Disease × agent evidence record

Isoproterenol for Heart Failure: evidence, trials and status

Isoproterenol has both completed registered trials and synthesis-level publications linked to Heart Failure. That is the strongest profile in this database, but the summaries here do not extract effect sizes, so read the linked reviews for direction and magnitude of benefit.

1 registered trials 0 recruiting 9 publications Evidence tier A · Strong Score 47.5
Research Tracker › Pairs › Heart Failure › Isoproterenol
Research map, not treatment advice. This page aggregates registry and literature records. It does not evaluate efficacy, dosing or safety for any individual. Discuss any treatment decision with a qualified clinician.

Summary

Isoproterenol has reached the approved stage (maximum clinical phase 4) for at least one indication, so its use in Heart Failure would be drug repurposing rather than first-in-human development. This does not mean it is approved for Heart Failure. ClinicalTrials.gov lists 1 registered trial linking Isoproterenol to Heart Failure: 1 has completed. None of the registered studies carries a drug-development phase label, which is typical for behavioural, device and supplement protocols. It plans or enrolled 40 participants. Registered activity dates to 2015. The literature layer holds 9 publications for this pair: 1 Cochrane review, 1 meta-analysis, 1 systematic review, 1 randomised controlled trial publication and 5 clinical trial publications. Publication years run from 1976 to 2018. Because at least one synthesis-level source exists (systematic review, meta-analysis or Cochrane review), this pair has been assessed beyond single studies, although the synthesis may concern a different indication.

The RepurpOS disease-intelligence file for Heart Failure ranks 616 candidate therapeutics from Open Targets, ChEMBL, DGIdb and PubMed; only a minority carry direct clinical evidence, and this page covers one of those. Spontaneous remission context recorded for the condition: Annual mortality ~22% on standard care; only 5-11% of HFrEF patients achieve normalisation of ejection fraction (HFrecEF) with GDMT; HFpEF has no disease-modifying therapy.

Evidence table

Evidence tierA · Strong
Evidence score47.5 (trials 2.5, literature 25.0, tier 15, approved bonus 5.0)
Registered trials1 total: 0 recruiting, 0 active / not yet recruiting, 1 completed, 0 other
Linked publications9 (5 clinical trial publications, 1 Cochrane review, 1 meta-analysis, 1 systematic review, 1 randomised controlled trial publication)
Agent typeDrug (Small molecule)
Development stage (any indication)Approved
Mechanism / classagonist
Data sourcesDGIdb
Linked via biomarker / targetADRB3
How the evidence score is calculated
  • Each registered trial scores by status (recruiting / active / enrolling 3, completed 2.5, not yet recruiting 2, unknown 1, terminated / withdrawn / suspended 0.5) plus a phase bonus (phase 3-4 +2, phase 2 +1, phase 1 +0.5). The trial component is capped at 30.
  • Each literature item scores by design (Cochrane review 5, meta-analysis 4, systematic review 3, RCT 3, clinical trial publication 2, curated reference 1.5, other PubMed record 1). The literature component is capped at 30.
  • The existing evidence tier adds 15 (A / Strong), 10 (B / Moderate), 5 (C / Preliminary) or 0 (D / Anecdotal).
  • Agents approved for any indication (max clinical phase 4) add 5, because an approved agent has an established safety profile that lowers the barrier to repurposing trials.
  • The score ranks what has been studied, not what works. It does not read effect sizes or directions of effect.

Registered clinical trials

NCT IDTitleStatusPhaseEnrolment
NCT02524145Chronotropic Incompetence in Patients With HFpEF
2015
completedNot applicable40

Search ClinicalTrials.gov for newer studies

Published literature

Run the live PubMed search

Mechanism and notes

Recorded mechanism or class: agonist.

OSMF's existing evidence tier for this pair is A (Strong), derived from the strength of the disease association recorded in DGIdb, in this case via the biomarker or target ADRB3. The tier describes how well the drug-disease link is documented, not how well the drug works.

Frequently asked questions

Is Isoproterenol approved for Heart Failure?

Isoproterenol has reached the approved stage (maximum clinical phase 4) for at least one indication, so its use in Heart Failure would be drug repurposing rather than first-in-human development. This does not mean it is approved for Heart Failure. Approval status for the specific indication should always be confirmed with the relevant regulator and prescribing information.

Is Isoproterenol in clinical trials for Heart Failure?

ClinicalTrials.gov lists 1 registered trial linking Isoproterenol to Heart Failure: 1 has completed. None of the registered studies carries a drug-development phase label, which is typical for behavioural, device and supplement protocols. It plans or enrolled 40 participants. Registered activity dates to 2015.

What does the evidence show for Isoproterenol in Heart Failure?

Isoproterenol has both completed registered trials and synthesis-level publications linked to Heart Failure. That is the strongest profile in this database, but the summaries here do not extract effect sizes, so read the linked reviews for direction and magnitude of benefit. OSMF's existing evidence tier for this pair is A (Strong), derived from the strength of the disease association recorded in DGIdb, in this case via the biomarker or target ADRB3. The tier describes how well the drug-disease link is documented, not how well the drug works.

Cite this page

Open Source Medicine Foundation. Isoproterenol for Heart Failure: evidence, trials and status. OSMF Research Tracker. Updated 2026-07-05. https://research.opensourcemed.info/pairs/heart-failure/isoproterenol.html

Data: ClinicalTrials.gov, PubMed, Open Targets, ChEMBL, DGIdb and the OSMF therapeutic agent database. Last updated 2026-07-05. Page built 2026-10-07.

Get OSMF research updates on Substack

This is a research map, not treatment advice. Evidence tiers and scores summarise what has been studied, not whether a treatment works or is safe for you.