How do breast cancer clinical trials approach cardiovascular safety: targeted or generalized?

BACKGROUND: Different breast cancer pharmacotherapy agents cause different forms of cardiovascular toxicity. We aim to assess if breast cancer pharmacotherapy trials approach cardiovascular safety in a targeted or generalized manner when administering different agents. METHODS: We searched Embase and Medline for phase 2 and 3 breast cancer pharmacotherapy trials. We examined exclusion criterion for cardiovascular conditions and cardiovascular safety assessment through cardiovascular imaging, electrocardiogram, troponin, or natriuretic peptides. Fisher's exact test was utilized to compare reporting. RESULTS: Fifty breast cancer clinical trials were included in this study. Trials administering microtubule inhibitors were most likely to exclude patients with any CV condition compared with trials administering other agents (93.5% vs. 68.4%; p < 0.05), particularly coronary artery disease (77.4% vs. 36.8%; p < 0.01) but reported performing an electrocardiogram in 13 (41.9%) trials. Trials administering anti-HER 2 agents excluded all patients with at least one CV condition, particularly patients with heart failure (100.0% vs. 62.9%) and were more likely to perform echocardiograms (80.0% vs. 22.9%, p < 0.001) compared with other agents. Other agents excluded participants in a generalized manner and do not frequently perform targeted safety assessments. CONCLUSIONS: Only trials administering microtubule inhibitors or anti-HER 2 therapy exclude patients with cardiovascular disease in a targeted approach. However, anti-HER 2 therapy trials are the only breast cancer clinical trials that perform targeted safety assessments. Breast cancer clinical trials need to develop a targeted approach to cardiovascular safety assessments to permit inclusion of high-risk participants and generate clinical trial data generalizable to patients with cardiovascular disease undergoing cancer therapy.

A Phenomapping Tool and Clinical Score to Identify Low Diuretic Efficiency in Acute Decompensated Heart Failure.

BACKGROUND: Individuals with acute decompensated heart failure (ADHF) have a varying response to diuretic therapy. Strategies for the early identification of low diuretic efficiency to inform decongestion therapies are lacking. OBJECTIVES: The authors sought to develop and externally validate a machine learning-based phenomapping approach and integer-based diuresis score to identify patients with low diuretic efficiency. METHODS: Participants with ADHF from ROSE-AHF, CARRESS-HF, and ATHENA-HF were pooled in the derivation cohort (n = 794). Multivariable finite-mixture model-based phenomapping was performed to identify phenogroups based on diuretic efficiency (urine output over the first 72 hours per total intravenous furosemide equivalent loop diuretic dose). Phenogroups were externally validated in other pooled ADHF trials (DOSE/ESCAPE). An integer-based diuresis score (BAN-ADHF score: blood urea nitrogen, creatinine, natriuretic peptide levels, atrial fibrillation, diastolic blood pressure, hypertension and home diuretic, and heart failure hospitalization) was developed and validated based on predictors of the diuretic efficiency phenogroups to estimate the probability of low diuretic efficiency using the pooled ADHF trials described earlier. The associations of the BAN-ADHF score with markers and symptoms of congestion, length of stay, in-hospital mortality, and global well-being were assessed using adjusted regression models. RESULTS: Clustering identified 3 phenogroups based on diuretic efficiency: phenogroup 1 (n = 370; 47%) had lower diuretic efficiency (median: 13.1 mL/mg; Q1-Q3: 7.7-19.4 mL/mg) than phenogroups 2 (n = 290; 37%) and 3 (n = 134; 17%) (median: 17.8 mL/mg; Q1-Q3: 10.8-26.1 mL/mg and median: 35.3 mL/mg; Q1-Q3: 17.5-49.0 mL/mg, respectively) (P < 0.001). The median urine output difference in response to 80 mg intravenous twice-daily furosemide between the lowest and highest diuretic efficiency group (phenogroup 1 vs 3) was 3,520 mL/d. The BAN-ADHF score demonstrated good model performance for predicting the lowest diuretic efficiency phenogroup membership (C-index: 0.92 in DOSE/ESCAPE validation cohort) that was superior to measures of kidney function (creatinine or blood urea nitrogen), natriuretic peptide levels, or home diuretic dose (DeLong P < 0.001 for all). Net urine output in response to 80 mg intravenous twice-daily furosemide among patients with a low vs high (5 vs 20) BAN-ADHF score was 2,650 vs 660 mL per 24 hours, respectively. Participants with higher BAN-ADHF scores had significantly lower global well-being, higher natriuretic peptide levels on discharge, a longer in-hospital stay, and a higher risk of in-hospital mortality in both derivation and validation cohorts. CONCLUSIONS: The authors developed and validated a phenomapping strategy and diuresis score for individuals with ADHF and differential response to diuretic therapy, which was associated with length of stay and mortality.

Health and Economic Evaluation of Sacubitril-Valsartan for Heart Failure Management.

Importance: The US Food and Drug Administration expanded labeling of sacubitril-valsartan from the treatment of patients with chronic heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction (EF) to all patients with HF, noting the greatest benefits in those with below-normal EF. However, the upper bound of below normal is not clearly defined, and value determinations across a broader EF range are unknown. Objective: To estimate the cost-effectiveness of sacubitril-valsartan vs renin-angiotensin system inhibitors (RASis) across various upper-level cutoffs of EF. Design, Setting, and Participants: This economic evaluation included participant-level data from the PARADIGM-HF (Prospective Comparison of ARNI With ACEI to Determine Impact on Global Mortality and Morbidity in Heart Failure) and the PARAGON-HF (Prospective Comparison of ARNi with ARB Global Outcomes in HF With Preserved Ejection Fraction) trials. PARADIGM-HF was conducted between 2009 and 2014, PARAGON-HF was conducted between 2014 and 2019, and this analysis was conducted between 2021 and 2023. Main Outcomes and Measures: A 5-state Markov model used risk reductions for all-cause mortality and HF hospitalization from PARADIGM-HF and PARAGON-HF. Quality-of-life differences were estimated from EuroQol-5D scores. Hospitalization and medication costs were obtained from published national sources; the wholesale acquisition cost of sacubitril-valsartan was $7092 per year. Risk estimates and treatment effects were generated in consecutive 5% EF increments up to 60% and applied to an EF distribution of US patients with HF from the Get With the Guidelines-Heart Failure registry. The base case included a lifetime horizon from a health care sector perspective. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were estimated at EFs of 60% or less (base case) and at various upper-level EF cutoffs. Results: Among 13 264 total patients whose data were analyzed, for those with EFs of 60% or less, sacubitril-valsartan was projected to add 0.53 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) at an incremental lifetime cost of $40 892 compared with RASi, yielding an ICER of $76 852 per QALY. In a probabilistic sensitivity analysis, 95% of the values of the ICER occurred between $71 516 and $82 970 per QALY. Among patients with chronic HF and an EF of 60% or less, treatment with sacubitril-valsartan vs RASis would be at least of economic intermediate value (ICER <$180 000 per QALY) at a sacubitril-valsartan cost of $10 242 or less per year, of high economic value (ICER <$60 000 per QALY) at a cost of $3673 or less per year, and cost-saving at a cost of $338 or less per year. The ICERs were $67 331 per QALY, $59 614 per QALY, and $56 786 per QALY at EFs of 55% or less, 50% or less, and 45% or less, respectively. Treatment with sacubitril-valsartan in only those with EFs of 45% or greater (up to ≤60%) yielded an ICER of $127 172 per QALY gained; treatment was more cost-effective in those at the lower end of this range (ICER of $100 388 per QALY gained for those with EFs of 45%-55%; ICER of $84 291 per QALY gained for those with EFs of 45%-50%). Conclusions and Relevance: Cost-effectiveness modeling provided an ICER for treatment with sacubitril-valsartan vs RASis consistent with high economic value for patients with reduced and mildly reduced EFs (≤50%) and at least intermediate value at the current undiscounted wholesale acquisition cost price at an EF of 60% or less. Treatment was more cost-effective at lower EF ranges. These findings may have implications for coverage decisions and value assessments in contemporary clinical practice guidelines.

Geographic Variation in the Quality of Heart Failure Care Among U.S. Veterans.

BACKGROUND: The burden of heart failure is growing. Guideline-directed medical therapies (GDMT) reduce adverse outcomes in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). Whether there is geographic variation in HFrEF quality of care is not well described. OBJECTIVES: This study evaluated variation nationally for prescription of GDMT within the Veterans Health Administration. METHODS: A cohort of Veterans with HFrEF had their address linked to hospital referral regions (HRRs). GDMT prescription was defined using pharmacy data between July 1, 2020, and July 1, 2021. Within HRRs, we calculated the percentage of Veterans prescribed GDMT and a composite GDMT z-score. National choropleth maps were created to evaluate prescription variation. Associations between GDMT performance and demographic characteristics were evaluated using linear regression. RESULTS: Maps demonstrated significant variation in the HRR composite score and GDMT prescriptions. Within HRRs, the prescription of beta-blockers to Veterans was highest with a median of 80% (IQR: 77.3%-82.2%) followed by angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor/angiotensin receptor blocker/angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitors (69.3%; IQR: 66.4%-72.1%), sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors (10.3%; IQR: 7.7%-12.8%), mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (29.2%; IQR: 25.8%-33.9%), and angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitors (12.2%; IQR: 8.6%-15.3%). HRR composite GDMT z-scores were inversely associated with the HRR median Gini coefficient (R = -0.13; P = 0.0218) and the percentage of low-income residents (R = -0.117; P = 0.0413). CONCLUSIONS: Wide geographic differences exist for HFrEF care. Targeted strategies may be required to increase GDMT prescription for Veterans in lower-performing regions, including those affected by income inequality and poverty.

Quality of Care and Clinical Outcomes for Patients With Heart Failure at Hospitals Caring for a High Proportion of Black Adults: Get With The Guidelines-Heart Failure Registry.

Importance: Black adults with heart failure (HF) disproportionately experience higher population-level mortality than White adults with HF. Whether quality of care for HF differs at hospitals with high proportions of Black patients compared with other hospitals is unknown. Objective: To compare quality and outcomes for patients with HF at hospitals with high proportions of Black patients vs other hospitals. Design, Setting, and Participants: Patients hospitalized for HF at Get With The Guidelines (GWTG) HF sites from January 1, 2016, through December 1, 2019. These data were analyzed from May 2022 through November 2022. Exposures: Hospitals caring for high proportions of Black patients. Main Outcomes and Measures: Quality of HF care based on 14 evidence-based measures, overall defect-free HF care, and 30-day readmissions and mortality in Medicare patients. Results: This study included 422 483 patients (224 270 male [53.1%] and 284 618 White [67.4%]) with a mean age of 73.0 years. Among 480 hospitals participating in GWTG-HF, 96 were classified as hospitals with high proportions of Black patients. Quality of care was similar between hospitals with high proportions of Black patients compared with other hospitals for 11 of 14 GWTG-HF measures, including use of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors/angiotensin receptor blocker/angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitors for left ventricle systolic dysfunction (high-proportion Black hospitals: 92.7% vs other hospitals: 92.4%; adjusted odds ratio [OR], 0.91; 95% CI, 0.65-1.27), evidence-based ß-blockers (94.7% vs 93.7%; OR, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.82-1.28), angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitors at discharge (14.3% vs 16.8%; OR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.54-1.02), anticoagulation for atrial fibrillation/flutter (88.8% vs 87.5%; OR, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.76-1.45), and implantable cardioverter-defibrillator counseling/placement/prescription at discharge (70.9% vs 71.0%; OR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.50-1.13). Patients at high-proportion Black hospitals were less likely to be discharged with a follow-up visit made within 7 days or less (70.4% vs 80.1%; OR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.53-0.86), receive cardiac resynchronization device placement/prescription (50.6% vs 53.8%; OR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.42-0.95), or an aldosterone antagonist (50.4% vs 53.5%; OR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.50-0.97). Overall defect-free HF care was similar between both groups of hospitals (82.6% vs 83.4%; OR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.67-1.19) and there were no significant within-hospital differences in quality for Black patients vs White patients. Among Medicare beneficiaries, the risk-adjusted hazard ratio (HR) for 30-day readmissions was higher at high-proportion Black vs other hospitals (HR, 1.14; 95% CI, 1.02-1.26), but similar for 30-day mortality (HR 0.92; 95% CI,0.84-1.02). Conclusions and Relevance: Quality of care for HF was similar across 11 of 14 measures at hospitals caring for high proportions of Black patients compared with other hospitals, as was overall defect-free HF care. There were no significant within-hospital differences in quality for Black patients vs White patients.

Polypharmacy and Optimization of Guideline-Directed Medical Therapy in Heart Failure: The GUIDE-IT Trial.

BACKGROUND: Polypharmacy is common among patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). However, its impact on the use of optimal guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) is not well established. OBJECTIVES: This study sought to evaluate the association between polypharmacy and odds of receiving optimal GDMT over time among patients with HFrEF. METHODS: The authors conducted a post hoc analysis of the GUIDE-IT (Guiding Evidence-Based Therapy Using Biomarker Intensified Treatment) trial. Polypharmacy was defined as receiving ≥5 medications (excluding HFrEF GDMT) at baseline. The outcome of interest was optimal triple therapy GDMT (concurrent administration of a renin-angiotensin-aldosterone blocker and beta-blocker at 50% of the target dose and a mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist at any dose) achieved over the 12-month follow-up. Multivariable adjusted mixed-effect logistic regression models with multiplicative interaction terms (time × polypharmacy) were constructed to evaluate how polypharmacy at baseline modified the odds of achieving optimal GDMT on follow-up. RESULTS: The study included 891 participants with HFrEF. The median number of non-GDMT medications at baseline was 4 (IQR: 3-6), with 414 (46.5%) prescribed ≥5 and identified as being on polypharmacy. The proportion of participants who achieved optimal GDMT at the end of the 12-month follow-up was lower with vs without polypharmacy at baseline (15% vs 19%, respectively). In adjusted mixed models, the odds of achieving optimal GDMT over time were modified by baseline polypharmacy status (P for interaction < 0.001). Patients without polypharmacy at baseline had increased odds of achieving GDMT (OR: 1.16 [95% CI: 1.12-1.21] per 1-month increase; P < 0.001) but not patients with polypharmacy (OR: 1.01 [95% CI: 0.96-1.06)] per 1-month increase). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with HFrEF who are on non-GDMT polypharmacy have lower odds of achieving optimal GDMT on follow-up.

Applicability of Vericiguat to Patients Hospitalized for Heart Failure in the United States.

BACKGROUND: In January 2021, vericiguat, a soluble guanylate cyclase stimulator, was approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to reduce the risk of cardiovascular death and heart failure (HF) hospitalization among patients with a recent worsening HF event based on the VICTORIA (VerICiguaT Global Study in Subjects with Heart Failure with Reduced Ejection Fraction) trial. OBJECTIVES: This study sought to leverage a contemporary U.S. registry of patients hospitalized for heart failure (HF) to characterize patients who may be candidates for vericiguat based on FDA label and the VICTORIA trial eligibility criteria. METHODS: The authors studied patients hospitalized for HF with ejection fraction (EF) <45% across 525 sites in the GWTG-HF (Get With The Guidelines-Heart Failure) registry between January 2014 and December 2020. Approximate FDA label criteria (excluding estimated glomerular filtration rate [eGFR] <15 mL/min/1.73 m2, dialysis, or patients with heart transplantation or durable mechanical circulatory support) and eligibility criteria for the VICTORIA trial were applied to the GWTG-HF cohort. RESULTS: Among 241,057 patients with EF <45% in the GWTG-HF registry, 221,730 (92%) could be candidates for vericiguat under the FDA label and 92,249 (38%) would have been eligible for the VICTORIA trial. The most frequent reasons for ineligibility for the FDA label were eGFR <15 mL/min/1.73 m2 (5.7%) and dialysis (1.6%). Although there were greater proportions of women and Black patients in the GWTG-HF registry, most clinical characteristics were qualitatively similar with patients enrolled in the VICTORIA trial. Among Medicare beneficiaries in the GWTG-HF registry eligible for vericiguat by either FDA label or VICTORIA trial criteria, 12-month postdischarge rates of mortality (36%-37%), HF hospitalization (33%-35%), all-cause hospitalization (64%-66%), and mean health care expenditure (U.S. $25,106-$25,428) were high. CONCLUSIONS: Data from a large, contemporary U.S. registry of patients actively hospitalized for HF with EF <45% suggest that approximately 4 in 10 patients meet the criteria of the VICTORIA trial and that more than 9 in 10 patients are potential candidates for vericiguat based on the FDA label. Contemporary Medicare beneficiaries hospitalized for HF with EF <45% and eligible for vericiguat face high rates of postdischarge mortality and readmission and accrue substantial health care costs.

Risk of Stroke in Older Adults With Heart Failure.

Heart failure (HF) is a risk factor for incident stroke. However, less is known about the independent nature of this association and to what extent various baseline characteristics may mediate this risk. Of the 5,795 community-dwelling adults aged ≥65 years in the Cardiovascular Health Study, 5,448 were free of baseline stroke, of whom 229 had baseline HF. We used a multivariable-adjusted Cox regression model to estimate hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for centrally adjudicated incident stroke associated with HF. Participants had a mean age of 73 years, 58% were women, and 15% were African-American. During 23 years of follow-up, incident stroke occurred in 18.8% and 19.3% of those with and without HF, respectively, but the time to first stroke was shorter in those with HF (age-gender-race-adjusted HR 1.64, 95% CI 1.21 to 2.25). The association remained essentially unchanged after adjustments for tobacco, alcohol, and physical activity (HR 1.63, 95% CI 1.21 to 2.24), attenuated after adjustment for hypertension, atrial fibrillation, myocardial infarction, and diabetes mellitus (HR 1.26, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.72), and further attenuated after additional adjustment for 10 baseline functional and subclinical variables (HR 1.05, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.46). In conclusion, despite a similar 23-year stroke incidence, time to first stroke was shorter in older adults with HF than without. However, this extra risk appears to be mediated primarily by 4 cardiovascular diseases that are also risk factors for HF. These findings highlight the importance of the primary prevention of these HF risk factors to reduce the extra risk of stroke in HF.

Temporal trends and rural-urban disparities in cerebrovascular risk factors, in-hospital management and outcomes in ischaemic strokes in China from 2005 to 2015: a nationwide serial cross-sectional survey.

BACKGROUND: Stroke is the leading cause of mortality in China, with limited evidence of in-hospital burden obtained from nationwide surveys. We aimed to monitor and track the temporal trends and rural-urban disparities in cerebrovascular risk factors, management and outcomes from 2005 to 2015. METHODS: We used a two-stage random sampling survey to create a nationally representative sample of patients admitted for ischaemic stroke in 2005, 2010 and 2015. We sampled participating hospitals with an economic-geographical region-stratified random-sampling approach first and then obtained patients with a systematic sampling approach. We weighed our survey data to estimate the national-level results and assess changes from 2005 to 2015. RESULTS: We analysed 28 277 ischaemic stroke admissions from 189 participating hospitals. From 2005 to 2015, the estimated national hospital admission rate for ischaemic stroke per 100 000 people increased (from 75.9 to 402.7, Ptrend<0.001), and the prevalence of risk factors, including hypertension, diabetes, dyslipidaemia and current smoking, increased. The composite score of diagnostic tests for stroke aetiology assessment (from 0.22 to 0.36, Ptrend<0.001) and secondary prevention treatments (from 0.46 to 0.70, Ptrend<0.001) were improved. A temporal decrease was found in discharge against medical advice (DAMA) (from 15.2% (95% CI 13.7% to 16.7%) to 8.6% (8.1% to 9.0%); adjusted Ptrend=0.046), and decreases in in-hospital mortality (0.7% in 2015 vs 1.8% in 2005; adjusted OR (aOR) 0.52; 95% CI 0.32 to 0.85) and the composite outcome of in-hospital mortality or DAMA (8.4% in 2015 vs 13.9% in 2005; aOR 0.65; 95% CI 0.47 to 0.89) were observed. Disparities between rural and urban hospitals narrowed; however, disparities persisted in in-hospital management (brain MRI: rural-urban difference from -14.4% to -11.2%; cerebrovascular assessment: from -20.3% to -16.7%; clopidogrel: from -2.1% to -10.3%; anticoagulant for atrial fibrillation: from -10.9% to -8.2%) and in-hospital outcomes (DAMA: from 2.7% to 5.0%; composite outcome of in-hospital mortality or DAMA: from 2.4% to 4.6%). CONCLUSIONS: From 2005 to 2015, improvements in hospital admission and in-hospital management for ischaemic stroke in China were found. A temporal improvement in DAMA and improvements in in-hospital mortality and the composite outcome of in-hospital mortality or DAMA were observed. Disparities between rural and urban hospitals generally narrowed but persisted.

In-hospital outcomes of ticagrelor versus clopidogrel in patients 75 years or older with acute coronary syndrome: findings from the Improving Care for Cardiovascular Disease in China (CCC)-Acute Coronary Syndrome Project.

BACKGROUND: The evidence for the comparative effectiveness and safety of ticagrelor versus clopidogrel in older patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) is limited, especially in the acute phase of ACS. This study aimed to compare the in-hospital outcomes of ticagrelor versus clopidogrel in older patients with ACS. METHODS: Hospitalised ACS patients aged ≥75 years who were recruited to the Improving Care for Cardiovascular Disease in China-ACS project between November 2014 and December 2019 and received aspirin and P2Y12 receptor inhibitors within 24 h after first medical contact were included. The primary outcomes were in-hospital major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) and major bleeding. Multivariable Cox regression was performed to evaluate the comparative effectiveness and safety of ticagrelor and clopidogrel. Inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) and propensity score matching analyses were performed to evaluate the robustness of the results. RESULTS: Of 18,244 ACS patients, 18.5% received ticagrelor. Multivariable-adjusted analysis revealed comparable risks of in-hospital MACE between patients receiving ticagrelor and clopidogrel (hazard ratio [HR] 1.12, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.92-1.35). However, ticagrelor use was associated with 45% higher risk of in-hospital major bleeding compared with clopidogrel use (HR 1.45, 95% CI 1.09-1.91). Similar results were found in the IPTW analysis. CONCLUSIONS: ACS patients aged ≥75 years receiving ticagrelor during the acute phase had similar risk of in-hospital MACE, but higher risk of in-hospital major bleeding compared with those receiving clopidogrel. More evidence is needed to guide the use of P2Y12 receptor inhibitors during hospitalisation in older patients with ACS. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT02306616.

Does the Effectiveness of a Medicine Copay Voucher Vary by Baseline Medication Out-Of-Pocket Expenses? Insights From ARTEMIS.

Background Persistence to P2Y12 inhibitors after myocardial infarction (MI) remains low. Out-of-pocket cost is cited as a factor affecting medication compliance. We examined whether a copayment intervention affected 1-year persistence to P2Y12 inhibitors and clinical outcomes. Methods and Results In an analysis of ARTEMIS (Affordability and Real-World Antiplatelet Treatment Effectiveness After Myocardial Infarction Study), patients with MI discharged on a P2Y12 inhibitor were stratified by baseline out-of-pocket medication burden: low ($0-$49 per month), intermediate ($50-$149 per month), and high (≥$150 per month). The impact of the voucher intervention on 1-year P2Y12 inhibitor persistence was examined using a logistic regression model with generalized estimating equations. We assessed the rates of major adverse cardiovascular events among the groups using a Kaplan-Meier estimator. Among 7351 MI-treated patients at 282 hospitals, 54.2% patients were in the low copay group, 32.0% in the middle copay group, and 13.8% in the high copay group. Patients in higher copay groups were more likely to have a history of prior MI, heart failure, and diabetes compared with the low copay group (all P<0.0001). Voucher use was associated with a significantly higher likelihood of 1-year P2Y12 inhibitor persistence regardless of copayment tier (low copay with versus without voucher: adjusted odds ratio [OR], 1.44 [95% CI, 1.25-1.66]; middle copay: adjusted OR, 1.63 [95% CI, 1.37-1.95]; high copay group: adjusted OR, 1.41 [95% CI, 1.05-1.87]; P interaction=0.42). Patients in the high copay group without a voucher had similar risk of 1-year major adverse cardiovascular events compared with patients in the high copay group with a voucher (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.89 [95% CI, 0.66-1.21]). Conclusions Medication copayment vouchers were associated with higher medication persistence at 1 year following an MI, regardless of out-of-pocket medication burden. Registration URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT02406677.

Expenditure on Heart Failure in the United States: The Medical Expenditure Panel Survey 2009-2018.

BACKGROUND: With rising United States health care expenditure, estimating current spending for patients with heart failure (HF) informs the value of preventative health interventions. OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to estimate current health care expenditure growth for patients with HF in the United States. METHODS: The authors pooled MEPS (Medical Expenditure Panel Survey) data from 2009-2018 to calculate total HF-related expenditure across clinical settings in the United States. A 2-part model adjusted for demographics, comorbidities, and year was used to estimate annual mean and incremental expenditures associated with HF. RESULTS: In the United States, an average of $28,950 (2018 inflation-adjusted dollars) is spent per year for health care-related expenditure for individuals with HF compared with $5,727 for individuals without HF. After adjusting for demographics and comorbidities, a diagnosis of HF was associated with $3,594 in annual incremental expenditure compared with those without HF. HF-related expenditure increased from $26,864 annual per person in 2009-2010 to $32,955 in 2017-2018, representing a 23% rise over 10 years. In comparison, expenditure on myocardial infarction, type 2 diabetes mellitus, and cancer grew by 16%, 28%, and 16%, respectively. Most of the cost was related to hospitalization: $12,569 per year. Outpatient office-based care and prescription medications saw the greatest growth in cost over the period, 41% and 24%, respectively. Estimated incremental national expenditure for HF per year was $22.3 billion; total annual expenditure for adults with HF was $179.5 billion. CONCLUSIONS: HF is a costly condition for which expenditure is growing faster than that of other chronic conditions.

Assessment of Lung Cancer Risk Among Smokers for Whom Annual Screening Is Not Recommended.

Importance: The US Preventive Services Task Force does not recommend annual lung cancer screening with low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) for adults aged 50 to 80 years who are former smokers with 20 or more pack-years of smoking who quit 15 or more years ago or current smokers with less than 20 pack-years of smoking. Objective: To determine the risk of lung cancer in older smokers for whom LDCT screening is not recommended. Design, Settings, and Participants: This cohort study used the Cardiovascular Health Study (CHS) data sets obtained from the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute, which also sponsored the study. The CHS enrolled 5888 community-dwelling individuals aged 65 years and older in the US from June 1989 to June 1993 and collected extensive baseline data on smoking history. The current analysis was restricted to 4279 individuals free of cancer who had baseline data on pack-year smoking history and duration of smoking cessation. The current analysis was conducted from January 7, 2022, to May 25, 2022. Exposures: Current and prior tobacco use. Main Outcomes and Measures: Incident lung cancer during a median (IQR) of 13.3 (7.9-18.8) years of follow-up (range, 0 to 22.6) through December 31, 2011. A Fine-Gray subdistribution hazard model was used to estimate incidence of lung cancer in the presence of competing risk of death. Cox cause-specific hazard regression models were used to estimate hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% CIs for incident lung cancer. Results: There were 4279 CHS participants (mean [SD] age, 72.8 [5.6] years; 2450 [57.3%] women; 663 [15.5%] African American, 3585 [83.8%] White, and 31 [0.7%] of other race or ethnicity) included in the current analysis. Among the 861 nonheavy smokers (<20 pack-years), the median (IQR) pack-year smoking history was 7.6 (3.3-13.5) pack-years for the 615 former smokers with 15 or more years of smoking cessation, 10.0 (5.3-14.9) pack-years for the 146 former smokers with less than 15 years of smoking cessation, and 11.4 (7.3-14.4) pack-years for the 100 current smokers. Among the 1445 heavy smokers (20 or more pack-years), the median (IQR) pack-year smoking history was 34.8 (26.3-48.0) pack-years for the 516 former smokers with 15 or more years of smoking cessation, 48.0 (35.0-70.0) pack-years for the 497 former smokers with less than 15 years of smoking cessation, and 48.8 (31.6-57.0) pack-years for the 432 current smokers. Incident lung cancer occurred in 10 of 1973 never smokers (0.5%), 5 of 100 current smokers with less than 20 pack-years of smoking (5.0%), and 26 of 516 former smokers with 20 or more pack-years of smoking with 15 or more years of smoking cessation (5.0%). Compared with never smokers, cause-specific HRs for incident lung cancer in the 2 groups for whom LDCT is not recommended were 10.54 (95% CI, 3.60-30.83) for the current nonheavy smokers and 11.19 (95% CI, 5.40-23.21) for the former smokers with 15 or more years of smoking cessation; age, sex, and race-adjusted HRs were 10.06 (95% CI, 3.41-29.70) for the current nonheavy smokers and 10.22 (4.86-21.50) for the former smokers with 15 or more years of smoking cessation compared with never smokers. Conclusions and Relevance: The findings of this cohort study suggest that there is a high risk of lung cancer among smokers for whom LDCT screening is not recommended, suggesting that prediction models are needed to identify high-risk subsets of these smokers for screening.

Quality of Care Among Patients with Diabetes and Cerebrovascular Disease. Insights from The Diabetes Collaborative Registry.

BACKGROUND: Although secondary cardiovascular prevention is a focus among patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) and coronary artery disease (CAD) or peripheral artery disease (PAD), the application of guideline-recommended therapy in T2D patients and isolated cerebrovascular disease (CeVD) remains unknown. METHODS: In a US outpatient registry, T2D patients with established cardiovascular disease from 2014-2018 were categorized as: isolated CeVD, CeVD plus CAD or PAD, or isolated CAD/PAD. In each group, we determined the proportion with optimal secondary prevention (hemoglobin [Hb]A1C <8%, blood pressure <130/80 mm Hg, use of antithrombotics, use of statins, non-smoking/cessation counseling, and use of glucose-lowering medications with cardioprotective effects (sodium-glucose cotransporter [SGLT]-2 inhibitors, glucagon-like peptide [GLP]-1 receptor agonists, thiazolidinediones [TZDs]). Hierarchical Poisson regression was used to estimate relative rate of achieving each target across groups, adjusted for age and chronic kidney disease (where relevant). RESULTS: Our study included 727,467 T2D outpatients with cardiovascular disease (isolated CeVD [n = 99,777], CeVD plus CAD/PAD [n = 158,361], isolated CAD/PAD [n = 469,329]). Compared with isolated CAD/PAD patients, isolated CeVD patients more often had an HbA1c <8% (adjusted relative risk [aRR] 1.10; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.08-1.11) but less often had a blood pressure of ≤130/80 mm Hg (aRR 0.93; 95% CI, 0.92-0.94) or were prescribed antithrombotics (0.84; 95% CI, 0.83-0.85), statins (0.86; 95% CI, 0.85-0.87), GLP-1 agonists (0.75; 95% CI, 0.73-0.78), SGLT2 inhibitors (0.73; 95% CI, 0.71-0.76), and TZDs (aRR 0.76; 95% CI, 0.73-0.78). CONCLUSION: Among T2D patients, those with isolated CeVD had the lowest rates of secondary cardiovascular prevention goals attainment. More focus is needed on secondary prevention in patients with CeVD.

Cardiovascular Safety Reporting in Contemporary Breast Cancer Clinical Trials.

Background Several cancer therapies have been associated with cardiovascular harm in early-phase clinical trials. However, some cardiovascular harms do not manifest until later-phase trials. To limit interdisease variability, we focused on breast cancer. Thus, we assessed the reporting of cardiovascular safety monitoring and outcomes in phase 2 and 3 contemporary breast cancer clinical trials. Methods and Results We searched Embase and Medline records for phase 2 and 3 breast cancer pharmacotherapy trials. We examined exclusion criterion as a result of cardiovascular conditions, adverse cardiovascular event reporting, and cardiovascular safety assessment through cardiovascular imaging, ECG, troponin, or natriuretic peptides. Fisher's exact test was utilized to compare reporting. Fifty clinical trials were included in our study. Patients were excluded because of cardiovascular conditions in 42 (84%) trials. Heart failure was a frequent exclusion criterion (n=31; 62% trials). Adverse cardiovascular events were reported in 43 (86%) trials. Cardiovascular safety assessments were not reported in 23 (46%) trials, whereas natriuretic peptide and troponin assessments were not reported in any trial. Cardiovascular safety assessments were more frequently reported in industry-funded trials (69.2% versus 0.0%; P<0.001), and in trials administering targeted/immunotherapy agents compared with only hormonal/conventional chemotherapy (78.6% versus 22.7%, P<0.001). Conclusions Our findings demonstrate significant under-representation of patients with cardiovascular conditions or prevalent cardiovascular disease in contemporary later-phase breast cancer trials. Additionally, cardiovascular safety is not routinely monitored in these trials. Therefore, contemporary breast cancer clinical trials may possibly underestimate the cardiovascular risks of cancer pharmacotherapy agents for use in clinical practice.

2022 AHA/ACC/HFSA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines.

AIM: The "2022 AHA/ACC/HFSA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure" replaces the "2013 ACCF/AHA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure" and the "2017 ACC/AHA/HFSA Focused Update of the 2013 ACCF/AHA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure." The 2022 guideline is intended to provide patient-centric recommendations for clinicians to prevent, diagnose, and manage patients with heart failure. METHODS: A comprehensive literature search was conducted from May 2020 to December 2020, encompassing studies, reviews, and other evidence conducted on human subjects that were published in English from MEDLINE (PubMed), EMBASE, the Cochrane Collaboration, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and other relevant databases. Additional relevant clinical trials and research studies, published through September 2021, were also considered. This guideline was harmonized with other American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology guidelines published through December 2021. Structure: Heart failure remains a leading cause of morbidity and mortality globally. The 2022 heart failure guideline provides recommendations based on contemporary evidence for the treatment of these patients. The recommendations present an evidence-based approach to managing patients with heart failure, with the intent to improve quality of care and align with patients' interests. Many recommendations from the earlier heart failure guidelines have been updated with new evidence, and new recommendations have been created when supported by published data. Value statements are provided for certain treatments with high-quality published economic analyses.

2022 AHA/ACC/HFSA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure: Executive Summary: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines.

AIM: The "2022 AHA/ACC/HFSA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure" replaces the "2013 ACCF/AHA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure" and the "2017 ACC/AHA/HFSA Focused Update of the 2013 ACCF/AHA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure." The 2022 guideline is intended to provide patient-centric recommendations for clinicians to prevent, diagnose, and manage patients with heart failure. METHODS: A comprehensive literature search was conducted from May 2020 to December 2020, encompassing studies, reviews, and other evidence conducted on human subjects that were published in English from MEDLINE (PubMed), EMBASE, the Cochrane Collaboration, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and other relevant databases. Additional relevant clinical trials and research studies, published through September 2021, were also considered. This guideline was harmonized with other American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology guidelines published through December 2021. Structure: Heart failure remains a leading cause of morbidity and mortality globally. The 2022 heart failure guideline provides recommendations based on contemporary evidence for the treatment of these patients. The recommendations present an evidence-based approach to managing patients with heart failure, with the intent to improve quality of care and align with patients' interests. Many recommendations from the earlier heart failure guidelines have been updated with new evidence, and new recommendations have been created when supported by published data. Value statements are provided for certain treatments with high-quality published economic analyses.

2022 AHA/ACC/HFSA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines.

AIM: The "2022 AHA/ACC/HFSA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure" replaces the "2013 ACCF/AHA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure" and the "2017 ACC/AHA/HFSA Focused Update of the 2013 ACCF/AHA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure." The 2022 guideline is intended to provide patient-centric recommendations for clinicians to prevent, diagnose, and manage patients with heart failure. METHODS: A comprehensive literature search was conducted from May 2020 to December 2020, encompassing studies, reviews, and other evidence conducted on human subjects that were published in English from MEDLINE (PubMed), EMBASE, the Cochrane Collaboration, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and other relevant databases. Additional relevant clinical trials and research studies, published through September 2021, were also considered. This guideline was harmonized with other American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology guidelines published through December 2021. STRUCTURE: Heart failure remains a leading cause of morbidity and mortality globally. The 2022 heart failure guideline provides recommendations based on contemporary evidence for the treatment of these patients. The recommendations present an evidence-based approach to managing patients with heart failure, with the intent to improve quality of care and align with patients' interests. Many recommendations from the earlier heart failure guidelines have been updated with new evidence, and new recommendations have been created when supported by published data. Value statements are provided for certain treatments with high-quality published economic analyses.

2022 AHA/ACC/HFSA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure: Executive Summary: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines.

AIM: The "2022 AHA/ACC/HFSA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure" replaces the "2013 ACCF/AHA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure" and the "2017 ACC/AHA/HFSA Focused Update of the 2013 ACCF/AHA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure." The 2022 guideline is intended to provide patient-centric recommendations for clinicians to prevent, diagnose, and manage patients with heart failure. METHODS: A comprehensive literature search was conducted from May 2020 to December 2020, encompassing studies, reviews, and other evidence conducted on human subjects that were published in English from MEDLINE (PubMed), EMBASE, the Cochrane Collaboration, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and other relevant databases. Additional relevant clinical trials and research studies, published through September 2021, were also considered. This guideline was harmonized with other American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology guidelines published through December 2021. STRUCTURE: Heart failure remains a leading cause of morbidity and mortality globally. The 2022 heart failure guideline provides recommendations based on contemporary evidence for the treatment of these patients. The recommendations present an evidence-based approach to managing patients with heart failure, with the intent to improve quality of care and align with patients' interests. Many recommendations from the earlier heart failure guidelines have been updated with new evidence, and new recommendations have been created when supported by published data. Value statements are provided for certain treatments with high-quality published economic analyses.

Performance of Management Strategies With Class I Recommendations Among Patients Hospitalized With ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction in China.

Importance: Despite advances in the treatment of ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), little is known about how this evolving knowledge is applied in current clinical practice in China. Objective: To evaluate hospital performance and temporal trends in the management of STEMI. Design, Setting, and Participants: This study used data from the Improving Care for Cardiovascular Disease in China-Acute Coronary Syndrome Project, a nationwide quality improvement registry, in collaboration with the American Heart Association and the Chinese Society of Cardiology. Participants included patients with STEMI admitted to 143 tertiary hospitals across China from November 2014 to July 2019, and data were analyzed from November 2020 to December 2021. Main Outcomes and Measures: Levels, hospital-level variations, and trends for utilization rates of the 9 management strategies with Class I recommendations in Chinese and US guidelines. Results: A total of 57 560 hospitalizations with STEMI were included. Overall, 20.0% of patients received all the care according to the 9 guideline-recommended strategies. The performance rate of quality measures was low for reperfusion therapy (61.0%, 35 115/57 560 patients), ß-blocker at discharge (68.3%, 37 750/55 285 patients), angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker at discharge (55.1%, 2524/4578 patients), and smoking cessation counseling (36.5%, 9586/26 265 patients) among those who were eligible. Of 25 563 patients who underwent primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), 66.8% underwent this procedure within 90 minutes of hospital arrival. Of 1128 patients who underwent fibrinolysis therapy, 253 (22.4%) underwent this treatment within 30 minutes of hospital arrival. Measures with high performance rates included receipt of dual antiplatelet therapy within 24 hours (95.5%, 54 263/56 848 patients) and at discharge (91.8%, 51 452/56 019 patients) and receipt of statin at discharge (93.0%, 52 214/56 141 patients) for those eligible. There was significant variation between hospitals in all-or-none score (ranging from 0 to 61.9%) and performance of individual measures. The quality of care improved during the study period, especially for reperfusion therapy, primary PCI within the first 90 minutes of hospital arrival, and smoking cessation counseling. Conclusions and Relevance: The quality of care for patients hospitalized with STEMI does not meet guideline-recommended strategies in China, with only 1 in 5 patients receiving all the care according to the 9 guideline-recommended strategies. Large disparities in the quality of care exist across hospitals.