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

IF 10.3 1区 医学 Q1 CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS JACC. Heart failure Pub Date : 2025-01-17 DOI:10.1016/j.jchf.2024.10.021
Peter Carson, John R Teerlink, Michel Komajda, Inder Anand, Milton Packer, Javed Butler, Wolfram Doehner, João Pedro Ferreira, Gerasimos Filippatos, Markus Haass, Alan Miller, Steen Pehrson, Stuart J Pocock, Tomoko Iwata, Martina Brueckmann, Tomasz Gasior, Faiez Zannad, Stefan D Anker
{"title":"Comparison of Investigator-Reported and Centrally Adjudicated Heart Failure Outcomes in the EMPEROR-Preserved Trial.","authors":"Peter Carson, John R Teerlink, Michel Komajda, Inder Anand, Milton Packer, Javed Butler, Wolfram Doehner, João Pedro Ferreira, Gerasimos Filippatos, Markus Haass, Alan Miller, Steen Pehrson, Stuart J Pocock, Tomoko Iwata, Martina Brueckmann, Tomasz Gasior, Faiez Zannad, Stefan D Anker","doi":"10.1016/j.jchf.2024.10.021","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>There is limited published information on outcome adjudication in heart failure (HF) trials, particularly in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF).</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>The study sought to compare investigator reports with clinical events committee (CEC) adjudication and assess the impact of the SCTI (Standardized Data Collection for Cardiovascular Trials) criteria.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>In the EMPEROR-Preserved (EMPagliflozin outcome tRial in Patients with chronic heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction) trial, we compared investigator reports with CEC for concordance, treatment effect on primary composite outcome events and components (first event primary heart failure hospitalization [HHF] or cardiovascular [CV] mortality), prognosis after first HHF, total HHF, and trial duration with and without SCTI criteria.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The CEC confirmed 67.4% investigator-reported events for the primary outcome (CV mortality 82.7%, HHF 66.3%). The HR for treatment effect did not differ between adjudication methods for the primary outcome: investigator reports (HR: 0.77; 95% CI: 0.69-0.87), CEC (HR: 0.79; 95% CI: 0.69-0.90), its components, or total HHFs. The prognosis after the first HHF for all-cause mortality and CV mortality also did not differ between investigator reports and the CEC, nor did investigator reports and HHFs with a different CEC cause. SCTI criteria were present in 92% of CEC HHFs with a similar treatment effect to non-SCTI criteria. The investigator-reported primary events reached the protocol target number 6 months earlier than the CEC (7 months with full SCTI criteria).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Investigator adjudication is an alternative to a CEC with similar accuracy and faster event accumulation in HFpEF. The use of granular (SCTI) criteria did not improve trial performance. Our data suggest that a broader definition of an HHF event could be particularly beneficial in HFpEF clinical trials. (EMPagliflozin outcome tRial in Patients with chronic heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction; NCT03057951).</p>","PeriodicalId":14687,"journal":{"name":"JACC. Heart failure","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":10.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JACC. Heart failure","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jchf.2024.10.021","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: There is limited published information on outcome adjudication in heart failure (HF) trials, particularly in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF).

Objectives: The study sought to compare investigator reports with clinical events committee (CEC) adjudication and assess the impact of the SCTI (Standardized Data Collection for Cardiovascular Trials) criteria.

Methods: In the EMPEROR-Preserved (EMPagliflozin outcome tRial in Patients with chronic heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction) trial, we compared investigator reports with CEC for concordance, treatment effect on primary composite outcome events and components (first event primary heart failure hospitalization [HHF] or cardiovascular [CV] mortality), prognosis after first HHF, total HHF, and trial duration with and without SCTI criteria.

Results: The CEC confirmed 67.4% investigator-reported events for the primary outcome (CV mortality 82.7%, HHF 66.3%). The HR for treatment effect did not differ between adjudication methods for the primary outcome: investigator reports (HR: 0.77; 95% CI: 0.69-0.87), CEC (HR: 0.79; 95% CI: 0.69-0.90), its components, or total HHFs. The prognosis after the first HHF for all-cause mortality and CV mortality also did not differ between investigator reports and the CEC, nor did investigator reports and HHFs with a different CEC cause. SCTI criteria were present in 92% of CEC HHFs with a similar treatment effect to non-SCTI criteria. The investigator-reported primary events reached the protocol target number 6 months earlier than the CEC (7 months with full SCTI criteria).

Conclusions: Investigator adjudication is an alternative to a CEC with similar accuracy and faster event accumulation in HFpEF. The use of granular (SCTI) criteria did not improve trial performance. Our data suggest that a broader definition of an HHF event could be particularly beneficial in HFpEF clinical trials. (EMPagliflozin outcome tRial in Patients with chronic heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction; NCT03057951).

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
JACC. Heart failure
JACC. Heart failure CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS-
CiteScore
21.20
自引率
2.30%
发文量
164
期刊介绍: JACC: Heart Failure publishes crucial findings on the pathophysiology, diagnosis, treatment, and care of heart failure patients. The goal is to enhance understanding through timely scientific communication on disease, clinical trials, outcomes, and therapeutic advances. The Journal fosters interdisciplinary connections with neuroscience, pulmonary medicine, nephrology, electrophysiology, and surgery related to heart failure. It also covers articles on pharmacogenetics, biomarkers, and metabolomics.
期刊最新文献
Where Are All the Heart Failure GDMT Clinics?: A Call to Action. Stroke in Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Trials. Direct-to-Physician Marketing and Uptake of Optimal Medical Therapy for Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction. Exercise Training for Patients With Heart Failure: The Details Matter. Vericiguat Adherence for Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction in Routine Clinical Care in the U.S.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1