Search

Over the past decade, the field of heart failure (HF) has witnessed remarkable progress in drug development, resulting in the approval of numerous groundbreaking drugs by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. To address some of these challenges, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has issued guidance documents that have been critical in contemporary HF drug development; however, there are still many challenges in need of investigation. This paper leverages efforts of the Heart Failure Collaboratory and the scientific community to discuss the critical need for innovative trial designs, important concepts in clinical trials in the modern era, and the utilization of big data to accelerate HF drug development. At this inflection point in HF drug development, it is imperative that, as a global scientific community, we foster increased collaboration among researchers, clinicians, patients, and regulatory bodies. Only through such unified efforts can we navigate the complexities of HF, accelerate the development process, and ultimately deliver effective therapies that transform patient outcomes.

Hemocompatibility-related adverse events affect patients after left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implantation but are hard to predict.

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.

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.

[Display omitted]

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.

Although it is a rare disease, the number of available therapeutic options for treating pulmonary arterial hypertension has increased since the late 1990s, with multiple drugs developed that are shown to be effective in phase 3 randomised controlled trials. Despite considerable advancements in pulmonary arterial hypertension treatment, prognosis remains poor. Existing therapies target pulmonary endothelial dysfunction with vasodilation and anti-proliferative effects. Novel therapies that target proliferative vascular remodelling and affect important outcomes are urgently needed. There is need for additional innovations in clinical trial design so that all emerging candidate therapies can be rigorously studied. Pulmonary arterial hypertension trial design has shifted from short-term submaximal exercise capacity as a primary endpoint, to larger clinical event-driven trial outcomes. Event-driven pulmonary arterial hypertension trials could face feasibility and efficiency issues in the future because increasing sample sizes and longer follow-up durations are needed, which would be problematic in such a rare disease. Enrichment strategies, innovative and alternative trial designs, and novel trial endpoints are potential solutions that could improve the efficiency of future pulmonary arterial hypertension trials while maintaining robustness and clinically meaningful evidence.

The benefits of standardized care for cardiogenic shock (CS) across regional care networks are poorly understood.

IMPORTANCE: Despite bearing a disproportionate burden of heart failure (HF), Black and Hispanic individuals have been poorly represented in HF clinical trials. Underrepresentation in clinical trials limits the generalizability of the findings to these populations and may even introduce uncertainties and hesitancy when translating trial data to the care of people from underrepresented groups. The Heart Failure Collaboratory, a consortium of stakeholders convened to enhance HF therapeutic development, has been dedicated to improving recruitment strategies for patients from diverse and historically underrepresented groups. OBSERVATIONS: Despite federal policies from the US Food and Drug Administration and National Institutes of Health aimed at improving trial representation, gaps in trial enrollment proportionate to the racial and ethnic composition of the HF population have persisted. Increasing trial globalization with limited US enrollment is a major driver of these patterns. Additional barriers to representative enrollment include inequities in care access, logistical issues in participation, restrictive enrollment criteria, and English language requirements. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Strategies for improving diverse trial enrollment include methodical study design and site selection, diversification of research leadership and staff, broadening of eligibility criteria, community and patient engagement, and broad stakeholder commitment. In contemporary HF trials, diverse trial enrollment is not only feasible but can be efficiently achieved to improve the generalizability and translation of trial knowledge to clinical practice.

The sodium–glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor empagliflozin reduces the risk of cardiovascular death or heart failure hospitalization in patients with chronic heart failure, but whether empagliflozin also improves clinical outcomes when initiated in patients who are hospitalized for acute heart failure is unknown. In this double-blind trial (EMPULSE; NCT04157751), 530 patients with a primary diagnosis of acute de novo or decompensated chronic heart failure regardless of left ventricular ejection fraction were randomly assigned to receive empagliflozin 10 mg once daily or placebo. Patients were randomized in-hospital when clinically stable (median time from hospital admission to randomization, 3 days) and were treated for up to 90 days. The primary outcome of the trial was clinical benefit, defined as a hierarchical composite of death from any cause, number of heart failure events and time to first heart failure event, or a 5 point or greater difference in change from baseline in the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire Total Symptom Score at 90 days, as assessed using a win ratio. More patients treated with empagliflozin had clinical benefit compared with placebo (stratified win ratio, 1.36; 95% confidence interval, 1.09–1.68; P= 0.0054), meeting the primary endpoint. Clinical benefit was observed for both acute de novo and decompensated chronic heart failure and was observed regardless of ejection fraction or the presence or absence of diabetes. Empagliflozin was well tolerated; serious adverse events were reported in 32.3% and 43.6% of the empagliflozin- and placebo-treated patients, respectively. These findings indicate that initiation of empagliflozin in patients hospitalized for acute heart failure is well tolerated and results in significant clinical benefit in the 90 days after starting treatment.

The treatment of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) has changed considerably over time, particularly with the sequential development of therapies aimed at antagonism of maladaptive biologic pathways, including inhibition of the sympathetic nervous system and the renin-angiotensin aldosterone system. The sequential nature of earlier HFrEF trials allowed the integration of new therapies tested against the background therapy of the time. More recently, multiple heart failure therapies are being evaluated simultaneously, and the number of therapeutic choices for treating HFrEF has grown considerably. In addition, implementation science has lagged behind discovery science in heart failure. Furthermore, given there are currently >200 ongoing clinical trials in heart failure, further complexities are anticipated. In an effort to provide a decision-making framework in the current era of expanding therapeutic options in HFrEF, the Heart Failure Collaboratory convened a multi-stakeholder group, including patients, clinicians, clinical investigators, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, industry, and payers who met at the U.S. Food and Drug Administration campus on March 6, 2020. This paper summarizes the discussions and expert consensus recommendations.

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.

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.

Cardiogenic shock is a hemodynamically complex syndrome characterized by a low cardiac output that often culminates in multiorgan system failure and death. Despite recent advances, clinical outcomes remain poor, with mortality rates exceeding 40%. In the absence of adequately powered randomized controlled trials to guide therapy, best practices for shock management remain nonuniform. Emerging data from North American registries, however, support the use of standardized protocols focused on rapid diagnosis, early intervention, ongoing hemodynamic assessment, and multidisciplinary longitudinal care. In this review, the authors examine the pathophysiology and phenotypes of cardiogenic shock, benefits and limitations of current therapies, and they propose a standardized and team-based treatment algorithm. Lastly, they discuss future research opportunities to address current gaps in clinical knowledge.

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.

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.

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.

This 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.

[Display omitted]

[Display omitted]

The study sought to review the characteristics of existing patient-reported outcome (PRO) instruments used with chronic heart failure (HF) patients and evaluate their potential to support an approved U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) product label claim.

Ivabradine is approved to reduce hospitalizations for patients with symptomatic heart failure, reduced ejection fraction, and persistently elevated heart rate despite otherwise maximal medical therapy. However, the eligible patient population is a small fraction of those with heart failure overall. This review summarizes the major clinical evidence supporting the use of ivabradine, identifies and discusses areas of uncertainty from the clinical trial data, helps describe the population most likely to benefit, and attempts to place ivabradine within the multifaceted treatment scheme currently used for patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction.