Patient-Centered Adult Cardiovascular Care: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association.

Patient-centered care is gaining widespread acceptance by the medical and lay communities and is increasingly recognized as a goal of high-quality health care delivery. Patient-centered care is based on ethical principles and aims at establishing a partnership between the health care team and patient, family member, or both in the care planning and decision-making process. Patient-centered care involves providing respectful care by tailoring management decisions to patients' beliefs, preferences, and values. A collaborative care approach can enhance patient engagement, foster shared decision-making that aligns with patient values and goals, promote more personalized and effective cardiovascular care, and potentially improve patient outcomes. The objective of this scientific statement is to inform health care professionals and stakeholders about the role and impact of patient-centered care in adult cardiovascular medicine. This scientific statement describes the background and rationale for patient-centered care in cardiovascular medicine, provides insight into patient-oriented medication management and patient-reported outcome measures, highlights opportunities and strategies to overcome challenges in patient-centered care, and outlines knowledge gaps and future directions.

Complementary and Alternative Medicines in the Management of Heart Failure: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association.

Complementary and alternative medicines (CAM) are commonly used across the world by diverse populations and ethnicities but remain largely unregulated. Although many CAM agents are purported to be efficacious and safe by the public, clinical evidence supporting the use of CAM in heart failure remains limited and controversial. Furthermore, health care professionals rarely inquire or document use of CAM as part of the medical record, and patients infrequently disclose their use without further prompting. The goal of this scientific statement is to summarize published efficacy and safety data for CAM and adjunctive interventional wellness approaches in heart failure. Furthermore, other important considerations such as adverse effects and drug interactions that could influence the safety of patients with heart failure are reviewed and discussed.

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.

An Updated Review on the Role of Non-dihydropyridine Calcium Channel Blockers and Beta-blockers in Atrial Fibrillation and Acute Decompensated Heart Failure: Evidence and Gaps.

PURPOSE: The 2021 European Society of Cardiology guidelines on acute and chronic heart failure (HF) recommend that non-dihydropyridine calcium channel blockers (NDCC) should be avoided in patients with HF with reduced ejection fraction. It also emphasizes that beta-blockers only be initiated in clinically stable, euvolemic patients. Despite these recommendations, NDCC and beta-blockers are often still employed in patients with AF with rapid ventricular response and acute decompensated HF. The relative safety and efficacy of these therapies in this setting is unclear. METHODS: To address the question of the safety and efficacy of NDCC and beta-blockers for acute rate control in decompensated HF, we provide a perspective on the literature of NDCC and beta-blockers in chronic HF with reduced and preserved ejection fraction and AF, including trials on the management of AF with rapid ventricular response with and without HF. RESULTS: Robust data demonstrates mortality benefits when beta-blockers are used in patients with chronic HF with reduced ejection fraction. The data that inform the contraindication of NDCC in HF with reduced ejection fraction are outdated and were not primarily designed to address the efficacy and safety of rate control of AF in patients with HF. Several studies indicate that for acute rate control, NDCC and beta-blockers are both efficacious therapies, especially in the setting of tachycardia-induced cardiomyopathy. CONCLUSION: Future studies are needed to assess the safety and efficacy of beta-blockers and NDCC in both acute and chronic AF with HF with reduced and preserved ejection fraction.

The year in cardiovascular medicine 2021: heart failure and cardiomyopathies.

In the year 2021, the universal definition and classification of heart failure (HF) was published that defines HF as a clinical syndrome with symptoms and/or signs caused by a cardiac abnormality and corroborated by elevated natriuretic peptide levels or objective evidence of cardiogenic congestion. This definition and the classification of HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), mildly reduced, and HF with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) is consistent with the 2021 ESC Guidelines on HF. Among several other new recommendations, these guidelines give a Class I indication for the use of the sodium-glucose co-transporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors dapagliflozin and empagliflozin in HFrEF patients. As the first evidence-based treatment for HFpEF, in the EMPEROR-Preserved trial, empagliflozin reduced the composite endpoint of cardiovascular death and HF hospitalizations. Several reports in 2021 have provided novel and detailed analyses of device and medical therapy in HF, especially regarding sacubitril/valsartan, SGLT2 inhibitors, mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists, ferric carboxymaltose, soluble guanylate cyclase activators, and cardiac myosin activators. In patients hospitalized with COVID-19, acute HF and myocardial injury is quite frequent, whereas myocarditis and long-term damage to the heart are rather uncommon.

NAFLD in Cardiovascular Diseases: A Contributor or Comorbidity?

Nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) and cardiovascular diseases are both highly prevalent conditions around the world, and emerging data have shown an association between them. This review found several longitudinal and cross-sectional studies showing that NAFLD was associated with coronary artery disease, cardiac remodeling, aortic valve remodeling, mitral annulus valve calcifications, diabetic cardiomyopathy, diastolic cardiac dysfunction, arrhythmias, and stroke. Although the specific underlying mechanisms are not clear, many hypotheses have been suggested, including that metabolic syndrome might act as an upstream metabolic defect, leading to end-organ manifestations in both the heart and liver. Management of NAFLD includes weight loss through lifestyle interventions or bariatric surgery, and pharmacological interventions, often targeting comorbidities. Although there are no Food and Drug Administration-approved nonalcoholic steatohepatitis-specific therapies, several drug candidates have demonstrated effect in the improvement in fibrosis or nonalcoholic steatohepatitis resolution. Further studies are needed to assess the effect of those interventions on cardiovascular outcomes, the major cause of mortality in patients with NAFLD. In conclusion, a more comprehensive, multidisciplinary approach to diagnosis and management of patients with NAFLD and cardiovascular diseases is needed to optimize clinical outcomes.

Myocarditis With COVID-19 mRNA Vaccines.

Myocarditis has been recognized as a rare complication of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) mRNA vaccinations, especially in young adult and adolescent males. According to the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, myocarditis/pericarditis rates are ≈12.6 cases per million doses of second-dose mRNA vaccine among individuals 12 to 39 years of age. In reported cases, patients with myocarditis invariably presented with chest pain, usually 2 to 3 days after a second dose of mRNA vaccination, and had elevated cardiac troponin levels. ECG was abnormal with ST elevations in most, and cardiac MRI was suggestive of myocarditis in all tested patients. There was no evidence of acute COVID-19 or other viral infections. In 1 case, a cardiomyopathy gene panel was negative, but autoantibody levels against certain self-antigens and frequency of natural killer cells were increased. Although the mechanisms for development of myocarditis are not clear, molecular mimicry between the spike protein of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) and self-antigens, trigger of preexisting dysregulated immune pathways in certain individuals, immune response to mRNA, and activation of immunologic pathways, and dysregulated cytokine expression have been proposed. The reasons for male predominance in myocarditis cases are unknown, but possible explanations relate to sex hormone differences in immune response and myocarditis, and also underdiagnosis of cardiac disease in women. Almost all patients had resolution of symptoms and signs and improvement in diagnostic markers and imaging with or without treatment. Despite rare cases of myocarditis, the benefit-risk assessment for COVID-19 vaccination shows a favorable balance for all age and sex groups; therefore, COVID-19 vaccination is recommended for everyone ≥12 years of age.

Obstructive Sleep Apnea and Cardiovascular Disease: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association.

Obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) is characterized by recurrent complete and partial upper airway obstructive events, resulting in intermittent hypoxemia, autonomic fluctuation, and sleep fragmentation. Approximately 34% and 17% of middle-aged men and women, respectively, meet the diagnostic criteria for OSA. Sleep disturbances are common and underdiagnosed among middle-aged and older adults, and the prevalence varies by race/ethnicity, sex, and obesity status. OSA prevalence is as high as 40% to 80% in patients with hypertension, heart failure, coronary artery disease, pulmonary hypertension, atrial fibrillation, and stroke. Despite its high prevalence in patients with heart disease and the vulnerability of cardiac patients to OSA-related stressors and adverse cardiovascular outcomes, OSA is often underrecognized and undertreated in cardiovascular practice. We recommend screening for OSA in patients with resistant/poorly controlled hypertension, pulmonary hypertension, and recurrent atrial fibrillation after either cardioversion or ablation. In patients with New York Heart Association class II to IV heart failure and suspicion of sleep-disordered breathing or excessive daytime sleepiness, a formal sleep assessment is reasonable. In patients with tachy-brady syndrome or ventricular tachycardia or survivors of sudden cardiac death in whom sleep apnea is suspected after a comprehensive sleep assessment, evaluation for sleep apnea should be considered. After stroke, clinical equipoise exists with respect to screening and treatment. Patients with nocturnally occurring angina, myocardial infarction, arrhythmias, or appropriate shocks from implanted cardioverter-defibrillators may be especially likely to have comorbid sleep apnea. All patients with OSA should be considered for treatment, including behavioral modifications and weight loss as indicated. Continuous positive airway pressure should be offered to patients with severe OSA, whereas oral appliances can be considered for those with mild to moderate OSA or for continuous positive airway pressure-intolerant patients. Follow-up sleep testing should be performed to assess the effectiveness of treatment.

Sex Differences in Heart Failure.

Heart failure (HF) continues to be a major contributor of morbidity and mortality for men and women alike, yet how the predisposition for, course and management of HF differ between men and women remains underexplored. Sex differences in traditional risk factors as well as sex-specific risk factors influence the prevalence and manifestation of HF in unique ways. The pathophysiology of HF differs between men and women and may explain sex-specific differences in clinical presentation and diagnosis. This in turn, contributes to variation in response to both pharmacologic and device/surgical therapy. This review examines sex-specific differences in HF spanning prevalence, risk factors, pathophysiology, presentation, and therapies with a specific focus on highlighting gaps in knowledge with calls to action for future research efforts.

2022 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association/Heart Failure Society of America Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure: Executive Summary.

BACKGROUND: The 2022 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association/Heart Failure Society of America (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 in 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. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: 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 that have high-quality published economic analyses.

Re-examining the widespread policy of stopping sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors during acute illness: A perspective based on the updated evidence.

Sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitors are now seen as an integral part of therapy in type 2 diabetes to control not only blood glucose but to improve cardiovascular and kidney outcomes. Diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) is an uncommon but serious complication of type 2 diabetes, which has a high case fatality rate. The absolute risk of DKA in large, prospective randomized clinical trials in people with type 2 diabetes using SGLT2 inhibitors has been low, although the relative risk is higher in those assigned to SGLT2 inhibitors compared with placebo. In those without diabetes but prescribed SGLT2 inhibitors for heart failure or chronic kidney disease, the risk of DKA is similar to placebo. Over the course of the COVID-19 pandemic, cases of DKA have also been reported in cases of COVID-19 hospitalizations. Consensus guidelines have recommended that SGLT2 inhibitors should be avoided in cases of serious illness and suggest they are not recommended for routine in-hospital use. However, recent data suggest potential beneficial effects of SGLT2 inhibitors in the setting of acute illness with COVID-19 with no increase in adverse events and low rates of DKA, which were non-severe. Given the low rates of DKA in cardiovascular outcome trials and in hospitalized patients with type 2 diabetes, the potential for SGLT2 inhibitors not being re-initiated following discharge and their cardiovascular and kidney benefits, we believe the practice of routine 'sick day' guidance should be re-examined based on current evidence with a call for further research in this area. Furthermore, high-quality trials of initiation of SGLT2 inhibitors in people admitted to hospital with cardiovascular disease or kidney disease, and trials of continuation of SGLT2 inhibitors in people, with careful monitoring of DKA should be conducted. These should be further supplemented with large observational studies.

Aiming at harmony. Comparing and contrasting International HFrEF Guidelines.

Large randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have led to major changes in the treatment of patients with heart failure and reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (HFrEF) and these advances are included in the recent European Society of Cardiology (ESC) and the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association/Heart Failure Society of America (ACC/AHA/HFSA) guidelines issued in 2021 and 2022, respectively. According to both guidelines, treatment of patients with HFrEF is based on the administration of four classes of drugs that reduce the primary endpoint of cardiovascular death and HF hospitalizations in RCTs: angiotensin-converting enzyme or angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitors, beta-blockers, mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists, and sodium-glucose co-transporter 2 inhibitors. Specific sequences of treatment are not recommended but emphasis is given to reaching treatment with all four drugs as early as possible. Further treatments are considered in selected patients including ivabradine, hydralazine nitrates, digoxin, and the new agent vericiguat. Specific treatments, mostly new, for cardiovascular and non-cardiovascular comorbidities are also given. The aim of this article is to compare the two recent guidelines issued by the ESC and ACC/AHA/HFSA and show the few differences and the many consistent recommendations, now more numerous given the evidence available for many new treatments.

Telehealth in Heart Failure.

Telehealth presents opportunities for enhanced care and benefits to patients with heart failure. As technology develops, telehealth is increasingly being integrated into the standard care of heart failure. Telehealth can help enhance timely access and follow-up, facilitate care coordination for diagnostic and management strategies, individualize management, increase opportunities for multidisciplinary care, help implement complementary management strategies, and improve outcomes. Telehealth commonly includes clinician-to-clinician communication; patient interaction with mobile health technologies including remote monitoring, and clinician-to-patient interaction modalities. Despite all the potential benefits of expanded access, telehealth may have limitations especially for vulnerable populations, who are at risk for less access to telehealth modalities and infrastructure. Clinicians and health networks should examine strategies to incorporate telehealth in the management of patients with heart failure. Health care systems should invest in technologies and provide equipment and connectivity to ensure that telehealth does not widen health disparities.

Description and Proposed Management of the Acute COVID-19 Cardiovascular Syndrome.

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a rapidly expanding global pandemic caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2, resulting in significant morbidity and mortality. A substantial minority of patients hospitalized develop an acute COVID-19 cardiovascular syndrome, which can manifest with a variety of clinical presentations but often presents as an acute cardiac injury with cardiomyopathy, ventricular arrhythmias, and hemodynamic instability in the absence of obstructive coronary artery disease. The cause of this injury is uncertain but is suspected to be related to myocarditis, microvascular injury, systemic cytokine-mediated injury, or stress-related cardiomyopathy. Although histologically unproven, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 has the potential to directly replicate within cardiomyocytes and pericytes, leading to viral myocarditis. Systemically elevated cytokines are also known to be cardiotoxic and have the potential to result in profound myocardial injury. Prior experience with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 1 has helped expedite the evaluation of several promising therapies, including antiviral agents, interleukin-6 inhibitors, and convalescent serum. Management of acute COVID-19 cardiovascular syndrome should involve a multidisciplinary team including intensive care specialists, infectious disease specialists, and cardiologists. Priorities for managing acute COVID-19 cardiovascular syndrome include balancing the goals of minimizing healthcare staff exposure for testing that will not change clinical management with early recognition of the syndrome at a time point at which intervention may be most effective. This article aims to review the best available data on acute COVID-19 cardiovascular syndrome epidemiology, pathogenesis, diagnosis, and treatment. From these data, we propose a surveillance, diagnostic, and management strategy that balances potential patient risks and healthcare staff exposure with improvement in meaningful clinical outcomes.

Universal Definition and Classification of Heart Failure.

In this document, we propose a universal definition of heart failure (HF) as the following: HF is a clinical syndrome with symptoms and or signs caused by a structural and/or functional cardiac abnormality and corroborated by elevated natriuretic peptide levels and or objective evidence of pulmonary or systemic congestion. We propose revised stages of HF as: At-risk for HF (Stage A) , for patients at risk for HF but without current or prior symptoms or signs of HF and without structural or biomarkers evidence of heart disease. Pre-heart failure (Stage B) for patients without current or prior symptoms or signs of HF but evidence of structural heart disease or abnormal cardiac function, or elevated natriuretic peptide levels. HF (Stage C) for patients with current or prior symptoms and/or signs of HF caused by a structural and/or functional cardiac abnormality. Advanced HF (Stage D) for patients with severe symptoms and/ or signs of HF at rest, recurrent hospitalizations despite guideline-directed management and therapy (GDMT) , refractory or intolerant to GDMT, requiring advanced therapies such as consideration for transplant, mechanical circulatory support, or palliative care. Finally, we propose a new and revised classification of HF according to left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) . The classification includes HF with reduced EF (HFrEF) : HF with LVEF ≤ 40%; HF with mid-range EF (HFmrEF) : HF with LVEF 41-49%; HF with preserved EF (HFpEF) : HF with LVEF ≥ 50%; and HF with improved EF (HFimpEF) : HF with a baseline LVEF ≤ 40%, a ≥ 10 point increase from baseline LVEF, and a second measurement of LVEF > 40.

Heart Failure Association, Heart Failure Society of America, and Japanese Heart Failure Society Position Statement on Endomyocardial Biopsy.

Endomyocardial biopsy (EMB) is an invasive procedure, globally most often used for the monitoring of heart transplant rejection. In addition, EMB can have an important complementary role to the clinical assessment in establishing the diagnosis of diverse cardiac disorders, including myocarditis, cardiomyopathies, drug-related cardiotoxicity, amyloidosis, other infiltrative and storage disorders, and cardiac tumors. Improvements in EMB equipment and the development of new techniques for the analysis of EMB samples has significantly improved the diagnostic precision of EMB. The present document is the result of the Trilateral Cooperation Project between the Heart Failure Association of the European Society of Cardiology, Heart Failure Society of America, and the Japanese Heart Failure Society. It represents an expert consensus aiming to provide a comprehensive, up-to-date perspective on EMB, with a focus on the following main issues: (1) an overview of the practical approach to EMB, (2) an update on indications for EMB, (3) a revised plan for heart transplant rejection surveillance, (4) the impact of multimodality imaging on EMB, and (5) the current clinical practice in the worldwide use of EMB.

Universal Definition and Classification of Heart Failure: A Report of the Heart Failure Society of America, Heart Failure Association of the European Society of Cardiology, Japanese Heart Failure Society and Writing Committee of the Universal Definition of Heart Failure.

In this document, we propose a universal definition of heart failure (HF) as the following: HF is a clinical syndrome with symptoms and or signs caused by a structural and/or functional cardiac abnormality and corroborated by elevated natriuretic peptide levels and or objective evidence of pulmonary or systemic congestion. We propose revised stages of HF as follows. At-risk for HF (Stage A), for patients at risk for HF but without current or prior symptoms or signs of HF and without structural or biomarkers evidence of heart disease. Pre-HF (stage B), for patients without current or prior symptoms or signs of HF, but evidence of structural heart disease or abnormal cardiac function, or elevated natriuretic peptide levels. HF (Stage C), for patients with current or prior symptoms and/or signs of HF caused by a structural and/or functional cardiac abnormality. Advanced HF (Stage D), for patients with severe symptoms and/or signs of HF at rest, recurrent hospitalizations despite guideline-directed management and therapy (GDMT), refractory or intolerant to GDMT, requiring advanced therapies such as consideration for transplant, mechanical circulatory support, or palliative care. Finally, we propose a new and revised classification of HF according to left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). The classification includes HF with reduced EF (HFrEF): HF with an LVEF of ≤40%; HF with mildly reduced EF (HFmrEF): HF with an LVEF of 41% to 49%; HF with preserved EF (HFpEF): HF with an LVEF of ≥50%; and HF with improved EF (HFimpEF): HF with a baseline LVEF of ≤40%, a ≥10-point increase from baseline LVEF, and a second measurement of LVEF of >40%.

Ins and Outs: Perspectives of Inpatient Prescribing for Sacubitril/Valsartan.

Heart failure is a major public health concern with a rising prevalence and significant financial detriment. Although sacubitril/valsartan was shown to reduce the risk of death and hospitalization from heart failure in a contemporary cohort, it continues to remain substantially underutilized. A recent article in the Annals highlights the evidence behind inpatient initiation of sacubitril/valsartan. We provide further considerations and summarize the evidence for inpatient initiation of other guideline directed medical therapies. Overall, there is a need to improve methods to identify ideal populations and increase utilization in those who may benefit from sacubitril/valsartan. Further research is also needed to identify the risks versus benefits among underrepresented populations (i.e., advanced heart failure, heart failure with preserved ejection fraction, in conjunction with other contemporary evidence-based therapies that can lower blood pressure, etc.).

Conducting clinical trials in heart failure during (and after) the COVID-19 pandemic: an Expert Consensus Position Paper from the Heart Failure Association (HFA) of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC).

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, caused by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), has important implications for the safety of participants in clinical trials and the research staff caring for them and, consequently, for the trials themselves. Patients with heart failure may be at greater risk of infection with COVID-19 and the consequences might also be more serious, but they are also at risk of adverse outcomes if their clinical care is compromised. As physicians and clinical trialists, it is our responsibility to ensure safe and effective care is delivered to trial participants without affecting the integrity of the trial. The social contract with our patients demands no less. Many regulatory authorities from different world regions have issued guidance statements regarding the conduct of clinical trials during this COVID-19 crisis. However, international trials may benefit from expert guidance from a global panel of experts to supplement local advice and regulations, thereby enhancing the safety of participants and the integrity of the trial. Accordingly, the Heart Failure Association of the European Society of Cardiology on 21 and 22 March 2020 conducted web-based meetings with expert clinical trialists in Europe, North America, South America, Australia, and Asia. The main objectives of this Expert Position Paper are to highlight the challenges that this pandemic poses for the conduct of clinical trials in heart failure and to offer advice on how they might be overcome, with some practical examples. While this panel of experts are focused on heart failure clinical trials, these discussions and recommendations may apply to clinical trials in other therapeutic areas.