Search

Aims: In order to understand how sex differences impact the generalizability of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) in patients with heart failure (HF) and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), we sought to compare clinical characteristics and clinical outcomes between RCTs and HF observational registries stratified by sex. Methods and results: Data from two HF registries and five HFrEF RCTs were used to create three subpopulations: one RCT population (n = 16 917; 21.7% females), registry patients eligible for RCT inclusion (n = 26 104; 31.8% females), and registry patients ineligible for RCT inclusion (n = 20 810; 30.2% females). Clinical endpoints included all‐cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, and first HF hospitalization at 1 year. Males and females were equally eligible for trial enrolment (56.9% of females and 55.1% of males in the registries). One‐year mortality rates were 5.6%, 14.0%, and 28.6% for females and 6.9%, 10.7%, and 24.6% for males in the RCT, RCT‐eligible, and RCT‐ineligible groups, respectively. After adjusting for 11 HF prognostic variables, RCT females showed higher survival compared to RCT‐eligible females (standardized mortality ratio [SMR] 0.72; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.62–0.83), while RCT males showed higher adjusted mortality rates compared to RCT‐eligible males (SMR 1.16; 95% CI 1.09–1.24). Similar results were also found for cardiovascular mortality (SMR 0.89; 95% CI 0.76–1.03 for females, SMR 1.43; 95% CI 1.33–1.53 for males). Conclusion: Generalizability of HFrEF RCTs differed substantially between the sexes, with females having lower trial participation and female trial participants having lower mortality rates compared to similar females in the registries, while males had higher than expected cardiovascular mortality rates in RCTs compared to similar males in registries. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims Primary prevention strategies for heart failure (HF) have had limited success, possibly due to a wide range of underlying risk factors (RFs). Systematic evaluations of the prognostic burden and preventive potential across this wide range of risk factors are lacking. We aimed at estimating evidence, prevalence and co-occurrence for primary prevention and impact on prognosis of RFs for incident HF. Methods and results We systematically reviewed trials and observational evidence of primary HF prevention across 92 putative aetiologic RFs for HF identified from US and European clinical practice guidelines. We identified 170 885 individuals aged =30 years with incident HF from 1997 to 2017, using linked primary and secondary care UK electronic health records (EHR) and rule-based phenotypes (ICD-10, Read Version 2, OPCS-4 procedure and medication codes) for each of 92 RFs. Only 10/92 factors had high quality observational evidence for association with incident HF; 7 had effective randomized controlled trial (RCT)-based interventions for HF prevention (RCT-HF), and 6 for cardiovascular disease prevention, but not HF (RCT-CVD), and the remainder had no RCT-based preventive interventions (RCT-0). We were able to map 91/92 risk factors to EHR using 5961 terms, and 88/91 factors were represented by at least one patient. In the 5 years prior to HF diagnosis, 44.3% had =4 RFs. By RCT evidence, the most common RCT-HF RFs were hypertension (48.5%), stable angina (34.9%), unstable angina (16.8%), myocardial infarction (15.8%), and diabetes (15.1%); RCT-CVD RFs were smoking (46.4%) and obesity (29.9%); and RCT-0 RFs were atrial arrhythmias (17.2%), cancer (16.5%), heavy alcohol intake (14.9%). Mortality at 1 year varied across all 91 factors (lowest: pregnancy-related hormonal disorder 4.2%; highest: phaeochromocytoma 73.7%). Among new HF cases, 28.5% had no RCT-HF RFs and 38.6% had no RCT-CVD RFs. 15.6% had either no RF or only RCT-0 RFs. Conclusion One in six individuals with HF have no recorded RFs or RFs without trials. We provide a systematic map of primary preventive opportunities across a wide range of RFs for HF, demonstrating a high burden of co-occurrence and the need for trials tackling multiple RFs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]