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

Peter Carson ; John R Teerlink ; Michel Komajda ; Inder Anand ; Milton Packer ; Javed Butler ; Wolfram Doehner ; João Pedro Ferreira ; Gerasimos Filippatos ; Markus Haass ; +8 more... Alan Miller ; Steen Pehrson ; Stuart J Pocock ; Tomoko Iwata ; Martina Brueckmann ; Tomasz Gasior ; Faiez Zannad ; Stefan D Anker ; (2025) Comparison of Investigator-Reported and Centrally Adjudicated Heart Failure Outcomes in the EMPEROR-Preserved Trial. JACC. Heart failure, 13 (5). pp. 710-721. ISSN 2213-1779 DOI: 10.1016/j.jchf.2024.10.021
Copy

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).

visibility_off picture_as_pdf

picture_as_pdf
Carson-etal-2025-Comparison-of-Investigator-Reported-and-Centrally-Adjudicated-Heart-Failure-Outcomes.pdf
subject
Accepted Version
lock_clock
Restricted to Repository staff only until 29 January 2026
Available under Creative Commons: Attribution-NonCommercial-No Derivative Works 4.0

Request Copy
visibility_off picture_as_pdf

Supplemental Material
lock_clock

Atom BibTeX OpenURL ContextObject in Span Multiline CSV OpenURL ContextObject Dublin Core Dublin Core MPEG-21 DIDL Data Cite XML EndNote HTML Citation JSON MARC (ASCII) MARC (ISO 2709) METS MODS RDF+N3 RDF+N-Triples RDF+XML RIOXX2 XML Reference Manager Refer Simple Metadata ASCII Citation EP3 XML
Export

Downloads