Related Experiment Video
Updated: May 16, 2026

Exercise Test for Evaluation of the Functional Efficacy of the Pig Cardiovascular System
Published on: May 12, 2023
End points for comparative effectiveness research in heart failure
Larry A Allen1, John A Spertus
1Division of Cardiology, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Anschutz Medical Center, Aurora, CO 80045, USA. larry.allen@ucdenver.edu
Insights
Comparative effectiveness research (CER) for heart failure must prioritize patient-centered outcomes over surrogate markers. Standardized, prospective studies are crucial for reliable clinical effectiveness and safety comparisons.
Area of Science:
- Cardiology
- Health Services Research
- Clinical Trials
Background:
- Comparative effectiveness research (CER) in heart failure is evolving.
- Current endpoint assessments require improvement for definitive clinical comparisons.
Purpose of the Study:
- To advocate for a shift in CER methodology for heart failure.
- To emphasize the need for patient-centered and standardized outcome measures.
Main Methods:
- Critique of reliance on surrogate endpoints.
- Proposal for enhanced prospective study designs.
- Emphasis on standardized data collection for health status and resource utilization.
Main Results:
- Surrogate endpoints are insufficient for establishing clinical effectiveness.
- Standardized assessments of health status and resource utilization are necessary.
- Prospective studies with proactive endpoint capture are recommended.
Conclusions:
- CER for heart failure must focus on comprehensive measures of clinical effectiveness and safety.
- Standardization and prospective data collection are essential for reliable comparisons.
- Randomized allocation in prospective studies will enhance CER validity.
Abstract:
CER for heart failure continues to evolve, including its assessment of end points. Reliance on surrogate end points is unacceptable as a means of definitively establishing comparisons of clinical effectiveness. CER needs to focus on measures that clearly reflect clinical effectiveness and safety, not just survival but also standardized assessments of health status and detailed resource utilization, and it must do so in a standardized way to allow for comparison. This strategy almost certainly requires increased reliance on prospective studies with proactive end-point capture, preferably in the setting of randomized allocation of the interventions being compared.
Related Concept Videos
Heart Failure V: Medical Management
Heart Failure Drugs: Inhibitors of Renin-Angiotensin System
Heart Failure IV: Classification and Diagnostic Evaluation
Heart Failure VI: Adjunct Therapies
Heart Failure II: Pathophysiology
Heart Failure VII: Nursing Interventions
