Clinically recognized atrial fibrillation (AF) is associated with higher risk of complications, including ischemic stroke, cognitive decline, heart failure, myocardial infarction, and death. It is increasingly recognized that AF frequently is undetected until complications such as stroke or heart failure occur. Hence, the public and clinicians have an intense interest in detecting AF earlier. However, the most appropriate strategies to detect undiagnosed AF (sometimes referred to as subclinical AF) and the prognostic and therapeutic implications of AF detected by screening are uncertain. Our report summarizes the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute’s virtual workshop focused on identifying key research priorities related to AF screening. Global experts reviewed major knowledge gaps and identified critical research priorities in the following areas: (1) role of opportunistic screening; (2) AF as a risk factor, risk marker, or both; (3) relationship between AF burden detected with long-term monitoring and outcomes/treatments; (4) designs of potential randomized trials of systematic AF screening with clinically relevant outcomes; and (5) role of AF screening after ischemic stroke. Our report aims to inform and catalyze AF screening research that will advance innovative, resource-efficient, and clinically relevant studies in diverse populations to improve the diagnosis, management, and prognosis of patients with undiagnosed AF.

Importance: Only modest attention has been paid to the contributions of social determinants of health to atrial fibrillation (AF) risk factors, diagnosis, symptoms, management, and outcomes. The diagnosis of AF provides unique challenges exacerbated by the arrhythmia’s often paroxysmal nature and individuals’ disparate access to health care and technologies that facilitate detection. Social determinants of health affect access to care and management decisions for AF, increasing the likelihood of adverse outcomes among individuals who experience systemic disadvantages. Developing effective approaches to address modifiable social determinants of health requires research to eliminate the substantive inequities in health care delivery and outcomes in AF.Observations: The National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute convened an expert panel to identify major knowledge gaps and research opportunities in the field of social determinants of AF. The workshop addressed the following social determinants: (1) socioeconomic status and access to care; (2) health literacy; (3) race, ethnicity, and racism; (4) sex and gender; (5) shared decision-making in systemically disadvantaged populations; and (6) place, including rurality, neighborhood, and community. Many individuals with AF have multiple adverse social determinants, which may cluster in the individual and in systemically disadvantaged places (eg, rural locations, urban neighborhoods). Cumulative disadvantages may accumulate over the life course and contribute to inequities in the diagnosis, management, and outcomes in AF.Conclusions and Relevance: Workshop participants identified multiple critical research questions and approaches to catalyze social determinants of health research that address the distinctive aspects of AF. The long-term aspiration of this work is to eradicate the substantive inequities in AF diagnosis, management, and outcomes across populations.

There has been sustained focus on the secondary prevention of coronary heart disease and heart failure; yet, apart from stroke prevention, the evidence base for the secondary prevention of atrial fibrillation (AF) recurrence, AF progression, and AF‐related complications is modest. Although there are multiple observational studies, there are few large, robust, randomized trials providing definitive effective approaches for the secondary prevention of AF. Given the increasing incidence and prevalence of AF nationally and internationally, the AF field needs transformative research and a commitment to evidenced‐based secondary prevention strategies. We report on a National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute virtual workshop directed at identifying knowledge gaps and research opportunities in the secondary prevention of AF. Once AF has been detected, lifestyle changes and novel models of care delivery may contribute to the prevention of AF recurrence, AF progression, and AF‐related complications. Although benefits seen in small subgroups, cohort studies, and selected randomized trials are impressive, the widespread effectiveness of AF secondary prevention strategies remains unknown, calling for development of scalable interventions suitable for diverse populations and for identification of subpopulations who may particularly benefit from intensive management. We identified critical research questions for 6 topics relevant to the secondary prevention of AF: (1) weight loss; (2) alcohol intake, smoking cessation, and diet; (3) cardiac rehabilitation; (4) approaches to sleep disorders; (5) integrated, team‐based care; and (6) nonanticoagulant pharmacotherapy. Our goal is to stimulate innovative research that will accelerate the generation of the evidence to effectively pursue the secondary prevention of AF.

Stroke is a leading cause of death and disability in the United States and worldwide, necessitating comprehensive efforts to optimize stroke risk factor management. Health disparities in stroke incidence, prevalence, and risk factor management persist among various race/ethnic, geographic, and socioeconomic populations and negatively impact stroke outcomes. This review highlights existing literature and guidelines for stroke risk factor management, emphasizing health disparities among certain populations. Moreover, stroke risk factors for special groups, including the young, the very elderly, and pregnant/peripartum women are outlined. Strategies for stroke risk factor improvement at every level of the health care system are discussed, from the individual patient to providers, health care systems, and policymakers. Improving stroke risk factor management in the context of the social determinants of health, and with the goal of eliminating inequities and disparities in stroke prevention strategies, are critical steps to reducing the burden of stroke and equitably improving public health.

Background: Loop diuretics are a primary therapy for the symptomatic treatment of heart failure (HF), but whether torsemide improves patient symptoms and quality of life better than furosemide remains unknown. As prespecified secondary end points, the TRANSFORM-HF trial (Torsemide Comparison With Furosemide for Management of Heart Failure) compared the effect of torsemide versus furosemide on patient-reported outcomes among patients with HF. Methods: TRANSFORM-HF was an open-label, pragmatic, randomized trial of 2859 patients hospitalized for HF (regardless of ejection fraction) across 60 hospitals in the United States. Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to a loop diuretic strategy of torsemide or furosemide with investigator-selected dosage. This report examined effects on prespecified secondary end points, which included Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire Clinical Summary Score (KCCQ-CSS; assessed as adjusted mean difference in change from baseline; range, 0–100 with 100 indicating best health status; clinically important difference, ≥5 points) and Patient Health Questionnaire-2 (range, 0–6; score ≥3 supporting evaluation for depression) over 12 months. Results: Baseline data were available for 2787 (97.5%) patients for KCCQ-CSS and 2624 (91.8%) patients for Patient Health Questionnaire-2. Median (interquartile range) baseline KCCQ-CSS was 42 (27–60) in the torsemide group and 40 (24–59) in the furosemide group. At 12 months, there was no significant difference between torsemide and furosemide in change from baseline in KCCQ-CSS (adjusted mean difference, 0.06 [95% CI, –2.26 to 2.37]; P =0.96) or the proportion of patients with Patient Health Questionnaire-2 score ≥3 (15.1% versus 13.2%: P =0.34). Results for KCCQ-CSS were similar at 1 month (adjusted mean difference, 1.36 [95% CI, –0.64 to 3.36]; P =0.18) and 6-month follow-up (adjusted mean difference, –0.37 [95% CI, –2.52 to 1.78]; P =0.73), and across subgroups by ejection fraction phenotype, New York Heart Association class at randomization, and loop diuretic agent before hospitalization. Irrespective of baseline KCCQ-CSS tertile, there was no significant difference between torsemide and furosemide on change in KCCQ-CSS, all-cause mortality, or all-cause hospitalization. Conclusions: Among patients discharged after hospitalization for HF, a strategy of torsemide compared with furosemide did not improve symptoms or quality of life over 12 months. The effects of torsemide and furosemide on patient-reported outcomes were similar regardless of ejection fraction, previous loop diuretic use, and baseline health status. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov ; Unique identifier: NCT03296813.

Background: NT‐proBNP (N‐terminal pro‐B‐type natriuretic peptide) is a prognostic biomarker in heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction. However, it is unclear whether there is a sex difference in NT‐proBNP response and whether the therapeutic goal of NT‐proBNP ≤1000 pg/mL has equivalent prognostic value in men and women with HF with reduced ejection fraction. Methods and Results: In a secondary analysis of the GUIDE‐IT (Guiding Evidence Based Therapy Using Biomarker Intensified Treatment) trial we analyzed trends in NT‐proBNP and goal attainment by sex. Differences in clinical characteristics, HF treatment, and time to all‐cause death or HF hospitalization were compared. Landmark analysis at 3 months determined the prognostic value of early NT‐proBNP goal achievement in men and women. Of the 286 (32%) women and 608 (68%) men in the GUIDE‐IT trial, women were more likely to have a nonischemic cause and shorter duration of HF. Guideline‐directed medical therapy was less intense over time in women. The absolute NT‐proBNP values were consistently lower in women; however, the change in NT‐proBNP and clinical outcomes were similar. After adjustment, women achieving the NT‐proBNP goal had an 82% reduction in death or HF hospitalization compared with a 59% reduction in men. Conclusions: Men and women with HF with reduced ejection fraction had a similar NT‐proBNP response despite less intensive HF treatment among women. However, compared with men, the early NT‐proBNP goal of ≤1000 pg/mL had greater prognostic value in women. Future efforts should be aimed at intensifying guideline‐directed medical therapy in women, which may result in greater NT‐proBNP reductions and improved outcomes in women with HF with reduced ejection fraction. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov ; Unique identifier: NCT01685840.