Search

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.

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.

BackgroundGender disparities in authorship of heart failure (HF) guideline citations and clinical trials have not been examined.MethodsWe 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.ResultsThe 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; P0.50). 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).ConclusionsIn 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.

Following regulatory guidance set forth in 2008 by the US Food and Drug Administration for new drugs for type 2 diabetes mellitus, many large randomized, controlled trials have been conducted with the primary goal of assessing the safety of antihyperglycemic medications on the primary end point of major adverse cardiovascular events, defined as cardiovascular death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or nonfatal stroke. Heart failure (HF) was not specifically mentioned in the US Food and Drug Administration guidance and therefore it was not a focus of these studies when planned. Several trials subsequently showed the impact of antihyperglycemic drugs on HF outcomes, which were not originally specified as the primary end point of the trials. The most impressive finding has been the substantial and consistent risk reduction in HF hospitalization seen across 4 trials of sodium glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors. However, to date, these results have not led to regulatory approval of any of these drugs for a HF indication or a recommendation for use by US HF guidelines. It is therefore important to explore to what extent persuasive treatment effects on nonprimary end points can be used to support regulatory claims and guideline recommendations. This topic was discussed by researchers, clinicians, industry sponsors, regulators, and representatives from professional societies, who convened on the US Food and Drug Administration campus on March 6, 2019. This report summarizes these discussions and the key takeaway messages from this meeting.

ObjectivesThis study sought to determine clinician and scientist involvement in heart failure (HF) clinical research and to describe the challenges of conducting clinical trials in the United States.BackgroundImprovements in the current capability, potential, and deficiencies of the HF clinical research infrastructure in the United States are needed in order to enhance efficiency and impact.MethodsThe Heart Failure Society of America (HFSA) distributed an electronic survey regarding HF clinical trial activity for the purpose of understanding the barriers that exist to conducting high-quality HF clinical research.ResultsOverall, 1,794 HFSA members were queried, and 434 members (24%) completed surveys, whereas a total of 7,589 individuals with interest in HF were queried, and 615 completed surveys. Of the respondents, 410 (67%) were actively engaged in HF research and 120 (20%) were interested in research. Most respondents, 270, were physicians (44%); 311 of the total (76% of the total and 80% of physicians) practiced in academic institutions; 333 respondents (81%) had served as principal investigators and 73 (18%) as site coordinators. Respondents active in clinical research usually participated in 1 to 5 trials and enrolled 1 to 20 patients annually. Institutional review board (IRB) approval typically required 3 months, and contract completion required 3 to 6 months per site. The greatest barriers to research were insufficient site budgets, delay in contracting, inability to find participants meeting trial entry criteria, and unavailability of qualified study coordinators.ConclusionsMany U.S. clinical research sites are constrained by budgetary, staffing, and contractual issues. The HFSA Research Network seeks to unify interested sites and deconstruct barriers to permit high-value HF research.

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.

AimThe authors assessed the comparative effectiveness of torsemide versus furosemide in the PROTECT trial.MethodsThe authors assessed the relationship between loop diuretic at discharge and death or cardiovascular/renal hospitalization within 30 days, and death through 150 days postdischarge using inverse probability weighting.ResultsOut of 1004 patients, 83.5% received furosemide and 16.5% torsemide. Torsemide patients had higher blood urea nitrogen, and more in-hospital worsening heart failure. Following adjustment, torsemide was associated with similar 30-day outcomes compared with furosemide (p = 0.93), but remained associated with increased 150-day death (hazard ratio: 2.26; 95% CI: 1.40-3.66; p < 0.001).ConclusionPatients treated with torsemide had features of greater disease severity, similar 30-day outcomes but increased 150-day mortality. Prospective randomized trials are needed to investigate the effect of torsemide versus furosemide.

BackgroundWorsening heart failure (WHF) symptoms despite initial therapy during admission for acute heart failure (AHF) is associated with worse outcomes. The association between the time of the WHF event and the intensity of WHF therapy with outcomes is unknown.Methods and resultsIn the PROTECT trial of 2033 AHF patients, we investigated the association between time of occurrence of WHF and intensity of therapy, with subsequent outcomes. WHF was defined by standardized, physician-determined assessment. Early WHF was defined as occurring on days 2-3 and late on days 4-7. Low intensity included restarting/increasing diuretics or vasodilators and high intensity included initiation of inotropes, vasopressors, inodilators, or mechanical support. Outcomes were death or cardiovascular/renal hospitalization over 60 days and death over 180 days. Of the 1879 patients with complete follow-up after day 7, 12.7% (n = 238) experienced WHF: 47.9% early and 52.1% late. Treatment intensity was low in 72.3% and high in 24.8% (2.9% missing). After adjusting for baseline predictors of outcome, WHF was associated with a trend toward increased 60-day death or cardiovascular/renal hospitalization [hazard ratio (HR) 1.26; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.99-1.60; P = 0.063] and increased 180-day death (HR 1.77; 95% CI 1.33-2.34; P

Heart failure is a syndrome with a pathophysiological basis that can be traced to dysfunction in several interconnected molecular pathways. Identification of biomarkers of heart failure that allow measurement of the disease on a molecular level has resulted in enthusiasm for their use in prognostication and selection of appropriate therapies. However, despite considerable amounts of information available on numerous biomarkers, inconsistent research methodologies and lack of clinical correlations have made bench-to-bedside translations rare and left the literature with countless publications of varied quality. There is a need for a systematic and collaborative approach aimed at definitively studying the clinical benefits of novel biomarkers. In this review, on the basis of input from academia, industry, and governmental agencies, we propose a systematized approach based on adherence to specific quality measures for studies looking to augment current prediction model or use biomarkers to tailor therapeutics. We suggest that study quality, rather than results, should determine publication and propose a system for grading biomarker studies. We outline the need for collaboration between clinical investigators and statisticians to introduce more advanced statistical methodologies into the field of biomarkers that would allow for data from a large number of variables to be distilled into clinically actionable information. Lastly, we propose the creation of a heart failure biomarker consortium that would allow for a comprehensive list of biomarkers to be concomitantly analyzed in a pooled sample of randomized clinical trials and hypotheses to be generated for testing in biomarker-guided trials. Such a consortium could collaborate in sharing samples to identify biomarkers, undertake meta-analyses on completed trials, and spearhead clinical trials to test the clinical utility of new biomarkers.

AimsThe implications of geographical variation are unknown following adjustment for hospital length of stay (LOS) in heart failure (HF) trials that included patients whether or not they had systolic dysfunction. We investigated regional differences in an international acute HF trial.Methods and resultsThe PROTECT trial investigated 2033 patients with acute HF and renal dysfunction hospitalized at 173 sites in 17 countries with randomization to rolofylline or placebo. We grouped enrolling countries into six regions. Baseline characteristics, in-hospital management, and outcomes were explored by region. The primary study outcome was 60-day mortality or cardiovascular/renal hospitalization. Secondary outcomes included 180-day mortality. Of 2033 patients, 33% were from Eastern Europe, 19% from Western Europe, 16% from Israel, 15% from North America, 14% from Russia, and 3% from Argentina. Marked differences in baseline characteristics, HF phenotype, in-hospital diuretic and vasodilator strategies, and LOS were observed by region. LOS was shortest in North America and Israel (median 5 days) and longest in Russia (median 15 days). Regional event rates varied significantly. Following multivariable adjustment, region was an independent predictor of the risk of mortality/hospitalization at 60 days, with the lowest risk in Russia (hazard ratio 0.39, 95% confidence interval 0.23-0.64 vs. Western Europe) due to lower rehospitalization; mortality differences were attenuated by 180 days.ConclusionsIn an international HF trial, there were differences in baseline characteristics, treatments, LOS, and rehospitalization amongst regions, but little difference in longer term mortality. Rehospitalization differences exist independent of LOS. This analysis may help inform future trial design and should be externally validated.