Mona Fiuzat1, Phillip J Schulte2, Michael Felker3, Tariq Ahmad3, Megan Neely2, Kirkwood F Adams4, Mark P Donahue5, William E Kraus5, Ileana L Piña6, David J Whellan7, Christopher M O'Connor3. 1. Division of Cardiology, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina; Division of Cardiology, Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham, North Carolina. Electronic address: mona.fiuzat@duke.edu. 2. Division of Cardiology, Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham, North Carolina. 3. Division of Cardiology, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina; Division of Cardiology, Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham, North Carolina. 4. Division of Cardiology, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, North Carolina. 5. Division of Cardiology, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina. 6. Division of Cardiology, Montefiore Medical Center, Bronx, New York. 7. Division of Cardiology, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Abstract
BACKGROUND:Galectin-3 (Gal-3) is a marker of myocardial fibrosis, and elevated levels are associated with adverse outcomes. Mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRAs) modulate cardiac fibrosis in heart failure (HF) patients and have been shown to improve long-term outcomes. We examined whether treatment effects from MRA use differed by Gal-3 levels in ambulatory heart failure patients enrolled in HF-ACTION. METHODS AND RESULTS: HF-ACTION was a randomized controlled trial of exercise training versus usual care in patients with HF due to LV systolic dysfunction (New York Heart Association functional class II-IV, left ventricular ejection fraction ≤ 0.35, median follow-up 2.5 years). Galectin-3 was assessed at baseline in 895 patients. The end point was all-cause mortality or all-cause hospitalization (ACM+ACH); all-cause mortality (ACM) was a key secondary end point. A differential association of MRA use by increasing Gal-3 concentration was tested with the use of interaction terms in Cox proportional hazards models, adjusted for covariates previously identified in this cohort as well as age, sex, and race. Inverse propensity-weighted (IPW) methods were also used to assess this association. Approximately one-half (n = 401) of the patients were on an MRA. There was no significant interaction for the associations of Gal-3 levels and MRA use for either end point (adjusted interaction P = .76 for ACM+ACH; P = .26 for ACM). There was no evidence of improved outcomes for patients on an MRA compared with those not on MRA for either end point (hazard ratio [HR] 1.02, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.85-1.23, P = .8; and HR = 1.15, 95% CI [0.82-1.61], P = .4; respectively). IPW analysis was consistent with the results of the adjusted analysis. CONCLUSION: Our study showed no evidence of interaction between Gal-3 and treatment effect of MRA. Whether biomarkers may be used to predict which patients may benefit from an mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist in HF requires further investigation.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND:Galectin-3 (Gal-3) is a marker of myocardial fibrosis, and elevated levels are associated with adverse outcomes. Mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRAs) modulate cardiac fibrosis in heart failure (HF) patients and have been shown to improve long-term outcomes. We examined whether treatment effects from MRA use differed by Gal-3 levels in ambulatory heart failurepatients enrolled in HF-ACTION. METHODS AND RESULTS: HF-ACTION was a randomized controlled trial of exercise training versus usual care in patients with HF due to LV systolic dysfunction (New York Heart Association functional class II-IV, left ventricular ejection fraction ≤ 0.35, median follow-up 2.5 years). Galectin-3 was assessed at baseline in 895 patients. The end point was all-cause mortality or all-cause hospitalization (ACM+ACH); all-cause mortality (ACM) was a key secondary end point. A differential association of MRA use by increasing Gal-3 concentration was tested with the use of interaction terms in Cox proportional hazards models, adjusted for covariates previously identified in this cohort as well as age, sex, and race. Inverse propensity-weighted (IPW) methods were also used to assess this association. Approximately one-half (n = 401) of the patients were on an MRA. There was no significant interaction for the associations of Gal-3 levels and MRA use for either end point (adjusted interaction P = .76 for ACM+ACH; P = .26 for ACM). There was no evidence of improved outcomes for patients on an MRA compared with those not on MRA for either end point (hazard ratio [HR] 1.02, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.85-1.23, P = .8; and HR = 1.15, 95% CI [0.82-1.61], P = .4; respectively). IPW analysis was consistent with the results of the adjusted analysis. CONCLUSION: Our study showed no evidence of interaction between Gal-3 and treatment effect of MRA. Whether biomarkers may be used to predict which patients may benefit from an mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist in HF requires further investigation.
Authors: Faiez Zannad; John J V McMurray; Henry Krum; Dirk J van Veldhuisen; Karl Swedberg; Harry Shi; John Vincent; Stuart J Pocock; Bertram Pitt Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2010-11-14 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Mariell Jessup; William T Abraham; Donald E Casey; Arthur M Feldman; Gary S Francis; Theodore G Ganiats; Marvin A Konstam; Donna M Mancini; Peter S Rahko; Marc A Silver; Lynne Warner Stevenson; Clyde W Yancy Journal: Circulation Date: 2009-03-26 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Larisa H Cavallari; Vicki L Groo; Kathryn M Momary; Deidra Fontana; Marlos Ag Viana; Paul Vaitkus Journal: Congest Heart Fail Date: 2006 Jul-Aug
Authors: M Hayashi; T Tsutamoto; A Wada; K Maeda; N Mabuchi; T Tsutsui; T Matsui; M Fujii; T Matsumoto; T Yamamoto; H Horie; M Ohnishi; M Kinoshita Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2001-11-01 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Bertram Pitt; Willem Remme; Faiez Zannad; James Neaton; Felipe Martinez; Barbara Roniker; Richard Bittman; Steve Hurley; Jay Kleiman; Marjorie Gatlin Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2003-03-31 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Lars Gullestad; Thor Ueland; John Kjekshus; Ståle H Nymo; Johannes Hulthe; Pieter Muntendam; Aram Adourian; Michael Böhm; Dirk J van Veldhuisen; Michel Komajda; John G F Cleland; John Wikstrand; John J V McMurray; Pål Aukrust Journal: Eur Heart J Date: 2012-04-17 Impact factor: 29.983
Authors: Christopher M O'Connor; David J Whellan; Kerry L Lee; Steven J Keteyian; Lawton S Cooper; Stephen J Ellis; Eric S Leifer; William E Kraus; Dalane W Kitzman; James A Blumenthal; David S Rendall; Nancy Houston Miller; Jerome L Fleg; Kevin A Schulman; Robert S McKelvie; Faiez Zannad; Ileana L Piña Journal: JAMA Date: 2009-04-08 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Nancy M Albert; Clyde W Yancy; Li Liang; Xin Zhao; Adrian F Hernandez; Eric D Peterson; Christopher P Cannon; Gregg C Fonarow Journal: JAMA Date: 2009-10-21 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Rudolf A de Boer; Dirk J A Lok; Tiny Jaarsma; Peter van der Meer; Adriaan A Voors; Hans L Hillege; Dirk J van Veldhuisen Journal: Ann Med Date: 2010-12-28 Impact factor: 4.709
Authors: Wouter C Meijers; Antoni Bayes-Genis; Alexandre Mebazaa; Johann Bauersachs; John G F Cleland; Andrew J S Coats; James L Januzzi; Alan S Maisel; Kenneth McDonald; Thomas Mueller; A Mark Richards; Petar Seferovic; Christian Mueller; Rudolf A de Boer Journal: Eur J Heart Fail Date: 2021-10-10 Impact factor: 17.349
Authors: James A Iwaz; Elizabeth Lee; Hermineh Aramin; Danilo Romero; Navaid Iqbal; Matt Kawahara; Fatima Khusro; Brian Knight; Minal V Patel; Sumita Sharma; Alan S Maisel Journal: Drugs Date: 2016-02 Impact factor: 9.546
Authors: François Koukoui; Franck Desmoulin; Michel Galinier; Manon Barutaut; Celine Caubère; Maria Francesca Evaristi; Gurbuz Murat; Rudolf De Boer; Matthieu Berry; Fatima Smih; Philippe Rouet Journal: PLoS One Date: 2015-03-18 Impact factor: 3.240