Challenges and lessons learned from a long-term postauthorisation safety study programme of rivaroxaban in Europe.

OBJECTIVES: To describe opportunities and challenges experienced from the four pharmacoepidemiological database studies included in the rivaroxaban post authorisation safety study (PASS) programme and propose ways to maximise the value of population-based observational research when addressing regulatory requirements. DESIGN: PASS programme of rivaroxaban carried out as part of the regulatory postapproval commitment to the European Medicines Agency. SETTING: Clinical practice in Germany, the Netherlands, Sweden and the UK (electronic health records)-undertaken by pharmacoepidemiology research teams using country-specific databases with different coding structures. PARTICIPANTS: 355 152 patients prescribed rivaroxaban and 338 199 patients prescribed vitamin K antagonists. RESULTS: Two major challenges that were encountered throughout the lengthy PASS programme were related to: (1) finalising country-tailored study designs before the extent of rivaroxaban uptake was known, and (2) new research questions that arose during the programme (eg, those relating to an evolving prescribing landscape). RECOMMENDATIONS: We advocate the following strategies to help address these major challenges (should they arise in any future PASS): conducting studies based on a common data model that enable the same analytical tools to be applied when using different databases; maintaining early, clear, continuous communication with the regulator (including discussing the potential benefit of studying drug use as a precursor to planning a safety study); consideration of adaptive designs whenever uncertainty exists and following an initial period of data collection; and setting milestones for the review of study objectives.

Identifying subtypes of heart failure from three electronic health record sources with machine learning: an external, prognostic, and genetic validation study.

BACKGROUND: Machine learning has been used to analyse heart failure subtypes, but not across large, distinct, population-based datasets, across the whole spectrum of causes and presentations, or with clinical and non-clinical validation by different machine learning methods. Using our published framework, we aimed to discover heart failure subtypes and validate them upon population representative data. METHODS: In this external, prognostic, and genetic validation study we analysed individuals aged 30 years or older with incident heart failure from two population-based databases in the UK (Clinical Practice Research Datalink [CPRD] and The Health Improvement Network [THIN]) from 1998 to 2018. Pre-heart failure and post-heart failure factors (n=645) included demographic information, history, examination, blood laboratory values, and medications. We identified subtypes using four unsupervised machine learning methods (K-means, hierarchical, K-Medoids, and mixture model clustering) with 87 of 645 factors in each dataset. We evaluated subtypes for (1) external validity (across datasets); (2) prognostic validity (predictive accuracy for 1-year mortality); and (3) genetic validity (UK Biobank), association with polygenic risk score (PRS) for heart failure-related traits (n=11), and single nucleotide polymorphisms (n=12). FINDINGS: We included 188 800, 124 262, and 9573 individuals with incident heart failure from CPRD, THIN, and UK Biobank, respectively, between Jan 1, 1998, and Jan 1, 2018. After identifying five clusters, we labelled heart failure subtypes as (1) early onset, (2) late onset, (3) atrial fibrillation related, (4) metabolic, and (5) cardiometabolic. In the external validity analysis, subtypes were similar across datasets (c-statistics: THIN model in CPRD ranged from 0·79 [subtype 3] to 0·94 [subtype 1], and CPRD model in THIN ranged from 0·79 [subtype 1] to 0·92 [subtypes 2 and 5]). In the prognostic validity analysis, 1-year all-cause mortality after heart failure diagnosis (subtype 1 0·20 [95% CI 0·14-0·25], subtype 2 0·46 [0·43-0·49], subtype 3 0·61 [0·57-0·64], subtype 4 0·11 [0·07-0·16], and subtype 5 0·37 [0·32-0·41]) differed across subtypes in CPRD and THIN data, as did risk of non-fatal cardiovascular diseases and all-cause hospitalisation. In the genetic validity analysis the atrial fibrillation-related subtype showed associations with the related PRS. Late onset and cardiometabolic subtypes were the most similar and strongly associated with PRS for hypertension, myocardial infarction, and obesity (p<0·0009). We developed a prototype app for routine clinical use, which could enable evaluation of effectiveness and cost-effectiveness. INTERPRETATION: Across four methods and three datasets, including genetic data, in the largest study of incident heart failure to date, we identified five machine learning-informed subtypes, which might inform aetiological research, clinical risk prediction, and the design of heart failure trials. FUNDING: European Union Innovative Medicines Initiative-2.

Sex differences in the generalizability of randomized clinical trials in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction.

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

Generalizability of randomized controlled trials in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction.

BACKGROUND: Heart failure (HF) trials have stringent inclusion and exclusion criteria, but limited data exist regarding generalizability of trials. We compared patient characteristics and outcomes between patients with HF and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) in trials and observational registries. METHODS AND RESULTS: Individual patient data for 16 922 patients from five randomized clinical trials and 46 914 patients from two HF registries were included. The registry patients were categorized into trial-eligible and non-eligible groups using the most commonly used inclusion and exclusion criteria. A total of 26 104 (56%) registry patients fulfilled the eligibility criteria. Unadjusted all-cause mortality rates at 1 year were lowest in the trial population (7%), followed by trial-eligible patients (12%) and trial-non-eligible registry patients (26%). After adjustment for age and sex, all-cause mortality rates were similar between trial participants and trial-eligible registry patients [standardized mortality ratio (SMR) 0.97; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.92-1.03] but cardiovascular mortality was higher in trial participants (SMR 1.19; 1.12-1.27). After full case-mix adjustment, the SMR for cardiovascular mortality remained higher in the trials at 1.28 (1.20-1.37) compared to RCT-eligible registry patients. CONCLUSION: In contemporary HF registries, over half of HFrEF patients would have been eligible for trial enrolment. Crude clinical event rates were lower in the trials, but, after adjustment for case-mix, trial participants had similar rates of survival as registries. Despite this, they had about 30% higher cardiovascular mortality rates. Age and sex were the main drivers of differences in clinical outcomes between HF trials and observational HF registries.

A population-based study of 92 clinically recognized risk factors for heart failure: co-occurrence, prognosis and preventive potential.

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