Search

With advances in heart failure (HF) treatment, patients are living longer, putting further emphasis on quality of life (QOL) and the role of palliative care principles in their care. Spirituality is a core domain of palliative care, best defined as a dynamic, multidimensional aspect of oneself for which 1 dimension is that of finding meaning and purpose. There are substantial data describing the role of spirituality in patients with cancer but a relative paucity of studies in HF. In this review article, we explore the current knowledge of spirituality in patients with HF; describe associations among spirituality, QOL, and HF outcomes; and propose clinical applications and future directions regarding spiritual care in this population. Studies suggest that spirituality serves as a potential target for palliative care interventions to improve QOL, caregiver support, and patient outcomes including rehospitalization and mortality. We suggest the development of a spirituality-screening tool, similar to the Patient Health Questionnaire-2 used to screen for depression, to identify patients with HF at risk for spiritual distress. Novel tools are soon to be validated by members of our group. Given spirituality in HF remains less well studied compared with other patient populations, further controlled trials and uniform measures of spirituality are needed to understand its impact better.

The GUIDE-IT trial was, a multicenter, randomized, parallel group, unblinded study that randomized patients to having heart failure therapy titrated to achieve an NT-proBNP1000 pg/mL or to usual clinical care.We performed pre-specified subgroup analysis to look for the race and ethnicity-based differences in clinical outcomes of patients who were able to achieve GDMT or target NT-proBNP concentration of ≤1000 pg/mL at 90 days of follow-up. There were 894 patients enrolled in GUIDE-IT study. Of these, 733 participants had available data on 90-day guideline directed triple therapy and 616 on NT-proBNP. 35% of the patients were Black and 6% were Hispanic. Black patients were younger, had more comorbidities, lower EF, and higher NYHA class compared with non-Black. Adjusting for 90-day NT-proBNP and important baseline covariates, Black patients were at a higher risk than non-Black patients for HF hospitalization [HR, 2.19; 95% CI, 1.51-3.17; p0.0001], but at a similar risk for mortality [HR, 0.85.; 95% CI, 0.44-1.66; p = 0.64]. Similar results were seen adjusting for 90-day GDMT [HF hospitalization: Black vs non-Black, HR: 1.97; 1.41-2.77, P0.0001; mortality: HR: 0.70; 0.39-1.26, p = 0.23]. There were no significant differences between Hispanic and non-Hispanic patients with respect to heart failure hospitalization, cardiovascular or all-cause mortality. Over the study period, Black and Hispanic patients experienced smaller changes in physical function and quality of life as measured by the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire overall score.Compared to non-Black patients, Black patients in GUIDE-IT study had a higher risk of heart failure hospitalization, but a comparable risk of mortality, despite improved use of GDMT and achievement of similar biomarker targets.

INTRODUCTION: Black patients have a higher incidence of heart failure (HF) and worse outcomes than white patients. Guidelines recommend palliative care for patients with advanced HF, but no studies have examined outcomes in a black patient cohort. METHODS: This is a post hoc analysis of the Palliative Care in Heart Failure trial, which randomized patients to usual care plus a palliative care intervention (UC+PAL) or usual care (UC). Quality of life (QoL) was measured using Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ) and Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Palliative Care scale (FACIT-Pal). RESULTS: Black patients represented 41% of the 148 patients. At six months, QoL improved more in UC+PAL than UC for both racial subgroups. The difference was greater for black than white patients (difference: KCCQ 10.8 vs. 2.5; FACIT-Pal: 14.8 vs. 3.9). However, the findings were not statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: Larger studies are needed to assess the benefits of palliative care for black patients with HF. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01589601.

Aims N‐terminal pro‐b‐type natriuretic peptide (NT‐proBNP) values may be influenced by patient factors beyond the severity of illness, including atrial fibrillation (AF), renal dysfunction, or increased body mass index (BMI). We hypothesized that these factors may influence the achievement of NT‐proBNP targets and clinical outcomes. Methods A total of 894 patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction were enrolled in The Guiding Evidence‐Based Therapy Using Biomarker Intensified Treatment trial. NT‐proBNP was analysed every 3 months. Results Forty per cent of patients had AF, the median estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) was 59 mL/min/1.73 m2 [interquartile range (IQR) 43–76], and median BMI was 29 kg/m2 (IQR 25–34). Patients with AF, eGFR 60 mL/min/1.73 m2, P

Sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitor therapy is well suited for initiation during the heart failure hospitalization, owing to clinical benefits that accrue rapidly within days to weeks, a strong safety and tolerability profile, minimal to no effects on blood pressure, and no excess risk of adverse kidney events. There is no evidence to suggest that deferring initiation to the outpatient setting accomplishes anything beneficial. Instead, there is compelling evidence that deferring in-hospital initiation exposes patients to excess risk of early postdischarge clinical worsening and death. Lessons from other heart failure with reduced ejection fraction therapies highlight that deferring initiation of guideline-recommended medications to the U.S. outpatient setting carries a >75% chance they will not be initiated within the next year. Recognizing that 1 in 4 patients hospitalized for worsening heart failure die or are readmitted within 30 days, clinicians should embrace the in-hospital period as an optimal time to initiate sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitor therapy and treat this population with the urgency it deserves.

Objectives The aim of this study was to examine patterns of care and clinical outcomes among patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) in the United States and Canada. Background In the GUIDE-IT (Guiding Evidence Based Therapy Using Biomarker Intensified Treatment) trial, the use of N-terminal pro–B-type natriuretic peptide–guided titration of guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) was compared with usual care alone for patients with HFrEF in the United States and Canada. It remains unknown whether the country of enrollment had an impact on outcomes or GDMT use. Methods A total of 894 patients at 45 sites across the United States and Canada with HFrEF (ejection fraction ≤40%) were enrolled in the trial. Kaplan-Meier survival estimates stratified by country of enrollment were developed for the trial outcomes, and log-rank testing was compared between the groups. GDMT use and titration were also compared. Results U.S. patients were more likely to be younger, to be Black, to have higher body mass index, and to have histories of defibrillator placement or sleep apnea. Use of β-blockers was significantly higher in Canada at baseline (99.3% vs. 94.0%; p = 0.01) and 6 months (99.0% vs. 94.1%; p = 0.04), and use of mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists was higher in Canada at 6 months (68.3% vs. 55.1%; p = 0.01). Canadian patients were less likely to experience the primary study endpoint (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.65; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.45 to 0.93; p = 0.01) due to decreased rates of HF hospitalization (HR: 0.57; 95% CI: 0.38 to 0.86; p = 0.003). The differences in outcomes were driven by increased heart failure hospitalization among U.S. Black patients. Conclusions In GUIDE-IT, patients with HFrEF in Canada were significantly less likely to be hospitalized for heart failure. Differences in GDMT use, along with differences in sociodemographics and care delivery structures, may contribute to these differences, highlighting the importance of increasing diversity in clinical trials. (Guiding Evidence Based Therapy Using Biomarker Intensified Treatment [GUIDE-IT]; NCT01685840 )

This study sought to demonstrate the statistical and utilitarian properties of restricted mean survival time (RMST) and restricted mean time lost (RMTL) for assessing treatments for heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction.Although the hazard ratio (HR) is the most commonly used measure to quantify treatment effects in HF clinical trials, HRs may be difficult to interpret and require the proportional hazards assumption to be valid. RMST and RMTL are intuitive summaries of groupwise survival that measure treatment effects without model assumptions.Patient time-to-event data were reconstructed from published landmark HF clinical trial Kaplan-Meier curves. We estimated RMST differences (ΔRMSTs) and RMTL ratios between treatment groups for primary and secondary outcomes, and compared test statistics and effect sizes with proportional hazards models. We fit Weibull estimations to extrapolate trial data to 5 years of treatment.Using RMSTs and RMTLs yielded similar statistical conclusions as HR analysis for a compendium of 16 HF clinical trials including 48,581 patients. RMTL ratios approximated HRs for each trial, but ΔRMSTs provided absolute effect sizes unavailable with HRs. For instance, spironolactone added 2.2 months of life over 34 months of treatment, and dapagliflozin added 0.3 months of life over 24 months of treatment. When normalized to 5-years follow-up with Weibull estimation, spironolactone and dapagliflozin added 6.0 months and 1.8 months of life for patients, respectively.Statistically, RMST and RMTL perform similarly to proportional hazards modeling but may help patients by providing clinically relevant intuitive estimates of treatment effects without prohibitive assumptions.

The Heart Failure Academic Research Consortium is a partnership between the Heart Failure Collaboratory (HFC) and the Academic Research Consortium (ARC) composed of patients, academic investigators from the United States and Europe, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, the National Institutes of Health, payers, and industry. Members discussed the measure, remote capture, and clinical utility of functional and quality-of-life endpoints for use in clinical trials of heart failure and cardiovascular therapeutics, with the goal of improving the efficiency of heart failure and cardiovascular clinical research, evidence generation, and thereby patient quality of life, functional status, and survival. Assessments of patient-reported outcomes and maximal and submaximal exercise tolerance are standardized and validated, but actigraphy remains inconsistent as a potential endpoint. This paper details those discussions and consensus recommendations.

Clinical guidelines recommend titration of angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEi) and beta-blockers among patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) to maximally tolerated doses. Patient characteristics associated with dose titration and clinical outcomes subsequent to dose titration remain poorly characterized.Among 1999 ambulatory patients with chronic HFrEF in the HF-ACTION trial, use and dosing of ACEi and evidence-based beta-blockers were examined at baseline and 6-month follow-up. Multivariable logistic regression models were used to assess factors associated with dose escalation (medication initation or dosing increase) or dose de-escalation (medication discontinuation or dosing decrease). Cox proportional hazard regression models were used to examine associations between dose trajectory group (stable target, stable sub-target, dose escalation, and dose de-escalation) and subsequent mortality and hospitalization outcomes.For both ACEi and beta-blockers, hospitalization for heart failure in the 6 months prior to enrollment (odds ratio [OR] 2.32 [95% confidence interval 1.58-3.42]) for ACEi; 1.42 [1.05-1.9] for beta-blockers) and higher systolic blood pressure (OR 1.01 [1.00-1.03] per 1 mmHg increase for ACEi; 1.01 [1.00-1.02] for beta-blockers) were associated with dose escalation. Hospitalization 6 months prior to enrollment for any cause (including HF or non-HF causes) was associated with dose de-escalation (OR 1.60 [1.14-2.25] for ACEi; 1.67 [1.20-2.33] for beta-blockers). After adjustment for patient characteristics, compared with stable target dosing, dose de-escalation of either medication was associated with greater all-cause mortality (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 1.64 [1.11-2.42] for ACEi; 1.62 [1.04-2.53] for beta-blockers). Compared with stable target dosing, both dose de-escalation (aHR 1.98 [1.36-2.87]) and stable sub-target dosing (aHR 1.49 [1.18-1.87]) of beta-blockers were associated with greater cardiovascular mortality or hospitalization for heart failure.Among outpatients with chronic HFrEF, patient characteristics including recent hospitalization status and blood pressure were associated with odds of subsequent escalation and de-escalation of ACEi and beta-blocker therapy. Compared with patients receiving guildeline-recommended target doses, dose de-escalation of either medication and sub-target dosing of beta-blockers were associated with greater morbidity and mortality over long-term follow-up.

The coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has profoundly changed clinical care and research, including the conduct of clinical trials, and the clinical research ecosystem will need to adapt to this transformed environment. The Heart Failure Academic Research Consortium is a partnership between the Heart Failure Collaboratory and the Academic Research Consortium, composed of academic investigators from the United States and Europe, patients, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, the National Institutes of Health, and industry members. A series of meetings were convened to address the challenges caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, review options for maintaining or altering best practices, and establish key recommendations for the conduct and analysis of clinical trials for cardiovascular disease and heart failure. This paper summarizes the discussions and expert consensus recommendations., Central Illustration, Highlights • The COVID-19 pandemic has profoundly affected patient care and the conduct of clinical trials. • HF-ARC scientific expert panel developed recommendations for the conduct and analysis of heart failure trials during the pandemic. • The HF-ARC consensus recommendations support ongoing clinical trials and strengthen the clinical trial ecosystem, which should have sustained benefits in the future.

Depression is a frequent and debilitating comorbidity that affects heart failure (HF) patients. Up to 30% of HF patients suffer from depression and even more have depressive symptoms. Moreover, depression carries a risk for HF, especially in high-risk groups, and is significantly associated with worse quality of life and clinical outcomes. The pathophysiology of depression and HF is poorly understood, but both diseases share several mechanisms and risk factors, including dysregulation of platelet reactivity, inflammation, neuroendocrine function, arrhythmias, high-risk behaviours, and social factors. Current HF guidelines advise to screen HF patients for depression and several screening questionnaires are available. Ultimately, the diagnosis of depression is based on DSM-5 criteria. Depression treatment consists of non-pharmacological and pharmacological therapies. Non-pharmacological therapies, such as exercise training and cognitive-behavioural therapy, have been shown to have beneficial effects on depressive symptoms. Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, the mainstay of antidepressant therapy, appear to be safe in HF but have not shown superiority over placebo in HF in short- and long-term randomized clinical trials. New therapies to treat depression are under investigation and may offer the opportunity to improve depression management in HF, including N-methyl-D-aspartate receptor antagonists, repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation and omega-3 supplementation. New technologies may offer several advantages for the screening and diagnosis of depression but they remain to be tested in future research. In this review, we examine the intersection of depression and HF, summarize the epidemiology and pathophysiology, and discuss new opportunities to diagnose and treat HF patients with depression.

The Heart Failure Collaboratory (HFC) has developed a score integrating classes and doses of guideline-directed medical therapies prescribed for patients with heart failure (HF) and reduced ejection fraction. One potential use of this score is to test whether new treatments demonstrate incremental benefits, even in patients receiving comprehensive guideline-directed medical therapy.The authors investigated the efficacy of dapagliflozin according to a modified HFC score in the DAPA-HF (Dapagliflozin And Prevention of Adverse outcomes in Heart Failure) trial.In DAPA-HF, 4,744 patients with HF and reduced ejection fraction were randomized to dapagliflozin or placebo. The modified HFC score accounted for race and electrocardiogram rhythm and rate, with a maximum possible score of 100%. The primary outcome was the composite of worsening HF or cardiovascular death.The median modified HFC score was 50% (IQR: 27.5%-62.5%; range 0%-100%). Compared with the lowest tertile, the highest tertile of the treatment score was associated with a lower risk of worsening HF or cardiovascular death (tertile 1, reference; tertile 2, HR: 0.97 [95% CI: 0.82-1.14]; tertile 3, HR: 0.83 [95% CI: 0.70-0.99]). Dapagliflozin reduced the risk of worsening HF or cardiovascular death, irrespective of treatment score (the HRs for dapagliflozin vs placebo from tertile 1 to 3 were: 0.76 [95% CI: 0.61-0.94], 0.76 [95% CI: 0.60-0.97], and 0.71 [95% CI: 0.55-0.90]), respectively; PDapagliflozin, compared with placebo, improved all outcomes examined, regardless of the modified HFC score. This score can be easily calculated in clinical trials and used to evaluate the incremental effects of new treatments. (Study to Evaluate the Effect of Dapagliflozin on the Incidence of Worsening Heart Failure or Cardiovascular Death in Patients With Chronic Heart Failure [DAPA-HF]; NCT03036124).

With the current landscape of approved therapies for heart failure (HF), there is a need to determine the role of a standard background therapy against which novel therapies are studied. The Heart Failure Collaboratory convened a multistakeholder group of clinical investigators, clinicians, patients, government representatives including U.S. Food and Drug Administration and National Institutes of Health participants, payers, and industry in March 2021 to discuss whether standardization of background drug therapy is necessary in clinical trials in patients with HF. The current paper summarizes the discussion and provides potential conceptual approaches, with a focus on therapies indicated for HF with reduced ejection fraction.

Background Palliative care (PC) in advanced heart failure (HF) aims to improve symptoms and quality of life (QOL), in part through medication management. The impact of PC on polypharmacy (>5 medications) remains unknown. Methods and Results We explored patterns of polypharmacy in the Palliative Care in HF (PAL-HF) randomized controlled trial of standard care vs interdisciplinary PC in advanced HF (N = 150). We describe differences in medication counts between arms at 2, 6, 12, and 24 weeks for HF (12 classes) and PC (6 classes) medications. General linear mixed models were used to evaluate associations between treatment arm and polypharmacy over time. The median age of the patients was 72 years (interquartile range 62–80 years), 47% were female, and 41% were Black. Overall, 48% had ischemic etiology, and 55% had an ejection fraction of 40% or less. Polypharmacy was present at baseline in 100% of patients. HF and PC medication counts increased in both arms, with no significant differences in counts by drug class at any time point between arms. Conclusions In a trial of patients with advanced HF considered eligible for PC, polypharmacy was universal at baseline and increased during follow-up with no effect of the palliative intervention on medication counts relative to standard care.

The development of treatments for heart failure (HF) is challenged by burdensome clinical trials. Reducing the need for extensive data collection and increasing opportunities for data compatibility between trials may improve efficiency and reduce resource burden. The Heart Failure Collaboratory (HFC) multi-stakeholder consortium sought to create a lean case report form (CRF) for use in HF clinical trials evaluating cardiac devices. The HFC convened patients, clinicians, clinical researchers, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), payers, industry partners, and statisticians to create a consensus core CRF. Eight recent clinical trial CRFs for the treatment of HF from 6 industry partners were analyzed. All CRF elements were systematically reviewed. Those elements deemed critical for data collection in HF clinical trials were used to construct the final, harmonized CRF. The original CRFs included 176 distinct data items covering demographics, vital signs, physical examination, medical history, laboratory and imaging testing, device therapy, medications, functional and quality of life assessment, and outcome events. The resulting, minimally inclusive CRF device contains 75 baseline data items and 6 events, with separate modular additions that can be used depending on the additional detail required for a particular intervention. The consensus electronic form is now freely available for use in clinical trials. Creation of a core CRF is important to improve clinical trial efficiency in HF device development in the United States. This living document intends to reduce clinical trial administrative burden, increase evidence integrity, and improve comparability of clinical data between trials.

The GUIDE-IT (GUIDing Evidence Based Therapy Using Biomarker Intensified Treatment in Heart Failure) trial demonstrated that a strategy to "guide" application of guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) by reducing amino-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) was not superior to GDMT alone.The purpose of this study was to examine the prognostic meaning of NT-proBNP changes following heart failure (HF) therapy intensification relative to the goal NT-proBNP value of 1,000 pg/ml explored in the GUIDE-IT trial.A total of 638 study participants were included who were alive and had available NT-proBNP results 90 days after randomization. Rates of subsequent cardiovascular (CV) death/HF hospitalization or all-cause mortality during follow-up and Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ) overall scores were analyzed.A total of 198 (31.0%) subjects had an NT-proBNP ≤1,000 pg/ml at 90 days with no difference in achievement of NT-proBNP goal between the biomarker-guided and usual care arms. NT-proBNP ≤1,000 pg/ml by 90 days was associated with longer freedom from CV/HF hospitalization or all-cause mortality (p 0.001 for both) and lower adjusted hazard of subsequent HF hospitalization/CV death (hazard ratio: 0.26; 95% confidence interval: 0.15 to 0.46; p 0.001) and all-cause mortality (hazard ratio: 0.34; 95% confidence interval: 0.15 to 0.77; p = 0.009). Regardless of elevated baseline concentration, an NT-proBNP ≤1,000 pg/ml at 90 days was associated with better outcomes and significantly better KCCQ overall scores (p = 0.02).Patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction whose NT-proBNP levels decreased to ≤1,000 pg/ml during GDMT had better outcomes. These findings may help to understand the results of the GUIDE-IT trial. (Guiding Evidence Based Therapy Using Biomarker Intensified Treatment [GUIDE-IT]; NCT01685840).

This study aims to assess the association between biomarker-guided therapy and left ventricular (LV) remodeling.In patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), it is unclear if lowering natriuretic peptides reflects structural and functional changes in the heart. This study aims to assess the association between biomarker-guided therapy and left ventricular (LV) remodeling.The GUIDE-IT (Guiding Evidence Based Therapy Using Biomarker Intensified Treatment in Heart Failure) Echo Substudy was a multicenter study that randomized 268 patients with HFrEF (EF ≤40%) to either pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP)-guided treatment or usual care. Echocardiograms were performed at baseline and 12 months in 124 patients. Remodeling indices and clinical outcomes were compared between treatment arms and by achievement of the NT-proBNP goal of 1,000 pg/ml at 12 months.At 12 months, the changes in EF and LV volumes were similar between the biomarker-guided and usual care arms with no difference in clinical outcomes; however, lowering NT-proBNP to 1,000 pg/ml, regardless of treatment strategy, was associated with a significantly greater increase in EF compared with those not reaching goal (9.9 ± 8.8% vs. 2.9 ± 7.9%; p 0.001) and lower LV volumes. The extent of reverse remodeling correlated with the change in NT-proBNP: a decrease of 1,000 pg/ml was associated with an increase in EF of 6.7% and a reduction in systolic and diastolic volumes of 17.3 ml/mAmong patients with HFrEF, lowering NT-proBNP to 1,000 pg/ml by 12 months was associated with significant reverse remodeling and improved outcomes. A greater reduction in NT-proBNP was associated with more extensive reverse remodeling. (Guiding Evidence Based Therapy Using Biomarker Intensified Treatment [GUIDE-IT]; NCT01685840).

This study sought to evaluate the frequency and nature of cost/value statements in contemporary heart failure (HF) clinical guidance documents (CGDs).In an era of rising health care costs and expanding therapeutic options, there is an increasing need for formal consideration of cost and value in the development of HF CGDs.HF CGDs published by major professional cardiovascular organizations between January 2010 and February 2021 were reviewed for the inclusion of cost/value statements.Overall, 33 documents were identified, including 5 (15%) appropriate use criteria, 7 (21%) clinical practice guidelines, and 21 (64%) expert consensus documents. Most CGDs (27 of 33; 82%) included at least 1 cost/value statement, and 20 (61%) CGDs included at least 1 cost/value-related citation. Most of these statements were found in expert consensus documents (77.7%). Three (9%) documents reported estimated costs of recommended interventions, but only 1 estimated out-of-pocket cost. Of 179 cost/value-related statements observed, 116 (64.8%) highlighted the economic impact of HF or HF-related care, 6 (3.4%) advocated for cost/value issues, 15 (8.4%) reported gaps in cost/value evidence, and 42 (23.5%) supported clinical guidance recommendations. Over time, patterns of inclusion of statements and citations of cost/value have been largely stable.Although most contemporary HF CGDs contain at least 1 cost/value statement, most CGDs focus on the high economic impact of HF and its related care; explicit inclusion of cost/value to support clinical guidance recommendations remains infrequent. These results highlight key opportunities for the integration of formalized cost/value considerations in future HF-focused CGDs.

Background NT‐proBNP (N‐terminal pro‐B‐type natriuretic peptide) is a prognostic biomarker in heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction. However, it is unclear whether there is a sex difference in NT‐proBNP response and whether the therapeutic goal of NT‐proBNP ≤1000 pg/mL has equivalent prognostic value in men and women with HF with reduced ejection fraction. Methods and Results In a secondary analysis of the GUIDE‐IT (Guiding Evidence Based Therapy Using Biomarker Intensified Treatment) trial we analyzed trends in NT‐proBNP and goal attainment by sex. Differences in clinical characteristics, HF treatment, and time to all‐cause death or HF hospitalization were compared. Landmark analysis at 3 months determined the prognostic value of early NT‐proBNP goal achievement in men and women. Of the 286 (32%) women and 608 (68%) men in the GUIDE‐IT trial, women were more likely to have a nonischemic cause and shorter duration of HF. Guideline‐directed medical therapy was less intense over time in women. The absolute NT‐proBNP values were consistently lower in women; however, the change in NT‐proBNP and clinical outcomes were similar. After adjustment, women achieving the NT‐proBNP goal had an 82% reduction in death or HF hospitalization compared with a 59% reduction in men. Conclusions Men and women with HF with reduced ejection fraction had a similar NT‐proBNP response despite less intensive HF treatment among women. However, compared with men, the early NT‐proBNP goal of ≤1000 pg/mL had greater prognostic value in women. Future efforts should be aimed at intensifying guideline‐directed medical therapy in women, which may result in greater NT‐proBNP reductions and improved outcomes in women with HF with reduced ejection fraction. Registration URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov ; Unique identifier: NCT01685840.

Background Actigraphy-based measurements of physiologic parameters may enable design of patient-centric heart failure (HF) clinical trials. Recently, the Heart Failure Collaboratory (HFC) focused on recommendations for meaningful change and use of actigraphy as an endpoint in HF clinical trials. We aimed to evaluate randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that have quantified the impact of HF interventions using actigraphy. Methods Using a scoping review strategy, we evaluated the use of actigraphy in HF RCTs. Studies were identified through electronic searches of Embase, OVID MEDLINE, PubMed, and Cochrane review. Data on trial characteristics and results were collected. Results We identified 11 RCTs with a total of 1,455 participants. The risk of bias across the included trials was overall high. All trials had the primary outcomes reflecting measures of either physical activity (n=8), sleep (n=2), or both (n=1). Five trials evaluated response to pharmacologic therapies compared to placebo, three evaluated physical activity interventions, two evaluated group or cognitive therapy, and one evaluated sleep-ventilation strategy. Sample sizes ranged from 30 to 619 participants. There was significant heterogeneity relating to device type, body placement site, and handling of missing actigraphy data. Duration of monitoring ranged from 48 hours to 12 weeks. None of the studies evaluating pharmacologic therapies (n=5) demonstrated a significant improvement of actigraphy-based primary endpoints measurements. Conclusions There is significant heterogeneity in the use, methodology, and results of actigraphy-based HF RCTs. Our results highlight the need to develop, standardize, and validate actigraphy-specific outcomes for use in HF clinical trials

Background Minorities and women are underrepresented in cardiovascular research. Whether their higher enrollment can be predicted or influences research site performance is unclear. Methods We evaluated 104 sites that enrolled 4,184 patients in the U.S. Platinum Diversity (PD) and Promus Element Plus (PE Plus) studies (2012 to 2016). Research sites were ranked from lowest to highest minority and female enrollment, respectively. United States Census Bureau division and core-based statistical area (CBSA) populations were determined for each site and the following study performance metrics compared across quartiles of minority and female enrollment, respectively: (1) study subject enrollment rate (SER), (2) time to first patient enrolled, (3) rate of follow-up visits not done, (4) rate of follow-up visits out of window, and (5) protocol deviation rate (PDR). Multivariable regression was used to predict SER and PDR. Results Minority enrollment varied by region (P = .025) and population (P = .024) with highest recruitment noted in the Pacific, West South Central, South Atlantic, Mid-Atlantic and East North Central divisions. Female enrollment bore no relationship to region (P = .67) or population (P = .40). Median SER was similar in sites withi the highest vs lowest quartile of minority enrollment (SER of 4 vs 5 patients per month, respectively, P =0.78) and highest vs. lowest female enrollment (SER of 4 vs 4, respectively, P = .21). Median PDR was lower in sites within the highest vs lowest minority enrollment (0.23 vs 0.50 PDs per patient per month, respectively, P = .01) and highest vs. lowest female enrollment (0.28 vs. 0.37 PDs per patient per month, respectively, P = .04). However, this relationship did not persist after multivariable adjustment. All other site performance metrics were comparable across quartiles of minority and female enrollment. Conclusions Minority, but not female enrollment, correlated with research site geographic region and surrounding population. High enrollment of minorities and women did not influence study performance metrics. These findings help inform future strategies aimed at increasing clinical trial diversity. Trial Registration The PD and PE Plus studies are registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov under identifiers NCT02240810 and NCT01589978, respectively. Key Points Question: Does the enrollment of more Blacks, Hispanics and women in US cardiovascular research studies influence the overall rate of study subject enrollment and/or other key study site performance metrics and can diverse enrollment be predicted? Findings: In this pooled analysis of 104 sites that enrolled 4,184 patients in the Platinum Diversity and Promus Element Plus Post-Approval Studies, we found that the enrollment of higher proportions of underrepresented minorities and women was univariately associated with lower protocol deviation rates while having no effect on other site performance metrics. A site's geographic location and surrounding population predicted minority, but not female enrollment. Meaning: These findings suggest that cardiovascular research subject diversity may be predicted from site characteristics and enhanced without compromising key study performance metrics. These insights help inform future strategies aimed at improving clinical trial diversity.

It remains unclear why depression is associated with adverse outcomes in patients with heart failure (HF). We examine the relationship between depression and clinical outcomes among patients with HF with reduced ejection fraction managed with guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT).Using the GUIDE-IT trial, 894 patients with HF with reduced ejection fraction were stratified according to a history of depression, and Cox proportional hazards regression modeling was used to examine the association with outcomes. There were 140 patients (16%) in the overall cohort who had depression. They tended to be female (29% vs 46%, P.001) and White (67% vs 53%, P = .002). There were no differences in GDMT rates at baseline or at 90 days; nor were there differences in target doses of these therapies achieved at 90 days (NS, all). amino-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide levels at all time points were similar between the cohorts (P.05, all). After adjustment, depression was associated with all-cause hospitalizations (hazard ratio, 1.42, 95% confidence interval 1.11-1.81, P.01), cardiovascular death (hazard ratio, 1.69, 95% confidence interval 1.07-2.68, P = .025), and all-cause mortality (hazard ratio, 1.54, 95% confidence interval 1.03-2.32, P = .039).Depression impacts clinical outcomes in HF regardless of GDMT intensity and amino-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide levels. This finding underscores the need for a focus on mental health in parallel to achievement of optimal GDMT in these patients.NCT01685840, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01685840.

In this document, we propose a universal definition of heart failure (HF) as the following: HF is a clinical syndrome with symptoms and or signs caused by a structural and/or functional cardiac abnormality and corroborated by elevated natriuretic peptide levels and or objective evidence of pulmonary or systemic congestion. We propose revised stages of HF as follows. At-risk for HF (Stage A), for patients at risk for HF but without current or prior symptoms or signs of HF and without structural or biomarkers evidence of heart disease. Pre-HF (stage B), for patients without current or prior symptoms or signs of HF, but evidence of structural heart disease or abnormal cardiac function, or elevated natriuretic peptide levels. HF (Stage C), for patients with current or prior symptoms and/or signs of HF caused by a structural and/or functional cardiac abnormality. Advanced HF (Stage D), for patients with severe symptoms and/or signs of HF at rest, recurrent hospitalizations despite guideline-directed management and therapy (GDMT), refractory or intolerant to GDMT, requiring advanced therapies such as consideration for transplant, mechanical circulatory support, or palliative care. Finally, we propose a new and revised classification of HF according to left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). The classification includes HF with reduced EF (HFrEF): HF with an LVEF of ≤40%; HF with mildly reduced EF (HFmrEF): HF with an LVEF of 41% to 49%; HF with preserved EF (HFpEF): HF with an LVEF of ≥50%; and HF with improved EF (HFimpEF): HF with a baseline LVEF of ≤40%, a ≥10-point increase from baseline LVEF, and a second measurement of LVEF of40%.

Background In a randomized control trial, Palliative Care in Heart Failure (PAL-HF) improved heart failure–related quality of life, though cost-effectiveness remains unknown. The aim of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of the PAL-HF trial, which provided outpatient palliative care to patients with advanced heart failure. Methods and Results Outcomes for usual care and PAL-HF strategies were compared using a Markov cohort model over 36 months from a payer perspective. The model parameters were informed by PAL-HF trial data and supplemented with meta-analyses and Medicare administrative data. Outcomes included hospitalization, place of death, Medicare expenditures, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. Simulated mortality rates were the same for PAL-HF and usual care cohorts, at 89.7% at 36 months. In the base case analysis, the PAL-HF intervention resulted in an incremental gain of 0.03 QALYs and an incremental cost of $964 per patient for an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $29,041 per QALY. In 1-way sensitivity analyses, an intervention cost of up to $140 per month is cost effective at $50,000 per QALY. Of 1000 simulations, the PC intervention had a 66.1% probability of being cost effective at a $50,000 willingness-to-pay threshold assuming no decrease in hospitalization. In a scenario analysis, PAL-HF decreased payer spending through reductions in noncardiovascular hospitalizations. Conclusions These results from this single-center trial are encouraging that palliative care for advanced heart failure is an economically attractive intervention. Confirmation of these findings in larger multicenter trials will be an important part of developing the evidence to support more widespread implementation of the PAL-HF palliative care intervention.

Recognizing that body surface area (BSA) is a commonly used metric to inform medication dosing across fields of medicine, it is possible that patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) with higher BSA may be more likely to tolerate higher doses of GDMT. Using the HF-ACTION trial, we examined (1) the relationship between BSA and achievement of target dosing of evidence-based beta-blocker and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor (ACEI) therapy, and (2) the associations and interactions between target dosing, clinical outcomes, and BSA.

Patient access to a drug after US regulatory approval is controlled by complex interactions between governmental and third-party payers, pharmacy benefit managers, distributers, manufacturers, health systems, and pharmacies that together mediate the receipt of goods by patients after prescription by clinicians. Recent medication approvals highlight why and how the distribution of clinically beneficial novel therapies is controlled. Although imposed limitations on availability may be rational considering the fiduciary responsibilities of payers and escalating spending on health care and pharmaceuticals, transparency and communication are lacking, and some utilization management may disproportionately affect vulnerable populations. Analysis of the current health insurance landscape suggests mechanisms by which patient access to appropriate medications can be improved and patient and clinician frustration reduced while acknowledging the financial realities of the pharmaceutical marketplace. We propose creation of a shared, standardized, and transparent process for coverage decisions that minimizes administrative barriers and is defensible on the basis of clinical and cost-effectiveness evidence. These reforms would benefit patients and improve the efficiency of the pharmaceutical system.

Background: Gender disparities in authorship of heart failure (HF) guideline citations and clinical trials have not been examined. Methods: We identified authors of publications referenced in Class I Recommendations in United States (n=173) and European (n=100) HF guidelines and of publications of all HF trials with >400 participants (n=118) published between 2001 and 2016. Authors’ genders were determined, and changes in authorship patterns over time were evaluated with linear regression and nonparametric testing. Results: The median proportion of women authors per publication was 20% (interquartile range [IQR], 8%–33%) in United States guidelines, 14% (IQR, 2%–20%) in European guidelines, and 11% (IQR, 4%–20%) in HF trials. The proportion of women authors increased modestly over time in United States and European guidelines’ references (β=0.005 and 0.003, respectively, from 1986 to 2016; P P >0.50). Overall proportions of women as first or last authors in HF trials (16%) did not change significantly over time ( P =0.60). North American HF trials had the highest likelihood of having a woman as first or senior author (24%). HF trials with a woman first or senior author were associated with a higher proportion of enrolled female participants (39% versus 26%, P =0.01). Conclusions: In HF practice guidelines and trials, few women are authors of pivotal publications. Higher number of women authors is associated with higher enrollment of women in HF trials. Barriers to authorship and representation of women in HF guidelines and HF trial leadership need to be addressed.

The Heart Failure Academic Research Consortium is a partnership between the Heart Failure Collaboratory (HFC) and Academic Research Consortium (ARC), comprised of leading heart failure (HF) academic research investigators, patients, United States (US) Food and Drug Administration representatives, and industry members from the US and Europe. A series of meetings were convened to establish definitions and key concepts for the evaluation of HF therapies including optimal medical and device background therapy, clinical trial design elements and statistical concepts, and study endpoints. This manuscript summarizes the expert panel discussions as consensus recommendations focused on populations and endpoint definitions; it is not exhaustive or restrictive, but designed to stimulate HF clinical trial innovation.

The Heart Failure Academic Research Consortium is a partnership between the Heart Failure Collaboratory (HFC) and Academic Research Consortium (ARC), comprised of leading heart failure (HF) academic research investigators, patients, United States (US) Food and Drug Administration representatives, and industry members from the US and Europe. A series of meetings were convened to establish definitions and key concepts for the evaluation of HF therapies including optimal medical and device background therapy, clinical trial design elements and statistical concepts, and study endpoints. This manuscript summarizes the expert panel discussions as consensus recommendations focused on populations and endpoint definitions; it is not exhaustive or restrictive, but designed to stimulate HF clinical trial innovation.

BACKGROUND: Community engagement and rapid translation of findings for the benefit of patients has been noted as a major criterion for NIH decisions regarding allocation of funds for research priorities. We aimed to examine whether the presence of top NIH-funded institutions resulted in a benefit on the cardiovascular and cancer mortality of their local population. METHODS AND RESULTS: Based on the annual NIH funding of every academic medical from 1995 through 2014, the top 10 funded institutes were identified and the counties where they were located constituted the index group. The comparison group was created by matching each index county to another county which lacks an NIH-funded institute based on sociodemographic characteristics. We compared temporal trends of age-standardized cardiovascular mortality between the index counties and matched counties and states. This analysis was repeated for cancer mortality as a sensitivity analysis. From 1980 through 2014, the annual cardiovascular mortality rates declined in all counties. In the index group, the average decline in cardiovascular mortality rate was 51.5 per 100,000 population (95% CI, 46.8–56.2), compared to 49.7 per 100,000 population (95% CI, 45.9–53.5) in the matched group (P = .27). Trends in cardiovascular mortality of the index counties were similar to the cardiovascular mortality trends of their respective states. Cancer mortality rates declined at higher rates in counties with top NIH-funded medical centers (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Cardiovascular mortality rates have decreased with no apparent incremental benefit for communities with top NIH-funded institutions, underscoring the need for an increased focus on implementation science in cardiovascular diseases.

IMPORTANCE: Despite evidence that guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) improves outcomes in patients with heart failure (HF) and reduced ejection fraction, many patients are undertreated. The Guiding Evidence-Based Therapy Using Biomarker Intensified Treatment (GUIDE-IT) trial tested whether a strategy of using target concentrations of N-terminal pro–brain natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) to guide optimization of GDMT could improve outcomes. OBJECTIVE: To examine medical therapy for HF in GUIDE-IT and potential reasons why the intervention did not produce improvements in medical therapy. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: GUIDE-IT, a randomized clinical trial performed at 45 sites in the United States and Canada, was conducted from January 16, 2013, to September 20, 2016. A total of 894 patients with HF and reduced ejection fraction (≤40%) were randomized to NT-proBNP−guided treatment with a goal to suppress NT-proBNP concentrations to less than 1000 pg/mL vs usual care. This secondary analysis examined the medical therapy titration and reasons why the intervention did not produce improvements in care and outcomes. Data were analyzed March 27 to June 28, 2019. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: For each encounter, medication titrations were captured. A reason was requested if a modification was not made. A Cox proportional hazards regression model was used to assess the independent association of drug class with outcomes. RESULTS: Among the 838 patients available for analysis (566 men [67.5%]; median age, 62.0 years), 6223 visits occurred during 24 months. Adjustments of HF medication were made during 2847 of 5218 qualified visits (54.6%) (all usual care visits and all guided care visits with NT-proBNP level ≥1000 pg/mL) in 862 patients (96.4%). Most adjustments occurred within the first 6 months, primarily within the first 6 weeks. The most common reasons for not adjusting were “clinically stable” and “already at maximally tolerated therapy.” Only 130 patients (15.5%) achieved optimal GDMT (≥50% of the target dose of β-blockers or angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors/angiotensin receptor blockers or any dose of mineralocorticoid antagonists) at 6 months, an increase from the baseline (79 of 891 [8.9%]) but not different by treatment arm. Higher doses of β-blockers were associated with reduced risk of the composite outcome of HF hospitalization and cardiovascular death (hazard ratio [HR], 0.98; 95% CI, 0.97-1.00; P = .008) and of all-cause death (HR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.95-0.99; P = .01). Higher doses of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (HR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.75-0.93; P

Background: Palliative care improves quality of life in patients with heart failure. Whether men and women with heart failure derive similar benefit from palliative care interventions remains unknown. Methods: In a secondary analysis of the PAL-HF trial (Palliative Care in Heart Failure), we analyzed differences in quality of life among men and women with heart failure and assessed for differential effects of the palliative care intervention by sex. Differences in clinical characteristics and quality-of-life metrics were compared between men and women at serial time points. The primary outcome was change in Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire score between baseline and 24 weeks. Results: Among the 71 women and 79 men, there was a significant difference in baseline Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (24.5 versus 36.2, respectively; P =0.04) but not Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Palliative Care scale (115.7 versus 120.3; P =0.27) scores. Among those who received the palliative care intervention (33 women and 42 men), women’s quality-of-life score remained lower than that of men after enrollment. Treated men’s scores were significantly higher than those untreated (6-month Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire, 68.0 [interquartile range, 52.6–85.7] versus 41.1[interquartile range, 32.0–78.3]; P =0.047), whereas the difference between treated and untreated women was not significantly different ( P =0.39). Rates of death and rehospitalization, as well as the composite end point, were similar between treated and untreated women and men. Conclusions: In the PAL-HF trial, women with heart failure experienced a greater symptom burden and poorer quality of life as compared with men. The change in treated men’s Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire score between baseline and 24 weeks was significantly higher than those untreated; this trend was not observed in women. Thus, there may be a sex disparity in response to palliative care intervention, suggesting that sex-specific approaches to palliative care may be needed to improve outcomes. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov ; Unique identifier: NCT0158960.

There is increasing recognition of the relationship between diabetes and heart failure (HF). Comorbid diabetes is associated with worse outcomes in patients with HF, and death from HF forms a large burden of mortality among patients with diabetes and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. However, there is evidence of harm relating to the risk of HF outcomes from several antihyperglycemic therapies. The absence of well-powered randomized controlled studies has resulted in significant treatment variations in the glycemic management in patients with coexisting diabetes and HF. However, there is emerging evidence from recent clinical trials suggesting that sodium-glucose–co-transporter-2 inhibitors may be used as a therapy to improve HF outcomes. In order to understand the current state of knowledge, we reviewed the evolving evidence of antihyperglycemic therapies and present strategies to optimize these therapies in patients with diabetes and HF. This analysis is based on discussions among scientists, clinical trialists, industry sponsors, and regulatory representatives who attended the 12th Global Cardiovascular Clinical Trialists Forum, Washington, DC, December 1 to 3, 2016.

Introduction Worsening renal function (WRF) can occur throughout a hospitalization for acute heart failure (HF). However, decongestion can be measured in different ways and the prognostic implications of WRF in the setting of different measures of decongestion are unclear. Methods Patients (N = 433) from the ESCAPE were classified by measures of decongestion during hospitalization: hemodynamic (right atrial pressure ≤8 mmHg and/or wedge pressure ≤15 mmHg at discharge), clinical (≤1 sign of congestion at discharge), hemoconcentration (any increase in hemoglobin) and estimated plasma volume using the Hakim formula (5% reduction in plasma volume). WRF was defined as creatinine increase ≥0.3 mg/dl during hospitalization. The association between WRF and 180-day all-cause death was assessed. Results Successful decongestion was observed in 124 (60%) patients by hemodynamics, 204 (49%) by clinical exam, 173 (47%) by hemoconcentration, and 165 (45%) by plasma volume. There was no agreement between the hemodynamic assessment and other decongestion measures in up to 43% of cases. Persistent congestion with concomitant WRF at discharge was associated with worse outcomes compared to patients without congestion and WRF. Among patients decongested at discharge, in-hospital WRF was not significantly associated with 180-day all-cause death, when using hemodynamic, clinical or estimated plasma volume as measures of decongestion (P > .05 for all markers). Conclusions In patients hospitalized for HF, although there was disagreement across common measures of decongestion, in-hospital WRF was not associated with increased hazard of all-cause mortality among patients successfully decongested at discharge.

With few notable exceptions, drug development for heart failure (HF) has become progressively more challenging, and there remain no definitively proven therapies for patients with acute HF or HF with preserved ejection fraction. Inspection of temporal trends suggests an increasing rate of disagreement between early-phase and phase III trial end points. Preliminary results from phase II HF trials are frequently promising, but increasingly followed by disappointing phase III results. Given this potential disconnect, it is reasonable to carefully re-evaluate the purpose, design, and execution of phase II HF trials, with particular attention directed toward the surrogate end points commonly used by these studies. In this review, we offer a critical reappraisal of the role of phase II HF trials and surrogate end points, highlighting challenges in their use and interpretation, lessons learned from past experiences, and specific strengths and weaknesses of various surrogate outcomes. We conclude by proposing a series of approaches that should be considered for the goal of optimizing the efficiency of HF drug development. This review is based on discussions between scientists, clinical trialists, industry and government sponsors, and regulators that took place at the Cardiovascular Clinical Trialists Forum in Washington, DC, on December 2, 2016.

Background The New York Heart Association ( NYHA ) classification has served as a fundamental tool for risk stratification of heart failure ( HF ) and determines clinical trial eligibility and candidacy for drugs and devices. However, its ability to adequately stratify risk is unclear. Methods and Results To compare NYHA class with objective assessments and survival in patients with HF , we performed secondary analyses of 4 multicenter National Institutes of Health–funded HF clinical trials that included patients classified as NYHA class II or III: TOPCAT (Treatment of Preserved Cardiac Function Heart Failure with an Aldosterone Antagonist), DIG (The Effect of Digoxin on Mortality and Morbidity in Patients With Heart Failure), HF‐ACTION (Efficacy and Safety of Exercise Training in Patients With Chronic Heart Failure), and GUIDE‐IT (Guiding Evidence‐Based Therapy Using Biomarker Intensified Treatment in Heart Failure). Twenty‐month cumulative survival was compared between classes using Kaplan–Meier curves and the log rank test. NT ‐proBNP (N‐terminal pro–B‐type natriuretic peptide), Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire ( KCCQ ) scores, 6‐minute walk distances, left ventricular ejection fraction, and cardiopulmonary test parameters were compared using Wilcoxon rank sum tests and percentage overlap using kernel density estimations. Cumulative mortality varied significantly across NYHA classes and HF clinical trials (likelihood ratio, P NYHA class II ranged from 7% for patients in HF ‐ ACTION to 15% in GUIDE ‐ IT , whereas mortality for NYHA class III ranged from 12% in TOPCAT to 26% in GUIDE ‐ IT . There was substantial percentage overlap in values for NT ‐pro BNP levels (79% and 69%), KCCQ scores (63% and 54%), 6‐minute walk distances (63% and 54%), and left ventricular ejection fraction (88% and 83%). Similarly, there was substantial overall in values for minute ventilation–carbon dioxide production relationship (71%), maximal oxygen uptake (54%), and exercise duration (53%). Conclusions The NYHA system poorly discriminates HF patients across the spectrum of functional impairment. These findings raise important questions about the need for improved phenotyping of these patients to facilitate risk stratification and response to interventions.

This study investigated the use of natriuretic peptides as inclusion criteria and to develop recommendations regarding their use. B-type natriuretic peptide (BNP) and N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) are commonly used as inclusion criteria for heart failure (HF) clinical trials, but no consensus exists regarding their optimal use for this purpose. A comprehensive search of the Aggregate Analysis of ClincalTrials.gov database identified 3,446 HF trials. Of these, 365 recently completed or ongoing HF clinical trials (10.6%) used either BNP or NT-proBNP as inclusion criteria. A panel of experts discussed current practices and a path forward for the use of natriuretic peptides as inclusion criteria for HF trials. Significant variations existed across trials regarding which natriuretic peptide and which cutoff value were used. Overall, 43% used both natriuretic peptides, 33% used only NT-proBNP, and 24% used only BNP in determining eligibility. Studies using BNP and NT-proBNP concentrations as inclusion criteria had higher cardiovascular event rates and higher concentrations for study entry and were generally associated with higher event rates. Areas of uncertainty included use in certain patient populations in which natriuretic peptides are historically lower (e.g., black patients, obese patients, patients with HF with preserved ejection fraction) or higher (older patients, patients with atrial fibrillation). This paper discusses best practices regarding use of BNP or NT-proBNP in clinical trials and identification of gaps in medical literature, including importance of documentation in ClinicalTrials.gov studies to inform future research efforts.

Heart failure (HF) patients experience a high burden of symptoms and functional limitations, and morbidity and mortality remain high despite successful therapies. The majority of HF drugs in the United States are approved for reducing hospitalization and mortality, while only a few have indications for improving quality of life, physical function, or symptoms. Patient-reported outcomes that directly measure patient's perception of health status (symptoms, physical function, or quality of life) are potentially approvable endpoints in drug development. This paper summarizes the history of endpoints used for HF drug approvals in the United States and reviews endpoints that measure symptoms, physical function, or quality of life in HF patients.

Background Most heart failure (HF) risk scores have been derived from cohorts of stable HF patients and may not incorporate up to date treatment regimens or deep phenotype characterization that change baseline risk over the short- and long-term follow-up period. We undertook the current analysis of participants in the GUIDE-IT (Guiding Evidence-Based Therapy Using Biomarker Intensified Treatment) trial to address these limitations. Methods and results The GUIDE-IT study randomized 894 high-risk patients with HF and reduced ejection fraction (≤ 40%) to biomarker-guided treatment strategy vs. usual care. We performed risk modelling using Cox proportional hazards models and analysed the relationship between 35 baseline clinical factors and the primary composite endpoint of cardiovascular (CV) death or HF hospitalization, the secondary endpoint of all-cause mortality, and the exploratory endpoint of 90-day HF hospitalization or death. Prognostic relationships for continuous variables were examined and key predictors were identified using a backward variable selection process. Predictive models and risk scores were developed. Over a median follow-up of 15 months, the cumulative number of HF hospitalizations and CV deaths was 328 out of 894 patients (Kaplan-Meier event rate 34.5% at 12 months). Frequency of all-cause deaths was 143 out of 894 patients (Kaplan-Meier event rate 12.2% at 12 months). Outcomes for the primary and secondary endpoints between strategy arms of the study were similar. The most important predictor that was present in all three models was the baseline natriuretic peptide level. Hispanic ethnicity, low sodium and high heart rate were present in two of the three models. Other important predictors included the presence or absence of a device, New York Heart Association class, HF duration, black race, co-morbidities (sleep apnoea, elevated creatinine, ischaemic heart disease), low blood pressure, and a high congestion score. Conclusion Risk models using readily available clinical information are able to accurately predict short- and long-term CV events and may be useful in optimizing care and enriching patients for clinical trials. Clinical trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov ID number NCT01685840.

The mandatory federal pay-for-performance Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program (HRRP) was created to decrease 30-day hospital readmissions by instituting accountability and stimulating quality care and coordination, particularly during care transitions. The HRRP has changed the landscape of hospital readmissions and reimbursement within the United States by imposing substantial Medicare payment penalties on hospitals with higher-than-expected readmission rates. However, the HRRP has been controversial since its inception, particularly in the field of heart failure. Proponents argue that it has reduced national readmission rates, in part by raising awareness and investment in mechanisms to better assist patients during discharge and transitions; opponents contend that it unfairly penalizes hospitals for issues beyond their control, has unintended negative consequences due to incentivizing readmission over survival, that it encourages "gaming" the system, was not tested before implementation, and that it does not specify how hospitals can improve their performance. This paper incorporates the diverse, nuanced, and sometimes divergent interpretations presented during a multifaceted expert clinician discussion regarding the HRRP and heart failure; in cases in which consensus opinions were achieved, they are presented, including regarding potential new iterations of the HRRP for the future. Potential improvements include more comprehensive incorporation of outcomes into the HRRP measure and better risk adjustment to improve equality and fairness.

More women than men currently live with heart failure (HF) in the United States [(1)][1]; this imbalance is projected to persist over the next decade [(2)][2]. Sex influences biologic drivers, etiologies, background epidemiology, markers of risk, and care quality in HF. To bolster enrollment of

Background Heart failure (HF) is characterized by perturbations in energy homeostasis and metabolism. The reversibility and prognostic value of circulating markers associated with these changes remain unclear. Objectives This study sought to describe the metabolomic profiles of patients along the spectrum of systolic HF, determine their association with adverse outcomes in a clinical trial of HF, and evaluate whether identified metabolites change with treatment for end-stage systolic HF. Methods To assess association of metabolites with clinical outcomes, we evaluated a population of 453 chronic systolic HF patients who had been randomized to exercise training versus usual care. To assess change in metabolites with mechanical circulatory support, 41 patients with end-stage HF who underwent left ventricular assist device (LVAD) placement were studied. Targeted, quantitative profiling of 60 metabolites using tandem flow injection mass spectrometry was performed on frozen plasma samples obtained prior to randomization, as well as prior to and ≥90 days post-placement in the LVAD group. Principal components analysis was used for data reduction. Results Five principal components analysis–derived factors were significantly associated with peak V o 2 levels at baseline in fully adjusted models. Of these, factor 5 (composed of long-chain acylcarnitines) was associated with increased risk of all 3 pre-specified clinical trial outcomes: all-cause mortality/all-cause hospitalization, all cause-hospitalization, and cardiovascular death or cardiovascular hospitalization. Individual components of factor 5 were significantly higher in patients with end-stage HF prior to LVAD placement and decreased significantly post-implantation. Conclusions In chronic HF patients, circulating long-chain acylcarnitine metabolite levels were independently associated with adverse clinical outcomes and decreased after long-term mechanical circulatory support. These metabolites may serve as potential targets for new diagnostics or therapeutic interventions. (Exercise Training Program to Improve Clinical Outcomes in Individuals With Congestive Heart Failure; NCT00047437 )

Background In heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction, 2 clinical trials, the BEST (β-Blocker Evaluation of Survival Trial) and HF-ACTION (Heart Failure: A Controlled Trial Investigating Outcomes of Exercise Training), have reported an effectiveness interaction between the ADRB1 (β-1 adrenergic receptor) Arg389Gly polymorphism and β-blockers (BBs). HF-ACTION additionally reported a dose-related interaction of unclear origin. If confirmed and pharmacogenetically resolved, these findings may have important implications for HF with reduced ejection fraction precision therapy. We used uniform methodology to investigate BB dose-ADRB1 Arg389Gly polymorphism interaction with major clinical end points in BEST/bucindolol and HF-ACTION/other BB databases. Methods This was a retrospective analysis of prospectively designed DNA substudies from BEST (N=1040) and HF-ACTION (N=957). Subjects were genotyped for ADRB1 Arg389Gly and ADRA2C (α2C adrenergic receptor) Ins322-325Del. BB dose was defined as either no/low dose or high dose, according to total daily dose of either bucindolol (BEST subjects) or other BB (HF-ACTION subjects) standardized to carvedilol equivalents. The main outcome of interest was all-cause mortality, and CV mortality/HF hospitalization was a secondary outcome. Results Subjects in each trial had less all-cause mortality with high- versus no/low-dose BB if they had ADRB1 Arg389Arg (BEST: hazard ratio [HR]=0.40, P=0.002; HF-ACTION: HR=0.45, P=0.005) but not Arg389Gly genotype (both P>0.2). Among gene-dose groups, there was a differential favorable treatment effect of 46% for high-dose bucindolol with ADRB1 Arg389Arg versus Gly carrier genotype (HR, 0.54; P=0.018), but not for no/low-dose bucindolol. In contrast, HF-ACTION Arg389Arg genotype subjects taking no/low-dose BB had greater all-cause mortality compared with 389Gly carriers (HR, 1.83; P=0.015), whereas all-cause mortality did not vary by genotype among subjects taking high-dose BB (HR, 0.84; P=0.55). Conclusions The enhanced HF with reduced ejection fraction efficacy of bucindolol in the ADRB1 Arg389Arg versus 389Gly carrier genotypes occurs at high dose. Other BBs taken at low dose have reduced efficacy for Arg389Arg genotype subjects compared with 389Gly carriers, suggesting a greater relative treatment effect at high dose. These data support guideline recommendations to use high, clinical trial target doses of all BBs to treat HF with reduced ejection fraction.