Assessment of Limitations to Optimization of Guideline-Directed Medical Therapy in Heart Failure From the GUIDE-IT Trial: A Secondary Analysis of a Randomized Clinical Trial

N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide post-discharge monitoring in the management of patients with heart failure and preserved ejection fraction - a randomized trial: The NICE study

AIMS

There is a lack of specific studies assessing the impact of natriuretic peptide monitoring in the post-discharge management of patients with heart failure (HF) and preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), throughout the vulnerable phase following acute HF hospitalization. The NICE study aims to assess the clinical benefit of incorporating N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) into the post-discharge management of HFpEF patients.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Individuals admitted with HFpEF (left ventricular ejection fraction >50%) were included in a multicentre randomized controlled study employing an open-label design with event blinding (NCT02807168). Upon discharge, 157 patients were randomly allocated to either NT-proBNP monitoring (n = 79) or no access to NT-proBNP (control group, n = 78) during pre-scheduled visits at 2, 4 and 12 weeks. Clinical endpoints were evaluated at 6 months. The primary endpoint of HF rehospitalizations occurred in 12.1% patients, without significant differences observed between the NT-proBNP monitoring group (12.8%) and the control group (11.4%) (hazard ratio [HR] 1.15, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.47-2.81, p = 0.760). Regarding secondary endpoints, the NT-proBNP monitoring group demonstrated a significantly lower risk of death (1.3% vs. 10.1%; HR 0.12, 95% CI 0.02-0.09), whereas non-HF hospitalizations (12.8% vs. 19.0%, p = 0.171) and any adverse clinical event (26.9% vs. 36.7%, p = 0.17) did not reach statistical significance. Awareness of NT-proBNP levels were associated with higher doses of diuretics and renin-angiotensin system inhibitors (angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors/angiotensin II receptor blockers) in the NT-proBNP monitoring group.

CONCLUSIONS

Post-discharge monitoring of NT-proBNP in HFpEF patients did not exhibit an association with reduced rates of HF hospitalization in this study. Nonetheless, it appears to enhance global clinical management by optimizing medical therapies and contributing to improved overall survival.

Effects of sacubitril/valsartan according to polypharmacy status in PARAGON-HF

AIMS

Patients with heart failure (HF) and preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) have a particularly high prevalence of comorbidities, often necessitating treatment with many medications. The aim of this study was to evaluate the association between polypharmacy status and outcomes in PARAGON-HF.

METHODS AND RESULTS

In this post hoc analysis, baseline medication status was available in 4793 of 4796 patients included in the primary analysis of PARAGON-HF. The effects of sacubitril/valsartan, compared with valsartan, were assessed according to the number of medications at baseline: 683 non-polypharmacy (<5 medications); 2750 polypharmacy (5-9 medications), and 1360 hyper-polypharmacy (≥10 medications). The primary outcome was total HF hospitalizations and cardiovascular deaths. Patients with hyper-polypharmacy were older, had more severe limitations due to HF (worse New York Heart Association class and Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire scores), and had greater comorbidity. The non-adjusted risk of the primary outcome was significantly higher in patients taking more medications, and similar trends were seen for HF hospitalization and cardiovascular and all-cause death. The effect of sacubitril/valsartan versus valsartan on the primary outcome from the lowest to highest polypharmacy category was (as a rate ratio): 1.19 (0.76-1.85), 0.94 (0.77-1.15), and 0.77 (0.61-0.96) (pinteraction = 0.16). Treatment-related adverse events were more common in patients in the higher polypharmacy categories but not more common with sacubitril/valsartan, versus valsartan, in any polypharmacy category.

CONCLUSIONS

Polypharmacy is very common in patients with HFpEF, and those with polypharmacy have worse clinical status and a higher rate of non-fatal and fatal outcomes. The benefit of sacubitril/valsartan was not diminished in patients taking a larger number of medications at baseline.

Functional Mitral Regurgitation: Patient Selection and Optimization

Functional mitral regurgitation appears commonly among all heart failure phenotypes and can affect symptom burden and degree of maladaptive remodeling. Transcatheter mitral valve edge-to-edge repair therapies recently became an important part of the routine heart failure armamentarium for carefully selected and medically optimized candidates. Patient selection is considering heart failure staging, relevant comorbidities, as well as anatomic criteria. Indications and device platforms are currently expanding.

Guideline-directed medical therapy in heart failure patients with reduced ejection fraction in Palestine: Retrospective clinical audit study

Objectives

To assess the characteristics of patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and heart failure with mid-range ejection fraction (HFmrEF), as well as the current application of guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) in Palestine.

Methods

This retrospective cohort study involved a population of heart failure (HF) patients who visited cardiology clinics at An-Najah National University Hospital and the National Hospital, Palestine. The primary outcome measures of interest were the proportions of patients prescribed guideline-based cardiovascular medications (GBCMs), such as angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs)/angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs), β-blockers, and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRAs), and the corresponding optimized doses at ≥ 50 % of targets and the reasons underlying the non-prescription of GDMT.

Results

A total of 70.5%, 56.6%, and 88.6% of patients were on ACEIs/ARBs, MRAs, and β-blockers, respectively. Of all patients, 38.7% were on the triple GDMT regimen.

Conclusion

Less than half the patients received the triple combination treatment. Age, diabetes mellitus, chronic renal disease, and admission to the hospital for HF all had significant independent relationships with the reduced utilization and inadequate dosage of GDMT.

Systems of care for ambulatory management of decompensated heart failure

Heart failure (HF) represents a worldwide health burden and the annual per patient cost to treat HF in the US is estimated at $24,383, with most of this expense driven by HF related hospitalizations. Decompensated HF is a leading cause for hospital admissions and is associated with an increased risk of subsequent morbidity and mortality. Many hospital admissions for decompensated HF are considered preventable with timely recognition and effective intervention.Systems of care that include interventions to facilitate early recognition, timely and appropriate intervention, intensification of care, and optimization to prevent recurrence can help successfully manage decompensated HF in the ambulatory setting and avoid hospitalization.

Sex Disparities in Longitudinal Use and Intensification of Guideline-Directed Medical Therapy Among Patients With Newly Diagnosed Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction

BACKGROUND

Guideline-directed medical therapies (GDMTs) are the mainstay of treatment for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), but they are underused. Whether sex differences exist in the initiation and intensification of GDMT for newly diagnosed HFrEF is not well established.

METHODS

Patients with incident HFrEF were identified from the 2016 to 2020 Optum deidentified Clinformatics Data Mart Database, which is derived from a database of administrative health claims for members of large commercial and Medicare Advantage health plans. The primary outcome was the use of optimal GDMT within 12 months of HFrEF diagnosis. Consistent with the guideline recommendations during the time period of the study, optimal GDMT was defined as ≥50% of the target dose of evidence-based beta-blocker plus ≥50% of the target dose of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker, or any dose of angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor plus any dose of mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist. The probability of achieving optimal GDMT on follow-up and predictors of optimal GDMT were evaluated with time-to-event analysis with adjusted Cox proportional hazard models.

RESULTS

The study cohort included 63 759 patients (mean age, 71.3 years; 15.2% non-Hispanic Black race; 56.6% male). Optimal GDMT use was achieved by 6.2% of patients at 12 months after diagnosis. Female (compared with male) patients with HFrEF had lower use across every GDMT class and lower use of optimal GDMT at each time point at follow-up. In an adjusted Cox model, female sex was associated with a 23% lower probability of achieving optimal GDMT after diagnosis (hazard ratio [HR], 0.77 [95% CI, 0.71-0.83]; P<0.001). The sex disparities in GDMT use after HFrEF diagnosis were most pronounced among patients with commercial insurance (females compared with males; HR, 0.66 [95% CI, 0.58-0.76]) compared with Medicare (HR, 0.85 [95% CI, 0.77-0.92]); Pinteraction sex×insurance status=0.005) and for younger patients (age <65 years: HR, 0.65 [95% CI, 0.58-0.74]) compared with older patients (age ≥65 years: HR, 87 [95% CI, 80-96]) Pinteraction sex×age=0.009).

CONCLUSIONS

Overall use of optimal GDMT after HFrEF diagnosis was low, with significantly lower use among female (compared with male) patients. These findings highlight the need for implementation efforts directed at improving GDMT initiation and titration.

Uptake of Sodium-Glucose Cotransporter-2 Inhibitors in Hospitalized Patients With Heart Failure: Insights From the Veterans Affairs Healthcare System

BACKGROUND

The use of sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors (SGLT2is) in Veterans Affairs (VA) patients hospitalized with heart failure (HF) has not been reported previously.

METHODS

VA electronic health record data were used to identify patients hospitalized for HF (primary or secondary diagnosis) from 01/2019-11/2022. Patients with SGLT2i allergy, advanced/end-stage chronic kidney disease (CKD) or advanced HF therapies were excluded. We identified factors associated with discharge SGLT2i prescriptions for patients hospitalized due to HF in 2022. We also compared SGLT2i and angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI) prescription rates. Hospital-level variations in SGLT2i prescriptions were assessed via the median odds ratio.

RESULTS

A total of 69,680 patients were hospitalized due to HF; 10.3% were prescribed SGLT2i at discharge (4.4% newly prescribed, 5.9% continued preadmission therapy). SGLT2i prescription increased over time and was higher in patients with HFrEF and primary HF. Among 15,762 patients hospitalized in 2022, SGLT2i prescription was more likely in patients with diabetes (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 2.27; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.09-2.47) and ischemic heart disease (aOR 1.14; 95% CI: 1.03-1.26). Patients with increased age (aOR 0.77 per 10 years; 95% CI: 0.73-0.80) and lower systolic blood pressure (aOR 0.94 per 10 mmHg; 95% CI: 0.92-0.96) were less likely to be prescribed SGLT2i, and SGLT2i prescription was not more likely in patients with CKD (aOR 1.07; 95% CI 0.98-1.16). The adjusted median odds ratio suggested a 1.8-fold variation in the likelihood that similar patients at 2 random VA sites were prescribed SGLT2i (range 0-21.0%). In patients with EF ≤ 40%, 30.9% were prescribed SGLT2i while 26.9% were prescribed ARNI (P < 0.01).

CONCLUSION

One-tenth of VA patients hospitalized for HF were prescribed SGLT2i at discharge. Opportunities exist to reduce variation in SGLT2i prescription rates across hospitals and to promote its use in patients with CKD and older age.

A scoring evaluation for the practical introduction of guideline-directed medical therapy in heart failure patients

AIMS

The guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) has been recommended for heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) based on the accumulating clinical evidence. However, it is difficult to implement all the trial-proven medications for every patient in the real world.

METHODS AND RESULTS

A simple GDMT score was created, according to the combination of GDMT drugs (renin-angiotensin system inhibitors, beta-blockers, mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists, and sodium-glucose transporter 2 inhibitors) administration and their dosage (0-9 points). Its impact on the prognosis of HF patients was investigated. Admitted HF patients [HFrEF and HF with mildly reduced ejection fraction (HFmrEF), n = 1054] were retrospectively analysed (excluding those with in-hospital death and dialysis). A simple GDMT score ≥5, but not the number of medications, was significantly associated with a reduction of all-cause death, HF readmission, and composite outcome (HF readmission and all-cause death) (P < 0.001). Subgroup analysis showed that almost all groups with a simple GDMT score of 5 or higher had a better prognosis.

CONCLUSIONS

The developed simple GDMT score was associated with prognosis in HFrEF and HFmrEF patients. Even if all four drugs cannot be introduced for some reason, a regimen with a simple GDMT score ≥5 may lead to a prognosis in HF patients.

Prognostic significance of medical therapy in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction

AIMS

The use of guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) among patients with heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) remains suboptimal. The SMYRNA study aims to identify the clinical factors for the non-use of GDMT and to determine the prognostic significance of GDMT in patients with HFrEF in a real-life setting.

METHODS AND RESULTS

The SMYRNA study is a prospective, multicentre, and observational study that included outpatients with HFrEF. Patients were divided into three groups according to the status of GDMT at the time of enrolment: (i) patients receiving all classes of HF medications including renin-angiotensin system (RAS) inhibitors, beta-blockers, and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRAs); (ii) patients receiving any two classes of HF medications (RAS inhibitors and beta-blockers, or RAS inhibitors and MRAs, or beta-blockers and MRAs); and (iii) either patients receiving class of HF medications (only one therapy) or patients not receiving any class of HF medications. The primary outcome was a composite of hospitalization for HF or cardiovascular death. The study population consisted of 1062 patients with HFrEF, predominantly men (69.1%), with a median age of 68 (range: 20-96) years. RAS inhibitors, beta-blockers, and MRAs were prescribed in 76.0%, 89.4%, and 55.1% of the patients, respectively. The proportions of patients receiving target doses of guideline-directed medications were 24.4% for RAS inhibitors, 11.0% for beta-blockers, and 11.1% for MRAs. Overall, 491 patients (46.2%) were treated with triple therapy, 353 patients (33.2%) were treated with any two classes of HF medications, and 218 patients (20.6%) were receiving only one class of HF medication or not receiving any HF medication. Patient-related factors comprising older age, New York Heart Association functional class, rural living, presence of hypertension, and history of myocardial infarction were independently associated with the use or non-use of GDMT. During the median 24-month period, the primary composite endpoint occurred in 362 patients (34.1%), and 177 of 1062 (16.7%) patients died. Patients treated with two or three classes of HF medications had a decreased risk of hospitalization for HF or cardiovascular death compared with those patients receiving ≤1 class of HF medication [hazard ratio (HR): 0.65; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.49-0.85; P = 0.002, and HR: 0.61; 95% CI: 0.47-0.79; P < 0.001, respectively].

CONCLUSIONS

The real-life SMYRNA study provided comprehensive data about the clinical factors associated with the non-use of GDMT and showed that suboptimal GDMT is associated with an increased risk of hospitalization for HF or cardiovascular death in patients with HFrEF.

Natriuretic peptide testing strategies in heart failure: A 2023 update

Natriuretic peptides (NPs), including B-type natriuretic peptide (BNP) and N-terminal pro-BNP (NT-proBNP), have been recommended as standard biomarkers for diagnosing heart failure (HF), and one of the strongest risk predictors for mortality and HF hospitalization regardless of ejection fraction (EF) and etiology of HF. BNP is an active neurohormone opposing renin-angiotensin-aldosterone and sympathetic nervous system overactivated in HF, whereas NT-proBNP is an inactive prohormone released from cardiomyocytes in response to wall stress. Despite substantial advances in the development of guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) for HF with reduced EF, studies demonstrating direct benefits of NP-guided chronic HF therapy on mortality, HF hospitalization, and GDMT optimization have yielded conflicting results. However, accumulating evidence shows that achieving prespecified BNP or NT-proBNP target over time is significantly associated with favorable outcomes, suggesting that benefits of serially measured NPs may be limited to particular groups of HF patients, such as those with extreme levels of baseline BNP or NT-proBNP, which could represent severe phenotypes of HF associated with natriuretic peptide resistance or cardiorenal syndrome. Over the past decade, clinical utilization of BNP and NT-proBNP has been expanded, especially using serial NP measurements for guiding HF therapy, optimizing GDMT and identifying at-risk patients with HF phenotypes who may be minimally symptomatic or asymptomatic.

Optimization of GDMT for patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction: can physiological and biological barriers explain the gaps in adherence to heart failure guidelines?

Heart failure is a growing epidemic with high mortality rates and recurrent hospital admissions that creates a burden on affected individuals, their caregivers and the whole healthcare system. Throughout the years, many randomized trials have established the effectiveness of several pharmacological therapies and electrophysiological devices to reduce hospitalizations and improve quality of life and survival, mostly for patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). These studies led to the publication of national societies' recommendations to guide clinicians in the management of HFrEF. Yet, many reports have shown significant care gaps in adherence to these recommendations in clinical practice, highlighting suboptimal use and/or dosing of evidence-based therapies. Adherence to guidelines has been shown to be associated with the best prognosis in HFrEF, with patients presenting with intolerances or contraindications having the highest risk of events; however, it remains unclear whether this association is causal or merely a marker of more advanced disease. Furthermore, individual characteristics may limit the possibility of reaching the targeted dosage of specific agents. Herein, we provide a comprehensive overview of clinicians' adherence to heart failure guidelines in a specialized real-life setting, particularly regarding use and optimization of guideline-derived medical therapies, as well as the implementation of more recent agents such as sacubitril/valsartan and SGLT2 inhibitors. We seek potential explanations for suboptimal treatment and its impact on patient outcomes.

Clinical Inertia Among Outpatients With Heart Failure: Application of Treatment Nonintensification Taxonomy to EPIC-HF Trial

BACKGROUND

The contribution of clinical inertia to suboptimal guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) for patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) remains unclear.

OBJECTIVES

This study examined reasons for GDMT nonintensification and characterized clinical inertia.

METHODS

In this secondary analysis of EPIC-HF (Electronically Delivered, Patient-Activation Tool for Intensification of Medications for Chronic Heart Failure with Reduced Ejection Fraction), a randomized clinical trial evaluating a patient-activation tool on GDMT utilization, we performed a sequential, explanatory mixed-methods study. Reasons for nonintensification among 4 medication classes were assigned according to an expanded published taxonomy using structured chart reviews. Audio transcripts of clinic encounters were analyzed to further characterize nonintensification reasons. Integration occurred during the interpretation phase.

RESULTS

Among 292 HFrEF patients who completed a cardiology visit, 185 (63.4%) experienced no treatment intensification, of whom 90 (48.6%) had at least 1 opportunity for intensification of a medication class with no documented contraindication or barriers (ie, clinical inertia). Nonintensification reasons varied by medication class, and included heightened risk of adverse effects (range 18.2%-31.6%), patient nonadherence (range 0.8%-1.1%), patient preferences and beliefs (range 0.6%-0.9%), comanagement with other providers (range 4.6%-5.6%), prioritization of other issues (range 15.6%-31.8%), multiple categories (range 16.5%-22.7%), and clinical inertia (range 22.7%-31.6%). A qualitative analysis of 32 clinic audio recordings demonstrated common characteristics of clinical inertia: 1) clinician review of medication regimens without education or intensification discussions; 2) patient stability as justification for nonintensification; and 3) shorter encounters for nonintensification vs intensification.

CONCLUSIONS

In this comprehensive study exploring HFrEF prescribing, clinical inertia is a main contributor to nonintensification within an updated taxonomy classification for suboptimal GDMT prescribing. This approach should help target strategies overcoming GDMT underuse.

Polypharmacy and Optimization of Guideline-Directed Medical Therapy in Heart Failure: The GUIDE-IT Trial

BACKGROUND

Polypharmacy is common among patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). However, its impact on the use of optimal guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) is not well established.

OBJECTIVES

This study sought to evaluate the association between polypharmacy and odds of receiving optimal GDMT over time among patients with HFrEF.

METHODS

The authors conducted a post hoc analysis of the GUIDE-IT (Guiding Evidence-Based Therapy Using Biomarker Intensified Treatment) trial. Polypharmacy was defined as receiving ≥5 medications (excluding HFrEF GDMT) at baseline. The outcome of interest was optimal triple therapy GDMT (concurrent administration of a renin-angiotensin-aldosterone blocker and beta-blocker at 50% of the target dose and a mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist at any dose) achieved over the 12-month follow-up. Multivariable adjusted mixed-effect logistic regression models with multiplicative interaction terms (time × polypharmacy) were constructed to evaluate how polypharmacy at baseline modified the odds of achieving optimal GDMT on follow-up.

RESULTS

The study included 891 participants with HFrEF. The median number of non-GDMT medications at baseline was 4 (IQR: 3-6), with 414 (46.5%) prescribed ≥5 and identified as being on polypharmacy. The proportion of participants who achieved optimal GDMT at the end of the 12-month follow-up was lower with vs without polypharmacy at baseline (15% vs 19%, respectively). In adjusted mixed models, the odds of achieving optimal GDMT over time were modified by baseline polypharmacy status (P for interaction < 0.001). Patients without polypharmacy at baseline had increased odds of achieving GDMT (OR: 1.16 [95% CI: 1.12-1.21] per 1-month increase; P < 0.001) but not patients with polypharmacy (OR: 1.01 [95% CI: 0.96-1.06)] per 1-month increase).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with HFrEF who are on non-GDMT polypharmacy have lower odds of achieving optimal GDMT on follow-up.

Practical Guidance for the Use of SGLT2 Inhibitors in Heart Failure

Despite continuous advances in both diagnosis and management, heart failure (HF) still represents a major worldwide health issue. Recently, sodium-glucose co-transporter 2 inhibitors (SGLT2i) have demonstrated to reduce cardiovascular death and hospitalization for HF across the entire spectrum of left ventricular ejection fraction. Therefore, dapagliflozin, empagliflozin and sotagliflozin are now recommended as part of the foundational therapy of HF. These agents are characterized by limited contraindications, low cost, non-relevant adverse effects and no need for titration. Although they have a prominent role in the latest recommendations for HF, drug prescriptions are definitely lower than the number of potentially eligible patients. In fact, awareness gaps, therapeutic inertia, concerns about safety and simultaneous initiation of comprehensive medical therapy may represent barriers to their use. This article aims to offer an overview of current knowledge on SGLT2i in HF and provide a comprehensive and updated practical guide on their use in de novo and chronic HF, including potential scenarios that a clinician, cardiologist or others, may face in everyday clinical practice.

Patterns, Prognostic Implications, and Rural-Urban Disparities in Optimal GDMT Following HFrEF Diagnosis Among Medicare Beneficiaries

BACKGROUND

Patterns and disparities in guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) uptake for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) across rural vs urban regions are not well described.

OBJECTIVES

This study aims to evaluate patterns, prognostic implications, and rural-urban differences in GDMT use among Medicare beneficiaries following new-onset HFrEF.

METHODS

Patients with a diagnosis of new-onset HFrEF in a 5% Medicare sample with available data for Part D medication use were identified from January 2015 through December 2020. The primary exposure was residence in rural vs urban zip codes. Optimal triple GDMT was defined as ≥50% of the target daily dose of beta-blockers, ≥50% of the target daily dose of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors/angiotensin receptor blocker or any dose of sacubitril/valsartan, and any dose of mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist. The association between the achievement of optimal GDMT over time following new-onset HFrEF diagnosis and risk of all-cause mortality and subsequent HF hospitalization was also evaluated using adjusted Cox models. The association between living in rural vs urban location and time to optimal GDMT achievement over a 12-month follow-up was assessed using cumulative incidence curves and adjusted Fine-Gray subdistribution hazard models.

RESULTS

A total of 41,296 patients (age: 76.7 years; 15.0% Black; 27.6% rural) were included. Optimal GDMT use over the 12-month follow-up was low, with 22.5% initiated on any dose of triple GDMT and 9.1% on optimal GDMT doses. Optimal GDMT on follow-up was significantly associated with a lower risk of death (HR: 0.89 [95% CI: 0.85-0.94]; P < 0.001) and subsequent HF hospitalization (HR: 0.93 [95% CI: 0.87-0.98]; P = 0.02). Optimal GDMT use at 12 months was significantly lower among patients living in rural (vs urban) areas (8.4% vs 9.3%; P = 0.02). In adjusted analysis, living in rural (vs urban) locations was associated with a significantly lower probability of achieving optimal GDMT (HR: 0.92 [95% CI: 0.86-0.98]; P = 0.01 Differences in optimal GDMT use following HFrEF diagnosis accounted for 16% of excess mortality risk among patients living in rural (vs urban) areas.

CONCLUSIONS

Use of optimal GDMT following new-onset HFrEF diagnosis is low, with substantially lower use noted among patients living in rural vs urban locations. Suboptimal GDMT use following new-onset HFrEF was associated with an increased risk of mortality and subsequent HF hospitalization.

Renal Outcomes Following Transcatheter Mitral Valve Repair - Analysis of COAPT Trial Data

The prevalence of valvular heart disease in the United States has been estimated at 4.2-to-5.6 million, with mitral regurgitation (MR) being the most common lesion. Significant MR is associated with heart failure (HF) and death if left untreated. When HF is present, renal dysfunction (RD) is common and is associated with worse outcomes (ie, it is a marker of HF disease progression). Additionally, a complex interplay exists in patients with HF who also have MR, as this combination further impairs renal function, and the presence of RD further worsens prognosis and often limits guideline-directed management and therapy (GDMT). This has important implications in secondary MR because GDMT is the standard of care. However, with the development of minimally invasive transcatheter mitral valve repair, mitral transcatheter edge-to-edge repair (TEER) has become a new treatment option for secondary MR that is now incorporated into current guidelines published in 2020 that listed mitral TEER as a class 2a recommendation (moderate recommendation with benefit >> risk) as an addition to GDMT in a subset of patients with left ventricular ejection fraction <50%. The Cardiovascular Outcomes Assessment of the MitraClip Percutaneous Therapy for Heart Failure Patients with Functional Mitral Regurgitation (COAPT) trial, which demonstrated favorable outcomes in secondary MR by adding mitral TEER to GDMT versus GDMT alone, was the evidence base for these guidelines. Considering these guidelines and the understanding that concomitant RD often limits GDMT in secondary MR, there is emerging research studying the renal outcomes from the COAPT trial. This review analyzes this evidence, which could further influence current decision-making and future guidelines.

Guideline-directed medical therapy for HFrEF: sequencing strategies and barriers for life-saving drug therapy

Multiple landmark trials have helped to advance the treatment of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) significantly over the past decade. These trials have led to the introduction of four main drug classes into the 2021 ESC guideline, namely angiotensin-receptor neprilysin inhibitors/angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibitors, beta-blockers, mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists, and sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors. The life-saving effect of these therapies has been shown to be additive and becomes apparent within weeks, which is why maximally tolerated or target doses of all drug classes should be strived for as quickly as possible. Recent evidence, such as the STRONG-HF trial, demonstrated that rapid drug implementation and up-titration is superior to the traditional and more gradual step-by-step approach where valuable time is lost to up-titration. Accordingly, multiple rapid drug implementation and sequencing strategies have been proposed to significantly reduce the time needed for the titration process. Such strategies are urgently needed since previous large-scale registries have shown that guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) implementation is a challenge. This challenge is reflected by generally low adherence rates, which can be attributed to factors considering the patient, health care system, and local hospital/health care provider. This review of the four medication classes used to treat HFrEF seeks to present a thorough overview of the data supporting current GDMT, discuss the obstacles to GDMT implementation and up-titration, and identify multiple sequencing strategies that could improve GDMT adherence. Sequencing strategies for GDMT implementation. GDMT: guideline-directed medical therapy; ACEi: angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor; ARB: Angiotensin II receptor blocker; ARNi: angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor; BB: beta-blocker; MRA: mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist; SGLT2i: sodium-glucose co-transporter 2 inhibitor.

Electronic Health Record Embedded Strategies for Improving Care of Patients With Heart Failure

PURPOSE

A majority of clinical decisions use the electronic health record (EHR) and there is an unmet need to use its capability to help providers to make evidence-based decisions that improve care for heart failure patients. These electronic nudges are rooted in the human psychology of decision-making and often target specific cognitive biases. This review outlines the development of novel EHR nudges and specific lessons learned from each experience to inform the development of future interventions.

RECENT FINDINGS

There have been several randomized clinical trials examining the impact of EHR alerts on quality of care for heart failure patients. These interventions have targeted both clinicians and patients. There are features of each trial that inform best practices and future directions for EHR nudges. Recent clinical trials have demonstrated that some EHR alerts can improve care for heart failure patients. These trials utilized default options, involved clinicians in the alert design process, provided actionable recommendations, and aimed to minimize disruptions to typical workflow. Alerts aimed at improving care should be examined in a randomized fashion in order to evaluate their impact on clinician satisfaction and patient care.

Contemporary Use of Sodium-Glucose Cotransporter-2 Inhibitor Therapy Among Patients Hospitalized for Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction in the US: The Get With The Guidelines-Heart Failure Registry

Importance

Clinical guidelines for patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) strongly recommend treatment with a sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitor (SGLT2i) to reduce cardiovascular mortality or HF hospitalization. Nationwide adoption of SGLT2i for HFrEF in the US is unknown.

Objective

To characterize patterns of SGLT2i use among eligible US patients hospitalized for HFrEF.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This retrospective cohort study analyzed 49 399 patients hospitalized for HFrEF across 489 sites in the Get With The Guidelines-Heart Failure (GWTG-HF) registry between July 1, 2021, and June 30, 2022. Patients with an estimated glomerular filtration rate less than 20 mL/min/1.73 m2, type 1 diabetes, and previous intolerance to SGLT2i were excluded.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Patient-level and hospital-level prescription of SGLT2i at hospital discharge.

Results

Of 49 399 included patients, 16 548 (33.5%) were female, and the median (IQR) age was 67 (56-78) years. Overall, 9988 patients (20.2%) were prescribed an SGLT2i. SGLT2i prescription was less likely among patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD; 4550 of 24 437 [18.6%] vs 5438 of 24 962 [21.8%]; P < .001) but more likely among patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D; 5721 of 21 830 [26.2%] vs 4262 of 27 545 [15.5%]; P < .001) and those with both T2D and CKD (2905 of 12 236 [23.7%] vs 7078 vs 37 139 [19.1%]; P < .001). Patients prescribed SGLT2i therapy were more likely to be prescribed background triple therapy with an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor/angiotensin receptor blocker/angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor, β-blocker, and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist (4624 of 9988 [46.3%] vs 10 880 of 39 411 [27.6%]; P < .001), and 4624 of 49 399 total study patients (9.4%) were discharged with prescriptions for quadruple medical therapy including SGLT2i. Among 461 hospitals with 10 or more eligible discharges, 19 hospitals (4.1%) discharged 50% or more of patients with prescriptions for SGLT2i, whereas 344 hospitals (74.6%) discharged less than 25% of patients with prescriptions for SGLT2i (including 29 [6.3%] that discharged zero patients with SGLT2i prescriptions). There was high between-hospital variance in the rate of SGLT2i prescription in unadjusted models (median odds ratio, 2.53; 95% CI, 2.36-2.74) and after adjustment for patient and hospital characteristics (median odds ratio, 2.51; 95% CI, 2.34-2.71).

Conclusions and Relevance

In this study, prescription of SGLT2i at hospital discharge among eligible patients with HFrEF was low, including among patients with comorbid CKD and T2D who have multiple indications for therapy, with substantial variation among US hospitals. Further efforts are needed to overcome implementation barriers and improve use of SGLT2i among patients with HFrEF.

Remote monitoring titration clinic to implement guideline-directed therapy for heart failure patients with reduced ejection fraction: a pilot quality-improvement intervention

Introduction

Guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) is the recommended treatment for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). However, the implementation remains limited, with suboptimal use and dosing. The study aimed to assess the feasibility and effect of a remote monitoring titration program on GDMT implementation.

Methods

HFrEF patients were randomly assigned to receive either usual care or a quality-improvement remote titration with remote monitoring intervention. The intervention group used wireless devices to transmit heart rate, blood pressure, and weight data daily, which were reviewed by physicians and nurses every 2-4 weeks. Medication tolerance was assessed via phone, and dosage instructions were given. This workflow was repeated until target doses were reached or further adjustments were not tolerated. A 4-GDMT score measured use and target dosage, with the primary endpoint being the score at 6 months follow-up.

Results

Baseline characteristics were similar (n = 55). A median of 85% of patients complied with transmitting device data every week. At the 6-month follow-up, the intervention group had a 4-GDMT score of 64.6% compared to 56.5% in the usual care group (p = 0.01), with a difference of 8.1% (95% CI: 1.7%-14.5%). Similar results were seen at the 12-month follow-up [difference 12.8% (CI: 5.0%-20.6%)]. The intervention group showed a positive trend in ejection fraction and natriuretic peptides, with no significant difference between groups.

Conclusions

The study suggests that a full-scale trial is feasible and that utilizing a remote titration clinic with remote monitoring has the potential to enhance the implementation of guideline-directed therapy for HFrEF.

Guideline-Directed Medical Therapy Tolerability in Patients With Heart Failure and Mitral Regurgitation: The COAPT Trial

BACKGROUND

In the COAPT (Cardiovascular Outcomes Assessment of the MitraClip Percutaneous Therapy for Heart Failure Patients With Functional Mitral Regurgitation) trial, a central committee of heart failure (HF) specialists optimized guideline-directed medical therapies (GDMT) and documented medication and goal dose intolerances before patient enrollment.

OBJECTIVES

The authors sought to assess the rates, reasons, and predictors of GDMT intolerance in the COAPT trial.

METHODS

Baseline use, dose, and intolerances of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs), angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitors (ARNIs), beta-blockers, and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRAs) were analyzed in patients with left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) ≤40%, in whom maximally tolerated doses of these agents as assessed by an independent HF specialist were required before enrollment.

RESULTS

A total of 464 patients had LVEF ≤40% and complete medication information. At baseline, 38.8%, 39.4%, and 19.8% of patients tolerated 3, 2, and 1 GDMT classes, respectively (any dose); only 1.9% could not tolerate any GDMT. Beta-blockers were the most frequently tolerated GDMT (93.1%), followed by ACEIs/ARBs/ARNIs (68.5%), and then MRAs (55.0%). Intolerances differed by GDMT class, but hypotension and kidney dysfunction were most common. Goal doses were uncommonly achieved for beta-blockers (32.3%) and ACEIs/ARBs/ARNIs (10.2%) due to intolerances limiting titration. Only 2.2% of patients tolerated goal doses of all 3 GDMT classes.

CONCLUSIONS

In a contemporary trial population with HF, severe mitral regurgitation, and systematic HF specialist-directed GDMT optimization, most patients had medical intolerances prohibiting 1 or more GDMT classes and achieving goal doses. The specific intolerances noted and methods used for GDMT optimization provide important lessons for the implementation of GDMT optimization in future clinical trials. (Cardiovascular Outcomes Assessment of the MitraClip Percutaneous Therapy for Heart Failure Patients With Functional Mitral Regurgitation [The COAPT Trial] [COAPT]; NCT01626079).

Sequencing of medical therapy in heart failure with a reduced ejection fraction

The management of heart failure with a reduced ejection fraction is a true success story of modern medicine. Evidence from randomised clinical trials provides the basis for an extensive catalogue of disease-modifying drug treatments that improve both symptoms and survival. These treatments have undergone rigorous scrutiny by licensing and guideline development bodies to make them eligible for clinical use. With an increasing number of drug therapies however, it has become a complex management challenge to ensure patients receive these treatments in a timely fashion and at recommended doses. The tragedy is that, for a condition with many life-prolonging drug therapies, there remains a potentially avoidable mortality risk associated with delayed treatment. Heart failure therapeutic agents have conventionally been administered to patients in the chronological order they were tested in clinical trials, in line with the aggregate benefit observed when added to existing background treatment. We review the evidence for simultaneous expedited initiation of these disease-modifying drug therapies and how these strategies may focus the heart failure clinician on a time-defined smart goal of drug titration, while catering for patient individuality. We highlight the need for adequate staffing levels, especially heart failure nurse specialists and pharmacists, in a structure to provide the capacity to deliver this care. Finally, we propose a heart failure clinic titration schedule and novel practical treatment score which, if applied at each heart failure patient contact, could tackle treatment inertia by a constant assessment of attainment of optimal medical therapy.

Clinical outcomes in heart failure with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction and good functional capacity: The illusion of stability

BACKGROUND

Heart failure (HF) remains a prevalent syndrome with significant morbidity and mortality. Optimal drug and device therapies are crucial to reduce the risk of death or HF admission. Yet, less symptomatic patients with good functional capacity are often perceived as having a low risk of adverse events and their attending physicians may suffer from prescription inertia or refrain from performing therapy optimization. Maximum or peak oxygen consumption (pVO₂) assessed during cardiopulmonary exercise testing (CPET) is often used as a prognosis indicator and surrogate marker for functional capacity. Our goal was to assess clinical outcomes in a seemingly low risk HF population in Weber class A (pVO₂>20 mL/kg/min) with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF).

METHODS

Single-center retrospective observational study enrolling consecutive HF patients with LVEF<40% (HFrEF) performing CPET between 2003 and 2018. Those with pVO₂ >20 mL/kg/min were included. The primary endpoint was a composite of all-cause death or HF hospitalizations at two years after CPET. We also assessed the rates of N-terminal pro b-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) elevations at baseline.

RESULTS

Seventy-two patients were included (mean age of 53±10 years; 86% male; 90% NYHA I-II; median LVEF 32%; median pVO₂ 24 mL/kg/min). At baseline, 93% had an NT-proBNP level >125 pg/mL (median NT-proBNP 388 [201-684] pg/mL). Overall, seven patients (10%) met the primary endpoint: three died (4%) and five (7%) had at least one HF admission. Among those who died, only one patient had an HF admission during follow up.

CONCLUSION

In a clinically stable HFrEF population with good functional capacity, persistent neurohormonal activation was present in the majority, and one in ten patients died or had a HF admission at two years' follow-up. These findings support the urgent need to motivate clinicians to pursue optimal drug uptitration even in less symptomatic patients.

Impact of a Medication Optimization Clinic on Heart Failure Hospitalizations

Efforts to optimize guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) through team-based care may affect outcomes in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). This study evaluated the impact of an innovative medication optimization clinic (MOC) on GDMT and outcomes in patients with HFrEF. Patients with HFrEF who are not receiving optimal GDMT are referred to MOC and managed by a team comprised of a nurse practitioner or physician assistant, clinical pharmacist, and HF cardiologist. We retrospectively evaluated the impact of MOC (n = 206) compared with usual care (n = 412) with a 2:1 propensity-matched control group. The primary clinical outcome was the incidence of HF hospitalizations at 3 months after the index visit. Kaplan-Meier cumulative event curves and Cox proportional hazards regression models with adjustment were conducted. A significantly higher proportion of patients in MOC received quadruple therapy (49% vs 4%, p <0.0001), angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor (60% vs 27%, p <0.0001), mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist (59% vs 37%, p <0.0001), and sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitor (60% vs 10%, p <0.0001). The primary outcome was significantly lower in the MOC versus the control group (log-rank, p = 0.0008). Cox regression showed that patients in the control group were more than threefold more likely to be hospitalized because of HF than those in the MOC group (p = 0.0014). In conclusion, the MOC was associated with improved GDMT and lower risk of HF hospitalizations in patients with HFrEF.

Decisional Needs and Patient Treatment Preferences for Heart Failure Medications: A Scoping Review

Background

Pharmacologic management of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) involves several medications. Decision aids informed by patient decisional needs and treatment preferences could assist in making HFrEF medication choices; however, these are largely unknown.

Methods

We searched MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), without language restriction, for qualitative, quantitative, and mixed-method studies that included patients with HFrEF or clinicians providing HFrEF care, and reported data on decisional needs or treatment preferences applicable to HFrEF medications. We classified decisional needs using a modified version of the Ottawa Decision Support Framework (ODSF).

Results

From 3996 records, we included 16 reports describing 13 studies (n = 854). No study explicitly assessed ODSF decisional needs; however, 11 studies reported ODSF-classifiable data. Patients commonly reported having inadequate knowledge or information, and difficult decisional roles. No study systematically assessed treatment preferences, but 6 studies reported on attribute preferences. Reducing mortality and improving symptoms frequently were ranked as being important, whereas cost importance rankings varied, and adverse events generally were ranked as being less important.

Conclusion

This scoping review identified key decisional needs regarding HFrEF medications, notably inadequate knowledge or information, and difficult decisional roles, which can readily be addressed by decision aids. Future studies should systematically explore the full scope of ODSF-based decisional needs in patients with HFrEF, along with relative preferences among treatment attributes to further inform development of individualized decision aids.

Optimization of pharmacotherapies for ambulatory patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction is associated with improved outcomes

BACKGROUND

In heart failure, specific target doses for each drug are recommended, but some patients receive suboptimal dosing, others are undertreated or remain chronically in a titration phase, despite having no apparent contraindication or intolerance. We assessed the association of different levels of adherence to guidelines with outcomes in patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF).

METHODS

Medical records of patients with HFrEF followed at our heart failure (HF) clinic for at least 6 months (n = 511) were reviewed and patients categorized as: 1) optimized (25.4%); 2) in-titration (29.0%); 3) undertreated (32.7%); and 4) intolerant/contraindicated (12.9%). Risk of mortality or HF events (hospitalization, emergency visit or ambulatory administration of intravenous diuretics) within one year was assessed using Cox regression models and Kaplan-Meier curves.

RESULTS

Compared to optimized patients, those intolerant (HR: 4.60 [95%CI: 2.23-9.48]; p < 0.0001) had the highest risk of outcomes, followed by those undertreated (3.45 [1.78-6.67]; p = 0.0002) and in-titration (1.99 [0.97-4.06]; p = 0.0588). Overall predictors of outcomes included loop diuretics' use (4.54 [2.39-8.60]), undertreatment (2.38 [1.22-4.67]), intolerance/ contraindication to triple therapy (3.08 [1.47-6.42]), peripheral vascular disease (2.13 [1.29-3.50]) and NYHA class III-IV (1.89 [1.25-2.85]); all p < 0.05.

CONCLUSION

Level of adherence to guidelines is associated with outcomes, with intolerant/contraindicated patients having the worst prognosis and those undertreated and in-titration at intermediate risk compared to those optimized. Up-titration of therapy should be attempted whenever possible, considering patients' limitations, to potentially improve outcomes.

Trust and activation in defining patient-clinician interactions for chronic disease management

OBJECTIVE

Patient-clinician relationship quality and patient activation can both improve patient health outcomes, but prior work has primarily examined these factors independently. We examine how these two factors shape patient behavior in the setting of ambulatory heart failure care, where serial intensification of multiple medications is central to chronic care delivery.

METHODS

We used content analysis to analyze 22 in-depth patient interviews and 32 audio-recorded clinic visits collected for the EPIC-HF Trial. This was a secondary analysis providing qualitative depth to the parent RCT.

RESULTS

We identified a typology of patient activation and patient-clinician relationship quality, with four types: Supported, Skeptical, Deferential, and Unempowered. Types were sensitive to time and context; a given patient might occupy multiple types throughout the course of a single clinic visit. The effects of patient-activation and the patient-clinician relationship appeared to be bidirectional, with each influencing the other.

CONCLUSION

Patient-clinician relationship quality and patient activation are dominant in shaping clinical interactions and disease management. This interaction is dynamic, and patients may change types depending on time, place, or context.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

These findings suggest that both patient activation and high relationship quality work together to create a supportive environment for chronic care, where intermittent skepticism, deference or empowerment may be useful at particular times or in certain situations.

Patient-reported and Clinical Outcomes Among Patients Hospitalized for Heart Failure With Reduced Versus Preserved Ejection Fraction

BACKGROUND

Differences between patients hospitalized for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) vs HF with preserved EF (HFpEF) are not well-characterized, particularly as pertains to in-hospital decongestion and longitudinal patient-reported outcomes. The objective of this analysis was to compare patient-reported and clinical outcomes between patients hospitalized with HFrEF vs HFpEF.

METHODS AND RESULTS

The Acute Study of Clinical Effectiveness of Nesiritide in Decompensated Heart Failure (ASCEND-HF) trial enrolled 7141 patients hospitalized for HF with reduced or preserved EF. We assessed the association between an EF ≤ 40% vs an EF >40% with in-hospital decongestion, risk of rehospitalization and mortality, and quality of life as measured by the EuroQOL 5 Dimensions (EQ-5D). Among 5800 patients (81%) with complete EF data, 4782 (82%) had an EF ≤40% and 1018 (18%) had an EF >40%. Both groups demonstrated similar rates of decongestion by weight change and urine volume through 24 hours, a similar risk of 30-day mortality and HF rehospitalization, and a similar 180-day mortality. Patients with HFpEF had worse EQ-5D scores at hour 24 (median 0.76, [interquartile range (IQR) 0.51-0.84] vs 0.78 [IQR 0.57-0.84]; P = .01) that persisted through discharge (0.81 [IQR 0.69-0.86] vs 0.83 [IQR 0.71-1.00]; P < .001) and the 30-day follow-up (0.78 [IQR 0.60-0.85] vs 0.83 [IQR 0.71-1.00]; P < .001). After adjustment, these differences were attenuated and not statistically significant.

CONCLUSIONS

In this large, multinational cohort of patients hospitalized for HF, patients with an EF ≤ 40% vs an EF >40% experienced similar in-hospital decongestion and postdischarge clinical outcomes. Patients with an EF >40% reported worse in-hospital and postdischarge patient-reported health status, but these measures were similar to HFrEF after accounting for other clinical factors.

Multicomponent integrated care for patients with chronic heart failure: systematic review and meta‐analysis

To investigate the effectiveness of multicomponent integrated care on clinical outcomes among patients with chronic heart failure. We conducted a meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials, published in English language from inception to 20 April 2022, with at least 3-month implementation of multicomponent integrated care (defined as two or more quality improvement strategies from different domains, viz. the healthcare system, healthcare providers, and patients). The study outcomes were mortality (all-cause or cardiovascular) and healthcare utilization (hospital readmission or emergency department visits). We pooled the risk ratio (RR) using Mantel-Haenszel test. A total of 105 trials (n = 37 607 patients with chronic heart failure; mean age 67.9 ± 7.3 years; median duration of intervention 12 months [interquartile range 6-12 months]) were analysed. Compared with usual care, multicomponent integrated care was associated with reduced risk for all-cause mortality [RR 0.90, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.86-0.95], cardiovascular mortality (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.60-0.88), all-cause hospital readmission (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.91-1.00), heart failure-related hospital readmission (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.79-0.89), and all-cause emergency department visits (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.84-0.98). Heart failure-related mortality (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.74-1.18) and cardiovascular-related hospital readmission (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.79-1.03) were not significant. The top three quality improvement strategies for all-cause mortality were promotion of self-management (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.79-0.93), facilitated patient-provider communication (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.81-0.93), and e-health (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.81-0.96). Multicomponent integrated care reduced risks for mortality (all-cause and cardiovascular related), hospital readmission (all-cause and heart failure related), and all-cause emergency department visits among patients with chronic heart failure.

Safety and Tolerability of Nicotinamide Riboside in Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction

The mitochondrial dysfunction characteristic of heart failure (HF) is associated with changes in intracellular nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide (NAD⁺) and NADH levels. Raising NAD⁺ levels with the NAD⁺ precursor, nicotinamide riboside (NR), may represent a novel HF treatment. In this 30-participant trial of patients with clinically stable HF with reduced ejection fraction, NR, at a dose of 1,000 mg twice daily, appeared to be safe and well tolerated, and approximately doubled whole blood NAD⁺ levels. Intraindividual NAD⁺ increases in response to NR correlated with increases in peripheral blood mononuclear cell basal (R ² = 0.413, P = 0.003) and maximal (R ² = 0.434, P = 0.002) respiration, and with decreased NLRP3 expression (R ² = 0.330, P = 0.020). (Nicotinamide Riboside in Systolic Heart Failure; NCT03423342).

Titration of medical therapy and clinical outcomes among patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction: Findings from the HF-ACTION trial

BACKGROUND

Clinical guidelines recommend titration of angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEi) and beta-blockers among patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) to maximally tolerated doses. Patient characteristics associated with dose titration and clinical outcomes subsequent to dose titration remain poorly characterized.

METHODS

Among 1999 ambulatory patients with chronic HFrEF in the HF-ACTION trial, use and dosing of ACEi and evidence-based beta-blockers were examined at baseline and 6-month follow-up. Multivariable logistic regression models were used to assess factors associated with dose escalation (medication initation or dosing increase) or dose de-escalation (medication discontinuation or dosing decrease). Cox proportional hazard regression models were used to examine associations between dose trajectory group (stable target, stable sub-target, dose escalation, and dose de-escalation) and subsequent mortality and hospitalization outcomes.

RESULTS

For both ACEi and beta-blockers, hospitalization for heart failure in the 6 months prior to enrollment (odds ratio [OR] 2.32 [95% confidence interval 1.58-3.42]) for ACEi; 1.42 [1.05-1.9] for beta-blockers) and higher systolic blood pressure (OR 1.01 [1.00-1.03] per 1 mmHg increase for ACEi; 1.01 [1.00-1.02] for beta-blockers) were associated with dose escalation. Hospitalization 6 months prior to enrollment for any cause (including HF or non-HF causes) was associated with dose de-escalation (OR 1.60 [1.14-2.25] for ACEi; 1.67 [1.20-2.33] for beta-blockers). After adjustment for patient characteristics, compared with stable target dosing, dose de-escalation of either medication was associated with greater all-cause mortality (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 1.64 [1.11-2.42] for ACEi; 1.62 [1.04-2.53] for beta-blockers). Compared with stable target dosing, both dose de-escalation (aHR 1.98 [1.36-2.87]) and stable sub-target dosing (aHR 1.49 [1.18-1.87]) of beta-blockers were associated with greater cardiovascular mortality or hospitalization for heart failure.

CONCLUSIONS

Among outpatients with chronic HFrEF, patient characteristics including recent hospitalization status and blood pressure were associated with odds of subsequent escalation and de-escalation of ACEi and beta-blocker therapy. Compared with patients receiving guildeline-recommended target doses, dose de-escalation of either medication and sub-target dosing of beta-blockers were associated with greater morbidity and mortality over long-term follow-up.

Use of Guideline-Directed Medical Therapy in Patients Aged ≥ 65 Years After the Diagnosis of Heart Failure: A Canadian Population-Based Study

Background

Guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) improves clinical outcomes in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). Despite its proven efficacy, GDMT is underutilized in clinical practice. The current study examines GDMT utilization after incident hospitalization for HF to promote medication initiation, and titration to target dosing within a reasonable time period.

Methods

This observational study identified 66,372 patients with HFrEF who were aged ≥ 65 years and had an incident HF hospitalization, using administrative health data (2013-2018). GDMT (angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, angiotensin receptor blockers, angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitors, β-blockers (BB), and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists ) received within the 6 months after hospitalization was evaluated by monitoring therapy combinations, optimal dosing (proportion receiving ≥ 50% of the target dose for these inhibitors and blockers, and any dose of MRA), and maximal and last dose assessed, and by use of a GDMT intensity score.

Results

Among patients with HFrEF, 4768 (7.2%) were on no therapy, 17,184 (25.9%), were on monotherapy, 30,912 (46.6%) were on dual therapy, and 13,508 (20.4%) were on triple therapy. Only 8747 (13.2%) and 5484 (8.3%) achieved optimal GDMT based on the maximum dose and the last dispensed dose, respectively, within 6 months postdischarge. Finally, 38,869 (58.6%) achieved < 50% of the maximum intensity score, 23,006 (34.7%) achieved between 50% and 74% of the maximum intensity score, and 4497 (6.8%) achieved a score that was ≥ 75% of the maximum intensity score.

Conclusions

Current pharmacologic management for patients with HFrEF does not align with the Canadian guidelines. Given this gap in care, innovative strategies to optimize care in patients with HFrEF are needed.

Management of Atrial Fibrillation Across the Spectrum of Heart Failure With Preserved and Reduced Ejection Fraction

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most common arrhythmia among patients with heart failure (HF), and HF is the most common cause of death for patients presenting with clinical AF. AF is frequently associated with pathological atrial myocardial dysfunction and remodeling, a triad that has been called atrial myopathy. AF can be the cause or consequence of clinical HF, and the directionality varies between individual patients and across the spectrum of HF. Although initial trials suggested no advantage for a systematic rhythm control strategy in HF with reduced ejection fraction, recent data suggest that select patients may benefit from attempts to maintain sinus rhythm with catheter ablation. Preliminary data also show a close relationship among AF, left atrial myopathy, mitral regurgitation, and HF with preserved ejection, with potential clinical benefits to catheter ablation therapy. The modern management of AF in HF also requires consideration of the degree of atrial myopathy and chronicity of AF, in addition to the pathogenesis and phenotype of the underlying left ventricular HF. In this review, we summarize the contemporary management of AF and provide practical guidance and areas in need of future investigation.

Brain Natriuretic Peptide Biomarkers in Current Clinical and Therapeutic Scenarios of Heart Failure

Brain natriuretic peptide (BNP) and its inactive N-terminal fragment, NT-proBNP, are serum biomarkers with key roles in the management of heart failure (HF). An increase in the serum levels of these peptides is closely associated with the pathophysiological mechanisms underlying HF such as the presence of structural and functional cardiac abnormalities, myocardial stretch associated with a high filling pressure and neuro-hormonal activation. As BNP and NT-proBNP measurements are possible, several studies have investigated their clinical utility in the diagnosis, prognostic stratification, monitoring and guiding therapy of patients with HF. BNP and NT-proBNP have also been used as criteria for enrollment in randomized trials evaluating the efficacy of new therapeutic strategies for HF. Nevertheless, the use of natriuretic peptides is still limited in clinical practice due to the controversial aspect of their use in different clinical settings. The purpose of this review is to discuss the main issues associated with using BNP and NT-proBNP serum levels in the management of patients with HF under current clinical and therapeutic scenarios.

The need for increased pragmatism in cardiovascular clinical trials

The majority of cardiovascular randomized controlled trials (RCTs) test interventions in selected patient populations under explicitly protocol-defined settings. Although these ‘explanatory’ trial designs optimize conditions to test the efficacy and safety of an intervention, they limit the generalizability of trial findings in broader clinical settings. The concept of ‘pragmatism’ in RCTs addresses this concern by providing counterbalance to the more idealized situation underpinning explanatory RCTs and optimizing effectiveness over efficacy. The central tenets of pragmatism in RCTs are to test interventions in routine clinical settings, with patients who are representative of broad clinical practice, and to reduce the burden on investigators and participants by minimizing the number of trial visits and the intensity of trial-based testing. Pragmatic evaluation of interventions is particularly important in cardiovascular diseases, where the risk of death among patients has remained fairly stable over the past few decades despite the development of new therapeutic interventions. Pragmatic RCTs can help to reveal the ‘real-world’ effectiveness of therapeutic interventions and elucidate barriers to their implementation. In this Review, we discuss the attributes of pragmatism in RCT design, conduct and interpretation as well as the general need for increased pragmatism in cardiovascular RCTs. We also summarize current challenges and potential solutions to the implementation of pragmatism in RCTs and highlight selected ongoing and completed cardiovascular RCTs with pragmatic trial designs.

In this Review, Khan and colleagues discuss the benefits and challenges of including pragmatism in the design, conduct and interpretation of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) for cardiovascular disease and highlight selected ongoing and completed cardiovascular RCTs that incorporate a pragmatic design.

Most cardiovascular randomized controlled trials (RCTs) conducted to date have been ‘explanatory’, that is, designed to study the intervention in optimized conditions with selected patient populations and frequent protocolized assessments.

Although explanatory RCT designs increase validity, they limit the generalizability of trial findings, whereas a ‘pragmatic’ approach to RCTs yields findings more relevant to real-world practice.

In pragmatic RCTs, interventions are tested in patients who are broadly representative of the condition being studied, and the study is aligned with routine clinical care to reduce costs and organizational burden.

Although pragmatic RCTs tend to attenuate estimates of treatment effects, they do provide a more realistic understanding of population-level effectiveness and costs than explanatory trials.

Pragmatic trials can highlight barriers to the implementation of therapies and are better suited than explanatory RCTs to assessing the effects of implementation strategies and health-care policies at the population level.

Widespread implementation of pragmatic trials would require the development of technological infrastructure to collect and share data as well as regulatory guidelines amenable to findings derived from routinely collected data.

Frailty, Guideline-Directed Medical Therapy, and Outcomes in HFrEF: From the GUIDE-IT Trial

OBJECTIVES

In this study, we sought to evaluate the association of frailty with the use of optimal guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) and outcomes in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF).

BACKGROUND

The burden of frailty in HFrEF is high, and the patterns of GDMT use according to frailty status have not been studied previously.

METHODS

A post hoc analysis of patients with HFrEF enrolled in the GUIDE-IT (Guiding Evidence-Based Therapy Using Biomarker Intensified Treatment in Heart Failure) trial was conducted. Frailty was assessed with the use of a frailty index (FI) using a 38-variable deficit model, and participants were categorized into 3 groups: class 1: nonfrail, FI <0.21); class 2: intermediate frailty, FI 0.21-0.31), and class 3: high frailty, FI >0.31). Multivariate-adjusted Cox models were used to study the association of frailty status with clinical outcomes. Use of optimal GDMT over time (beta-blockers, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors/angiotensin receptor blockers, and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists) across frailty strata was assessed with the use of adjusted linear and logistic mixed-effect models.

RESULTS

The study included 879 participants, of which 56.3% had high frailty burden (class 3 FI). A higher frailty burden was associated with a significantly higher risk of HF hospitalization or death in adjusted Cox models: high frailty vs nonfrail HR: 1.76, 95% CI: 1.20-2.58. On follow-up, participants with high frailty burden also had a significantly lower likelihood of achieving optimal GDMT: high frailty vs non-frail GDMT triple therapy use at study end: 17.7% vs 28.4%; P interaction, frailty class × time <0.001.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with HFrEF with a high burden of frailty have a significantly higher risk for adverse clinical outcomes and are less likely to be initiated and up-titrated on an optimal GDMT regimen.

Optimal Background Pharmacological Therapy for Heart Failure Patients in Clinical Trials: JACC Review Topic of the Week

With the current landscape of approved therapies for heart failure (HF), there is a need to determine the role of a standard background therapy against which novel therapies are studied. The Heart Failure Collaboratory convened a multistakeholder group of clinical investigators, clinicians, patients, government representatives including U.S. Food and Drug Administration and National Institutes of Health participants, payers, and industry in March 2021 to discuss whether standardization of background drug therapy is necessary in clinical trials in patients with HF. The current paper summarizes the discussion and provides potential conceptual approaches, with a focus on therapies indicated for HF with reduced ejection fraction.

Empagliflozin in the treatment of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction in addition to background therapies and therapeutic combinations (EMPEROR-Reduced): a post-hoc analysis of a randomised, double-blind trial

BACKGROUND

It is important to evaluate whether a new treatment for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) provides additive benefit to background foundational treatments. As such, we aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of empagliflozin in patients with HFrEF in addition to baseline treatment with specific doses and combinations of disease-modifying therapies.

METHODS

We performed a post-hoc analysis of the EMPEROR-Reduced randomised, double-blind, parallel-group trial, which took place in 520 centres (hospitals and medical clinics) in 20 countries in Asia, Australia, Europe, North America, and South America. Patients with New York Heart Association (NYHA) classification II-IV with an ejection fraction of 40% or less were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive the addition of either oral empagliflozin 10 mg per day or placebo to background therapy. The primary composite outcome was cardiovascular death and heart failure hospitalisation; the secondary outcome was total heart failure hospital admissions. An extended composite outcome consisted of inpatient and outpatient HFrEF events was also evaluated. Outcomes were analysed according to background use of angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors, angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs) or angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitors (ARNIs), as well as β blockers and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRAs) at less than 50% or 50% or more of target doses and in various combinations. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03057977.

FINDINGS

In this post-hoc analysis of 3730 patients (mean age 66·8 years [SD 11·0], 893 [23·9%] women; 1863 [49·9%] in the empagliflozin group, 1867 [50·1%] in the placebo group) assessed between March 6, 2017, and May 28, 2020, empagliflozin reduced the risk of the primary outcome (361 in 1863 participants in the empagliflozin group and 462 of 1867 in the placebo group; HR 0·75 [95% CI 0·65-0·86]) regardless of background therapy or its target doses for ACE inhibitors or ARBs at doses of less than 50% of the target dose (HR 0·85 [0·69-1·06]) and for doses of 50% or more of the target dose (HR 0·67 [0·52-0·88]; p_interaction=0·18). A similar result was seen for β blockers at doses of less than 50% of the target dose (HR 0·66 [0·54-0·80]) and for doses of 50% or more of the target dose (HR 0·81 [0·66-1·00]; p_interaction=0·15). Empagliflozin also reduced the risk of the primary outcome irrespective of background use of triple therapy with an ACE inhibitor, ARB, or ARNI plus β blocker plus MRA (given combination HR 0·73 [0·61-0·88]; not given combination HR 0·76 [0·62-0·94]; p_interaction=0·77). Similar patterns of benefit were observed for the secondary and extended composite outcomes. Empagliflozin was well tolerated and rates of hypotension, symptomatic hypotension, and hyperkalaemia were similar across all subgroups.

INTERPRETATION

Empagliflozin reduced serious heart failure outcomes across doses and combinations of disease-modifying therapies for HFrEF. Clinically, these data suggest that empagliflozin might be considered as a foundational therapy in patients with HFrEF regardless of their existing background therapy.

FUNDING

Boehringer Ingelheim and Eli Lilly and Company.

Comparison of Efficacy of Ivabradine With Traditional Therapy in Patients With Left Ventricular Dysfunction

Background: Heart failure patients usually present with disease exacerbation that overburdens the hospitals and also increases the risk of mortality with increased heart rate being the main issue. Consideration is being given to drugs for sole heart rate control in addition to conventional therapy.

Objective: To compare the outcomes of ivabradine to traditional treatment in patients with left ventricular systolic dysfunction.

Methodology: This randomized controlled trial was conducted in the Department of Cardiology, Khyber Teaching Hospital, Peshawar from November 1, 2020, to May 31, 2021. Patients aged 30-65 years of age and of either gender with heart failure were enrolled in the study. Patients were screened for New York Heart Association (NYHA) class and were enrolled into one of the two groups. In group 1, patients were started on traditional treatment, while group 2 patients were given ivabradine as an add-on therapy. Follow-up was made at the end of the second month for evaluation of the outcomes.

Results: Each group had 119 patients, with a mean age of 58.05±4.98 years. Group 1, consisted of 61.3% of the patients in NYHA 3, while 38.65% were in NYHA 4. In group 2, NYHA 3 and NYHA 4 patients were 59.6% and 40.3%, respectively. Upon follow-up, there were greater improvements in group 2 as compared to group 1 based on NYHA classifications, with NYHA 2 [47.05% (group 2) vs. 13.44% (group 1)], NYHA 3 [42.85% (group 2) vs. 61.34% (group 1)] and NYHA 4 [10.08% (group 2) vs. 25.21% (group 1)], p < 0.05.

Conclusions: Obtaining a more optimal heart rate with ivabradine in patients with congestive heart failure is reflected in an improvement in NYHA classification.

Sacubitril/Valsartan Initiation Among Veterans Who Are Renin-Angiotensin-Aldosterone System Inhibitor Naïve With Heart Failure and Reduced Ejection Fraction

Background

Sacubitril/valsartan, a first‐in‐class angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor, received US Food and Drug Administration approval in 2015 for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). Our objective was to describe the sacubitril/valsartan initiation rate, associated characteristics, and 6‐month follow‐up dosing among veterans with HFrEF who are renin‐angiotensin‐aldosterone system inhibitor (RAASi) naïve.

Methods and Results

Retrospective cohort study of veterans with HFrEF who are RAASi naïve defined as left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) ≤40%; ≥1 in/outpatient heart failure visit, first RAASi (sacubitril/valsartan, angiotensin‐converting enzyme inhibitor [ACEI]), or angiotensin‐II receptor blocker [ARB]) fill from July 2015 to June 2019. Characteristics associated with sacubitril/valsartan initiation were identified using Poisson regression models. From July 2015 to June 2019, we identified 3458 sacubitril/valsartan and 29 367 ACEI or ARB initiators among veterans with HFrEF who are RAASi naïve. Sacubitril/valsartan initiation increased from 0% to 26.5%. Sacubitril/valsartan (versus ACEI or ARB) initiators were less likely to have histories of stroke, myocardial infarction, or hypertension and more likely to be older and have diabetes mellitus and lower LVEF. At 6‐month follow‐up, the prevalence of ≥50% target daily dose for sacubitril/valsartan, ACEI, and ARB initiators was 23.5%, 43.2%, and 47.1%, respectively.

Conclusions

Sacubitril/valsartan initiation for HFrEF in the Veterans Administration increased in the 4 years immediately following Food and Drug Administration approval. Sacubitril/valsartan (versus ACEI or ARB) initiators had fewer baseline cardiovascular comorbidities and the lowest proportion on ≥50% target daily dose at 6‐month follow‐up. Identifying the reasons for lower follow‐up dosing of sacubitril/valsartan could support guideline recommendations and quality improvement strategies for patients with HFrEF.

Presentation, Management, and In-Hospital Outcomes of Patients with Acute Heart Failure in South India by Sex: A Secondary Analysis of a Prospective, Interrupted Time Series Study

Background

Sex differences in presentation, management, and outcomes of heart failure (HF) have been observed, but it is uncertain whether these differences exist in South India.

Objective

We describe sex differences in presentation, management, and in-hospital outcomes in patients hospitalized with HF in South India and explore sex-based differences in the effect of the quality improvement intervention in a secondary analysis of a prospective, interrupted time series study.

Methods

The Heart Failure Quality Improvement in Kerala (HF QUIK) study evaluated the effect of a quality improvement toolkit on process of care measures and clinical outcomes in patients hospitalized with HF in eight hospitals in Kerala using an interrupted time series design from February 2018 to August 2018. The primary outcome was guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) at hospital discharge for patients with HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). We performed sex-stratified analyses using mixed effect logistic regression models.

Results

Among 1,400 patients, 536 (38.3%) were female. Female patients were older (69.6 vs. 65 years, p < 0.001), were less likely to have an ischemic etiology of HF (control period: 78.2% vs. 87.5%; intervention period: 83.6% vs. 91.5%; p < 0.05 for both) and were less likely to undergo coronary angiography or percutaneous coronary intervention. The quality improvement intervention had similar effects on the odds of GDMT at discharge in females with HFrEF (adjusted OR 1.79, 95% CI 0.92, 3.47) and males with HFrEF (adjusted OR 1.68, 95% CI 1.07, 2.64, pinteraction = 0.69).

Conclusions

We observed sex-specific differences in presentation and procedural management of patients with HF but no differences in the effect of the quality improvement intervention on discharge GDMT rates. Both male and female patients with HFrEF remained undertreated in the study intervention period, demonstrating the need for implementation strategies to close the HFrEF treatment gap in South India.

National Trends in the Use of Sacubitril/Valsartan

BACKGROUND

Better understanding of recent sacubitril/valsartan prescription patterns may help identify factors that influence its use. The aim of the study was to characterize sacubitril/valsartan use and dosage patterns nationally.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We conducted a population-level cohort study using IQVIA Inc. National Prescription Audit™ data in the United States from August 2016 to July 2019. Over 3 years, there was a 5.6-fold increase in the number of sacubitril/valsartan prescriptions dispensed per month, totaling 3.3 million prescriptions. For the most recent year, this extrapolates to a best-case scenario of 13.8% of patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction using sacubitril/valsartan, representing at most one-half of those eligible for sacubitril/valsartan use. During the most recent year, 48.7% of dispensed prescriptions were for the lowest strength (24/26 mg) and only 20.6% for the target strength (97/103 mg). A greater proportion of the target strength was used in younger patients (< 65years: 24.6%; ≥ 85: 11.1%; P<0.0001). Cardiologists prescribed 59.0% of all dispensed prescriptions, and noncardiologists showed a greater increase (7.5-fold vs 4.9-fold; P<0.0001) over time.

CONCLUSIONS

Recent use of sacubitril/valsartan has increased greatly in the United States; however, a substantial proportion of eligible patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction did not receive treatment, and only 1 in 5 prescriptions dispensed were for the target strength. Further exploration of barriers to the use of sacubitril/valsartan and dosing uptitration and their clinical implications warrant further evaluation.