PARIS – During the most recent pharmaceutical generation, drug development for heart failure largely focused on acute heart failure, and specifically on patients with rest dyspnea as the primary manifestation of their acute heart failure decompensation events.
That has now changed, agreed heart failure experts as they debated the upshot of sobering results from two neutral trials that failed to show a midterm mortality benefit in patients hospitalized for acute heart failure who underwent aggressive management of their congestion using 2 days of intravenous treatment with either of two potent vasodilating drugs. Results first reported in November 2016 failed to show a survival benefit from ularitide in the 2,100-patient TRUE-AHF (Efficacy and Safety of Ularitide for the Treatment of Acute Decompensated Heart Failure) trial (N Engl J Med. 2017 May 18;376[20]:1956-64). And results reported at a meeting of the Heart Failure Association of the ESC failed to show a survival benefit from serelaxin in more than 6,500 acute heart failure patients in the RELAX-AHF-2 (Efficacy, Safety and Tolerability of Serelaxin When Added to Standard Therapy in AHF) trial.
The failure of a 2-day infusion of serelaxin to produce a significant reduction in cardiovascular death in RELAX-AHF-2 was especially surprising because the predecessor trial, RELAX-AHF, which randomized only 1,160 patients and used a surrogate endpoint of dyspnea improvement, had shown significant benefit that hinted more clinically meaningful benefits might also result from serelaxin treatment (Lancet. 2013 Jan 5;381[9860]:29-39). The disappointing serelaxin and ularitide results also culminate a series of studies using several different agents or procedures to treat acute decompensated heart failure patients that all failed to produce a reduction in deaths.
Frontline Medical News
Dr. Frank Ruschitzka
The neutral results from TRUE-AHF and RELAX-AHF-2 “mark the start of a new era. We need to rethink and fine-tune our strategies,” commented Frank Ruschitzka, MD, president of the Heart Failure Association, as he shared his take-home message from the meeting at the end of the closing session.
“This is a sea change; make no mistake. We will need a more targeted, selective approach. It was always a daunting proposition to believe that short-term infusion could have an effect 6 months later. We were misled by the analogy [of acute heart failure] to acute coronary syndrome,” said Dr. Ruschitzka, professor of medicine at the University of Zürich.
The right time to intervene
Meeting attendees offered several hypotheses to explain why the acute ularitide and serelaxin trials both failed to show a mortality benefit, with timing of treatment the most common denominator.
Acute heart failure “is an event, not a disease,” declared Milton Packer, MD, lead investigator of TRUE-AHF, during a session devoted to vasodilator treatment of acute heart failure. Acute heart failure decompensations “are fluctuations in a chronic disease. It doesn’t matter what you do during the episode – it matters what you do between acute episodes. We focus all our attention on which vasodilator and which dose of Lasix [furosemide], but we send patients home on inadequate chronic therapy. It doesn’t matter what you do to the dyspnea, the shortness of breath will get better. Do we need a new drug that makes dyspnea go away an hour sooner and doesn’t cost a fortune? What really matters is what patients do between acute episodes and how to prevent them, ” said Dr. Packer, distinguished scholar in cardiovascular science at Baylor University Medical Center in Dallas.
Dr. Packer strongly urged clinicians to put heart failure patients on the full regimen of guideline-directed drugs and at full dosages, a step he thinks would go a long way toward preventing a majority of decompensation episodes. “Chronic heart failure treatment has improved dramatically, but implementation is abysmal,” he said.
Mitchel L. Zoler/Frontlione Medical News
Dr. G. Michael Felker
Acute decompensation is the wrong time to target intervention, agreed G. Michael Felker, MD, professor of medicine at Duke University in Durham, N.C. “We study patients at the time of their hospitalization. As we get more and more neutral studies, many are now thinking that this may not be the best time for intervention. An untapped opportunity is a few weeks before hospitalization, because acute heart failure patients get sick over weeks, not hours.” The time to treat is in the “early, predecompensation period. That is an important time to target as we develop new drugs,” he said in an interview.
Of course, at this phase of their disease heart failure patients are usually at home, which more or less demands that the treatments they take are oral or at least delivered by subcutaneous injection.
“We’ve had a mismatch of candidate drugs, which have mostly been IV infusions, with a clinical setting where an IV infusion is challenging to use.”
“We are killing good drugs by the way we’re testing them,” commented Javed Butler, MD, who bemoaned the ignominious outcome of serelaxin treatment in RELAX-AHF-2. “The available data show it makes no sense to treat for just 2 days. We should take true worsening heart failure patients, those who are truly failing standard treatment, and look at new chronic oral therapies to try on them.” Oral drugs similar to serelaxin and ularitide could be used chronically, suggested Dr. Butler, professor of medicine and chief of cardiology at Stony Brook (N.Y.) School of Medicine.
© Frontline Medical Communications 2018-2021. Reprinted with permission, all rights reserved.