Clinical Impact of Routine Assessment of Patient-Reported Health Status in Heart Failure Clinic: The PRO-HF Trial.

BACKGROUND: The impact of routine clinic use of patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures on clinical outcomes in patients with heart failure (HF) has not been well-characterized. We tested if clinic-based use of a disease-specific PRO improves patient-reported quality of life at 1 year. METHODS: The PRO-HF trial (Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement in Heart Failure Clinic) was an open-label, parallel, patient-level randomized clinical trial of routine PRO assessment or usual care at an academic HF clinic between August 30, 2021, and June 30, 2022, with 1 year of follow-up. In the PRO assessment arm, participants completed the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire-12 (KCCQ-12) at each HF clinic visit, and results were shared with their treating clinician. The usual care arm completed the KCCQ-12 at randomization and 1 year later, which was not shared with the treating clinician. The primary outcome was the KCCQ-12 overall summary score (OSS) between 12 and 15 months after randomization. Secondary outcomes included domains of the KCCQ-12, hospitalization and emergency department visit rates, HF medication therapy, clinic visit frequency, and testing rates. RESULTS: Across 17 clinicians, 1248 participants were enrolled and randomized to PRO assessment (n=624) or usual care (n=624). The median age was 63.9 years (interquartile range [IQR], 51.8-72.8), 38.9% were women, and the median baseline KCCQ-12 OSS was 82.3 (IQR, 58.3-94.8). Final KCCQ-12 (available in 87.9% of the PRO arm and 85.1% in usual care; P=0.16) median OSS were 87.5 (IQR, 68.8-96.9) in the PRO arm and 87.6 (IQR, 69.7-96.9) in the usual care arm with a baseline-adjusted mean difference of 0.2 ([95% CI, -1.7 to 2.0]; P=0.85). The results were consistent across prespecified subgroups. A post hoc analysis demonstrated a significant interaction with greater benefit among participants with a baseline KCCQ-12 OSS of 60 to 80 but not in less or more symptomatic participants. No significant differences were found in 1-year mortality, hospitalizations, emergency department visits, medication therapy, clinic follow-up, or testing rates between arms. CONCLUSIONS: Routine PRO assessment in HF clinic visits did not impact patient-reported quality of life or other clinical outcomes. Alternate strategies and settings for embedding PROs into routine clinical care should be tested. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT04164004.

Long-Term Outcomes of Early Coronary Artery Disease Testing After New-Onset Heart Failure.

BACKGROUND: Coronary artery disease (CAD) testing remains underutilized in patients with newly diagnosed heart failure (HF). The longitudinal clinical impact of early CAD testing has not been well-characterized. We investigated changes in clinical management and long-term outcomes after early CAD evaluation in patients with incident HF. METHODS: We identified Medicare patients with incident HF from 2006 to 2018. The exposure variable was early CAD testing within 1 month of initial HF diagnosis. Covariate-adjusted rates of cardiovascular interventions after testing, including CAD-related management, were modeled using mixed-effects regression with clinician as a random intercept. We assessed mortality and hospitalization outcomes using landmark analyses with inverse probability-weighted Cox proportional hazards models. Falsification end points and mediation analysis were employed for bias assessment. RESULTS: Among 309 559 patients with new-onset HF without prior CAD, 15.7% underwent early CAD testing. Patients who underwent prompt CAD evaluation had higher adjusted rates of subsequent antiplatelet/statin prescriptions and revascularization, guideline-directed therapy for HF, and stroke prophylaxis for atrial fibrillation/flutter than controls. In weighted Cox models, 1-month CAD testing was associated with significantly reduced all-cause mortality (hazard ratio, 0.93 [95% CI, 0.91-0.96]). Mediation analyses indicated that ≈70% of this association was explained by CAD management, largely from new statin prescriptions. Falsification end points (outpatient diagnoses of urinary tract infection and hospitalizations for hip/vertebral fracture) were nonsignificant. CONCLUSIONS: Early CAD testing after incident HF was associated with a modest mortality benefit, driven mostly by subsequent statin therapy. Further investigation on clinician barriers to testing and treating high-risk patients may improve adherence to guideline-recommended cardiovascular interventions.

Impact of Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement in Heart Failure Clinic on Clinician Health Status Assessment and Patient Experience: A Substudy of the PRO-HF Trial.

BACKGROUND: Clinicians typically estimate heart failure health status using the New York Heart Association Class, which is often discordant with patient-reported health status. It is unknown whether collecting patient-reported health status improves the accuracy of clinician assessments. METHODS: The PRO-HF trial (Patient-Reported Outcomes in Heart Failure Clinic) is a randomized, nonblinded trial evaluating routine Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire-12 (KCCQ-12) collection in heart failure clinic. Patients with a scheduled visit to Stanford heart failure clinic between August 30, 2021 and June 30, 2022 were enrolled and randomized to KCCQ-12 assessment or usual care. In this prespecified substudy, we evaluated whether access to the KCCQ-12 improved the accuracy of clinicians' New York Heart Association assessment or patients' perspectives on their clinician interaction. We surveyed clinicians regarding their patients' New York Heart Association Class, quality of life, and symptom frequency. Clinician responses were compared with patients' KCCQ-12 responses. We surveyed patients regarding their clinician interactions. RESULTS: Of the 1248 enrolled patients, 1051 (84.2%) attended a visit during the substudy. KCCQ-12 results were given to the clinicians treating the 528 patients in the KCCQ-12 arm; the 523 patients in the usual care arm completed the KCCQ-12 without the results being shared. The correlation between New York Heart Association Class and KCCQ-12 Overall Summary Score was stronger when clinicians had access to the KCCQ-12 (r=-0.73 versus r=-0.61, P<0.001). More patients in the KCCQ-12 arm strongly agreed that their clinician understood their symptoms (95.2% versus 89.7% of respondents [odds ratio' 2.27; 95% CI' 1.32-3.87]). However, patients in both arms reported similar quality of clinician communication and therapeutic alliance. CONCLUSIONS: Collecting the KCCQ-12 in heart failure clinic improved clinicians' accuracy of health status assessment; correspondingly, patients believed their clinicians better understood their symptoms. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov; Unique identifier: NCT04164004.

Cost-effectiveness of Empagliflozin in Patients With Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction.

Importance: In the Empagliflozin Outcome Trial in Patients With Chronic Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction (EMPEROR-Preserved), empagliflozin significantly reduced hospitalizations for heart failure while improving patient-reported health status compared with placebo. The long-term cost-effectiveness of empagliflozin among patients who have heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) remains unclear. Objective: To estimate the cost-effectiveness of empagliflozin in patients with HFpEF. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cost-effectiveness analysis performed from October 2021 to April 2022 included a Markov model using estimates of treatment efficacy, event probabilities, and utilities from EMPEROR-Preserved and published literature. Costs were derived from national surveys and pricing data sets. Quality of life was imputed from a heart failure-specific quality-of-life measure. Two analyses were performed, with and without a treatment effect on cardiovascular mortality. Subgroup analyses were based on diabetes status, ejection fraction, and health status impairment due to heart failure. The model reproduced the event rates and risk reduction with empagliflozin observed in EMPEROR-Preserved over 26 months of follow-up; future projections extended across the lifetime of patients. Exposures: Empagliflozin or standard of care. Main Outcomes and Measures: Hospitalizations for heart failure, life-years, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), lifetime costs, and lifetime incremental cost-effectiveness ratio. Results: A total of 5988 patients were included in the analysis, with a mean age of 72 years, New York Heart Association class II to IV heart failure, and left ventricular ejection fraction greater than 40%. At the Federal Supply Schedule price of $327 per month, empagliflozin yielded 0.06 additional QALYs and $26 257 incremental costs compared with standard of care, producing a cost per QALY gained of $437 442. Incremental costs consisted of total drug costs of $29 586 and savings of $3329 from reduced hospitalizations for heart failure. Cost-effectiveness was similar across subgroups. The results were most sensitive to the monthly cost, quality-of-life benefit, and mortality effect of empagliflozin. A price reduction to $153 per month, incremental utility of 0.02, or 8% reduction in cardiovascular mortality would bring empagliflozin to $180 000 per QALY gained, the threshold for intermediate value. Using Medicare Part D monthly pricing of $375 after rebates and $511 before rebates, empagliflozin would remain low value at $509 636 and $710 825 per QALY gained, respectively. Cost-effectiveness estimates were robust to variation in the frequency and disutility of heart failure hospitalizations. Conclusions and Relevance: In this economic evaluation, based on current cost-effectiveness benchmarks, empagliflozin provides low economic value compared with standard of care for HFpEF, largely due to its lack of efficacy on mortality and small benefit on quality of life.

Variability in Coronary Artery Disease Testing for Patients With New-Onset Heart Failure.

BACKGROUND: Coronary artery disease (CAD) is the most common cause of new-onset heart failure (HF). Although guidelines recommend ischemic evaluation in this population, testing has historically been underutilized. OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to identify contemporary trends in CAD testing for patients with new-onset HF, particularly after publication of the STICHES (Surgical Treatment for Ischemic Heart Failure Extension Study), and to characterize geographic and clinician-level variability in testing patterns. METHODS: We determined the proportion of patients with incident HF who received CAD testing from 2004 to 2019 using an administrative claims database covering commercial insurance and Medicare. We identified demographic and clinical predictors of CAD testing during the 90 days before and after initial diagnosis. Patients were grouped by their county of residence to assess national variation. Patients were then linked to their primary care physician and/or cardiologist to evaluate variation across clinicians. RESULTS: Among 558,322 patients with new-onset HF, 34.8% underwent CAD testing and 9.3% underwent revascularization. After multivariable adjustment, patients who underwent CAD testing were more likely to be younger, male, diagnosed in an acute care setting, and have systolic dysfunction or recent cardiogenic shock. Incidence of CAD testing remained flat without significant change post-STICHES. Covariate-adjusted testing rates varied from 20% to 45% across counties. The likelihood of testing was higher among patients co-managed by a cardiologist (adjusted OR: 5.12; 95% CI: 4.98-5.27) but varied substantially across cardiologists (IQR: 50.9%-62.4%). CONCLUSIONS: Most patients with new-onset HF across inpatient and outpatient settings did not receive timely testing for CAD. Substantial variability in testing persists across regions and clinicians.