Breathett, Khadijah

BACKGROUND: Among accepted US heart organs, listing centers accept organ offers earliest for White women, followed by Black women, White men, and Black men. Understanding the relationships of center- and geographic-level decisions is necessary to understand waitlist disparities. We sought to determine whether listing center and geography are associated with the first heart organ acceptance by candidate race, since race demographics vary regionally across the United States. METHODS: Using the United Network for Organ Sharing data sets, we identified first organ offers for Black and White candidates listed for heart transplant (October 18, 2018 to September 30, 2024) and compared models with and without listing center effects adjusted for candidate-, donor-, and offer-level variables. RESULTS: Among 20 668 candidates (31.6% Black, 68.4% White, 26.5% women), the adjusted odds of first offer acceptance were lower for Black candidates compared with White candidates (odds ratio, 0.84 [95% CI, 0.76–0.94]; P =0.001) when listing center was not included in the model; but after adjusting for listing center effects, odds were similar by race (odds ratio, 0.98 [95% CI, 0.88–1.10]; P =0.78). There were no clear geographic patterns by center, but centers with lower proportions of Black candidates had higher acceptance rates. CONCLUSIONS: Variability in overall acceptance rate among listing centers explains the lower first offer acceptance for Black compared with White heart candidates. Baseline acceptance rates were linked to the center-level proportion of Black candidates but not geography. Investigation of strategies to systemically improve early acceptance of good heart organs may reduce Black and White disparities in wait time duration.

Kidney dysfunction after heart transplantation (HT) is associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Recipient and perioperative factors may all influence the risk of kidney injury. Furthermore, data suggest that the incidence of kidney dysfunction, both acute and chronic, is increasing after the implementation of the United States’ 2018 allocation system due to increasing use of temporary mechanical circulatory support and changing recipient characteristics. While data are robust regarding nephroprotective therapies such as renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system inhibition and SGLT2i (sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors) to minimize the progression of chronic kidney disease in patients with heart failure, data in HT recipients are beginning to emerge. This state-of-the-art review will critically examine the existing literature regarding the epidemiology of kidney dysfunction after HT, mitigation strategies for acute kidney injury and chronic kidney disease, including pharmacotherapeutics, the need for kidney transplantation after HT, and practical next steps for the larger HT community.

ImportanceThe advanced ambulatory heart failure (HF) population comprises patients who have progressed beyond the pillars of recommended stage C HF therapies but can still find meaningful life-years ahead. Although these patients are commonly encountered in practice, national databases selectively capture the small groups accepted for heart transplant listing or left ventricular assist devices. The epidemiology, trajectories, and therapies for other ambulatory patients with advanced HF are poorly understood.ObservationsIn December 2022, the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute convened a team of experts to identify knowledge gaps and research priorities for the ambulatory population with limiting daily symptoms and transition toward refractory end-stage D HF, designated as stage C2D. This article summarizes the findings from that 3-day workshop. Workshop participants surveyed the initial challenges and knowledge gaps for (1) recognition of ambulatory C2D HF, (2) estimation of the magnitude of the affected population and identifiable subpopulations, and (3) physiologic phenotypes, such as low cardiac output, right HF, cardiorenal syndromes, congestive hepatopathy and frailty, which offer distinct targets for existing and emerging therapies. Social drivers of HF and patient preferences for quality/length of survival were highlighted as essential modifiers for personalization of therapies.Conclusions and RelevanceTen key points summarized workshop findings, with target cohorts for study proposed as a crucial next step. This workshop summary is intended as a call for action to address knowledge gaps and develop new strategies to improve outcomes in the large ambulatory population with C2D HF.

Background: Inequities in Preeclampsia/Eclampsia (PrE/E) persist. It is unknown if the receipt of cardiology care relates to future risk of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) in Black and White patients with PrE/E. We sought to determine the cumulative incidence of MACE by race and whether predelivery cardiology care was associated with the hazard of MACE up to 1-year post-delivery for Black and White patients with PrE/E. Methods: Using Optum’s Clinformatics® Data Mart Database (CDM), we identified Black and White patients with PrE/E who had a delivery between 2008 to 2019. MACE was defined as the composite of heart failure, acute myocardial infarction, stroke, and death. Cumulative incidence functions were used to compare the incidence of MACE by race. Cox regression models were used to assess the hazard of MACE by cardiology care for Black and White patients. Results: Among 29,336 patients (83.4% White, 16.6% Black, mean age of 30.9 years) with PrE/E, 11.2% received cardiology care (10.9% White, 13.0% Black). Black patients had a higher incidence of MACE than White patients at 1-yr post-delivery (2.7% vs 1.4%). After adjusting for age and clinical comorbidities, receipt of cardiology care was associated with lower hazard of MACE for White patients (HR= 0.68, 95%CI: 0.50-0.92 p=0.013) but not Black patients (HR: 1.22, 95% CI: 0.82-1.81; p= 0.328). The interaction effect between race and cardiology care was statistically significant (p=0.013) Conclusions: Among a well-insured population of patients with PrE/E, Black patients had a higher cumulative incidence of MACE up to a year post-delivery. However, cardiology care significantly lowered the hazard of MACE for only White women. This observation does not suggest that cardiology care is detrimental to Black individuals but underscores the necessity to investigate why outcomes are disparate among these racial groups.

BACKGROUND: It is unknown whether predelivery cardiology care is associated with future risk of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) in preeclampsia/eclampsia (PrE/E). We sought to determine the cumulative incidence of MACE by race and whether predelivery cardiology care was associated with the hazard of MACE up to 1 year post-delivery for Black and White patients with PrE/E. METHODS: Using Optum’s de-identified Clinformatics Data Mart Database, we identified Black and White patients with PrE/E who had a delivery between 2008 and 2019. MACE was defined as the composite of heart failure, acute myocardial infarction, stroke, and death. Cumulative incidence functions were used to compare the incidence of MACE by race. Regression models were used to assess the hazard of MACE by cardiology care for each race. Separate hazards were calculated for the first 14 days and the remainder of the year. RESULTS: Among 29 336 patients (83.4% White patients, 16.6% Black patients, 99.5% commercially insured, mean age: 30.9 years) with PrE/E, 11.2% received cardiology care (10.9% White patients, 13.0% Black patients). Black patients had higher incidence of MACE than White patients at 1 year post-delivery (2.7% versus 1.4%) with the majority within 14 days of delivery (Black patients: 58.7%; White patients: 67.8%). After adjusting for age and comorbidities, receipt of cardiology care was associated with a lower hazard of MACE for White patients within 14 days after delivery (hazard ratio, 0.31 [95% CI, 0.21–0.46]; P <0.001) but not Black patients (hazard ratio, 1.00 [95% CI, 0.60–1.67]; P =0.999). The effect of the interaction between race and cardiology care was significant in the first 14 days ( P <0.001) but not the remainder of the year ( P =0.56). CONCLUSIONS: Among a well-insured population of patients with PrE/E, Black patients had a higher cumulative incidence of MACE up to a year post-delivery. Cardiology care was associated with a lower hazard of MACE only for White patients during the first 14 days after delivery.

Abstract Contemporary anticancer therapies frequently have different efficacy and side effects in men and women. Yet, whether women are well‐represented in pivotal trials supporting contemporary anticancer drugs is unknown. Leveraging the Drugs@FDA database, clinicaltrials.gov , MEDLINE, and publicly available FDA‐drug‐reviews, we identified all pivotal (phase II and III) non‐sex specific trials supporting FDA‐approval of anticancer drugs (1998–2018). Observed‐enrollment‐rates were compared to expected‐population‐rates derived from concurrent US‐National‐Cancer‐Institute's Surveillance‐Epidemiology‐and‐End‐Results (SEER) reported rates and US‐Census databases. Primary outcome was the proportional representation of women across trials, evaluated by a participation‐to‐prevalence ratio (PPR), according to cancer type. Secondary outcome was the report of any sex‐specific analysis of efficacy and/or safety, irrespective of treatment‐arm. Overall, there were 148 trials, enrolling 60,216 participants (60.5 ± 4.0 years, 40.7% female, 79.1% biologic, targeted, or immune‐based therapies) evaluating 99 drugs. Sex was reported in 146 (98.6%) trials, wherein 40.7% (24,538) were women, compared to 59.3% (35,678) men ( p < .01). Altogether, women were under‐represented in 66.9% trials compared to the proportional incidence of cancers by respective disease type; weight‐average PPR of 0.91 (relative difference: ‐9.1%, p < .01). Women were most under‐represented in gastric (PPR = 0.63), liver (PPR = 0.71), and lung (PPR = .81) cancer trials. Sex‐based safety data was reported in 4.0% trials. There was no association between adequate female enrollment and drug efficacy (HR: 0.616 vs. 0.613, p = .96). Over time, there was no difference in the percentage of women recruited into clinical trials. Among pivotal clinical trials supporting contemporary FDA‐approved cancer drugs, women were frequently under‐represented and sex‐specific‐efficacy and safety‐outcomes were commonly not reported.

ImportanceBarriers to heart transplant must be overcome prior to listing. It is unclear why Black men and women remain less likely to receive a heart transplant after listing than White men and women.ObjectiveTo evaluate whether race or gender of a heart transplant candidate (ie, patient on the transplant waiting list) is associated with the probability of a donor heart being accepted by the transplant center team with each offer.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsThis cohort study used the United Network for Organ Sharing datasets to identify organ acceptance with each offer for US non-Hispanic Black (hereafter, Black) and non-Hispanic White (hereafter, White) adults listed for heart transplant from October 18, 2018, through March 31, 2023.ExposuresBlack or White race and gender (men, women) of a heart transplant candidate.Main Outcomes and MeasuresThe main outcome was heart offer acceptance by the transplant center team. The number of offers to acceptance was assessed using discrete time-to-event analyses, nonparametrically (stratified by race and gender) and parametrically. The hazard probability of offer acceptance for each offer was modeled using generalized linear mixed models adjusted for candidate-, donor-, and offer-level variables.ResultsAmong 159 177 heart offers with 13 760 donors, there were 14 890 candidates listed for heart transplant; 30.9% were Black, 69.1% were White, 73.6% were men, and 26.4% were women. The cumulative incidence of offer acceptance was highest for White women followed by Black women, White men, and Black men (P &amp;lt; .001). Odds of acceptance were less for Black candidates than for White candidates for the first offer (odds ratio [OR], 0.76; 95% CI, 0.69-0.84) through the 16th offer. Odds of acceptance were higher for women than for men for the first offer (OR, 1.53; 95% CI, 1.39-1.68) through the sixth offer and were lower for the 10th through 31st offers.Conclusions and RelevanceThe cumulative incidence of heart offer acceptance by a transplant center team was consistently lower for Black candidates than for White candidates of the same gender and higher for women than for men. These disparities persisted after adjusting for candidate-, donor-, and offer-level variables, possibly suggesting racial and gender bias in the decision-making process. Further investigation of site-level decision-making may reveal strategies for equitable donor heart acceptance.

Background: Outcomes in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) are influenced by access and adherence to guideline-directed medical therapy. Our objective was to study the association between annual household income and: (1) the odds of having a claim for sacubitril/valsartan among insured patients with HFrEF and (2) medication adherence (measured as the proportion of days covered). We hypothesized that lower annual household income is associated with decreased odds of having a claim for and adhering to sacubitril/valsartan. Methods: Using the Optum de-identified Clinformatics Data Mart, patients with HFrEF and ≥6 months of enrollment for follow-up (2016–2020) were included. Covariates included age, sex, race, ethnicity, educational attainment, US region, number of prescribed medications, and Elixhauser Comorbidity Index. Prescription for sacubitril/valsartan was defined by the presence of a claim within 6 months of HFrEF diagnosis. Adherence was defined as proportion of days covered ≥80%. We fit multivariable-adjusted logistic regression models and hierarchical logistic regression accounting for covariates. Results: Among 322 007 individuals with incident HFrEF, 135 282 had complete data for analysis. Of the patients eligible for sacubitril/valsartan, 4.7% (6372) had a claim within 6 months of HFrEF diagnosis. Following multivariable adjustment, individuals in the lowest annual income category (<$40 000) were significantly less likely (odds ratio, 0.83 [95% CI, 0.76–0.90]) to have a sacubitril/valsartan claim within 6 months of HFrEF diagnosis than those in the highest annual income category (≥$100 000). Annual income <$40 000 was associated with lower odds of proportion of days covered ≥80% compared with income ≥$100 000 (odds ratio, 0.70 [95% CI, 0.59–0.83]). Conclusions: Lower household income is associated with decreased likelihood of a sacubitril/valsartan claim and medication adherence within 6 months of HFrEF diagnosis, even after adjusting for sociodemographic and clinical factors. Future analyses are needed to identify additional social factors associated with delays in sacubitril/valsartan initiation and long-term adherence.

Background: Outcomes in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), are influenced by access and adherence to guideline directed medical therapy. Objective: To study the association between median annual household income and: (1) odds of receiving sacubitril/valsartan, a novel angiotensin receptor/neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI) therapy among insured patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and (2) medication adherence (measured as the proportion of days covered (PDC)). Hypothesis: lower income is associated with lower odds of receiving and adhering to ARNI among patients with HFrEF. Methods: Using Optum’s deidentified Clinformatics® Data Mart, patients with ≥ 2 diagnoses of HFrEF and ≥ 6 months of enrollment for follow up (2016-2020) were included. Covariates included age, race, ethnicity, sex, educational attainment, household net worth, geographical region and Elixhauser comorbidity index. Prescription for ARNI was defined by presence of a claim within 180 days. Adherence was defined as PDC ≥80%. We fit multivariable-adjusted logistic regression models and hierarchical logistic regression accounting for covariates. We also assessed for race-income interaction. Results: Among 322007 individuals with HFrEF diagnosis, 136,613 had ≥6 months of complete data. Of the patients eligible for ARNI, only 5.4% (7409/136613) received a claim within 180 days of HFrEF diagnosis. After adjusting for social and clinical factors, the odds were elevated for ARNI claim within 180 days of HFrEF diagnosis (OR=1.38, 95% CI: 1.27, 1.49) for the highest income category (>$100K) compared with the lowest (<$40K). After adjustment, income <$40k) was associated with a 47% higher odds of PDC<80% compared with income >$100K. Conclusions: Higher patient income is associated with increased likelihood of an ARNI claim within 180 days of HFrEF diagnosis, even after adjusting for socioeconomic and clinical factors. Future analyses are needed to determine other social factors associated with delay in ARNI initiation and long-term adherence.