Framework of the Strengths and Challenges of Clinically Integrated Trials: An Expert Panel Report.

The limitations of the explanatory clinical trial framework include the high expense of implementing explanatory trials, restrictive entry criteria for participants, and redundant logistical processes. These limitations can result in slow evidence generation that is not responsive to population health needs, yielding evidence that is not generalizable. Clinically integrated trials, which integrate clinical research into routine care, represent a potential solution to this challenge and an opportunity to support learning health systems. The operational and design features of clinically integrated trials include a focused scope, simplicity in design and requirements, the leveraging of existing data structures, and patient participation in the entire trial process. These features are designed to minimize barriers to participation and trial execution and reduce additional research burdens for participants and clinicians alike. Broad adoption and scalability of clinically integrated trials are dependent, in part, on continuing regulatory, healthcare system, and payer support. This analysis presents a framework of the strengths and challenges of clinically integrated trials and is based on a multidisciplinary expert "Think Tank" panel discussion that included representatives from patient populations, academia, non-profit funding agencies, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, and industry.

Treatment effects of empagliflozin in hospitalized heart failure patients across the range of left ventricular ejection fraction - Results from the EMPULSE trial.

AIM: The EMPULSE (EMPagliflozin in patients hospitalised with acUte heart faiLure who have been StabilizEd) trial showed that, compared to placebo, the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor empagliflozin (10 mg/day) improved clinical outcomes of patients hospitalized for acute heart failure (HF). We investigated whether efficacy and safety of empagliflozin were consistent across the spectrum of left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). METHODS AND RESULTS: A total of 530 patients hospitalized for acute de novo or decompensated HF were included irrespective of LVEF. For the present analysis, patients were classified as HF with reduced (HFrEF, LVEF ≤40%), mildly reduced (HFmrEF, LVEF 41-49%) or preserved (HFpEF, LVEF ≥50%) ejection fraction at baseline. The primary endpoint was a hierarchical outcome of death, worsening HF events (HFE) and quality of life over 90 days, assessed by the win ratio. Secondary endpoints included individual components of the primary endpoint and safety. Out of 523 patients with baseline data, 354 (67.7%) had HFrEF, 54 (10.3%) had HFmrEF and 115 (22.0%) had HFpEF. The clinical benefit (hierarchical composite of all-cause death, HFE and Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire total symptom score) of empagliflozin at 90 days compared to placebo was consistent across LVEF categories (≤40%: win ratio 1.35 [95% confidence interval 1.04, 1.75]; 41-49%: win ratio 1.25 [0.66, 2.37)] and ≥50%: win ratio 1.40 [0.87, 2.23], pinteraction = 0.96) with a favourable safety profile. Results were consistent across individual components of the hierarchical primary endpoint. CONCLUSION: The clinical benefit of empagliflozin proved consistent across LVEF categories in the EMPULSE trial. These results support early in-hospital initiation of empagliflozin regardless of LVEF.

Contemporary approach to cardiogenic shock care: a state-of-the-art review.

Cardiogenic shock (CS) is a time-sensitive and hemodynamically complex syndrome with a broad spectrum of etiologies and clinical presentations. Despite contemporary therapies, CS continues to maintain high morbidity and mortality ranging from 35 to 50%. More recently, burgeoning observational research in this field aimed at enhancing the early recognition and characterization of the shock state through standardized team-based protocols, comprehensive hemodynamic profiling, and tailored and selective utilization of temporary mechanical circulatory support devices has been associated with improved outcomes. In this narrative review, we discuss the pathophysiology of CS, novel phenotypes, evolving definitions and staging systems, currently available pharmacologic and device-based therapies, standardized, team-based management protocols, and regionalized systems-of-care aimed at improving shock outcomes. We also explore opportunities for fertile investigation through randomized and non-randomized studies to address the prevailing knowledge gaps that will be critical to improving long-term outcomes.

Rethinking heart failure clinical trials: the heart failure collaboratory.

The Heart Failure Collaboratory (HFC) is a consortium of stakeholders in the heart failure (HF) community that aims to improve the infrastructure of clinical research to promote development of novel therapies for patients. Since its launch in 2018, HFC has implemented several solutions to tackle obstacles in HF clinical research including training programs to increase the number of clinicians skilled in conducting clinical trials, novel study designs, and advocacy for a diverse and inclusive HF research ecosystem. We highlight some of the HFC successes since its establishment.

Standardized Definitions for Evaluation of Acute Decompensated Heart Failure Therapies: HF-ARC Expert Panel Paper.

Acute decompensated heart failure (ADHF) is one of the most common reasons for hospitalizations or urgent care and is associated with poor outcomes. Therapies shown to improve outcomes are limited, however, and innovation in pharmacologic and device-based therapeutics are therefore actively being sought. Standardizing definitions for ADHF and its trajectory is complex, limiting the generalizability and translation of clinical trials to effect clinical care and policy change. The Heart Failure Collaboratory is a multistakeholder organization comprising clinical investigators, clinicians, patients, government representatives (including U.S. Food and Drug Administration and National Institutes of Health participants), payors, and industry collaborators. The following expert consensus document is the product of the Heart Failure Collaboratory convening with the Academic Research Consortium, including members from academia, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, and industry, for the purposes of proposing standardized definitions for ADHF and highlighting important endpoint considerations to inform the design and conduct of clinical trials for drugs and devices in this clinical arena.

Left Ventricular Ejection Fraction and the Future of Heart Failure Phenotyping.

Heart failure (HF) is a complex syndrome traditionally classified by left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) cutpoints. Although LVEF is prognostic for risk of events and predictive of response to some HF therapies, LVEF is a continuous variable and cutpoints are arbitrary, often based on historical clinical trial enrichment decisions rather than physiology. Holistic evaluation of the treatment effects for therapies throughout the LVEF range suggests the standard categorization paradigm for HF merits modification. The multidisciplinary Heart Failure Collaboratory reviewed data from large-scale HF clinical trials and found that many HF therapies have demonstrated therapeutic benefit across a large range of LVEF, but specific treatment effects vary across that range. Therefore, HF should practically be classified by association with an LVEF that is reduced or not reduced, while acknowledging uncertainty around the precise LVEF cutpoint, and future research should evaluate new therapies across the continuum of LVEF.

Heart failure without a reduced ejection fraction.

Heart failure (HF) substantially impacts the health and financial security of an increasing proportion of the US population. It worsens debility and quality of life and may lead to hospitalization and death. HF is a clinical syndrome with diverse symptomatic presentations. Physicians generally divide patients with HF into 2 groups: those with a left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) greater than or equal to 50% and those with an LVEF less than 49%. This review focuses on the group of patients whose LVEF is greater than or equal to 50%. This classification of HF is referred to as HF with a preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). Few beneficial therapies have been identified for this condition, possibly because of its heterogenous etiologies (eg, myocardial, vascular, metabolic, and other physiologic derangements). Clinicians should focus on diagnosing, treating, and preventing the etiologies that are known to cause HFpEF. Results from a small proportion of randomized controlled trials have shown therapeutic benefit for small molecules, although limited, if any, demonstrated mortality benefit has been noted. More research and investment are needed to decrease the burden of HFpEF and to discover lifesaving treatments for this growing population.

Mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist use and the effects of empagliflozin on clinical outcomes in patients admitted for acute heart failure: Findings from EMPULSE.

AIMS: In patients hospitalized for acute heart failure (AHF) empagliflozin produced greater clinical benefit than placebo. Many patients with AHF are treated with mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRAs). The interplay between empagliflozin and MRAs in AHF is yet to be explored. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of empagliflozin versus placebo according to MRA use at baseline in the EMPULSE trial (NCT04157751). METHODS AND RESULTS: In this analysis all comparisons were performed between empagliflozin and placebo, stratified by baseline MRA use. The primary outcome included all-cause death, heart failure events, and a ≥5 point difference in Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ) total symptom score at 90 days, assessed using the win ratio (WR). First heart failure hospitalization or cardiovascular death was a secondary outcome. From the 530 patients randomized, 276 (52%) were receiving MRAs at baseline. MRA users were younger, had lower ejection fraction, better renal function, and higher KCCQ scores. The primary outcome showed benefit of empagliflozin irrespective of baseline MRA use (WR 1.46, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.08-1.97 and WR 1.27, 95% CI 0.93-1.73 in MRA users and non-users, respectively; interaction p = 0.52). The effect of empagliflozin on first heart failure hospitalization or cardiovascular death was not modified by MRA use (hazard ratio [HR] 0.58, 95% CI 0.30-1.11 and HR 0.85, 95% CI 0.47-1.52 in MRA users and non-users, respectively; interaction p = 0.39). Investigator-reported and severe hyperkalaemia events were infrequent (<6%) irrespective of MRA use. CONCLUSIONS: In patients admitted for AHF, initiation of empagliflozin produced clinical benefit and was well tolerated irrespective of background MRA use. These findings support the early use of empagliflozin on top of MRA therapy in patients admitted for AHF.

Effect of Torsemide Versus Furosemide on Symptoms and Quality of Life Among Patients Hospitalized for Heart Failure: The TRANSFORM-HF Randomized Clinical Trial.

BACKGROUND: Loop diuretics are a primary therapy for the symptomatic treatment of heart failure (HF), but whether torsemide improves patient symptoms and quality of life better than furosemide remains unknown. As prespecified secondary end points, the TRANSFORM-HF trial (Torsemide Comparison With Furosemide for Management of Heart Failure) compared the effect of torsemide versus furosemide on patient-reported outcomes among patients with HF. METHODS: TRANSFORM-HF was an open-label, pragmatic, randomized trial of 2859 patients hospitalized for HF (regardless of ejection fraction) across 60 hospitals in the United States. Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to a loop diuretic strategy of torsemide or furosemide with investigator-selected dosage. This report examined effects on prespecified secondary end points, which included Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire Clinical Summary Score (KCCQ-CSS; assessed as adjusted mean difference in change from baseline; range, 0-100 with 100 indicating best health status; clinically important difference, ≥5 points) and Patient Health Questionnaire-2 (range, 0-6; score ≥3 supporting evaluation for depression) over 12 months. RESULTS: Baseline data were available for 2787 (97.5%) patients for KCCQ-CSS and 2624 (91.8%) patients for Patient Health Questionnaire-2. Median (interquartile range) baseline KCCQ-CSS was 42 (27-60) in the torsemide group and 40 (24-59) in the furosemide group. At 12 months, there was no significant difference between torsemide and furosemide in change from baseline in KCCQ-CSS (adjusted mean difference, 0.06 [95% CI, -2.26 to 2.37]; P=0.96) or the proportion of patients with Patient Health Questionnaire-2 score ≥3 (15.1% versus 13.2%: P=0.34). Results for KCCQ-CSS were similar at 1 month (adjusted mean difference, 1.36 [95% CI, -0.64 to 3.36]; P=0.18) and 6-month follow-up (adjusted mean difference, -0.37 [95% CI, -2.52 to 1.78]; P=0.73), and across subgroups by ejection fraction phenotype, New York Heart Association class at randomization, and loop diuretic agent before hospitalization. Irrespective of baseline KCCQ-CSS tertile, there was no significant difference between torsemide and furosemide on change in KCCQ-CSS, all-cause mortality, or all-cause hospitalization. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients discharged after hospitalization for HF, a strategy of torsemide compared with furosemide did not improve symptoms or quality of life over 12 months. The effects of torsemide and furosemide on patient-reported outcomes were similar regardless of ejection fraction, previous loop diuretic use, and baseline health status. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov; Unique identifier: NCT03296813.

The win ratio method in heart failure trials: lessons learnt from EMPULSE.

AIMS: The EMPULSE trial evaluated the clinical benefit of empagliflozin versus placebo using the stratified win ratio approach in 530 patients with acute heart failure (HF) after initial stabilization. We aim to elucidate how this method works and what it means, thereby giving guidance for use of the win ratio in future trials. METHODS AND RESULTS: The primary trial outcome is a hierarchical composite of death, number of HF events, time to first HF event, or a ≥5-point difference in Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ) total symptom score change at 90 days. In an overall (unstratified) analysis we show how comparison of all 265 x 265 patients pairs contribute to 'wins' for empagliflozin and placebo at all four levels of the hierarchy, leading to an unstratified win ratio of 1.38 (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.11-1.71; p = 0.0036). How such a win ratio should (and should not) be interpreted is then described. The more complex primary analysis using a stratified win ratio is then presented in detail leading to a very similar overall result. Win ratios for de novo acute HF and decompensated chronic HF patients were 1.29 and 1.39, respectively, their weighted combination yielding an overall stratified win ratio of 1.36 (95% CI 1.09-1.68) (p = 0.0054). Alternative ways of including HF events and KCCQ scores in the clinical hierarchy are presented, leading to recommendations for their use in future trials. Specifically, inclusion of both number of HF events and time-to-first HF event appears an unnecessary complication. Also, the use of a 5-point margin for KCCQ score paired comparisons is not statistically necessary. CONCLUSIONS: The EMPULSE trial findings illustrate how deaths, clinical events and patient-reported outcomes can be integrated into a win ratio analysis strategy that yields clinically meaningful findings of patient benefit. This has implications for future trial designs that recognize the clinical priorities of patient evaluation and the need for efficient progress towards approval of new treatments.

A Composite Score Summarizing Use and Dosing of Evidence-Based Medical Therapies in Heart Failure: A Nationwide Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: As heart failure therapeutic care becomes increasingly complex, a composite medical therapy score could be useful to conveniently summarize background medical therapy. We applied the composite medical therapy score developed by the Heart Failure Collaboratory (HFC) to the Danish heart failure with reduced ejection fraction population to evaluate its external validation including assessing the distribution of the score and its association with survival. METHODS: In a retrospective nationwide cohort study, we identified all Danish heart failure with reduced ejection fraction patients alive on July 1, 2018, and assessed their treatment doses. Patients were excluded if they did not have at least 365 days for up-titration of medical therapy prior to identification. The HFC score (range 0-8) accounts for use and dosing of multiple therapies prescribed to each patient. Risk-adjusted association between the composite score and all-cause mortality was examined. RESULTS: In total, 26 779 patients (mean age 71.9 years; 32% women) were identified. At baseline, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor/angiotensin receptor blocker was used in 77%, ß-blocker in 81%, mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist in 30%, angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor in 2%, and ivabradine in 2%. The median HFC score was 4. After multivariable adjustment, higher HFC scores were independently associated with lower mortality (≥median versus

Use of patient-reported outcomes in heart failure: from clinical trials to routine practice.

Heart failure (HF) is a complex syndrome that affects mortality/morbidity and acts at different levels in the patient's life, resulting in a drastic impairment in multiple aspects of daily activities (e.g. physical, mental/emotional, and social) and leading to a reduction in quality of life. The definition of disease status and symptom severity has been traditionally based on the physician assessment, while the patient's experience of disease has been long overlooked. The active participation of patients in their own care is necessary to better understand the perception of disease and the multiple aspects of life affected, and to improve adherence to treatments. Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) aim to switch traditional care to a more patient-centred approach. Although PROs demonstrated precision in the evaluation of disease status and have a good association with prognosis in several randomized controlled trials, their implementation into clinical practice is limited. This review discusses the modalities of use of PROs in HF, summarizes the most largely adopted PROs in HF care, and provides an overview on the application of PROs in trials and the potential for their transition to clinical practice. By discussing the advantages and the disadvantages of their use, the reasons limiting their application in daily clinical routine, and the strategies that may promote their implementation, this review aims to foster the systematic integration of the patient's standpoint in HF care.

Impact of empagliflozin on decongestion in acute heart failure: the EMPULSE trial.

AIMS: Effective and safe decongestion remains a major goal for optimal management of patients with acute heart failure (AHF). The effects of the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor empagliflozin on decongestion-related endpoints in the EMPULSE trial (NCT0415775) were evaluated. METHODS AND RESULTS: A total of 530 patients hospitalized for AHF were randomized 1:1 to either empagliflozin 10 mg once daily or placebo for 90 days. The outcomes investigated were: weight loss (WL), WL adjusted for mean daily loop diuretic dose (WL-adjusted), area under the curve of change from baseline in N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide levels, hemoconcentration, and clinical congestion score after 15, 30, and 90 days of treatment. Compared with placebo, patients treated with empagliflozin demonstrated significantly greater reductions in all studied markers of decongestion at all time-points, adjusted mean differences (95% confidence interval) at Days 15, 30, and 90 were: for WL -1.97 (-2.86, -1.08), -1.74 (-2.73, -0.74); -1.53 (-2.75, -0.31) kg; for WL-adjusted: -2.31 (-3.77, -0.85), -2.79 (-5.03, -0.54), -3.18 (-6.08, -0.28) kg/40 mg furosemide i.v. or equivalent; respectively (all P < 0.05). Greater WL at Day 15 (i.e. above the median WL in the entire population) was associated with significantly higher probability for clinical benefit at Day 90 (hierarchical composite of all-cause death, heart failure events, and a 5-point or greater difference in Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire total symptom score change from baseline to 90 days) with the win ratio of 1.75 (95% confidence interval 1.37, 2.23; P < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: Initiation of empagliflozin in patients hospitalized for AHF resulted in an early, effective and sustained decongestion which was associated with clinical benefit at Day 90.

Wearables in Cardiovascular Disease.

Wearable devices stand to revolutionize the way healthcare is delivered. From consumer devices that provide general health information and screen for medical conditions to medical-grade devices that allow collection of larger datasets that include multiple modalities, wearables have a myriad of potential uses, especially in cardiovascular disorders. In this review, we summarize the underlying technologies employed in these devices and discuss the regulatory and economic aspects of such devices as well as the future implications of their use.

Sex-Related Differences in Patient Characteristics, Hemodynamics, and Outcomes of Cardiogenic Shock: INOVA-SHOCK Registry.

Background: Little is known about sex-related differences in outcomes of patients with cardiogenic shock (CS) treated within a standardized team-based approach (STBA). Methods: We evaluated 520 consecutive patients (151 women and 369 men) with CS due to acute myocardial infarction (AMI) and heart failure (HF) in a single-center registry (January 2017-December 2019) and examined outcomes according to sex and CS phenotype. The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes included major adverse cardiac events, 30-day mortality, major bleeding, vascular complications, and stroke. Results: Women with AMI-CS had higher baseline acuity (CardShock score: female [F]: 5.5 vs male [M]: 4.0; P = .04). Women with HF-CS more often presented with cardiac arrest (F: 12.4% vs M: 2.4%; P< .01) and had higher rates of vasopressor use (F: 70.8% vs M: 58.0%; P = .04) and mechanical circulatory support (F: 46.1% vs M: 32.5%; P = .04). There were no sex-related differences in in-hospital mortality for AMI-CS (F: 45.2% vs M: 36.9%; P = .28) and HF-CS (F: 28.1% vs M: 24.5%; P = .56). Women with HF-CS experienced higher rates of major bleeding (F: 25.8% vs M: 13.7%; P = .02) and vascular complications (F: 15.7% vs M: 6.1%; P = .01). However, female sex was not an independent predictor of these complications. No sex differences in survival were noted at 1 year. Conclusions: Within an STBA, although women with AMI-CS and HF-CS presented with higher acuity, they experienced similar in-hospital mortality, major adverse cardiac events, 30-day mortality, stroke, and 30-day readmissions as men. Further research is needed to better understand the extent to which historical differences in CS outcomes can be mitigated by an STBA.

Functional and Symptomatic Clinical Trial Endpoints: The HFC-ARC Scientific Expert Panel.

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.