Implications of trial eligibility in patients with heart failure with mildly reduced or preserved ejection fraction.

AIMS: Clinical trials in heart failure with mildly reduced or preserved ejection fraction (HFmrEF/HFpEF) commonly have detailed eligibility criteria. This may contribute to challenges with efficient enrolment and questions regarding the generalizability of trial findings. METHODS AND RESULTS: Patients with HFmrEF/HFpEF from a large US healthcare system were identified through a computable phenotype applied in linked imaging and electronic health record databases. We evaluated shared eligibility criteria from five recent/ongoing HFmrEF/HFpEF trials (PARAGON-HF, EMPEROR-Preserved, DELIVER, FINE-ARTS, and SPIRRIT-HFpEF) and compared clinical and echocardiographic features as well as outcomes between trial-eligible and trial-ineligible patients. Among 5552 patients with HFpEF/HFmrEF, 792 (14%) were eligible for trial consideration, having met all criteria assessed. Causes of ineligibility included lack of recent loop diuretics (37%), significant pulmonary disease (24%), reduced estimated glomerular filtration rate (17%), recent stroke/transient ischaemic attack (13%), or low natriuretic peptides (12%); 53% of ineligible patients had >1 reason for exclusion. Compared with eligible patients, ineligible patients were younger (age 71 vs. 75 years, P < 0.001) with higher rates of coronary artery disease (66% vs. 59%, P < 0.001) and peripheral vascular disease (40% vs. 33%, P < 0.001), but less mitral regurgitation, lower E/e' ratio, and smaller left atrial sizes. Both eligible and ineligible patients demonstrated high rates of structural heart disease consistent with HFpEF [elevated left atrial size or left ventricular (LV) hypertrophy/increased LV mass], although this was slightly higher among eligible patients (95% vs. 92%, P = 0.001). The two cohorts demonstrated similar LV global longitudinal strain along with a similar prevalence of atrial fibrillation/flutter, hypertension, and obesity. Ineligible patients had similar all-cause mortality (33% vs. 33% at 3 years) to those eligible but lower rates of heart failure hospitalization (20% vs. 28% at 3 years, P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with HFmrEF/HFpEF from a large health system, approximately one in seven were eligible for major trials based on key criteria applied through a clinical computable phenotype. These findings highlight the large proportion of patients with HFmrEF/HFpEF ineligible for contemporary trials for whom the generalizability of trial findings may be questioned and further investigation would be beneficial.

Association of Cardiologist Clinic Visits with Cardiovascular Primary Prevention Outcomes Among People with HIV from Underrepresented Racial and Ethnic Groups in the Southern United States.

Background: People with HIV (PWH) are at elevated risk for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD). Underrepresented racial and ethnic groups (UREGs) with HIV in the southern U.S. are disproportionately affected, yet whether cardiology specialist care for this at-risk group improves blood pressure and lipid control or prevents cardiovascular events is unknown. Methods: We evaluated a cohort of PWH from UREGs at elevated ASCVD risk without known cardiovascular disease who received HIV-related care from 2015-2018 at four academic medical centers in the Southern United States with follow up through 2020. Primary outcomes were blood pressure control (<140/90 mmHg) and lipid control (LDL-C ≤ 100 mg/dl) over 2 years and time to first major adverse cardiovascular (MACE) event. Statistical analyses were adjusted for cohort/site and patient factors including HIV measures and comorbidities. Results: Among 3972 included PWH (median age 47 years old, 32.6% female) without diagnosed cardiovascular disease, 276 (6.9%) had a cardiology clinic visit. Cardiology clinic visits were not significantly associated with subsequent blood pressure control (adjusted OR 0.78, 95% CI 0.49-1.24, p=0.29) or lipid control (adjusted OR 2.25, 95% CI 0.72-7.01, p=0.16). Over a median follow up of 5 years, patients who had a cardiology clinic visit had higher risk of MACE, overall mortality, and falsification endpoints (hospitalization or death from accident/trauma and pneumonia/sepsis) indicating a higher risk group overall, even after adjusting for measured risk factors. Conclusions: Among UREG PWH at elevated cardiovascular risk, a cardiology clinic visit was not associated with improved cardiovascular risk factors or reduced risk of cardiovascular events. Our study suggests that seeing a cardiologist is not alone sufficient to promote cardiovascular health or prevent cardiovascular events among PWH, but with low confidence given the higher risk among those who had a cardiology visit. What is known?: People with HIV are at increased cardiovascular risk, and the burden of both cardiovascular disease and HIV are high among people from underrepresented racial and ethnic groups who live in the Southern United States.Treating people with HIV at elevated cardiovascular risk with statins reduces risk of cardiovascular events. What the study adds?: Among people with HIV at elevated cardiovascular risk from underrepresented racial and ethnic groups who received care at four academic medical centers in the southern United States, cardiology clinic visits were not associated with better lipid control, blood pressure control, or prevention of cardiovascular events.People with HIV who attended a cardiology clinic visit had higher risk of cardiovascular events and mortality.

On-treatment analysis of torsemide versus furosemide for patients hospitalized for heart failure: A post-hoc analysis of TRANSFORM-HF.

AIM: The TRANSFORM-HF trial demonstrated no significant outcome differences between torsemide and furosemide following hospitalization for heart failure (HF), but may have been impacted by non-adherence to the randomized diuretic. The current study sought to determine the treatment effect of torsemide versus furosemide using an on-treatment analysis inclusive of all randomized patients except those confirmed non-adherent to study diuretic. METHODS AND RESULTS: TRANSFORM-HF was an open-label, pragmatic randomized trial of 2859 patients hospitalized for HF from June 2018 through March 2022. Patients were randomized to a loop diuretic strategy of torsemide versus furosemide with investigator-selected dosage. This post-hoc on-treatment analysis included all patients alive with either known or unknown diuretic status, and excluded patients confirmed to be non-adherent to study diuretic. This modified on-treatment definition was applied separately at time of hospital discharge and 30-day follow-up. All-cause mortality and hospitalization outcomes were assessed over 12 months. Overall, 2570 (89.9%) and 2374 (83.0%) patients were included in on-treatment analyses at discharge and 30-day follow-up, respectively. There was no significant difference in all-cause mortality between torsemide and furosemide in patients on-treatment at discharge (17.5% vs. 17.8%; hazard ratio [HR] 1.01 [95% confidence interval [CI] 0.83-1.22], p = 0.96) and at 30-day follow-up (14.5% vs. 15.0%; HR 1.02 [95% CI 0.81-1.27], p = 0.90). All-cause mortality or all-cause hospitalization was similar between torsemide and furosemide in patients who were on-treatment at discharge (58.3% vs. 61.3%; HR 0.92 [95% CI 0.82-1.03]) and 30-day follow-up (60.9% vs. 64.4%; HR 0.93 [95% CI 0.82-1.05]). In patients who were on-treatment at 30-day follow-up, there were 677 total hospitalizations in the torsemide group and 686 total hospitalizations in the furosemide group (rate ratio 0.99 [95% CI 0.86-1.14], p = 0.87). CONCLUSIONS: In TRANSFORM-HF, a post-hoc on-treatment analysis did not meaningfully differ from the original trial results. Among those deemed compliant with the assigned diuretic, there remained no significant difference in mortality or hospitalization after HF hospitalization with a strategy of torsemide versus furosemide. CLINICAL TRAIL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03296813.