Using Artificial Intelligence to Assess Treatment-Effect Heterogeneity in Pragmatic Cardiovascular Trials: Insights from TRANSFORM-HF - Tong, Guangyu; Li, Changjun; Li, Fan; Zeng, Yukang; Greene, Stephen J.; Anstrom, Kevin J.; Testani, Jeffrey; Mentz, Robert J.; Velazquez, Eric J. (medRxiv, 2026)
Background and Aims Pragmatic clinical trials are designed to assess interventions in real-world settings, and their broad inclusion criteria and clinical variability create valuable opportunities for exploring heterogeneity of treatment effects. In this context, TRANSFORM-HF was a pragmatic trial that found no overall survival difference between torsemide and furosemide in patients hospitalized with heart failure (HF), highlighting the importance of analytic strategies that can uncover clinically meaningful variation in treatment response.The aim of this study was to evaluate whether baseline patient characteristics modify the relative survival benefit of torsemide versus furosemide using machine learning methods.Methods This was a post hoc analysis of the pragmatic, multicenter, open-label, randomized TRANSFORM-HF trial, which enrolled 2,859 patients hospitalized with HF across 60 US hospitals and randomized them to torsemide or furosemide. More than 50 baseline covariates were incorporated into a Bayesian Accelerated Failure Time model with Bayesian Additive Regression Trees (AFT-BART) to estimate individualized survival treatment effects (ISTEs). The outcome of interest was all-cause mortality over follow-up. Machine learning analyses estimated ISTEs for each patient and identified key baseline covariates modifying relative treatment effects. An exploratory decision tree was used to aid interpretability and to highlight influential effect modifiers.Results While the overall trial showed no survival difference, machine learning analyses revealed heterogeneity in treatment effects. Atrial fibrillation (AF), BNP/NT-proBNP levels, and prior loop diuretic use emerged as the most influential baseline modifiers. Patients without AF, with lower BNP levels, and without prior loop use showed suggestive benefit from torsemide (fitted mean ISTE up to 0.49; 95% CrI, –0.07 to 1.04), whereas patients with AF, elevated BNP and prior loop use showed relative benefit with furosemide (fitted mean ISTE –0.40; 95% CrI, –0.78 to –0.05). Although most subgroup effect estimates were statistically inconclusive due to wide credible intervals, split points were statistically significant, highlighting the importance of candidate modifiers.Conclusions In this exploratory AI-driven analysis of TRANSFORM-HF, we identified meaningful heterogeneity in diuretic response, with atrial fibrillation, natriuretic peptide levels, and prior diuretic use modifying relative survival benefit. These findings illustrate how integrating artificial intelligence into the analysis of pragmatic trials can move beyond average treatment effects to generate individualized, hypothesis-generating insights, and underscore the value of anticipating and systematically evaluating treatment-effect heterogeneity when designing and interpreting pragmatic cardiovascular trials.What is the clinical question being addressed?To apply artificial intelligence to detect treatment effect heterogeneity in the pragmatic TRANSFORM HF trial and to identify patient subgroups with differential benefit from torsemide versus furosemide, supporting precision medicine in heart failure.What is the main finding?Machine learning analyses within this pragmatic trial revealed substantial heterogeneity in the survival effects of torsemide versus furosemide. Torsemide appeared more beneficial among patients without atrial fibrillation and with lower BNP/NT-proBNP levels, whereas furosemide was favored in those with atrial fibrillation, higher BNP/NT-proBNP concentrations, and prior loop diuretic use. Exploratory analyses demonstrated that applying AI-driven methods to evaluate treatment effect heterogeneity within a pragmatic trial framework can leverage the inherent clinical diversity of pragmatic designs and potentially generate personalized and practice-relevant insights from pragmatic clinical research.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Clinical Trialclinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT03296813Funding StatementThis work was supported with grants U01-HL125478, U01-HL125511, and R01-HL168202 from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute.Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:This work is reviewed under Yale University Institutional Review Board with ID 2000034734.I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.YesI understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.YesData is available through request at Biolincc.ACEAngiotensin-Converting EnzymeAFTAccelerated Failure TimeAIArtificial IntelligenceAFAtrial FibrillationAFIBNAtrial Fibrillation/FlutterARNiAngiotensin Receptor-Neprilysin InhibitorBARTBayesian Additive Regression TreeBMIBody Mass IndexBNPB-type Natriuretic PeptideCARTClassification and Regression TreeCATEConditional Average Treatment EffectCIConfidence IntervalCrICredible IntervalGDMTGuideline-Directed Medical TherapyGLP-1Glucagon-Like Peptide-1HFHeart FailureHFrEFHeart Failure with Reduced Ejection FractionHFmrEFHeart Failure with Mildly Reduced Ejection FractionHFpEFHeart Failure with Preserved Ejection FractionHRHazard RatioISTEIndividual Survival Treatment EffectKCCQKansas City Cardiomyopathy QuestionnaireLDPRIORNPrior Loop Diuretic UseLVEFLeft Ventricular Ejection FractionMCMCMarkov Chain Monte CarloMRAMineralocorticoid Receptor AntagonistNT-proBNPN-terminal Prohormone of B-type Natriuretic PeptideNYHANew York Heart AssociationRRRate RatioSGLT2Sodium-Glucose Cotransporter-2TRANSFORM-HFTorsemide Comparison with Furosemide for Management of Heart Failure