Why the study?
Does serelaxin added to standard therapy improve symptom relief and clinical outcomes in Asian patients with acute heart failure?
Does serelaxin added to standard therapy improve symptom relief and clinical outcomes in Asian patients with acute heart failure?
The RELAX-AHF-ASIA trial is designed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of serelaxin using a novel composite primary endpoint in Asian patients with acute heart failure.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Addresses evidence gap for serelaxin in Asian AHF; leaves open efficacy until RELAX-AHF-ASIA reports.
BACKGROUND: Acute heart failure (AHF), a common and growing health concern worldwide, is associated with high risk of post-discharge rehospitalization and mortality. Existing evidence indicates potential therapeutic benefits of serelaxin in Caucasian AHF patients, but corresponding data in Asians remain scarce. RELAX-AHF-ASIA, a multinational, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase III trial, will evaluate the effects of serelaxin on symptom relief and clinical outcomes in Asian AHF patients, with the use of novel assessments. METHODS AND RESULTS: serelaxin or placebo in addition to standard therapy. The composite primary end point includes: (1) treatment success (moderate/marked improvement in patient-reported dyspnea and physician-assessed signs of congestion on day 2); (2) treatment failure (in-hospital worsening of signs and/or symptoms of heart failure [HF] requiring intensification of intravenous HF therapy or mechanical ventilation, renal/circulatory support, rehospitalization due to HF/renal-failure, or death through day 5); and (3) unchanged status. Secondary end points include time to in-hospital worsening HF through day 5 and all-cause and cardiovascular deaths through day 180. CONCLUSIONS: RELAX-AHF-ASIA, the largest randomized clinical trial in Asian AHF patients to date, has a novel composite primary end point and the potential to become a hallmark of AHF trials.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Sato et al. (2016) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: