Patient Perceptions and Familiarity With Medical Therapy for Heart Failure

Examining the Influence of Optimal Guideline-Directed Medical Therapy on Patient-Reported Outcomes in Adults With Heart Failure

BACKGROUND

Multidrug, guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) improves mortality and hospitalizations for heart failure (HF), but little is known about how optimization of multidrug GDMT influences patient-reported outcomes. Trials of single GDMT medications demonstrate improvements in patient-reported outcomes; however, the effect of the multidrug GDMT regimen on patient-reported outcomes is unclear.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study is to determine how multidrug optimization during a multidisciplinary, advanced practice provider HF clinic impacted patient-reported symptoms and quality of life in adults with HF.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study examined patient-reported outcomes at baseline and 12 weeks during a multidrug GDMT optimization clinic for HF. Outcomes were compared across time and male and female sex. Quality of life was measured with the EQ5D. Symptoms were measured using the PROMIS-29 and PROMIS-Dyspnea Severity score. Descriptive statistics describe sample characteristics. Paired and independent t tests were used for comparisons.

RESULTS

Of 301 adults with HF enrolled in a clinic, 101 completed patient-reported outcome measures at baseline and 12 weeks. Patients (predominantly White/Caucasian males; mean age, 59 years) reported significant improvement in the EQ5D domains of mobility and performance of usual activities, and PROMIS-29 subscales for physical function, fatigue, and ability to participate in social roles. Sex differences were noted for pain and depression, with females reporting improved pain and males reporting slightly less depression.

CONCLUSIONS

Multidisciplinary, advanced practice provider-led optimization clinics can promote optimization of multidrug GDMT that can improve patient-reported outcomes in adults with HF. Future studies are needed to comprehensively examine sex differences in patient-reported response to GDMT and patient-reported response to updated, "quadruple-therapy" GDMT recommendations.

Seated Pulmonary Artery Pressure Monitoring in Patients With Heart Failure: Results of the PROACTIVE-HF Trial

BACKGROUND

Monitoring supine pulmonary artery pressures to guide heart failure (HF) management has reduced HF hospitalizations in select patients.

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effect of managing seated mean pulmonary artery pressure (mPAP) with the Cordella Pulmonary Artery sensor on outcomes in patients with HF.

METHODS

Following GUIDE-HF (Hemodynamic-GUIDEd Management of Heart Failure Trial), with U.S. Food and Drug Administration input, PROACTIVE-HF (A Prospective, Multi-Center, Open Label, Single Arm Clinical Trial Evaluating the Safety and Efficacy of the Cordella Pulmonary Artery Sensor System in NYHA Class III Heart Failure Patients trial) was changed from a randomized to a single-arm, open label trial, conducted at 75 centers in the USA and Europe. Eligible patients had chronic HF with NYHA functional class III symptoms, irrespective of the ejection fraction, and recent HF hospitalization and/or elevated natriuretic peptides. The primary effectiveness endpoint at 6 months required the HF hospitalization or all-cause mortality rate to be lower than a performance goal of 0.43 events/patient, established from previous hemodynamic monitoring trials. Primary safety endpoints at 6 months were freedom from device- or system-related complications or pressure sensor failure.

RESULTS

Between February 7, 2020, and March 31, 2023, 456 patients were successfully implanted in modified intent-to-treat cohort. The 6-month event rate was 0.15 (95% CI: 0.12-0.20) which was significantly lower than performance goal (0.15 vs 0.43; P < 0.0001). Freedom from device- or system-related complications was 99.2% and freedom from sensor failure was 99.8% through 6 months.

CONCLUSIONS

Remote management of seated mPAP is safe and results in a low rate of HF hospitalizations and mortality. These results support the use of seated mPAP monitoring and extend the growing body of evidence that pulmonary artery pressure-guided management improves outcomes in heart failure. (Multi-Center, Open Label, Single Arm Clinical Trial Evaluating the Safety and Efficacy of the Cordella Pulmonary Artery Sensor System in NYHA Class III Heart Failure Patients trial [PROACTIVE-HF]; NCT04089059).

Efficacy, Safety and Mechanistic Impact of a Heart Failure Guideline-Directed Medical Therapy Clinic

BACKGROUND

Although clinical evidence supports rapid institution of guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) for heart failure (HF), in actual practice, there remain large gaps in adherence to guideline recommendations. Recent data support safety and efficacy of rapid GDMT implementation; however, rapid GDMT deployment within a general cardiology environment remains unexplored.

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of a GDMT clinic within a general cardiology practice relative to usual care, the impact on prescription of GDMT, HF symptoms, N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide concentrations and echocardiographic parameters of remodeling.

METHODS

Individuals with HF with an abnormal ejection fraction (<50%) referred to the GDMT clinic underwent rapid GDMT titration with close monitoring of clinical data. Rates of GDMT prescription were compared with a matched reference group. Patients underwent echocardiography at baseline and after GDMT clinic completion.

RESULTS

A total of 114 persons were treated in GDMT clinic. The mean age was 67.6 ± 14.6 years, and 32 (28%) were women. Among those referred, 100 (87.7%) had no contraindications for 4-drug GDMT. From baseline to clinic completion (median 15.8 weeks [Q1-Q3: 10.7-23.0 weeks]), patients without medication contraindications experienced significant increases in 4-drug GDMT use (from 21% to 88%; P < 0.001); of 4-drug GDMT recipients, 92% received angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor. GDMT clinic participants achieved higher medication doses than those in usual care, with greater achievement of ≥50% target dose of angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor (52% vs 8%), beta-blocker (78% vs 6.2%), mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist (98% vs 15.6%), and sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors (92% vs 6.2%). Target doses of all 4 drugs were reached in nearly 1 in 4 participants. HF symptoms improved (94% to 75% NYHA functional class II/III; P < 0.001) and N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide concentration decreased (median 587 to 534 ng/L; P = 0.03) despite loop diuretic reduction. Additionally, we observed an absolute 6% LVEF increase (from 37% [Q1-Q3: 31%-41%] to 43% [Q1-Q3: 38%-53%]; P < 0.001) and substantial decrease in moderate or severe mitral regurgitation. GDMT titration was well-tolerated.

CONCLUSIONS

Rapid GDMT implementation via an outpatient GDMT clinic was effective, safe, and associated with improvement in key clinical parameters. The more widespread role of GDMT clinics to improve HF care warrants further study.

Home-Time, Mortality, and Readmissions Among Patients Hospitalized With Heart Failure: A Baseline Prior to IMPLEMENT-HF

BACKGROUND

Home-time is an emerging, patient-centered outcome that represents the amount of time a patient spends alive and outside of health care facility settings, comprising of hospitals, skilled nursing facilities, and acute rehabilitation centers. Studies evaluating home-time in the context of heart failure are limited, and the impact of quality improvement interventions on home-time has not been studied.

METHODS

Medicare beneficiaries aged 65 years or older who were hospitalized for heart failure in the Get With the Guidelines-Heart Failure registry between 2019 and 2021 were included. Postdischarge home-time, mortality, and readmission rates at 30 days and 1 year were calculated with the goal of establishing baseline metrics before the initiation of IMPLEMENT-HF, a multicenter quality improvement program aimed at improving heart failure management.

RESULTS

Overall, 66 019 patients were included across 437 sites. Median 30-day and 1-year home-time were 30 (18-30) and 333 (139-362) days, respectively. Only 22.1% of patients experienced 100% home-time in the year after discharge. Older patients spent significantly less time at home, with a median 1-year home-time of 302 (86-359) compared with 345 (211-365) days in patients over 85 and those between 65 and 74 years old, respectively (P<0.001). Black patients also experienced the least amount of home-time with only 328 (151-360) days at 1-year follow-up. Rates of heart failure readmission and all-cause mortality 1-year post-discharge were high at 29.8% and 37.0%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

In this contemporary multicenter cohort, patients hospitalized with heart failure spent a median of 91.2% of their time in the year after discharge alive and at home, largely driven by high mortality rates. These findings serve as a preimplementation baseline for IMPLEMENT-HF, which will evaluate the impact of targeted heart failure initiatives on home-time and other clinical outcomes.

Use of Human-Centered Design Methodology to Develop a Digital Toolkit to Optimize Heart Failure Guideline-Directed Medical Therapy

BACKGROUND

Guideline-directed medical therapies (GDMTs) improve quality of life and health outcomes for patients with heart failure (HF). However, GDMT utilization is suboptimal among patients with HF.

OBJECTIVE

The aims of this study were to engage key stakeholders in semistructured, virtual human-centered design sessions to identify challenges in GDMT optimization posthospitalization and inform the development of a digital toolkit aimed at optimizing HF GDMTs.

METHODS

For the human-centered design sessions, we recruited ( a ) clinicians who care for patients with HF across 3 hospital systems, ( b ) patients with HF with reduced ejection fraction (ejection fraction ≤ 40%) discharged from the hospital within 30 days of enrollment, and ( c ) caregivers. All participants were 18 years or older, English speaking, with Internet access.

RESULTS

A total of 10 clinicians (median age, 37 years [interquartile range, 35-41], 12 years [interquartile range, 10-14] of experience caring for patients with HF, 80% women, 50% White, 50% nurse practitioners) and three patients and one caregiver (median age 57 years [IQR: 53-60], 75% men, 50% Black, 75% married) were included. Five themes emerged from the clinician sessions on challenges to GDMT optimization (eg, barriers to patient buy-in). Six themes on challenges (eg, managing medications), 4 themes on motivators (eg, regaining independence), and 3 themes on facilitators (eg, social support) to HF management arose from the patient and caregiver sessions.

CONCLUSIONS

The clinician, patient, and caregiver insights identified through human-centered design will inform a digital toolkit aimed at optimizing HF GDMTs, including a patient-facing smartphone application and clinician dashboard. This digital toolkit will be evaluated in a multicenter, clinical trial.

Advancing Guideline-Directed Medical Therapy in Heart Failure: Overcoming Challenges and Maximizing Benefits

The delayed titration of guideline-directed drug therapy (GDMT) is a complex event influenced by multiple factors that often result in poor prognosis for patients with heart failure (HF). Individualized adjustments in GDMT titration may be necessary based on patient characteristics, and every clinician is responsible for promptly initiating GDMT and titrating it appropriately within the patient's tolerance range. This review examines the current challenges in GDMT implementation and scrutinizes titration considerations within distinct subsets of HF patients, with the overarching goal of enhancing the adoption and effectiveness of GDMT. The authors also underscore the significance of establishing a novel management strategy that integrates cardiologists, nurse practitioners, pharmacists, and patients as a unified team that can contribute to the improved promotion and implementation of GDMT.

Drug development for major chronic health conditions-aligning with growing public health needs: Proceedings from a multistakeholder think tank

The global pharmaceutical industry portfolio is skewed towards cancer and rare diseases due to more predictable development pathways and financial incentives. In contrast, drug development for major chronic health conditions that are responsible for a large part of mortality and disability worldwide is stalled. To examine the processes of novel drug development for common chronic health conditions, a multistakeholder Think Tank meeting, including thought leaders from academia, clinical practice, non-profit healthcare organizations, the pharmaceutical industry, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), payors as well as investors, was convened in July 2022. Herein, we summarize the proceedings of this meeting, including an overview of the current state of drug development for chronic health conditions and key barriers that were identified. Six major action items were formulated to accelerate drug development for chronic diseases, with a focus on improving the efficiency of clinical trials and rapid implementation of evidence into clinical practice.

Qualitative Analysis of Patient Decisional Needs for Medications to Treat Heart Failure

BACKGROUND

The development of tools to support shared decision-making should be informed by patients' decisional needs and treatment preferences, which are largely unknown for heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) pharmacotherapy decisions. We aimed to identify patients' decisional needs when considering HFrEF medication options.

METHODS

This was a qualitative study using semi-structured interviews. We recruited patients with HFrEF from 2 Canadian ambulatory HF clinics and clinicians from Canadian HF guideline panels, HF clinics, and Canadian HF Society membership. We identified themes through inductive thematic analysis.

RESULTS

Participants included 15 patients and 12 clinicians. Six themes and associated subthemes emerged related to HFrEF pharmacotherapy decision-making: (1) patient decisional needs included lack of awareness of a choice or options, difficult decision timing and stage, information overload, and inadequate motivation, support and resources; (2) patients' decisional conflict varied substantially, driven by unclear trade-offs; (3) treatment attribute preferences-patients focused on both benefits and downsides of treatment, whereas clinicians centered discussion on benefits; (4) quality of life-patients' definition of quality of life depended on pre-HF activity, though most patients demonstrated adaptability in adjusting their daily activities to manage HF; (5) shared decision-making process-clinicians' described a process more akin to informed consent; (6) decision support-multimedia decision aids, virtual appointments, and primary-care comanagement emerged as potential enablers of shared decision-making.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with HFrEF have several decisional needs, which are consistent with those that may respond to decision aids. These findings can inform the development of HFrEF pharmacotherapy decision aids to address these decisional needs and facilitate shared decision-making.

Comparative Effectiveness of Psychotherapy vs Antidepressants for Depression in Heart Failure: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Importance

Heart failure (HF) affects more than 6 million adults in the US and more than 64 million adults worldwide, with 50% prevalence of depression. Patients and clinicians lack information on which interventions are more effective for depression in HF.

Objective

To compare the effectiveness of behavioral activation psychotherapy (BA) vs antidepressant medication management (MEDS) on patient-centered outcomes inpatients with HF and depression.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This pragmatic randomized comparative effectiveness trial was conducted from 2018 to 2022, including 1-year follow-up, at a not-for-profit academic health system serving more than 2 million people from diverse demographic, socioeconomic, cultural, and geographic backgrounds. Participant included inpatients and outpatients diagnosed with HF and depression, and data were analyzed as intention-to-treat. Data were analyzed from 2022 to 2023.

Interventions

BA is an evidence-based manualized treatment for depression, promoting engagement in personalized pleasurable activities selected by patients. MEDS involves the use of an evidence-based collaborative care model with care managers providing coordination with patients, psychiatrists, and primary care physicians to only administer medications.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary outcome was depressive symptom severity at 6 months, measured using the Patient Health Questionnaire 9-Item (PHQ-9). Secondary outcomes included physical and mental health-related quality of life (HRQOL), measured using the Short-Form 12-Item version 2 (SF-12); heart failure-specific HRQOL, measured using the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire; caregiver burden, measured with the Caregiver Burden Questionnaire for Heart Failure; emergency department visits; readmissions; days hospitalized; and mortality at 3, 6, and 12 months.

Results

A total of 416 patients (mean [SD] age, 60.71 [15.61] years; 243 [58.41%] male) were enrolled, with 208 patients randomized to BA and 208 patients randomized to MEDS. At baseline, mean (SD) PHQ-9 scores were 14.54 (3.45) in the BA group and 14.31 (3.60) in the MEDS group; both BA and MEDS recipients experienced nearly 50% reduction in depressive symptoms at 3, 6, and 12 months (eg, mean [SD] score at 12 months: BA, 7.62 (5.73); P < .001; MEDS, 7.98 (6.06); P < .001; between-group P = .55). There was no statistically significant difference between BA and MEDS in the primary outcome of PHQ-9 at 6 months (mean [SD] score, 7.53 [5.74] vs 8.09 [6.06]; P = .88). BA recipients, compared with MEDS recipients, experienced small improvement in physical HRQOL at 6 months (mean [SD] SF-12 physical score: 38.82 [11.09] vs 37.12 [10.99]; P = .04), had fewer ED visits (3 months: 38% [95% CI, 14%-55%] reduction; P = .005; 6 months: 30% [95% CI, 14%-40%] reduction; P = .008; 12 months: 27% [95% CI, 15%-38%] reduction; P = .001), and spent fewer days hospitalized (3 months: 17% [95% CI, 8%-25%] reduction; P = .002; 6 months: 19% [95% CI, 13%-25%] reduction; P = .005; 12 months: 36% [95% CI, 32%-40%] reduction; P = .001).

Conclusions and Relevance

In this comparative effectiveness trial of BA and MEDS in patients with HF experiencing depression, both treatments significantly reduced depressive symptoms by nearly 50% with no statistically significant differences between treatments. BA recipients experienced better physical HRQOL, fewer ED visits, and fewer days hospitalized. The study findings suggested that patients with HF could be given the choice between BA or MEDS to ameliorate depression.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03688100.

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.

Comparative Outcomes of Sacubitril/Valsartan Use After Hospitalization for Heart Failure Among Medicare Beneficiaries Naïve to Renin-Angiotensin System Inhibitors

Sacubitril/valsartan improves outcomes in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) compared with angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEis). However, data on postdischarge outcomes in renin-angiotensin system inhibitor (RASi)-naïve patients are limited. We included Medicare beneficiaries aged ≥65 years who were hospitalized for HFrEF in the Get With The Guidelines-Heart Failure registry between October 2015 and June 2019, had part D prescription coverage, and were not on RASi therapy during the 6 months before hospital admission. We examined the associations between sacubitril/valsartan prescription at hospital discharge and outcomes at 30 days and 1 year after discharge using overlap-weighted median regression and Cox proportional hazards models. The end points included "home time" (defined as days alive and out of any health care institution), mortality, and rehospitalization. Among 3,572 patients with HFrEF and who are naïve to RASi therapy, at discharge, 290 (8.1%) were prescribed sacubitril/valsartan and 1,390 (38.9%) were prescribed ACEis and angiotensin receptor blockers. After adjusting for baseline characteristics, patients prescribed sacubitril/valsartan had a longer median home time (parameter estimate 27.0 days, 95% confidence interval [CI] 12.40 to 41.6, p <0.001) and lower all-cause mortality (hazard ratio [HR] 0.74, 95% CI 0.61 to 0.91, p = 0.004) at 1 year than patients not prescribed sacubitril/valsartan. The prescription of sacubitril/valsartan was not significantly associated with all-cause rehospitalization (HR 0.87, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.03, p = 0.10) or heart failure rehospitalization (HR 0.87, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.07, p = 0.19). In a restricted comparison of patients discharged on sacubitril/valsartan versus ACEis and angiotensin receptor blockers, there were no significant differences in the outcomes. In conclusion, in this contemporary population of RASi-naïve patients with HFrEF from routine clinical practice, compared with not initiating, the initiation of sacubitril/valsartan at discharge was associated with longer home time and improvements in overall survival.

Hospital at Home as a Treatment Strategy for Worsening Heart Failure

Hospital at home (HaH) is an innovative care model that may be particularly suited for heart failure (HF). Outpatient visits and inpatient care have been the 2 traditional settings for HF care, yet may not match the social and medical needs of patients at all times. Alternative models such as HaH may represent an effective and patient-centered option for select patients with worsening HF. To date, limited research in HF and other disease states has supported HaH as being safe and lower cost than traditional inpatient admission. Supporting HaH are new payment structures, such as Medicare's Acute Hospital Care at Home waiver program. In combination with outpatient visits, outpatient intravenous diuretic clinics, inpatient care, and cardiac intensive care, HaH could be a core component of a comprehensive care model with the potential to match resource utilization with the needs of patients across the spectrum of HF severity, and improve patient outcomes.

Implementing Guideline-Directed Medical Therapy for Heart Failure: JACC Focus Seminar 1/3

Despite the availability of lifesaving guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), there remain major gaps in utilization of these therapies among eligible patients. Simultaneous with these gaps in quality of care, HFrEF continues as a leading cause of death and hospitalization with associated clinical risk far exceeding most other cardiovascular and noncardiovascular conditions. In the context of this urgent need to improve provision of appropriate therapy, multiple lines of evidence support various implementation strategies. Such strategies include in-hospital initiation of GDMT, simultaneous or rapid sequence initiation of GDMT, participation in quality improvement registries to assess site performance and provide feedback, multidisciplinary titration clinics, virtual consult teams, reduction of cost-sharing, remote algorithm-based medication optimization, electronic health record-based interventions, and direct-to-patient educational initiatives. This review describes and contextualizes the evidence surrounding each of these potential avenues for improving use of foundational GDMTs for patients with HFrEF.

Patient Perspectives on Digital Interventions to Manage Heart Failure Medications: The VITAL-HF Pilot

Use of guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) for treatment of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) remains unacceptably low. The purpose of this study was to determine whether a digital health tool can augment GDMT for patients with HFrEF. Participants ≥ 18 years old with symptomatic HFrEF (left ventricular ejection fraction ≤ 40%) and with access to a mobile phone with internet were included. Participants were given a blood pressure cuff, instructed in its use, and given regular symptom surveys via cell-phone web-link. Data were transmitted to the Story Health web-based platform, and automated alerts were triggered based on pre-specified vital sign and laboratory data. Health coaches assisted patients with medication education, pharmacy access, and lab access through text messages and phone calls. GDMT titration plans were individually created in the digital platform by local clinicians based on entry vitals and labs. Twelve participants enrolled and completed the study. The median age and LVEF were 52.5 years (IQR, 46.5-63.5) and 25% (IQR, 22.5-35.5), respectively. There were 10 GDMT initiations, 52 up-titrations, and 13 down-titrations. Five participants engaged in focus-group interviews following study completion to understand first-hand perspectives regarding the use of digital tools to manage GDMT. Participants expressed comfort knowing that there were clinicians regularly reviewing their data. This alleviated concerns of uncertainty in daily living, led to an increased feeling of security, and empowered patients to understand decision-making regarding GDMT. Frequent medication changes, and the associated financial impact, were common concerns. Remote titration of GDMT for HFrEF is feasible and appears to be a patient-centered approach to care.

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.

Improving implementation of evidence-based therapies for heart failure

Treatment options for patients with heart failure have improved rapidly over the last few decades. Data from large scale clinical trials demonstrate that medical and device therapies can improve quality of life, reduce hospitalizations for acute heart failure, and reduce mortality. However, the use of many of these therapies in routine practice is remarkably low. There are many reasons for suboptimal implementation of evidence-based therapies for heart failure, and we believe addressing the large gap between what can be accomplished in clinical trials versus routine practice is a critical and urgent public health issue. In this review, we outline reasons for this implementation gap and review recent studies attempting to address this issue. We also provide recommendations for future interventions and areas of clinical investigation to improve implementation for patients with heart failure.

[Decompensated heart failure with reduced ejection fraction: overcoming barriers to improve prognosis in the "vulnerable" period after discharge]

Frequency of hospitalizations for decompensated heart failure (HF) and associated costs are steadily increasing worldwide. An episode of HF is a risk marker, reflects a change in the course of disease, a high probability of adverse events, and requirement for using all options to improve the prognosis. This article discusses barriers and ways to overcome them in managing HF patients with low ejection fraction. An evidence-based, disease-modifying therapy exists for this HF phenotype. Administration of the therapy along with additional, novel drugs that improve outcomes, and organization of medical care are essential during the "vulnerable period" after discharge from the hospital.

Predictors of HPV vaccination in the southern US: A survey of caregivers from 13 states

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Despite a high burden of human papillomavirus (HPV)-attributable cancers, the southern US lags other regions in HPV vaccination coverage. This study sought to characterize and contextualize predictors of HPV vaccination in the southern US.

METHODS

From December 2019 - January 2020, parents of adolescents (ages 9-17 years) living in thirteen southern US states were recruited from a nationally-representative online survey panel and completed a cross-sectional survey. The primary study outcome was initiation of HPV vaccination.

RESULTS

Of 1105 parents who responded to the survey, most were ≥35 years of age and of female gender. HPV vaccination initiation was reported only among 37.3% of adolescents and was highest at age 12. Cumulative HPV vaccination coverage was highest at age 15 (60%) but lower than coverage for tetanus-diphtheria-acellular pertussis (Tdap, 79.3%) and Meningococcal vaccines (MenACWY, 67.3%). Provider recommendation was strongly associated with higher odds of HPV vaccination (aOR: 49.9, 95 %CI: 23.1-107.5). In alternative predictive models, home/online (vs. public) schooling and parents' working status were associated with lower odds of vaccination; health care visits in the past 12 months and shorter travel times to adolescents' usual health care provider were associated with greater odds of vaccination.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings suggest missed opportunities for HPV vaccination in the southern US and support strengthening provider recommendation for on-time initiation of HPV vaccination among adolescents. Other strategies to increase HPV vaccinations may include encouraging co-administration with other adolescent vaccines, increasing vaccine access, and promoting vaccinations for home/online-school students.

Identifying patients at increased risk for poor outcomes from heart failure with reduced ejection fraction: the PROMPT-HF risk model

Aims

We aimed to develop a risk prediction tool that incorporated both clinical events and worsening health status for patients with heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). Identifying patients with HFrEF at increased risk of a poor outcome may enable proactive interventions that improve outcomes.

Methods and results

We used data from a longitudinal HF registry, CHAMP‐HF, to develop a risk prediction tool for poor outcomes over the next 6 months. A poor outcome was defined as death, an HF hospitalization, or a ≥20‐point decrease (or decrease below 25) in 12‐item Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ‐12) overall summary score. Among 4546 patients in CHAMP‐HF, 1066 (23%) experienced a poor outcome within 6 months (1.3% death, 11% HF hospitalization, and 11% change in KCCQ‐12). The model demonstrated moderate discrimination (c‐index = 0.65) and excellent calibration with observed data. The following variables were associated with a poor outcome: age, race, education, New York Heart Association class, baseline KCCQ‐12, atrial fibrillation, coronary disease, diabetes, chronic kidney disease, smoking, prior HF hospitalization, and systolic blood pressure. We also created a simplified model with a 0–10 score using six variables (New York Heart Association class, KCCQ‐12, coronary disease, chronic kidney disease, prior HF hospitalization, and systolic blood pressure) with similar discrimination (c‐index = 0.63). Patients scoring 0–3 were considered low risk (event rate <20%), 4–6 were considered intermediate risk (event rate 20–40%), and 7–10 were considered high risk (event rate >40%).

Conclusions

The PROMPT‐HF risk model can identify outpatients with HFrEF at increased risk of poor outcomes, including clinical events and health status deterioration. With further validation, this model may help inform therapeutic decision making.

The Impact of Adverse Events on Functional Capacity and Quality of Life After HeartWare Ventricular Assist Device Implantation

Left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) improve quality of life (QoL) and functional capacity (FC) for patients with advanced heart failure. The association between adverse events (AEs) and changes in QoL and FC are unknown. Patients treated with the HeartWare ventricular assist device (HVAD) with paired 6-minute walk distance (6MWD, n = 263) and Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaires (KCCQ, n = 272) at baseline and 24 months in the ENDURANCE and ENDURANCE Supplemental Trial databases were included. Patients were stratified based upon occurrence of clinically significant AEs during the first 24 months of support and analyzed for the mean change in 6MWD and KCCQ. The impact of AE frequency on change in 6MWD and KCCQ from baseline to 24 months was evaluated. Of the AEs examined, only sepsis was associated with an improvement in 6MWD (109 m vs. 16 m, p = 0.002). Patients without improvement in 6MWD test from baseline to 24 months had significantly more AEs than those with FC improvement (p = 0.0002). Adverse events did not affect the KCCQ overall summary score. In this analysis, patients with fewer AEs had greater improvement in FC during the 24-month follow up. The frequency of AEs did not have a significant impact on QoL after LVAD implantation.

Treatment patterns and clinical outcomes among patients <65 years with a worsening heart failure event

AIMS

Data regarding patients with chronic heart failure (HF) and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) following a worsening HF event (WHFE) are largely driven by findings from elderly patients. Younger patients are not well studied. The aim of this study was to evaluate treatment patterns and clinical outcomes in commercially insured chronic HFrEF patients <65 years old during 1-year periods before and after a WHFE.

METHODS AND RESULTS

A retrospective claims analysis was performed using the IBM® MarketScan® Commercial Database on HFrEF patients aged <65 years during the year before and after a WHFE, defined as HF hospitalization or outpatient intravenous diuretic use. Treatment patterns, rehospitalizations, health care resource utilization, and costs were assessed. A total of 4460 HFrEF patients with WHFE were included. Guideline-recommended HF therapy was initially underutilized, increased pre-WHFE, and peaked 0-3 months post-WHFE. The proportions of patients using dual and triple therapy were 31.5% and 9.8% pre-WHFE, 41.5% and 17.4% 0-3 months post-WHFE, and 34.6% and 13.9% 10-12 months post-WHFE, respectively. Within 30 and 90 days after a WHFE, 12% and 23% of patients had HF-related and 16% and 30% had all-cause rehospitalizations, respectively. HF-related and all-cause hospitalizations and outpatient visits peaked 0-3 months post-WHFE, whereas emergency department visits peaked 0-3 months pre-WHFE.

CONCLUSIONS

Use of HF medications increased pre-WHFE but decreased post-WHFE, despite recurrent hospitalizations. These findings suggest that age and insurance status may not totally explain the suboptimal treatment of HFrEF patients before and after a WHFE. Reasons for these trends need further study.

Factors associated with non-use and sub-target dosing of medical therapy for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction

In clinical practice, many patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) are either not prescribed guideline-directed medical therapies for which they are eligible or are prescribed therapies at sub-target doses. The objective of this study was to examine the factors associated with not receiving guideline-directed medical therapies or receiving sub-target doses. We conducted a systematic review of articles published between January 2014 and May 2019 that described dosing patterns and factors associated with non-use and sub-target dosing of HFrEF therapies in clinical practice. Thirty-seven studies were included. The percentages of patients reaching target doses for angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors/angiotensin receptor blockers, sacubitril/valsartan, beta-blockers, and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists ranged from 4 to 55%, 11 to 87%, 4 to 60%, and 22 to 80%, respectively. Older age and worsening renal function were associated with non-use and sub-target dosing, lower body mass index was commonly associated with non-use, and hyperkalemia and hypotension were commonly associated with sub-target dosing. In conclusion, several common patient characteristics are associated with non-use and sub-target dosing of medical therapy for HFrEF. These high-risk groups are in particular need of further studies to improve implementation of available medications and to define the role of novel therapies.

Parental Hesitancy About Routine Childhood and Influenza Vaccinations: A National Survey

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

The World Health Organization has designated vaccine hesitancy as 1 of the 10 leading threats to global health, yet there is limited current national data on prevalence of hesitancy among US parents. Among a nationally representative sample of US parents, we aimed to (1) assess and compare prevalence of hesitancy and factors driving hesitancy for routine childhood and influenza vaccination and (2) examine associations between sociodemographic characteristics and hesitancy for routine childhood or influenza vaccination.

METHODS

In February 2019, we surveyed families with children using the largest online panel generating representative US samples. After weighting, we assessed hesitancy using a modified 5-point Vaccine Hesitancy Scale and labeled parents as hesitant if they scored >3.

RESULTS

A total of 2176 of 4445 parents sampled completed the survey (response rate 49%). Hesitancy prevalence was 6.1% for routine childhood and 25.8% for influenza vaccines; 12% strongly and 27% somewhat agreed they had concerns about serious side effects of both routine childhood and influenza vaccines. A total of 70% strongly agreed that routine childhood vaccines are effective versus 26% for influenza vaccine (P < .001). In multivariable models, an educational level lower than a bachelor's degree and household income <400% of the federal poverty level predicted hesitancy about both routine childhood and influenza vaccines.

CONCLUSIONS

Almost 1 in 15 US parents are hesitant about routine childhood vaccines, whereas >1 in 4 are hesitant about influenza vaccine. Furthermore, 1 in 8 parents are concerned about vaccine safety for both routine childhood and influenza vaccines, and only 1 in 4 believe influenza vaccine is effective. Vaccine hesitancy, particularly for influenza vaccine, is prevalent in the United States.