Publications by Year: 2026

2026

Members, Writing Committee, Chiadi E Ndumele, Fatima Rodriguez, Dave L Dixon, Sadiya S Khan, Debabrata Mukherjee, Mandeep Bajaj, et al. (2026) 2026. “2026 AHA/ACC/ADA/ASN Guideline for the Prevention, Detection, Evaluation, and Management of Cardiovascular-Kidney-Metabolic Syndrome: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Joint Committee on Clinical Practice…”. Circulation. https://doi.org/10.1161/CIR.0000000000001453.

AIM: The "2026 AHA/ACC/ADA/ASN Guideline for the Prevention, Detection, Evaluation, and Management of Cardiovascular-Kidney-Metabolic Syndrome" retires, replaces, and expands upon the "2013 AHA/ACC/TOS Guideline for the Management of Overweight and Obesity in Adults." The primary intended audience for this guideline is clinicians who care for patients across the spectrum of cardiovascular-kidney-metabolic syndrome, an interrelated condition characterized by the interconnections among metabolic risk factors (including obesity and type 2 diabetes), chronic kidney disease, and cardiovascular disease.

METHODS: A comprehensive literature search was conducted from October 29, 2024, to April 14, 2025, to identify clinical studies, systematic reviews and meta-analyses, and other evidence conducted on human subjects that were published since 2015 in English from MEDLINE (through PubMed), EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and other selected databases relevant to this guideline.

STRUCTURE: The focus of this clinical practice guideline is to create a living, working document that provides current knowledge in the field of cardiovascular-kidney-metabolic syndrome aimed at all practicing cardiologists, endocrinologists, nephrologists, and primary care and specialty clinicians who manage these patients.

Lalani, Christina, Neel Butala, Huaying Dong, Yang Song, Gregg W Stone, Michael J Mack, Bahira Shahim, et al. (2026) 2026. “Estimating the Effects of MTEER in U.S. Practice: A Transportability Analysis of the COAPT Trial.”. Journal of the American College of Cardiology. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2026.04.025.

BACKGROUND: Although mitral transcatheter edge-to-edge repair (MTEER) was approved for secondary mitral regurgitation after the COAPT trial, findings of other MTEER trials have been mixed, raising questions about the applicability of the COAPT results to contemporary clinical practice.

OBJECTIVES: We used transportability methods to estimate the treatment effects of COAPT trial interventions applied to 2 target populations: 1) trial-eligible patients representative of U.S. clinical practice; and 2) treatment-candidate patients with secondary mitral regurgitation representative of U.S. clinical practice, regardless of trial eligibility.

METHODS: We identified patients from the Society of Thoracic Surgeons/American College of Cardiology Transcatheter Valve Therapy (TVT) Registry who were treated with MTEER for secondary mitral regurgitation from March 14, 2019 to September 30, 2023. To select trial-eligible individuals, we applied COAPT trial eligibility criteria to the TVT Registry sample. We used inverse odds of participation weighting to standardize patient-level COAPT data to the data distribution of each target population sample and estimated treatment-specific outcomes. The primary outcome was heart failure hospitalization at 2 years. We also examined 10 secondary outcomes, including all-cause death.

RESULTS: Our analyses included 614 COAPT trial patients and 15,275 TVT Registry patients, of which 7,289 were COAPT trial-eligible. Trial-eligible TVT Registry patients were less likely to have ischemic cardiomyopathy (34.1% vs 60.8%) and more likely to have 4+ mitral regurgitation (79.4% vs 47.9%) compared with trial patients. We estimated that compared with medical therapy alone, MTEER in conjunction with other COAPT interventions (eg, optimization of medical therapy) in the trial-eligible population would result in 2-year absolute risk reductions of 17.0% for heart failure hospitalizations (95% CI: -28.7% to -5.7%) and 15.4% for all-cause death (95% CI: -26.6% to -5.2%), effect sizes similar to those estimated in the trial (P for difference between the trial and target populations >0.05 for both outcomes). The estimated treatment effect for heart failure hospitalizations in the broader treatment-candidate target population was also similar to that in the COAPT trial (P for difference = 0.90).

CONCLUSIONS: Although COAPT trial patients had different baseline characteristics than patients undergoing MTEER in contemporary U.S. practice, we estimated that treatment effects would be similar had real-world patients received COAPT trial interventions, under the assumptions required for transportability (eg, conditional exchangeability across data sources, positivity of trial participation).

Alfie, Tristan J, Jason H Wasfy, Dhruv S Kazi, James L Januzzi, Brandon K Bellows, and Laura P Cohen. (2026) 2026. “Cost-Effectiveness of Sodium-Glucose Co-Transporter-2 Inhibitors and Angiotensin Receptor-Neprilysin Inhibitors by Ejection Fraction and Drug Pricing in the United States: A Systematic Review.”. Circulation. Population Health and Outcomes, e012989. https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCOUTCOMES.125.012989.

BACKGROUND: Sodium-glucose co-transporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors and angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitors (ARNI) are heart failure (HF) therapies selected for price negotiations under the Inflation Reduction Act. This study aimed to summarize the cost-effectiveness of SGLT2 inhibitors and ARNIs for HF, examine how cost-effectiveness varies by ejection fraction (EF) and drug price, and estimate the effect of negotiated prices on cost-effectiveness.

METHODS: A systematic literature search identified cost-effectiveness analyses of SGLT2 inhibitors and ARNIs versus standard of care for the treatment of HF from a US perspective, published through 2025. Analyses were stratified by HF with reduced EF (<40%, HFrEF), moderately reduced EF (40% to 49%, HFmrEF), and preserved EF (≥50%, HFpEF). Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were estimated at negotiated drug prices from base-case, threshold, and sensitivity analyses of drug pricing. Key drivers of cost-effectiveness were identified from the top 3 variables in 1-way sensitivity analyses.

RESULTS: Of 821 studies identified, 16 were included: 11 HFrEF, 2 HFrEF/HFmrEF/HFpEF, and 3 HFmrEF/HFpEF. Across all EF categories, incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (2024 US dollars) versus standard of care ranged from $59 600 to $187 100/quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained with SGLT2 inhibitors, $24 400 to $92 300 with ARNIs, and $69 300 to $91 500 with SGLT2 inhibitors + ARNIs. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios in studies of HFrEF were <$120 000/QALY gained and all but 1 were ≥$120 000/QALY gained in studies of HFmrEF/HFpEF. At negotiated drug prices across all EF categories, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was estimated to be $47 800/QALY gained with SGLT2 inhibitors, $39 900/QALY gained with ARNIs, and $44 400/QALY gained with SGLT2 inhibitors+ARNIs. The key drivers of cost-effectiveness included drug price (17 studies), cardiovascular death risk with SGLT2 inhibitors and ARNIs (15 studies), and duration of intervention effectiveness (5 studies).

CONCLUSIONS: At negotiated prices resulting from the Inflation Reduction Act, SGLT2 inhibitors and ARNIs seem cost-effective in HFrEF, with projected cost-effectiveness in HFmrEF/HFpEF dependent on price reductions and less certain treatment-effect estimates.

Lalani, Christina, Issa J Dahabreh, David J Cohen, Dhruv S Kazi, Yang Song, Eric A Secemsky, and Robert W Yeh. (2026) 2026. “Evaluating Cardiovascular Devices Using Observational Analyses.”. Circulation 153 (20): 1573-92. https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.125.065903.

It has long been accepted that observational analyses have an important role in evaluating use patterns and assessing the safety of different treatments, including cardiovascular devices, in clinical practice. With the proliferation of large electronic databases, there has been increasing interest in using observational analyses to also examine the comparative effectiveness of devices. However, these analyses are often met with skepticism because of concerns about whether they can generate credible evidence about causal effects. This is in part a result of the difficulty in meeting the assumptions necessary to interpret observational associations as causal effects and of the wide variability in analytic rigor. In this review, we outline frameworks and review methods for using observational analyses to answer questions about the effectiveness and safety of cardiovascular devices. We highlight the target trial framework as a practical tool for guiding observational comparative effectiveness analyses. We illustrate how the framework allows investigators planning and conducting observational analyses to organize their activities as responses to 3 prompting questions. First, what is the research question of the study (ie, "What do we want?")? Second, what are the resources-including background knowledge, research concepts, principles and methods, and available data-that can be brought to bear on the research question (ie, "What do we have?")? And third, what specific steps should be taken to use the available resources to answer the research question (ie, "What do we do?")? We focus our exposition on the evaluation of cardiovascular devices, for which randomized trial data are often limited and there is a strong need for real-world evidence. In this setting, real-world evidence is usually derived from observational comparisons of the treatment of interest with relevant comparator groups using data captured during routine care. A principled approach to the planning and conduct of observational analyses can improve the quality of real-world evidence generation and ensure that the results of observational studies on medical devices can support meaningful conclusions about the risks and benefits of new devices.

Kazi, Dhruv S, Joshua A Beckman, Regina M Benjamin, Grace Firestone, Janay C Johnson, Mark B McClellan, Neil Meltzer, et al. (2026) 2026. “Health Care Affordability in the United States, From Crisis to Action: A Presidential Advisory From the American Heart Association.”. Circulation. https://doi.org/10.1161/CIR.0000000000001442.

The United States is facing a growing health care affordability crisis. In 2024, national health expenditures totalled $5.3 trillion, or $15 474 per person, accounting for 18.0% of the U.S. economy. Spending on health care continues to rise, propelled by high prices for services, drugs, and devices; growing administrative complexity; chronic underinvestment in prevention, primary care, and public health; and the mounting burden of chronic conditions such as cardiovascular disease. Patients, even those with insurance, frequently face financial hardship, delayed or foregone care, and medical debt because of gaps in coverage and inadequate consumer protections. Addressing this crisis will require coordinated action across the health care system, guided by evidence and a commitment to shared responsibility among key stakeholders. This Presidential Advisory from the American Heart Association draws on interviews and listening sessions with patients, clinicians, payers, employers, health system leaders, and public health experts to examine the many dimensions of affordability and offer a practical framework for action. The Advisory presents 5 core principles to guide efforts to address the affordability crisis: ensuring access to high-quality care without financial hardship; minimizing cost sharing for high-value services; creating shared accountability across the health care system; investing in the workforce, infrastructure, and data systems needed to support progress; and addressing the social and structural factors that make care less affordable for many communities. The evidence, tools, and expertise to combat the health care affordability crisis already exist. What is needed now is the collective will to act.

Varghese, Merilyn S, Ling Han, Parul U Gandhi, Melissa Skanderson, Wen-Chih Wu, Kariann R Drwal, Matthew M Burg, et al. (2026) 2026. “Cardiac Rehabilitation Utilization Among Veterans: A Sex-Based Analysis.”. JACC. Advances 5 (3): 102615. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacadv.2026.102615.

BACKGROUND: Veterans are at an increased cardiovascular risk compared to age- and sex-matched non-Veterans. Cardiac rehabilitation (CR) can improve outcomes in cardiovascular disease, but its use in men and women Veterans is not well understood.

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to examine CR participation by sex and socioeconomic status among Veterans.

METHODS: The authors conducted a retrospective cohort study from January 1, 2021, to December 31, 2023, using a national electronic health record database. The primary outcome was participation in at least 1 CR session among patients within 1 year of myocardial infarction, percutaneous coronary intervention, or coronary artery bypass surgery. Multivariable logistic regression models accounted for patient-level (demographics, medical/psychiatric comorbidities) and community-level factors. Area deprivation indices (ADIs) (analyzed as quartiles) assessed socioeconomic status.

RESULTS: Among 82,496 CR-eligible Veterans (3.6% women), CR participation was low (10.4%) and similar by sex (women = 10.2%, men = 10.4%). Women Veterans did not differ significantly in CR participation compared to men Veterans after adjusting for patient-level and community-level characteristics, including age, race, cardiac and comorbidities, mental health risk factors, rural-urban status, and ADI (adjusted OR: 0.90; 95% CI: 0.79-1.03; P = 0.121). Veterans in the most deprived ADI quartile were less likely to participate vs the least deprived quartile (adjusted OR: 0.82; 95% CI: 0.75-0.89; P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS: CR participation among U.S. Veterans remains low, far below that of the Medicare population (10.4% vs 28%), with no significant differences in initiation by sex. However, low socioeconomic status is associated with decreased uptake. Further research is needed to explore innovative, Veteran-specific CR delivery models.

Hennessy, Susan, Joanne Penko, Brandon K Bellows, Pamela G Coxson, Ross Boylan, Kendra D Sims, Alexis Beatty, et al. (2026) 2026. “Cost-Effectiveness of Semaglutide for Secondary Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease in US Adults.”. JAMA Cardiology 11 (3): 229-38. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamacardio.2025.5243.

IMPORTANCE: Semaglutide reduces the risk of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) in adults with overweight or obesity and cardiovascular disease (CVD) but without diabetes. The cost-effectiveness and budget impact of semaglutide therapy could inform ongoing Medicare price negotiations but are uncertain.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of semaglutide for secondary prevention of CVD and potential effect on US health care spending.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This population-based cohort simulation study used the CVD Policy Model, a validated simulation model of CVD outcomes and costs in the US, to evaluate lifetime cost-effectiveness of semaglutide. The addition of lifetime treatment with weekly subcutaneous semaglutide to usual care compared with usual care alone in US adults age 45 years or older, with a body mass index (calculated as weight in kilograms divided by height in meters squared) of 27 or higher, and history of myocardial infarction or stroke, without diabetes were evaluated. The model incorporated annual semaglutide cost of $8604 (2023 US price net of rebates and discounts) and adopted a health-system perspective. Sensitivity analyses explored uncertainty. These data were analyzed from January 2024 and June 2025.

EXPOSURE: Semaglutide and usual care compared with usual care alone.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Main outcomes were lifetime MACE (cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or stroke), incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY), and change in annual US health care spending.

RESULTS: Adding semaglutide to usual care in the estimated 4 million US adults without diabetes eligible for secondary prevention of CVD is projected to avert 358 400 MACE at a cost of $148 100 per QALY gained (95% uncertainty interval, $127 100-$173 400). The mean age of this cohort was 66 years and 55% were male and 45% were female. Treatment with semaglutide was projected to increase annual health care spending by $23 billion. Semaglutide would be cost-effective at a threshold of $120 000 per QALY gained if the annual cost were lowered an additional 18% to $7055. Semaglutide is cost-effective for this indication at the cash price currently available to self-paying customers ($5988; incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, $99 600 per QALY gained).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Semaglutide for secondary prevention of CVD in US adults with overweight or obesity but without diabetes is projected to yield meaningful health benefits. Lowering annual drug costs by 18% from $8604 to $7055-or making the current cash price available to all patients-would make semaglutide cost-effective at $120 000 per QALY gained.