Background: Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) is a heterogeneous syndrome comprising multiple pathophysiological phenotypes. HFpEF trials have largely enrolled diverse populations and reported average treatment effects, consistently yielding neutral results that may obscure drug-specific benefits within distinct subgroups. To address this issue, we employ an interaction-based that incorporates treatment-by-variable interactions to uncover drug-specific responses. Methods: We leveraged four HFpEF clinical trials (TOPCAT, RELAX, NEAT-HFpEF, INDIE-HFpEF) and developed a framework comprising two complementary approaches. The first employed a prognostic responder model to evaluate whether conventional responder definitions reflect treatment-specific benefit or instead capture favorable clinical trajectories common to both treatment and placebo groups. The second used an interaction-based individual treatment effect (ITE) modeling to identify baseline variables that modify therapy effect, distinguishing drug-specific response from prognostic phenotypes. Results: Although the prognostic responder model demonstrated good discrimination, further analisys suggested it primarily captured a prognostic signal associated with favorable clinical trajectories common to both treatment and placebo arms.
Background: Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) is a heterogeneous syndrome comprising multiple pathophysiological phenotypes. HFpEF trials have largely enrolled diverse populations and reported average treatment effects, consistently yielding neutral results that may obscure drug-specific benefits within distinct subgroups. To address this issue, we employ an interaction-based that incorporates treatment-by-variable interactions to uncover drug-specific responses. Methods: We leveraged four HFpEF clinical trials (TOPCAT, RELAX, NEAT-HFpEF, INDIE-HFpEF) and developed a framework comprising two complementary approaches. The first employed a prognostic responder model to evaluate whether conventional responder definitions reflect treatment-specific benefit or instead capture favorable clinical trajectories common to both treatment and placebo groups. The second used an interaction-based individual treatment effect (ITE) modeling to identify baseline variables that modify therapy effect, distinguishing drug-specific response from prognostic phenotypes. Results: Although the prognostic responder model demonstrated good discrimination, further analisys suggested it primarily captured a prognostic signal associated with favorable clinical trajectories common to both treatment and placebo arms. In contrast, the ITE model identified distinct, drug-specific effect modifiers across trials (cardiorenal-inflammatory for spironolactone (TOPCAT), NO-mediated anti-inflammatory for isosorbide mononitrate (NEAT-HFpEF), afterload-reducing for inorganic nitrite (INDIE-HFpEF), and anti-volume-overload for sildenafil (RELAX). Each ITE model demonstrated significance only within its own trial suggesting drug-specific signal. Conclusions: The proposed method identifies mechanism-specific effect modifiers, and uncovers clinically meaningful heterogeneity in treatment response, which is not captured by conventional MCID-based approaches. Although exploratory, these findings support phenotype-guided therapy in HFpEF and argue for phenotype-informed trial design to enhance treatment-effect detection and therapy targeting.