). Participants' health status worsened significantly more after withdrawal from aficamten than placebo (KCCQ-OSS: -16.2 ± 19.0 vs -3.0 ± 9.6; P < 0.001; SAQ7-SS: -17.4 ± 21.4 vs -2.5 ± 13.3), further confirming a causal effect of aficamten., Conclusions: In patients with symptomatic oHCM, treatment with aficamten resulted in markedly improved health status, including significant improvement in chest pain-related health status, than placebo. (Phase 3 Trial to Evaluate the Efficacy and Safety of Aficamten Compared to Placebo in Adults With Symptomatic oHCM [SEQUOIA-HCM]; NCT05186818)., Competing Interests: Funding Support and Author Disclosures The SEQUOIA-HCM study was funded by Cytokinetics, Incorporated. Study design and data analysis were supported by the funder and aided by coauthors. Manuscript drafting was completed independently but reviewed by the funder. Dr Sherrod has received support from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (award number T32HL110837). Dr Saberi has received consultant/advisor fees from Bristol Myers Squibb; and has received research grants from Bristol Myers Squibb, Cytokinetics, Novartis, and Actelion Pharmaceuticals. Dr Nassif has received research and grant support from AstraZeneca and Cytokinetics; and has received consulting/advisory fees from Vifor and Cytokinetics. Dr Coats has received speaker fees from Alnylam and Pfizer; and has received advisory fees from Cytokinetics and Roche Diagnostics. Dr Garcia-Pavia has received speaker fees from Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Novo Nordisk, Ionis, BridgeBio, Bristol Myers Squibb, Intellia, and Alnylam; has received consultant/advisor fees from Pfizer, Alnylam, MyoKardia/Bristol Myers Squibb, Cytokinetics, Neuroimmune, Intellia, Ionis, BridgeBio, Lexeo, Rocket, Attralus, and AstraZeneca; and has received research/educational grants to his institution from Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Novo Nordisk, BridgeBio, and Alnylam. Dr Januzzi has received funding from the Hutter Family Professorship; has served as a board member for Imbria Pharmaceuticals; has served as a Director at Jana Care; has received grant support from Abbott, Applied Therapeutics, HeartFlow, Innolife, and Roche Diagnostics; has received consulting income from Abbott, Beckman, Bristol Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, Merck, Roche Diagnostics, and Siemens; and has participated in clinical endpoint committees/Data Safety Monitoring Boards for Abbott, AbbVie, CVRx, Intercept, and Takeda. Dr Lewis has received research funding from the National Institutes of Health (R01-HL 151841, R01-HL131029, and R01-HL159514), American Heart Association (15GPSGC-24800006), Amgen, Cytokinetics, Applied Therapeutics, AstraZeneca, and SoniVie; has received honoraria for Advisory Boards from Pfizer, Merck, Boehringer Ingelheim, Novartis, American Regent, Cyclerion, Cytokinetics, and Amgen; and has received royalties from UpToDate for scientific content authorship related to exercise physiology. Dr Maron has received consultant/advisor fees from Imbria, Edgewise, and BioMarin; and has received Steering Committee fees for SEQUIOA-HCM from Cytokinetics, Incorporated. Dr Olivotto has received Speakers Bureau fees from Bristol Myers Squibb, Amicus, and Genzyme; has received consultant/advisor fees from Bristol Myers Squibb, Cytokinetics, Sanofi Genzyme, Amicus, Bayer, Tenaya, Rocket Pharma, and Lexeo; and has received research grant funding from Bristol Myers Squibb, Cytokinetics, Sanofi Genzyme, Amicus, Bayer, Menarini International, Chiesi, and Boston Scientific. Drs Butzner, Jacoby, Heitner, Kupfer, Malik, and Meng, and Ms Wohltman are employees of Cytokinetics Incorporated; and hold stock in Cytokinetics Incorporated. Dr Spertus has provided consultative services on patient-reported outcomes and evidence evaluation to Alnylam, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Merck, Janssen, Bristol Myers Squibb, 4DT Medical, Terumo, Cytokinetics, Imbria, and United Healthcare; holds research grants from Bristol Myers Squibb, and Janssen; owns the copyrights to the Seattle Angina Questionnaire, Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire, and Peripheral Artery Questionnaire; and has served on the Board of Directors for Blue Cross Blue Shield of Kansas City. All other authors have reported that they have no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are relevant independent outcomes in heart failure (HF) care and are predictive of subsequent hospitalization and death in HF. The Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ) and the Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire (MLHFQ) are the 2 most widely adopted PROMs specific to HF. We compared their prognostic abilities in a prospective cohort of HF patients. A prospective cohort of subjects from a single-center registry was analyzed with regard to baseline KCCQ and MLHFQ scores and the outcomes of death, transplant, or left ventricular assist device implantation and hospitalization. A total of 516 subjects with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (HFrEF) and 151 subjects with preserved left ventricular ejection fraction (HFpEF) were included. Discrimination was assessed using c-statistics based on time-to-event analyses and receiver-operator curves. The additive contribution of MLHFQ was assessed through the change in c-statistic, incremental discrimination index, and category-free net reclassification index. Overall, KCCQ was superior to MLHFQ for predicting death/transplant/ventricular assist device (c-statistic 0.702 [0.666 to 0.738] and 0.658 [0.621 to 0.695] respectively, p value for difference <0.001) and hospitalization (c-statistic 0.640 [0.613 to 0.666] and 0.624 [0.597 to 0.651], respectively, p value for difference 0.022). However, this difference was statistically nonsignificant in the HFpEF group alone. When analyzing the additional prognostic information afforded by adding MLHFQ to KCCQ in the overall, HFrEF, and HFpEF groups there was no significant improvement, although adding KCCQ to MLHFQ did significantly improve risk stratification. Scoring based upon the abbreviated KCCQ-12 did not reduce the prognostic accuracy of KCCQ. In conclusion, KCCQ is more prognostic of death/transplant/left ventricular assist device and hospitalization than MLHFQ in a combined cohort of patients with HFrEF and HFpEF, although the effect in HFpEF was less pronounced. KCCQ should be the preferred PROM for patients with HF if prognostication is a desired goal of using the PROMs., (Copyright © 2018. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Background: Although a key treatment goal for patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction is to optimize their health status (their symptoms, function, and quality of life), the variability across outpatient practices in achieving this goal is unknown., Methods and Results: In the CHAMP-HF (Change the Management of Patients With Heart Failure) registry, associations between baseline practice characteristics and Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ) Overall Summary (OS) and Symptom Frequency (SF) scores were assessed in 3494 patients across 140 US practices using hierarchical regression after accounting for 23 patient and 11 treatment characteristics. We then calculated an adjusted median odds ratio to quantify the average difference in likelihood that a patient would have excellent (KCCQ-OS, ≥75) health status or minimal (monthly or fewer) symptoms (KCCQ-SF, ≥75) when treated at one practice versus another, at random. The mean (±SD) KCCQ-OS and KCCQ-SF were 64.2±24 and 68.9±25.6, with 40% (n=1380) and 50% (n=1760) having KCCQ scores ≥75, respectively. The adjusted median odds ratio across practices, for KCCQ-OS ≥75, was 1.70 (95% confidence interval, 1.54-1.99; P <0.001) indicating a median 70% higher odds of a patient having good-to-excellent health status when treated at one random practice versus another. In regard to KCCQ-SF, the adjusted median odds ratio for KCCQ-SF ≥75 was 1.54 (95% confidence interval, 1.41-1.76; P =0.001)., Conclusions: In a large, contemporary registry of outpatients with chronic heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, we observed significant practice-level variability in patients' health status. Quantifying patients' health status as a measure of quality should be explored as a foundation for improving care., Clinical Trial Registration: URL: https://www.centerwatch.com. Unique identifier: TX144901., (© 2018 American Heart Association, Inc.)

Background: Quantifying quality of life (QoL) after left ventricular assist device (LVAD) remains challenging. Heart failure (HF)-specific health status measures are ideal for assessing symptoms of HF; however, if patients' QoL is limited by other factors, they may experience improved HF-specific QoL but no concurrent improvement in generic QoL. We sought to examine and predict discrepancies between disease-specific and generic QoL measures after LVAD., Methods: We examined HF-specific and generic QoL with the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ) and EuroQol-5D Visual Analog Scale (VAS), respectively, among 1,888 patients with advanced heart failure who underwent LVAD implantation from 2012 to 2014 as part of the INTERMACS registry., Results: Both measures showed substantial improvement, on average, at 6 months after LVAD, with mean changes of 32.7 ± 25.0 and 27.6 ± 27.4, respectively. Among the 1,539 patients (81.5%) with moderate/large improvement in KCCQ, 334 (21.7%) had discordant changes in generic QoL (i.e., VAS did not substantially increase despite improvement in KCCQ). In a multivariable logistic regression model, baseline VAS score was the strongest predictor of KCCQ-VAS discordance, whereas post-LVAD complications were not significant predictors of discordance., Conclusions: Most patients have major improvements in both HF-specific and generic QoL after LVAD implantation, and discordance in these measures after LVAD is uncommon. When it did occur, discordance was primarily observed in patients who reported good generic QoL on the VAS before LVAD (despite substantial impairment due to congestive HF). These results support the continued use of HF-specific health status measures to monitor QoL before and after LVAD implantation., (Copyright © 2017 International Society for the Heart and Lung Transplantation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

AimsImproving the health status (symptoms, function, and quality of life) of patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) is a primary treatment goal. Angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitors (ARNI) improve short-term health status in clinical practice, but the sustainability of these improvements is unknown.Methods and resultsIn CHAMP-HF, a multicentre observational study of outpatients with HFrEF, patients initiated on ARNI were propensity score matched 1:2 to patients not using ARNI with Cox regression modelling time to ARNI initiation, adjusted for sociodemographic and clinical variables, medical history, medications, and baseline Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ) scores. Repeated measures models for the overall KCCQ score and each domain compared the health status trajectories of patients initiated on ARNI vs. not. Among 3930 participants, 746 (19.0%) began ARNI, of whom 576 were matched to 1152 non-ARNI patients. Prior to matching, participants initiated on ARNI were younger, non-Hispanic, had lower EFs, more commonly had a history of ventricular arrhythmia, were less likely to be taking an ACEI/ARB, and more likely to be treated with beta-blockers and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists. There were no differences after matching. In the matched cohort, participants initiated on ARNI experienced improved health status by 3 months that persisted through 12 months [KCCQ Overall Summary Score (OSS) = 73.4 vs. 70.8; P

AimsThe aim of our study was to investigate heterogeneity of health status treatment response of sacubitril/valsartan in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF).Methods and resultsWe leveraged data from CHAMP-HF, an observational registry of 140 US clinics and 5026 outpatients with chronic HFrEF, where health status was serially assessed using the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ)-12 Overall Summary Scale (range from 0 to 100; ≥20-point improvement is a very large improvement). In 334 patients newly initiated on sacubitril/valsartan, we used hierarchical multivariable logistic regression (13 patient-level characteristics as well as baseline KCCQ-12 score) to calculate the odds ratio (OR) of any characteristic being associated with a very large health status improvement. A total of 104/334 (31.1%) of patients achieved the primary endpoint, where only worse baseline health status [KCCQ-12 score of 0-60 points had an OR = 0.86/5-point higher score (CI 0.79, 0.93)], and those with a KCCQ-12 score of 60-80 points had an OR = 0.61/5-point higher score (0.45-0.82), which was associated with a very large benefit. No other patient characteristic was associated with a very large health status improvement (P > 0.05).ConclusionsWe found that, after initiation of sacubitril/valsartan, only worse baseline health status was associated with very large health status improvement. Accordingly, a trial of therapy-particularly in those with worse symptoms, function, and quality of life-and assessing treatment response are likely to be the best prospective strategy.

ObjectivesThis study sought to describe the short-term health status benefits of angiotensin-neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI) therapy in patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF).BackgroundAlthough therapy with sacubitril/valsartan, a neprilysin inhibitor, improved patients' health status (compared with enalapril) at 8 months in the PARADIGM-HF (Prospective Comparison of ARNI with ACE inhibitor to Determine Impact on Global Mortality and Morbidity in Heart Failure) study, the early impact of ARNI on patients' symptoms, functions, and quality of life is unknown.MethodsHealth status was assessed by using the 12-item Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ) in 3,918 outpatients with HFrEF and left ventricular ejection fraction ≤40% across 140 U.S. centers in the CHAMP-HF (Change the Management of Patients with Heart Failure) registry. ARNI therapy was initiated in 508 patients who were matched 1:2 to 1,016 patients who were not initiated on ARNI (no-ARNI), using a nonparsimonious time-dependent propensity score (6 sociodemographic factors, 23 clinical characteristics), prior KCCQ overall summary (KCCQ-OS) score, and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor/angiotensin receptor blocker status.ResultsMultivariate linear regression demonstrated a greater mean improvement in KCCQ-OS in patients initiated on ARNI therapy (5.3 ± 19 vs. 2.5 ± 17.4, respectively; p

ObjectivesThe aim of this study was to use a multicenter, observational outpatient registry of patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) to describe the association between changes in patients' medications with changes in health status.BackgroundAlleviating symptoms and improving function and quality of life for patients with HFrEF are primary treatment goals and potential indicators of quality. Whether titrating medications in routine clinical care improves patients' health status is unknown.MethodsThe association of any change in HFrEF medications with 3-month change in health status, as measured using the 12-item Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire Overall Summary Scale, was determined in unadjusted and multivariate-adjusted (25 clinical characteristics, baseline health status) models using hierarchical linear regression.ResultsAmong 3,313 outpatients with HFrEF from 140 centers, 21.9% had medication changes. Three months later, 23.7% and 46.4% had clinically meaningfully worse (≥5-point decrease) and improved (≥5-point increase) Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire Overall Summary Scale scores. The 3-month median change in Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire Overall Summary Scale score for patients whose HFrEF medications were changed was significantly larger (7.3 points; interquartile range: -3.1 to 20.8 points) than in patients whose medications were not changed (3.1 points; interquartile range: -4.7 to 12.5 points) (adjusted difference 3.0 points; 95% confidence interval: 1.4 to 4.6 points; p

BACKGROUND:Patients with heart failure (HF) have a high burden of symptoms and physical limitations, regardless of ejection fraction (EF). Whether the benefits of SGLT2 (sodium-glucose cotransporter-2) inhibitors on these outcomes vary across the full range of EF remains unclear.METHODS:Patient-level data were pooled from the DEFINE-HF trial (Dapagliflozin Effects on Biomarkers, Symptoms, and Functional Status in Patients With Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction) of 263 participants with reduced EF (≤40%), and PRESERVED-HF trial (Effects of Dapagliflozin on Biomarkers, Symptoms and Functional Status in Patients With Preserved Ejection Fraction Heart Failure) of 324 participants with preserved EF (≥45%). Both were randomized, double-blind 12-week trials of dapagliflozin versus placebo, recruiting participants with New York Heart Association class II or higher and elevated natriuretic peptides. The effect of dapagliflozin on the change in the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ) Clinical Summary Score (CSS) at 12 weeks was tested with ANCOVA adjusted for sex, baseline KCCQ, EF, atrial fibrillation, estimated glomerular filtration rate, and type 2 diabetes. Interaction of dapagliflozin effects on KCCQ-CSS by EF was assessed using EF both categorically and continuously with restricted cubic spline. Responder analyses, examining proportions of patients with deterioration, and clinically meaningful improvements in KCCQ-CSS were conducted using logistic regression.RESULTS:Of 587 patients randomized (293 dapagliflozin, 294 placebo), EF was ≤40, >40-≤60, and >60% in 262 (45%), 199 (34%), and 126 (21%), respectively. Dapagliflozin improved KCCQ-CSS at 12 weeks (placebo-adjusted difference 5.0 points [95% CI, 2.6–7.5]; P<0.001). This was consistent in participants with EF≤40 (4.6 points [95% CI, 1.0–8.1]; P=0.01), >40 to ≤60 (4.9 points [95% CI, 0.8–9.0]; P=0.02) and >60% (6.8 points [95% CI, 1.5–12.1]; P=0.01; Pinteraction=0.79). Benefits of dapagliflozin on KCCQ-CSS were also consistent when analyzing EF continuously (Pinteraction=0.94). In responder analyses, fewer dapagliflozin-treated patients had deterioration and more had small, moderate, and large KCCQ-CSS improvements versus placebo; these results were also consistent regardless of EF (all Pinteractionvalues nonsignificant).CONCLUSIONS:In patients with HF, dapagliflozin significantly improves symptoms and physical limitations after 12 weeks of treatment, with consistent and clinically meaningful benefits across the full range of EF. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Outcome trials in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus have demonstrated reduced hospitalizations for heart failure (HF) with sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 inhibitors. However, few of these patients had HF, and those that did were not well-characterized. Thus, the effects of sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 inhibitors in patients with established HF with reduced ejection fraction, including those with and without type 2 diabetes mellitus, remain unknown.Methods: DEFINE-HF (Dapagliflozin Effects on Biomarkers, Symptoms and Functional Status in Patients with HF with Reduced Ejection Fraction) was an investigator-initiated, multi-center, randomized controlled trial of HF patients with left ventricular ejection fraction ≤40%, New York Heart Association (NYHA) class II-III, estimated glomerular filtration rate ≥30 mL/min/1.73m2, and elevated natriuretic peptides. In total, 263 patients were randomized to dapagliflozin 10 mg daily or placebo for 12 weeks. Dual primary outcomes were (1) mean NT-proBNP (N-terminal pro b-type natriuretic peptide) and (2) proportion of patients with ≥5-point increase in HF disease-specific health status on the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire overall summary score, or a ≥20% decrease in NT-proBNP.Results: Patient characteristics reflected stable, chronic HF with reduced ejection fraction with high use of optimal medical therapy. There was no significant difference in average 6- and 12-week adjusted NT-proBNP with dapagliflozin versus placebo (1133 pg/dL (95% CI 1036-1238) vs 1191 pg/dL (95% CI 1089-1304), P=0.43). For the second dual-primary outcome of a meaningful improvement in Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire overall summary score or NT-proBNP, 61.5% of dapagliflozin-treated patients met this end point versus 50.4% with placebo (adjusted OR 1.8, 95% CI 1.03-3.06, nominal P=0.039). This was attributable to both higher proportions of patients with ≥5-point improvement in Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire overall summary score (42.9 vs 32.5%, adjusted OR 1.73, 95% CI 0.98-3.05), and ≥20% reduction in NT-proBNP (44.0 vs 29.4%, adjusted OR 1.9, 95% CI 1.1-3.3) by 12 weeks. Results were consistent among patients with or without type 2 diabetes mellitus, and other prespecified subgroups (all P values for interaction=NS).Conclusions: In patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction, use of dapagliflozin over 12 weeks did not affect mean NT-proBNP but increased the proportion of patients experiencing clinically meaningful improvements in HF-related health status or natriuretic peptides. Benefits of dapagliflozin on clinically meaningful HF measures appear to extend to patients without type 2 diabetes mellitus.Clinical Trial Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT02653482. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]