Bedside-to-Bench Translational Research for Chronic Heart Failure: Creating an Agenda for Clients Who Do Not Meet Trial Enrollment Criteria

The Heart Failure with Preserved Ejection Fraction Conundrum-Redefining the Problem and Finding Common Ground?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) or diastolic heart failure (DHF) makes up more than half of all congestive heart failure presentations (CHF). With an ageing population, the case load and the financial burden is projected to increase, even to epidemic proportions. CHF hospitalizations add too much of the financial and infrastructure strain. Unlike systolic heart failure (SHF), much is still either uncertain or unknown. Specifically, in epidemiology, the disease burden is established; however, risk factors and pathophysiological associations are less clear; diagnostic tools are based on rigid parameters without the ability to accurately monitor treatments effects and disease progression; finally, therapeutics are similar to SHF but without prognostic data for efficacy.

RECENT FINDINGS

The last several years have seen guidelines changing to account for greater epidemiological observations. Most of these remain general observation of shortness of breath symptom matched to static echocardiographic parameters. The introduction of exercise diastolic stress test has been welcome and warrants greater focus. HFpEF is likely to see new thinking in the coming decades. This review provides some of perspective on this topic.

Phase 4 Studies in Heart Failure - What is Done and What is Needed?

Congestive heart failure (CHF) therapeutics is generated through a well-described evidence generating process. Phases 1 - 3 of this process are required prior to approval and widespread clinical use. Phase 3 in almost all cases is a methodologically sound randomized controlled trial (RCT). After this phase it is generally accepted that the treatment has a significant, independent and prognostically beneficial effect on the pathophysiological process. A major criticism of RCTs is the population to whom the result is applicable. When this population is significantly different from the trial cohort the external validity comes into question. Should the continuation of the evidence generating process continue these problems might be identified. Post marketing surveillance through phase 4 and comparative effectiveness studies through phase 5 trials are often underperformed in comparison to the RCT. These processes can help identify remote adverse events and define new hypotheses for community level benefits. This review is aimed at exploring the post-marketing scene for CHF therapeutics from an Australian health system perspective. We explore the phases of clinical trials, the level of evidence currently available and options for ensuring greater accountability for community level CHF clinical outcomes.

Heart Failure in Minority Populations - Impediments to Optimal Treatment in Australian Aborigines

Chronic heart failure (CHF) among Aboriginal/Indigenous Australians is endemic. There are also grave concerns for outcomes once acquired. This point is compounded by a lack of prospective and objective studies to plan care. To capture the essence of the presented topic it is essential to broadly understand Indigenous health. Key words such as ‘worsening’, ‘gaps’, ‘need to do more’, ‘poorly studied’, or ‘future studies should inform’ occur frequently in contrast to CHF research for almost all other groups. This narrative styled opinion piece attempts to discuss future directions for CHF care for Indigenous Australians. We provide a synopsis of the problem, highlight the treatment gaps, and define the impediments that present hurdles in optimising CHF care for Indigenous Australians.

A Review of the External Validity of Clinical Trials with Beta-Blockers in Heart Failure

BACKGROUND

Beta-blockers (BBs) are the mainstay prognostic medication for all stages of chronic heart failure (CHF). There are many classes of BBs, each of which has varying levels of evidence to support its efficacy in CHF. However, most CHF patients have one or more comorbid conditions such as diabetes, renal impairment, and/or atrial fibrillation. Patient enrollment to randomized controlled trials (RCTs) often excludes those with certain comorbidities, particularly if the symptoms are severe. Consequently, the extent to which evidence drawn from RCTs is generalizable to CHF patients has not been well described. Clinical guidelines also underrepresent this point by providing generic advice for all patients. The aim of this review is to examine the evidence to support the use of BBs in CHF patients with common comorbid conditions.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, PubMed, and the reference lists of reviews for RCTs, post hoc analyses, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses that report on use of BBs in CHF along with patient demographics and comorbidities.

RESULTS

In total, 38 studies from 28 RCTs were identified, which provided data on six BBs against placebo or head to head with another BB agent in ischemic and nonischemic cardiomyopathies. Several studies explored BBs in older patients. Female patients and non-Caucasian race were underrepresented in trials. End points were cardiovascular hospitalization and mortality. Comorbid diabetes, renal impairment, or atrial fibrillation was detailed; however, no reference to disease spectrum or management goals as a focus could be seen in any of the studies. In this sense, enrollment may have limited more severe grades of these comorbidities.

CONCLUSIONS

RCTs provide authoritative information for a spectrum of CHF presentations that support guidelines. RCTs may provide inadequate information for more heterogeneous CHF patient cohorts. Greater Phase IV research may be needed to fill this gap and inform guidelines for a more global patient population.