4.5 Article

Representation of black patients in randomized clinical trials of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction

期刊

AMERICAN HEART JOURNAL
卷 197, 期 -, 页码 43-52

出版社

MOSBY-ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.ahj.2017.10.025

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background Black individuals have a disproportionately higher burden of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) relative to other racial and ethnic populations. We conducted a systematic review to determine the representation, enrollment trends, and outcomes of black patients in historic and contemporary randomized clinical trials (RCTs) for HFrEF. Methods We searched PubMed and Embase for RCTs of patients with chronic HFrEF that evaluated therapies that significantly improved clinical outcomes. We extracted trial characteristics and compared them by trial type. Linear regression was used to assess trends in enrollment among HFrEF RCTs over time. Results A total of 25 RCTs, 19 for pharmacotherapies and 6 (n=9,501) for implantable cardioverter defibrillators, were included in this analysis. Among these studies, there were 78,816 patients, 4,640 black (5.9%), and the median black participation per trial was 162 patients. Black race was reported in the manuscript of 14 (56.0%) trials, and outcomes by race were available for 12 (48.0%) trials. Implantable cardiac defibrillator trials enrolled a greater percentage of black patients than pharmacotherapy trials (7.1% vs 5.7%). Overall, patient enrollment among the 25 RCTs increased over time (P=.075); however, the percentage of black patients has decreased (P=.001). Outcomes varied significantly between black and white patients in 6 studies. Conclusions Black patients are modestly represented among pivotal RCTs of individuals with HFrEF for both pharmacotherapies and implantable cardioverter defibrillators. The current trend for decreasing black representation in trials of HF therapeutics is concerning and must improve to ensure the generalizability for this vulnerable population.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据