Yancy, Clyde W.

Hypertension is the single most important modifiable risk factor for preventable disability and death worldwide and disproportionately affects socially disadvantaged populations. We face a paradox—blood pressure control is low and recent trends suggest it is even declining, despite the availability of inexpensive and effective therapies. A variety of barriers on the system, patient, and healthcare provider side hinder effective drug-based risk factor management. Clinical inertia represents a major barrier on the clinician side, as well as workload and limited education. Common barriers on the patient side include limited English proficiency, low health literacy, and nonadherence with misaligned incentives, limited resources, lack of structured clinical pathways, and reimbursement issues. New innovations in the field of RNA-targeted therapies and device-based interventions could prevent and potentially even cure diseases previously designated as chronic health conditions, such as hypertension. Such novel therapies could potentially overcome several major barriers to effective treatment, including nonadherence. Drug development of novel, long-acting treatments requires consideration of specific clinical trial design aspects, including safety collection, benefit: risk assessment, the development and assessment of novel, qualitative surrogate end points, such as time-in-therapeutic range, the use of representative trial settings as well as the definition of standard of care in placebo-controlled trials, which should be of reasonably high-quality allowing for credible evaluation of effectiveness. Here, we provide an overview on barriers to effective treatment and a framework for trials assessing novel treatments for cardiovascular disease risk factors, including early and broad implementation programs.

Hypertension is among the most important risk factors for cardiovascular disease, chronic kidney disease, and dementia. The artificial intelligence (AI) field is advancing quickly, and there has been little discussion on how AI could be leveraged for improving the diagnosis and management of hypertension. AI technologies, including machine learning tools, could alter the way we diagnose and manage hypertension, with potential impacts for improving individual and population health. The development of successful AI tools in public health and health care systems requires diverse types of expertise with collaborative relationships between clinicians, engineers, and data scientists. Unbiased data sources, management, and analyses remain a foundational challenge. From a diagnostic standpoint, machine learning tools may improve the measurement of blood pressure and be useful in the prediction of incident hypertension. To advance the management of hypertension, machine learning tools may be useful to find personalized treatments for patients using analytics to predict response to antihypertension medications and the risk for hypertension-related complications. However, there are real-world implementation challenges to using AI tools in hypertension. Herein, we summarize key findings from a diverse group of stakeholders who participated in a workshop held by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute in March 2023. Workshop participants presented information on communication gaps between clinical medicine, data science, and engineering in health care; novel approaches to estimating BP, hypertension risk, and BP control; and real-world implementation challenges and issues.

Abstract Aims Heart failure (HF) is a common and morbid condition impacting multiple health domains. We previously reported the development of the PROMIS®-Plus-HF (PROMIS+HF) profile measure, including universal and HF-specific items. To facilitate use, we developed shorter, PROMIS+HF profiles intended for research and clinical use. Methods and results Candidate items were selected based on psychometric properties and symptom range coverage. HF clinicians (n = 43) rated item importance and clinical actionability. Based on these results, we developed the PROMIS+HF-27 and PROMIS+HF-10 profiles with summary scores (0–100) for overall, physical, mental, and social health. In a cross-sectional sample (n = 600), we measured internal consistency reliability (Cronbach's alpha and Spearman–Brown), test–retest reliability (intraclass coefficient; n = 100), known-groups validity via New York Heart Association (NYHA) class, and convergent validity with Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ) scores. In a longitudinal sample (n = 75), we evaluated responsiveness of baseline/follow-up scores by calculating mean differences and Cohen's d and comparing with paired t-tests. Internal consistency was good to excellent (α 0.82–0.94) for all PROMIS+HF-27 scores and acceptable to good (α/Spearman–Brown 0.60–0.85) for PROMIS+HF-10 scores. Test–retest intraclass coefficients were acceptable to excellent (0.75–0.97). Both profiles demonstrated known-groups validity for the overall and physical health summary scores based on NYHA class, and convergent validity for nearly all scores compared with KCCQ scores. In the longitudinal sample, we demonstrated responsiveness for PROMIS+HF-27 and PROMIS+HF-10 overall and physical summary scores. For the PROMIS+HF overall summary scores, a group-based increase of 7.6–8.3 points represented a small to medium change (Cohen's d = 0.40–0.42). For the PROMIS+HF physical summary scores, a group-based increase of 5.0–5.9 points represented a small to medium change (Cohen's d = 0.29–0.35). Conclusions The PROMIS+HF-27 and PROMIS+HF-10 profiles demonstrated good psychometric characteristics with evidence of responsiveness for overall and physical health. These new measures can facilitate patient-centred research and clinical care, such as improving care quality through symptom monitoring, facilitating shared decision-making, evaluating quality of care, assessing new interventions, and monitoring during the initiation and titration of guideline-directed medical therapy.

Background: Randomized clinical trials have demonstrated that catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction may improve survival and other cardiovascular outcomes. Methods: We constructed a decision-analytic Markov model to estimate the costs and benefits of catheter ablation and medical management in patients with symptomatic heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (left ventricular ejection fraction ≤35%) and atrial fibrillation over a lifetime horizon. Evidence from the published literature informed the model inputs, including clinical effectiveness data from meta-analyses. Probabilistic and deterministic sensitivity analyses were performed. A 3% discount rate was applied to both future costs and benefits. The primary outcome was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio assessed from the US health care sector perspective. Results: Catheter ablation was associated with 6.47 (95% CI, 5.89–6.93) quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and a total cost of $105 657 (95% CI, $55 311–$191 934; 2018 US dollars), compared with 5.30 (95% CI, 5.20–5.39) QALYs and $63 040 (95% CI, $37 624–$102 260) for medical management. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for catheter ablation compared with medical management was $38 496 (95% CI, $5583–$117 510) per QALY gained. Model inputs with the greatest variation on incremental cost-effectiveness ratio estimates were the cost of ablation and the effect of catheter ablation on mortality reduction. When assuming a more conservative estimate of the treatment effect of catheter ablation on mortality (hazard ratio of 0.86), the estimated incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was $74 403 per QALY gained. At a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100 000 per QALY gained, atrial fibrillation ablation was found to be economically favorable compared with medical management in 95% of simulations. Conclusions: Catheter ablation in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction patients and atrial fibrillation may be considered economically attractive at current benchmarks for societal willingness-to-pay in the United States.

BACKGROUNDThe Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services rewards hospitals that have low 30‐day risk‐standardized mortality rates (RSMR) for heart failure (HF).OBJECTIVETo describe the use of early comfort care for patients with HF, and whether hospitals that more commonly initiate comfort care have higher 30‐day mortality rates.DESIGNA retrospective, observational study.SETTINGAcute care hospitals in the United States.PATIENTSA total of 93,920 fee‐for‐service Medicare beneficiaries admitted with HF from January 2008 to December 2014 to 272 hospitals participating in the Get With The Guidelines‐Heart Failure registry.EXPOSUREEarly comfort care (defined as comfort care within 48 hours of hospitalization) rate.MEASUREMENTSA 30‐day RSMR.RESULTSHospitals' early comfort care rates were low for patients admitted for H F, with no change over time (2.5% to 2.6%, from 2008 to 2014, P = .56). Rates varied widely (0% to 40%), with 14.3% of hospitals not initiating comfort care for any patients during the first 2 days of hospitalization. Risk‐standardized early comfort care rates were not correlated with RSMR (median RSMR = 10.9%, 25th to 75th percentile = 10.1% to 12.0%; Spearman's rank correlation = 0.13; P = .66).CONCLUSIONSHospital use of early comfort care for HF varies, has not increased over time, and on average, is not correlated with 30‐day RSMR. This suggests that current efforts to lower mortality rates have not had unintended consequences for hospitals that institute early comfort care more commonly than their peers.

Background— Clinical trials of implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) for primary prevention enrolled a limited number of women. We sought to examine clinical practice data to compare survival rates among women with heart failure with or without a primary prevention ICD. Methods and Results— We linked data from 264 US hospitals included in the Get With The Guidelines for Heart Failure registry with data from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. From these sources, we propensity score matched 430 women with heart failure who received a primary prevention ICD to 430 women who did not; we further adjusted using a Cox proportional hazards model. Median follow-up was 3.4 and 3.0 years. For comparison, we matched 859 men receiving an ICD with 859 who did not; median follow-up was 3.9 versus 2.9 years. In the matched cohorts, an ICD was associated with similarly better survival in women (hazard ratio, 0.78; 95% confidence interval, 0.66–0.92; P =0.003) and men (hazard ratio, 0.76; 95% confidence interval, 0.67–0.87 P <0.001). There was no interaction between sex and presence of an ICD with respect to survival ( P =0.79). Conclusions— Among patients with heart failure with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction, a primary prevention ICD was associated with a significant survival advantage among women and among men. These findings support guideline-directed use of primary prevention ICDs in eligible patients.

Background— Racial and ethnic minorities are under-represented in clinical trials of primary prevention implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs). This analysis investigates the association between primary prevention ICDs and mortality among Medicare, racial/ethnic minority patients. Methods and Results— Data from Get With The Guidelines-Heart Failure Registry and National Cardiovascular Data Registry’s ICD Registry were used to perform an adjusted comparative effectiveness analysis of primary prevention ICDs in Medicare, racial/ethnic minority patients (nonwhite race or Hispanic ethnicity). Mortality data were obtained from the Medicare denominator file. The relationship of ICD with survival was compared between minority and white non-Hispanic patients. Our analysis included 852 minority patients, 426 ICD and 426 matched non-ICD patients, and 2070 white non-Hispanic patients (1035 ICD and 1035 matched non-ICD patients). Median follow-up was 3.1 years. Median age was 73 years, and median ejection fraction was 23%. Adjusted 3-year mortality rates for minority ICD and non-ICD patients were 44.9% (95% confidence interval [CI], 44.2%–45.7%) and 54.3% (95% CI, 53.4%–55.1%), respectively (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.63–0.98; P =0.034). White non-Hispanic patients receiving an ICD had lower adjusted 3-year mortality rates of 47.8% (95% CI, 47.3%–48.3%) compared with 57.3% (95% CI, 56.8%–57.9%) for those with no ICD (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.67%–0.83%; P <0.0001). There was no significant interaction between race/ethnicity and lower mortality risk with ICD ( P =0.70). Conclusions— Primary prevention ICDs are associated with lower mortality in nonwhite and Hispanic patients, similar to that seen in white, non-Hispanic patients. These data support a similar approach to ICD patient selection, regardless of race or ethnicity.

Background— Prior studies have demonstrated low use of implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) as primary prevention, particularly among women and blacks. The degree to which the overall use of ICD therapy and disparities in use have changed is unclear. Methods and Results— We examined 11 880 unique patients with a history of heart failure and left ventricular ejection fraction ≤35% who were ≥65 years old and enrolled in the Get With the Guidelines–Heart Failure (GWTG-HF) program from January 2005 through December 2009. We determined the rate of ICD use by year for the overall population and for sex and race groups. From 2005 to 2007, overall ICD use increased from 30.2% to 42.4% and then remained unchanged in 2008 to 2009. After adjustment for potential confounders, ICD use increased significantly in the overall study population during 2005 to 2007 (odds ratio, 1.28; 95% confidence interval, 1.11–1.48 per year; P =0.0008) and in black women (odds ratio, 1.82; 95% confidence interval, 1.28–2.58 per year; P =0.0008), white women (odds ratio, 1.30; 95% confidence interval, 1.06–1.59 per year; P =0.010), black men (odds ratio, 1.54; 95% confidence interval, 1.19–1.99 per year; P =0.0009), and white men (odds ratio, 1.25; 95% confidence interval, 1.06–1.48 per year; P =0.0072). The increase in ICD use was greatest among blacks. Conclusions— In the GWTG-HF quality improvement program, a significant increase in ICD therapy use was observed over time in all sex and race groups. The previously described racial disparities in ICD use were no longer present by the end of the study period; however, sex differences persisted.