ReviewHeart failure reviews2018
Drugs' development in acute heart failure: what went wrong?
Review in Heart failure reviews, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Discovery of Ro 41-0960, a Non-Steroidal Inhibitor of the NaChemMedChem · 2026Article
- Article
- Evolving therapeutic strategies for patients hospitalized with new or worsening heart failure across the spectrum of left ventricular ejection fraction.Clinical cardiology · 2022Review
- A multiscale approach for bridging the gap between potency, efficacy, and safety of small molecules directed at membrane proteins.Scientific reports · 2021Article
- The inflammasome in heart failure.Current opinion in physiology · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Acute heart failure (AHF) is a major burden disease, with a complex physiopathology, unsatisfactory diagnosis, treatment and a very poor prognosis. In the last two decades, a number of drugs have progressed from preclinical to early and late clinical development, but only a few of them have been approved and added to a stagnant pharmacological armamentarium. We have reviewed the data published on drugs developed for AHF since early 2000s, trying to recognise factors that have worked for a successful approval or for the stoppage of the program, in an attempt to delineate future trajectories for AHF drug development. Our review has identified limitations at both preclinical and clinical levels. At the preclinical level, the major shortcoming is represented by animal models looking at short-term endpoints which do not recapitulate the complexity of the human disease. At the clinical level, the main weakness is given by the disconnect between short-term endpoints assessed in the early stage of drug development, and medium-long-term endpoints requested in Phase 3 for regulatory approval. This is further amplified by the lack of validation and standardisation of short- and long-term endpoints; absence of predictive biomarkers; conduct of studies on heterogeneous populations; and use of different eligibility criteria, time of assessments, drug schedules and background therapies. Key goals remain a better understanding of AHF and the construction of a successful drug development program. A reasonable way to move forward resides in a strong collaboration between main stakeholders of therapeutic innovation: scientific community, industry and regulatory agencies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.