Diuretic dosing and outcomes with torsemide and furosemide following hospitalization for heart failure: The TRANSFORM-HF trial.

AIMS: The TRANSFORM-HF trial found no difference in clinical outcomes between torsemide versus furosemide after hospitalization for heart failure. This analysis aimed to assess the impact of diuretic dosing on the primary and secondary clinical outcomes. METHODS AND RESULTS: This post-hoc analysis of TRANSFORM-HF categorized patients into three groups by discharge diuretic dose: (1) ≤40 mg, (2) >40-80 mg, and (3) >80 mg of furosemide equivalents. The associations between discharge dose and 12-month clinical events, and change in Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire clinical summary score (KCCQ-CSS), were assessed. Overall, 2379 patients were included, aged 65 years (interquartile range 56-75), 883 (37.1%) women, and 812 (34.2%) Black. Furosemide had adjusted hazard ratios (aHR) for all-cause mortality of 1.21 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.91-1.59) for discharge dose group 2 and 1.40 (95% CI 1.04-1.88) for group 3, compared with group 1. For torsemide, aHRs were 1.74 (95% CI 1.32-2.30) for group 2 and 1.58 (95% CI 1.14-2.19) for group 3. No evidence of heterogeneity for the association between increased mortality and higher dose was found by loop diuretic type (pinteraction = 0.17). Higher doses of furosemide and torsemide were associated with increased risk of all-cause hospitalization and the composite of all-cause mortality and hospitalization, without evidence of heterogeneity by loop diuretic type (pinteraction > 0.2). Changes in KCCQ-CSS from baseline at 12 months was similar across dose groups for both drugs. CONCLUSION: Following hospitalization for heart failure, higher loop diuretic dosing was independently associated with worse clinical and patient-reported outcomes. The correlation between higher loop diuretic dose and outcomes was consistent, regardless of loop diuretic used.

Guideline-directed medical therapy implementation during hospitalization for cardiogenic shock.

AIMS: Despite significant morbidity and mortality, recent advances in cardiogenic shock (CS) management have been associated with increased survival. However, little is known regarding the management of patients who survive CS with heart failure (HF) with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF, HFrEF), and the utilization of guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) in these patients has not been well described. To fill this gap, we investigated the use of GDMT during an admission for CS and short-term outcomes using the Inova single-centre shock registry. METHODS: We investigated the implementation of GDMT for patients who survived an admission for CS with HFrEF using data from our single-centre shock registry from January 2017 to December 2019. Baseline characteristics, discharge clinical status, data on GDMT utilization and 30 day, 6 month and 12 month patient outcomes were collected by retrospective chart review. RESULTS: Among 520 patients hospitalized for CS during the study period, 185 (35.6%) had HFrEF upon survival to discharge. The median age was 64 years [interquartile range (IQR) 56, 70], 72% (n = 133) were male, 22% (n = 40) were Black and 7% (n = 12) were Hispanic. Forty-one per cent of patients (n = 76) presented with shock related to acute myocardial infarction (AMI), while 59% (n = 109) had HF-related CS (HF-CS). The median length of hospital stay was 12 days (IQR 7, 18). At discharge, the proportions of patients on beta-blockers, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEis)/angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs)/angiotensin receptor/neprilysin inhibitors (ARNIs) and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRAs) were 78% (n = 144), 58% (n = 107) and 55% (n = 101), respectively. Utilization of three-drug GDMT was 33.0% (n = 61). Ten per cent of CS survivors with HFrEF (n = 19) were not prescribed any component of GDMT at discharge. Multivariable logistic regression adjusted for baseline GDMT use revealed that patients with lower LVEF and those who transferred to our centre from an outside hospital were more likely to experience GDMT addition (P < 0.05). Patients prescribed at least one additional class of GDMT during admission had higher odds of 6 month and 1 year survival (P < 0.01): On average, 6 month survival odds were 7.1 times greater [confidence interval (CI) 1.9, 28.5] and 1 year survival odds were 6.0 times greater than those who did not have at least one GDMT added (CI 1.9, 20.5). CONCLUSIONS: Most patients who survived CS admission with HFrEF in this single-centre CS registry were not prescribed all classes or goal doses of GDMT at hospital discharge. These findings highlight an urgent need to augment multidisciplinary efforts to enhance the post-discharge medical management and outcomes of patients who survive CS with HFrEF.

Clinical trial design, end-points, and emerging therapies in pulmonary arterial hypertension.

Clinical trials in pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH) have led to the approval of several effective treatments that improve symptoms, exercise capacity and clinical outcomes. In phase 3 clinical trials, primary end-points must reflect how a patient "feels, functions or survives". In a rare disease like PAH, with an ever-growing number of treatment options and numerous candidate therapies being studied, future clinical trials are now faced with challenges related to sample size requirements, efficiency and demonstration of incremental benefit on traditional end-points in patients receiving background therapy with multiple drugs. Novel clinical trial end-points, innovative trial designs and statistical approaches and new technologies may be potential solutions to tackle the challenges facing future PAH trials, but these must be acceptable to patients and regulatory bodies while preserving methodological rigour. In this World Symposium on Pulmonary Hypertension task force article, we address emerging trial end-points and designs, biomarkers and surrogate end-point validation, the concept of disease modification, challenges and opportunities to address diversity and representativeness, and the use of new technologies such as artificial intelligence in PAH clinical trials.

Dynamic Risk Estimation of Adverse Events in Ambulatory LVAD Patients: A MOMENTUM 3 Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Hemocompatibility-related adverse events affect patients after left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implantation but are hard to predict. OBJECTIVES: Dynamic risk modeling with a multistate model can predict risk of gastrointestinal bleeding (GIB), stroke, or death in ambulatory patients. METHODS: This was a secondary analysis of the MOMENTUM 3 (Multicenter Study of MagLev Technology in Patients Undergoing Mechanical Circulatory Support Therapy with HeartMate 3) trial. HeartMate 3 LVAD recipients who survived to hospital discharge and were followed for up to 2 years. A total of 145 variables were included in the multistate model with multivariate logistic regression. Model performance was assessed with the area under the curve in a holdout validation cohort. A risk stratification tool was created by dividing patients into categories of predicted risk using the final model variables and associated OR. RESULTS: Among 2,056 LVAD patients, the median age was 59.4 years (20.4% women, 28.6% Black). At 2 years, the incidence of GIB, stroke, and death was 25.6%, 6.0%, and 12.3%, respectively. The multistate model included 39 total variables to predict risk of GIB (16 variables), stroke (10 variables), and death (19 variables). When ambulatory patients were classified according to their risk category, the 30-day observed event rate in the highest risk group for GIB, stroke, or death was 26.9%, 1.8%, and 4.8%, respectively. The multistate model predicted GIB, stroke, and death at any 30-day period with an area under the curve of 0.70, 0.69, and 0.86, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The multistate model informs 30-day risk in ambulatory LVAD recipients and allows recalculation of risk as new patient-specific data become available. The model allows for accurate risk stratification that predicts impending adverse events and may guide clinical decision making. (MOMENTUM 3 IDE Clinical Study Protocol; NCT02224755).

Hypereosinophilia and Left Ventricular Thrombus: A Case Report and Literature Review.

Left ventricular thrombus (LVT) has historically been reported as a complication of acute left ventricular (LV) myocardial infarction. It is most commonly observed in cases of LV systolic dysfunction attributed to ischemic or nonischemic etiologies. Conversely, the occurrence of LVT in normal LV systolic function is an exceptionally rare presentation and is predominantly associated with conditions such as hypereosinophilic syndrome (HES), cardiac amyloidosis, left ventricular noncompaction, hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM), hypercoagulability states, immune-mediated disorders, and malignancies. Notably, hypereosinophilia (HE) has been linked with thrombotic events. Intracardiac thrombus is a well-known complication of eosinophilic myocarditis (EM) or Loeffler endomyocarditis, both of which are considered clinical manifestations of HES. We present a case of a 63-year-old male with normal LV systolic function, HE, and noncontributory hypercoagulability workup, who presented with thromboembolic complications arising from LVT. Interestingly, the diagnostic evaluation for EM and Loeffler endocarditis was nonconfirmatory. Additionally, we performed a literature review to delineate all similar cases. This article also outlines the pathophysiology, diagnosis, and treatment approaches for hypereosinophilic cardiac involvement with a specific focus on LVT.

Time from admission to randomization and the effect of empagliflozin in acute heart failure: A post-hoc analysis from EMPULSE.

AIMS: Patients hospitalized for acute heart failure (HF) could be enrolled in EMPULSE (NCT04157751) upon haemodynamic stabilization and between 24 h and 5 days after hospital admission. The timing of treatment initiation may influence the efficacy and safety of drugs such as empagliflozin. The aim of this study was to evaluate patient characteristics, clinical events, and treatment effects according to time from admission to randomization. METHODS AND RESULTS: The EMPULSE population was dichotomized by median time from hospital admission to randomization (1-2 days vs. 3-5 days). The primary outcome was a hierarchical composite endpoint of time to all-cause death, number of HF events, time to first HF event, and a ≥5-point difference in Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire total symptom score change from baseline after 90 days, analysed using the win ratio (WR) method. Patients randomized later (3-5 days, average time 3.9 days; n = 312) had a higher risk of experiencing clinical events than patients randomized earlier (1-2 days, average time 1.7 days; n = 215). The treatment effect favoured empagliflozin versus placebo in patients randomized later (3-5 days: WR 1.69, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.26-2.25) but was attenuated in patients randomized earlier (1-2 days: WR 1.04, 95% CI 0.74-1.44) (interaction p = 0.029). A similar pattern was observed for the composite of HF hospitalization or cardiovascular death and all-cause hospitalizations (interaction p < 0.1 for both). The reduction of N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide levels was more pronounced with empagliflozin among patients randomized later than in patients randomized earlier (interaction p = 0.004). CONCLUSIONS: Among patients hospitalized for acute HF enrolled in EMPULSE, those randomized later after hospital admission (3-5 days) experienced greater clinical benefit with empagliflozin than those randomized earlier (1-2 days). These findings should be confirmed in future studies before clinical application.

Heart Failure Drug Development Over the Eras: From the Heart Failure Collaboratory.

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

Framework of the strengths and challenges of clinically integrated trials: An expert panel report.

The limitations of the explanatory clinical trial framework include the high expense of implementing explanatory trials, restrictive entry criteria for participants, and redundant logistical processes. These limitations can result in slow evidence generation that is not responsive to population health needs, yielding evidence that is not generalizable. Clinically integrated trials, which integrate clinical research into routine care, represent a potential solution to this challenge and an opportunity to support learning health systems. The operational and design features of clinically integrated trials include a focused scope, simplicity in design and requirements, the leveraging of existing data structures, and patient participation in the entire trial process. These features are designed to minimize barriers to participation and trial execution and reduce additional research burdens for participants and clinicians alike. Broad adoption and scalability of clinically integrated trials are dependent, in part, on continuing regulatory, healthcare system, and payer support. This analysis presents a framework of the strengths and challenges of clinically integrated trials and is based on a multidisciplinary expert "Think Tank" panel discussion that included representatives from patient populations, academia, non-profit funding agencies, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, and industry.

Treatment effects of empagliflozin in hospitalized heart failure patients across the range of left ventricular ejection fraction - Results from the EMPULSE trial.

AIM: The EMPULSE (EMPagliflozin in patients hospitalised with acUte heart faiLure who have been StabilizEd) trial showed that, compared to placebo, the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor empagliflozin (10 mg/day) improved clinical outcomes of patients hospitalized for acute heart failure (HF). We investigated whether efficacy and safety of empagliflozin were consistent across the spectrum of left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). METHODS AND RESULTS: A total of 530 patients hospitalized for acute de novo or decompensated HF were included irrespective of LVEF. For the present analysis, patients were classified as HF with reduced (HFrEF, LVEF ≤40%), mildly reduced (HFmrEF, LVEF 41-49%) or preserved (HFpEF, LVEF ≥50%) ejection fraction at baseline. The primary endpoint was a hierarchical outcome of death, worsening HF events (HFE) and quality of life over 90 days, assessed by the win ratio. Secondary endpoints included individual components of the primary endpoint and safety. Out of 523 patients with baseline data, 354 (67.7%) had HFrEF, 54 (10.3%) had HFmrEF and 115 (22.0%) had HFpEF. The clinical benefit (hierarchical composite of all-cause death, HFE and Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire total symptom score) of empagliflozin at 90 days compared to placebo was consistent across LVEF categories (≤40%: win ratio 1.35 [95% confidence interval 1.04, 1.75]; 41-49%: win ratio 1.25 [0.66, 2.37)] and ≥50%: win ratio 1.40 [0.87, 2.23], pinteraction = 0.96) with a favourable safety profile. Results were consistent across individual components of the hierarchical primary endpoint. CONCLUSION: The clinical benefit of empagliflozin proved consistent across LVEF categories in the EMPULSE trial. These results support early in-hospital initiation of empagliflozin regardless of LVEF.

Contemporary approach to cardiogenic shock care: a state-of-the-art review.

Cardiogenic shock (CS) is a time-sensitive and hemodynamically complex syndrome with a broad spectrum of etiologies and clinical presentations. Despite contemporary therapies, CS continues to maintain high morbidity and mortality ranging from 35 to 50%. More recently, burgeoning observational research in this field aimed at enhancing the early recognition and characterization of the shock state through standardized team-based protocols, comprehensive hemodynamic profiling, and tailored and selective utilization of temporary mechanical circulatory support devices has been associated with improved outcomes. In this narrative review, we discuss the pathophysiology of CS, novel phenotypes, evolving definitions and staging systems, currently available pharmacologic and device-based therapies, standardized, team-based management protocols, and regionalized systems-of-care aimed at improving shock outcomes. We also explore opportunities for fertile investigation through randomized and non-randomized studies to address the prevailing knowledge gaps that will be critical to improving long-term outcomes.

Rethinking heart failure clinical trials: the heart failure collaboratory.

The Heart Failure Collaboratory (HFC) is a consortium of stakeholders in the heart failure (HF) community that aims to improve the infrastructure of clinical research to promote development of novel therapies for patients. Since its launch in 2018, HFC has implemented several solutions to tackle obstacles in HF clinical research including training programs to increase the number of clinicians skilled in conducting clinical trials, novel study designs, and advocacy for a diverse and inclusive HF research ecosystem. We highlight some of the HFC successes since its establishment.

Standardized Definitions for Evaluation of Acute Decompensated Heart Failure Therapies: HF-ARC Expert Panel Paper.

Acute decompensated heart failure (ADHF) is one of the most common reasons for hospitalizations or urgent care and is associated with poor outcomes. Therapies shown to improve outcomes are limited, however, and innovation in pharmacologic and device-based therapeutics are therefore actively being sought. Standardizing definitions for ADHF and its trajectory is complex, limiting the generalizability and translation of clinical trials to effect clinical care and policy change. The Heart Failure Collaboratory is a multistakeholder organization comprising clinical investigators, clinicians, patients, government representatives (including U.S. Food and Drug Administration and National Institutes of Health participants), payors, and industry collaborators. The following expert consensus document is the product of the Heart Failure Collaboratory convening with the Academic Research Consortium, including members from academia, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, and industry, for the purposes of proposing standardized definitions for ADHF and highlighting important endpoint considerations to inform the design and conduct of clinical trials for drugs and devices in this clinical arena.

Left Ventricular Ejection Fraction and the Future of Heart Failure Phenotyping.

Heart failure (HF) is a complex syndrome traditionally classified by left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) cutpoints. Although LVEF is prognostic for risk of events and predictive of response to some HF therapies, LVEF is a continuous variable and cutpoints are arbitrary, often based on historical clinical trial enrichment decisions rather than physiology. Holistic evaluation of the treatment effects for therapies throughout the LVEF range suggests the standard categorization paradigm for HF merits modification. The multidisciplinary Heart Failure Collaboratory reviewed data from large-scale HF clinical trials and found that many HF therapies have demonstrated therapeutic benefit across a large range of LVEF, but specific treatment effects vary across that range. Therefore, HF should practically be classified by association with an LVEF that is reduced or not reduced, while acknowledging uncertainty around the precise LVEF cutpoint, and future research should evaluate new therapies across the continuum of LVEF.

Heart failure without a reduced ejection fraction.

Heart failure (HF) substantially impacts the health and financial security of an increasing proportion of the US population. It worsens debility and quality of life and may lead to hospitalization and death. HF is a clinical syndrome with diverse symptomatic presentations. Physicians generally divide patients with HF into 2 groups: those with a left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) greater than or equal to 50% and those with an LVEF less than 49%. This review focuses on the group of patients whose LVEF is greater than or equal to 50%. This classification of HF is referred to as HF with a preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). Few beneficial therapies have been identified for this condition, possibly because of its heterogenous etiologies (eg, myocardial, vascular, metabolic, and other physiologic derangements). Clinicians should focus on diagnosing, treating, and preventing the etiologies that are known to cause HFpEF. Results from a small proportion of randomized controlled trials have shown therapeutic benefit for small molecules, although limited, if any, demonstrated mortality benefit has been noted. More research and investment are needed to decrease the burden of HFpEF and to discover lifesaving treatments for this growing population.

Mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist use and the effects of empagliflozin on clinical outcomes in patients admitted for acute heart failure: Findings from EMPULSE.

AIMS: In patients hospitalized for acute heart failure (AHF) empagliflozin produced greater clinical benefit than placebo. Many patients with AHF are treated with mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRAs). The interplay between empagliflozin and MRAs in AHF is yet to be explored. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of empagliflozin versus placebo according to MRA use at baseline in the EMPULSE trial (NCT04157751). METHODS AND RESULTS: In this analysis all comparisons were performed between empagliflozin and placebo, stratified by baseline MRA use. The primary outcome included all-cause death, heart failure events, and a ≥5 point difference in Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ) total symptom score at 90 days, assessed using the win ratio (WR). First heart failure hospitalization or cardiovascular death was a secondary outcome. From the 530 patients randomized, 276 (52%) were receiving MRAs at baseline. MRA users were younger, had lower ejection fraction, better renal function, and higher KCCQ scores. The primary outcome showed benefit of empagliflozin irrespective of baseline MRA use (WR 1.46, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.08-1.97 and WR 1.27, 95% CI 0.93-1.73 in MRA users and non-users, respectively; interaction p = 0.52). The effect of empagliflozin on first heart failure hospitalization or cardiovascular death was not modified by MRA use (hazard ratio [HR] 0.58, 95% CI 0.30-1.11 and HR 0.85, 95% CI 0.47-1.52 in MRA users and non-users, respectively; interaction p = 0.39). Investigator-reported and severe hyperkalaemia events were infrequent (<6%) irrespective of MRA use. CONCLUSIONS: In patients admitted for AHF, initiation of empagliflozin produced clinical benefit and was well tolerated irrespective of background MRA use. These findings support the early use of empagliflozin on top of MRA therapy in patients admitted for AHF.

Effect of Torsemide Versus Furosemide on Symptoms and Quality of Life Among Patients Hospitalized for Heart Failure: The TRANSFORM-HF Randomized Clinical Trial.

BACKGROUND: Loop diuretics are a primary therapy for the symptomatic treatment of heart failure (HF), but whether torsemide improves patient symptoms and quality of life better than furosemide remains unknown. As prespecified secondary end points, the TRANSFORM-HF trial (Torsemide Comparison With Furosemide for Management of Heart Failure) compared the effect of torsemide versus furosemide on patient-reported outcomes among patients with HF. METHODS: TRANSFORM-HF was an open-label, pragmatic, randomized trial of 2859 patients hospitalized for HF (regardless of ejection fraction) across 60 hospitals in the United States. Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to a loop diuretic strategy of torsemide or furosemide with investigator-selected dosage. This report examined effects on prespecified secondary end points, which included Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire Clinical Summary Score (KCCQ-CSS; assessed as adjusted mean difference in change from baseline; range, 0-100 with 100 indicating best health status; clinically important difference, ≥5 points) and Patient Health Questionnaire-2 (range, 0-6; score ≥3 supporting evaluation for depression) over 12 months. RESULTS: Baseline data were available for 2787 (97.5%) patients for KCCQ-CSS and 2624 (91.8%) patients for Patient Health Questionnaire-2. Median (interquartile range) baseline KCCQ-CSS was 42 (27-60) in the torsemide group and 40 (24-59) in the furosemide group. At 12 months, there was no significant difference between torsemide and furosemide in change from baseline in KCCQ-CSS (adjusted mean difference, 0.06 [95% CI, -2.26 to 2.37]; P=0.96) or the proportion of patients with Patient Health Questionnaire-2 score ≥3 (15.1% versus 13.2%: P=0.34). Results for KCCQ-CSS were similar at 1 month (adjusted mean difference, 1.36 [95% CI, -0.64 to 3.36]; P=0.18) and 6-month follow-up (adjusted mean difference, -0.37 [95% CI, -2.52 to 1.78]; P=0.73), and across subgroups by ejection fraction phenotype, New York Heart Association class at randomization, and loop diuretic agent before hospitalization. Irrespective of baseline KCCQ-CSS tertile, there was no significant difference between torsemide and furosemide on change in KCCQ-CSS, all-cause mortality, or all-cause hospitalization. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients discharged after hospitalization for HF, a strategy of torsemide compared with furosemide did not improve symptoms or quality of life over 12 months. The effects of torsemide and furosemide on patient-reported outcomes were similar regardless of ejection fraction, previous loop diuretic use, and baseline health status. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov; Unique identifier: NCT03296813.

The win ratio method in heart failure trials: lessons learnt from EMPULSE.

AIMS: The EMPULSE trial evaluated the clinical benefit of empagliflozin versus placebo using the stratified win ratio approach in 530 patients with acute heart failure (HF) after initial stabilization. We aim to elucidate how this method works and what it means, thereby giving guidance for use of the win ratio in future trials. METHODS AND RESULTS: The primary trial outcome is a hierarchical composite of death, number of HF events, time to first HF event, or a ≥5-point difference in Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ) total symptom score change at 90 days. In an overall (unstratified) analysis we show how comparison of all 265 x 265 patients pairs contribute to 'wins' for empagliflozin and placebo at all four levels of the hierarchy, leading to an unstratified win ratio of 1.38 (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.11-1.71; p = 0.0036). How such a win ratio should (and should not) be interpreted is then described. The more complex primary analysis using a stratified win ratio is then presented in detail leading to a very similar overall result. Win ratios for de novo acute HF and decompensated chronic HF patients were 1.29 and 1.39, respectively, their weighted combination yielding an overall stratified win ratio of 1.36 (95% CI 1.09-1.68) (p = 0.0054). Alternative ways of including HF events and KCCQ scores in the clinical hierarchy are presented, leading to recommendations for their use in future trials. Specifically, inclusion of both number of HF events and time-to-first HF event appears an unnecessary complication. Also, the use of a 5-point margin for KCCQ score paired comparisons is not statistically necessary. CONCLUSIONS: The EMPULSE trial findings illustrate how deaths, clinical events and patient-reported outcomes can be integrated into a win ratio analysis strategy that yields clinically meaningful findings of patient benefit. This has implications for future trial designs that recognize the clinical priorities of patient evaluation and the need for efficient progress towards approval of new treatments.