Patient factors associated with titration of medical therapy in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction: data from the QUALIFY international registry

Estimating the clinical and budgetary impact of using angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor as first line therapy in patients with HFrEF

AIMS

Recent updates of international treatment guidelines for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) differ regarding the use of angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI) as first-line treatment. The American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology/Heart Failure Society of America (AHA/ACC/HFSA) 2022 guidelines gives ARNI a Class IA recommendation for HFrEF patients while the European Society of Cardiology's guidelines are less clear when ARNI could be considered as first line treatment option in de novo patients. This study aimed to model the clinical and budgetary outcomes of implementing these guidelines, comparing conservative ARNI prescription patterns with less conservative in Sweden and in the United Kingdom.

METHODS AND RESULTS

A health economic model was developed to compare different treatment patterns for HFrEF. Incident cohorts were included on an annual basis and followed over 10 years. The model included treatment specific all-cause mortality and hospitalization rates, as well as drug acquisition, monitoring, and hospitalization costs. Increasing the use of ARNI could lead to about 7000-12 300 life years gained and 2600-4600 hospitalizations prevented in Sweden. These health benefits come with an additional cost of 112-195 million euros. Similar results were estimated for the United Kingdom, albeit on a larger population.

CONCLUSIONS

Increasing the proportion of patients receiving ARNI instead of angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors as first-line treatment of HFrEF will lead to a considerable number of additional life years gained and prevented hospitalizations but with additional cost in terms of health care expenditure in Sweden and in the United Kingdom.

Clinician challenges to evidence-based prescribing for heart failure and reduced ejection fraction: A qualitative evaluation

BACKGROUND

Reasons for suboptimal prescribing for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) have been identified, but it is unclear if they remain relevant with recent advances in healthcare delivery and technologies. This study aimed to identify and understand current clinician-perceived challenges to prescribing guideline-directed HFrEF medications.

METHODS

We conducted content analysis methodology, including interviews and member-checking focus groups with primary care and cardiology clinicians. Interview guides were informed by the Cabana Framework.

RESULTS

We conducted interviews with 33 clinicians (13 cardiology specialists, 22 physicians) and member checking with 10 of these. We identified four levels of challenges from the clinician perspective. Clinician level challenges included misconceptions about guideline recommendations, clinician assumptions (e.g., drug cost or affordability), and clinical inertia. Patient-clinician level challenges included misalignment of priorities and insufficient communication. Clinician-clinician level challenges were primarily between generalists and specialists, including lack of role clarity, competing priorities of providing focused versus holistic care, and contrasting confidence regarding safety of newer drugs. Policy and system/organisation level challenges included insufficient access to timely/reliable patient data, and unintended care gaps for medications without financially incentivized metrics.

CONCLUSION

This study presents current challenges faced by cardiology and primary care which can be used to strategically design interventions to improve guideline-directed care for HFrEF. The findings support the persistence of many challenges and also sheds light on new challenges. New challenges identified include conflicting perspectives between generalists and specialists, hesitancy to prescribe newer medications due to safety concerns, and unintended consequences related to value-based reimbursement metrics for select medications.

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.

Associations between baseline heart rate and blood pressure and time to events in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction patients: Data from the QUALIFY international registry

AIMS

A high resting heart rate (RHR) and low systolic blood pressure (SBP) are a risk factor and a risk indicator, respectively, for poor heart failure (HF) outcomes. This analysis evaluated the associations between baseline RHR and SBP with outcomes and treatment patterns in patients with HF and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) in the QUALIFY (QUality of Adherence to guideline recommendations for LIFe-saving treatment in heart failure surveY) international registry.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Between September 2013 and December 2014, 7317 HFrEF patients with a previous HF hospitalization within 1-15 months were enrolled in the QUALIFY registry. Complete follow-up data were available for 5138 patients. The relationships between RHR and SBP and outcomes were assessed using a Cox proportional hazards model and were analysed according to baseline values as high RHR (H-RHR) ≥75 bpm versus low RHR (L-RHR) <75 bpm and high SBP (H-SBP) ≥110 mmHg versus low SBP (L-SBP) <110 mmHg and analysed according to each of the following four phenotypes: H-RHR/L-SBP, L-RHR/L-SBP, H-RHR/H-SBP and L-RHR/H-SBP (reference group). Compared to the reference group, H-RHR/L-SBP was associated with the worst outcomes for the combined primary endpoint of cardiovascular death and HF hospitalization (hazard ratio [HR] 1.83, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.51-2.21, p < 0.001), cardiovascular death (HR 2.70, 95% CI 1.69-4.33, p < 0.001), and HF hospitalization (HR 1.62, 95% CI 1.30-2.01, p < 0.001). Low-risk patients with L-RHR/H-SBP achieved more frequently ≥50% of target doses of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) and beta-blockers (BBs) than the other groups. However, 48% and 46% of low-risk patients were not well treated with ACEIs and BBs, respectively (≤50% of target dose or no treatment).

CONCLUSION

In patients with HFrEF and recent hospitalization, elevated RHR and lower SBP identify patients at increased risk for cardiovascular endpoints. While SBP and RHR are often recognized as barriers that deter physicians from treating with high doses of recommended drugs, they are not the only reason leaving many patients suboptimally treated.

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.

A machine learning evaluation of patient characteristics associated with prescribing of guideline-directed medical therapy for heart failure

Introduction/background

Patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) are consistently underprescribed guideline-directed medications. Although many barriers to prescribing are known, identification of these barriers has relied on traditional a priori hypotheses or qualitative methods. Machine learning can overcome many limitations of traditional methods to capture complex relationships in data and lead to a more comprehensive understanding of the underpinnings driving underprescribing. Here, we used machine learning methods and routinely available electronic health record data to identify predictors of prescribing.

Methods

We evaluated the predictive performance of machine learning algorithms to predict prescription of four types of medications for adults with HFrEF: angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor/angiotensin receptor blocker (ACE/ARB), angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI), evidence-based beta blocker (BB), or mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist (MRA). The models with the best predictive performance were used to identify the top 20 characteristics associated with prescribing each medication type. Shapley values were used to provide insight into the importance and direction of the predictor relationships with medication prescribing.

Results

For 3,832 patients meeting the inclusion criteria, 70% were prescribed an ACE/ARB, 8% an ARNI, 75% a BB, and 40% an MRA. The best-predicting model for each medication type was a random forest (area under the curve: 0.788-0.821; Brier score: 0.063-0.185). Across all medications, top predictors of prescribing included prescription of other evidence-based medications and younger age. Unique to prescribing an ARNI, the top predictors included lack of diagnoses of chronic kidney disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, or hypotension, as well as being in a relationship, nontobacco use, and alcohol use.

Discussion/conclusions

We identified multiple predictors of prescribing for HFrEF medications that are being used to strategically design interventions to address barriers to prescribing and to inform further investigations. The machine learning approach used in this study to identify predictors of suboptimal prescribing can also be used by other health systems to identify and address locally relevant gaps and solutions to prescribing.

Impact of Transcatheter Edge-to-Edge Mitral Valve Repair on Guideline-Directed Medical Therapy Uptitration

BACKGROUND

Guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) optimization is mandatory before transcatheter edge-to-edge mitral valve repair (M-TEER) in patients with secondary mitral regurgitation (SMR) and heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). However, the effect of M-TEER on GDMT is unknown.

OBJECTIVES

The authors sought to evaluate frequency, prognostic implications and predictors of GDMT uptitration after M-TEER in patients with SMR and HFrEF.

METHODS

This is a retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data from the EuroSMR Registry. The primary events were all-cause death and the composite of all-cause death or HF hospitalization.

RESULTS

Among the 1,641 EuroSMR patients, 810 had full datasets regarding GDMT and were included in this study. GDMT uptitration occurred in 307 patients (38%) after M-TEER. Proportion of patients receiving angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors/angiotensin receptor blockers/angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitors, beta-blockers, and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists was 78%, 89%, and 62% before M-TEER and 84%, 91%, and 66% 6 months after M-TEER (all P < 0.001). Patients with GDMT uptitration had a lower risk of all-cause death (adjusted HR: 0.62; 95% CI: 0.41-0.93; P = 0.020) and of all-cause death or HF hospitalization (adjusted HR: 0.54; 95% CI: 0.38-0.76; P < 0.001) compared with those without. Degree of MR reduction between baseline and 6-month follow-up was an independent predictor of GDMT uptitration after M-TEER (adjusted OR: 1.71; 95% CI: 1.08-2.71; P = 0.022).

CONCLUSIONS

GDMT uptitration after M-TEER occurred in a considerable proportion of patients with SMR and HFrEF and is independently associated with lower rates for mortality and HF hospitalizations. A greater decrease in MR was associated with increased likelihood for GDMT uptitration.

Guideline-directed medical therapy is similarly effective in heart failure with mildly reduced ejection fraction

AIMS

Current guidelines recommend that disease-modifying pharmacological therapies may be considered for patients who have heart failure with mildly reduced ejection fraction (HFmrEF). We aimed to describe the characteristics, outcomes, provision of pharmacological therapies and dose-related associations with mortality risk in HFmrEF.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We explored data from two prospective observational studies, which permitted the examination of the effects of pharmacological therapies across a broad spectrum of left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). The combined dataset consisted of 2388 unique patients, with a mean age of 73.7 ± 13.2 years of whom 1525 (63.9%) were male. LVEF ranged from 5 to 71% (mean 37.2 ± 12.8%) and 1504 (63.0%) were categorised as having reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), 421 (17.6%) as HFmrEF and 463 (19.4%) as preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). Patients with HFmrEF more closely resembled HFrEF than HFpEF. Adjusted all-cause mortality risk was lower in HFmrEF (hazard ratio [HR] 0.86 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.74-0.99); p = 0.040) and in HFpEF (HR 0.61 (95% CI 0.52-0.71); p < 0.001) compared to HFrEF. Adjusted all-cause mortality risk was lower in patients with HFrEF and HFmrEF who received the highest doses of beta-blockers or renin-angiotensin inhibitors. These associations were not evident in HFpEF. Once adjusted for relevant confounders, each mg equivalent of bisoprolol (HR 0.95 [95% CI 0.91-1.00]; p = 0.047) and ramipril (HR 0.95 [95%CI 0.90-1.00]; p = 0.044) was associated with incremental reductions in mortality risk in patients with HFmrEF.

CONCLUSIONS

Pharmacological therapies were associated with lower mortality risk in HFmrEF, supporting guideline recommendations which extend the indications of these agents to all patients with LVEF < 50%. HFmrEF more closely resembles HFrEF in terms of clinical characteristics and outcomes. Pharmacological therapies are associated with lower mortality risk in HFmrEF and HFrEF, but not in HFpEF.

Efficacy of new medical therapies in patients with heart failure, reduced ejection fraction, and chronic kidney disease already receiving neurohormonal inhibitors: a network meta-analysis

AIMS

We assessed the efficacy of the drugs developed after neurohormonal inhibition (NEUi) in patients with heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and concomitant chronic kidney disease (CKD).

METHODS AND RESULTS

The literature was systematically searched for phase 3 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving ≥90% patients with left ventricular ejection fraction <45%, of whom <30% were acutely decompensated, and with published information about the subgroup of estimated glomerular filtration rate <60 mL/min/1.73 m2. Six RCTs were included in a study-level network meta-analysis evaluating the effect of NEUi, ivabradine, angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI), sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors (SGLT2i), vericiguat, and omecamtiv mecarbil (OM) on a composite outcome of cardiovascular death or hospitalization for HF. In a fixed-effects model, SGLT2i [hazard ratio (HR) 0.78, 95% credible interval (CrI) 0.69-0.89], ARNI (HR 0.79, 95% CrI 0.69-0.90), and ivabradine (HR 0.82, 95% CrI 0.69-0.98) decreased the risk of the composite outcome vs. NEUi, whereas OM did not (HR 0.98, 95% CrI 0.89-1.10). A trend for improved outcome was also found for vericiguat (HR 0.90, 95% CrI 0.80-1.00). In indirect comparisons, both SLGT2i (HR 0.80, 95% CrI 0.68-0.94) and ARNI (HR 0.80, 95% CrI 0.68-0.95) reduced the risk vs. OM; furthermore, there was a trend for a greater benefit of SGLT2i vs. vericiguat (HR 0.88, 95% CrI 0.73-1.00) and ivabradine vs. OM (HR 0.84, 95% CrI 0.68-1.00). Results were comparable in a random-effects model and in sensitivity analyses. Surface under the cumulative ranking area scores were 81.8%, 80.8%, 68.9%, 44.2%, 16.6%, and 7.8% for SGLT2i, ARNI, ivabradine, vericiguat, OM, and NEUi, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Expanding pharmacotherapy beyond NEUi improves outcomes in HFrEF with CKD.

The Role of Structured Telephone Support in the Development of Self-care in Comorbid Patients with Chronic Heart Failure

Aim. To research the effect of structured telephone support on the self-care in comorbid patients with chronic heart failure (CHF) over 12 months of follow-up.Material and methods. Self-care was assessed using The Self-care of Heart Failure Index (SCHFI, version 6.2) in 130 patients with CHF II-IV functional class according to NYHA, mean age 63.2±9.6 years old, left ventricular ejection fraction averaged 47.1±11.6%, men (70.8%) and patients with ischemic etiology of CHF (78.5%) prevailed. After fixed simple randomization by the envelope method, the patients were divided into groups of standard (control) and active outpatient follow-up (additional telephone contacts or correspondence using available messengers – structured telephone support). All patients received CHF therapy in accordance with the current Russian clinical guidelines. The indicators evaluated initially and after 12 months of follow-up.Results. Over 12 months, total SCHFI scores increased significantly by 62% in the telephone support group and by 34.7% in the comparison group (p<0.001). A significant maximum improvement in the score was noted in section B of this scale (self-care management) in patients in the telephone support group (by 100%; p<0.001).There was an improvement in the clinical condition and an increase in exercise tolerance in both groups, somewhat more in the telephone support group (p>0.05).However, there were no statistically significant differences in the intake of the main groups of drugs and the achievement of their target dosages (p>0.05).Conclusion. The study found a positive effect of structured telephone support on the self-care and the clinical condition of patients with CHF, although it did not reach the maximum possible acceptable values. Further studies are need to assess the self-care in patients with CHF.

Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitor Dose Optimization and Its Associated Factors at Felege Hiwot Comprehensive Specialized Hospital, Bahir Dar, Ethiopia

INTRODUCTION

Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors dose optimizations (ACEIs) are essential to boost the treatment outcome in heart failure patients (HF) with reduced ejection fraction. Therefore, the main purpose of this study was to evaluate dose optimization and associated factors of ACEIs among HF patients.

METHOD

An institutional-based retrospective study was conducted on 256 study participants from May 20 to August 30, 2020 in ambulatory care clinic at Felege Hiwot Comprehensive Specialized Hospital. A systematic random sampling method was carried out to select study participants. Data were collected from the patient interview and the review of medical records. Epidata and SPSS version 22 were used for data entry and analysis. A bivariate logistic regression analysis was done to determine the association of independent variables with a dose optimization of ACEIs.

RESULTS

The mean age of the subjects in the study was 53.82 years with a standard deviation (SD) of 17.067 and more than half of (60.9%) the patients were unable to read and write. Among participants who were receiving ACEIs, only 30.6% were taking an optimal dose. Age ≥65 years (AOR 5.04 (2.81-12.56)) and a dose of furosemide ≥40 mg (AOR, 2.62 (1.28-16.74)) were significantly associated with the suboptimal dose of ACEIs.

CONCLUSION

Only one-third of patients received the optimum dose of ACEIs. Older age and dose of furosemide greater >40 mg were significantly associated with suboptimal dosing of ACEIs. Therefore, more attention must be given to older patients with HF in order to optimize the dose of ACEIs administered.

Association between dosing and combination use of medications and outcomes in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction: data from the Swedish Heart Failure Registry

AIMS

To assess the association between combination, dose and use of current guideline-recommended target doses (TD) of renin-angiotensin system inhibitors (RASi), angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitors (ARNi) and β-blockers, and outcomes in a large and unselected contemporary cohort of patients with heart failure (HF) and reduced ejection fraction.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Overall, 17 809 outpatients registered in the Swedish Heart Failure Registry (SwedeHF) from May 2000 to December 2018, with ejection fraction <40% and duration of HF ≥90 days were selected. Primary outcome was a composite of time to cardiovascular death and first HF hospitalization. Compared with no use of RASi or ARNi, the adjusted hazard ratio (HR) (95% confidence interval [CI]) was 0.83 (0.76-0.91) with <50% of TD, 0.78 (0.71-0.86) with 50%-99%, and 0.73 (0.67-0.80) with ≥100% of TD. Compared with no use of β-blockers, the adjusted HR (95% CI) was 0.86 (0.76-0.91), 0.81 (0.74-0.89) and 0.74 (0.68-0.82) with <50%, 50%-99% and ≥100% of TD, respectively. Patients receiving both an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor (ACEi)/angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB)/ARNi and a β-blocker at 50%-99% of TD had a lower adjusted risk of the primary outcome compared with patients only receiving one drug, i.e. ACEi/ARB/ARNi or β-blocker, even if this was at ≥100% of TD.

CONCLUSION

Heart failure with reduced ejection fraction patients using higher doses of RASi or ARNi and β-blockers had lower risk of cardiovascular death or HF hospitalization. Use of two drug classes at 50%-99% of TD dose was associated with lower risk than one drug class at 100% of TD.

Changes in heart failure management and long-term mortality over 10 years: observational study

OBJECTIVES

To estimate the long-term survival of two cohorts of people diagnosed with heart failure 10 years apart and to assess differences in patient characteristics, clinical guideline compliance and survival by diagnosis setting.

METHODS

Data for patients aged 18 and over with a new diagnosis of heart failure in the Clinical Practice Research Datalink in 2001-2002 (5966 patients in 156 practices) and 2011-2012 (12 827 patients in 331 practices). Survival rates since diagnosis were described using Kaplan-Meier plots. Compliance with national guidelines was summarised.

RESULTS

2011/2012 patients were older than those diagnosed a decade before, with lower blood pressure and cholesterol but more comorbidity and healthcare contacts. For those diagnosed in 2001/2002, the 5-year survival was 40.0% (40.2% in the 2011/2012 cohort), 10-year survival was 20.8%, and 15-year survival 11.1%. Improvement in survival between the two time periods was seen only in those diagnosed in primary care (5-year survival 46.0% vs 57.4%, compared with 33.9% and 32.6% for hospital-diagnosed patients).Beta-blocker use rose from 24.3% to 39.1%; renin-angiotensin system blockers rose from 31.8% to 54.3% (both p<0.001). There was little change for loop diuretics and none for thiazide diuretics. For the 9963 patients with symptoms recorded by their general practitioner before diagnosis, brain natriuretic peptide (BNP) testing was low, but echocardiogram use rose from 8.3% to 19.3%, and specialist referral rose from 7.2% to 24.6% (all p<0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

The 10 years saw some long-term survival gains but only modest improvement in national clinical guideline compliance, from a low baseline, despite the introduction of national initiatives.

Current Practices in Treating Cardiomyopathy and Heart Failure in Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy (DMD): Understanding Care Practices in Order to Optimize DMD Heart Failure Through ACTION

Cardiac disease has emerged as a leading cause of mortality in Duchenne muscular dystrophy in the current era. This survey sought to identify the diagnostic and therapeutic approach to DMD among pediatric cardiologists in Advanced Cardiac Therapies Improving Outcomes Network. Pediatric cardiology providers within ACTION (a multi-center pediatric heart failure learning network) were surveyed regarding their approaches to cardiac care in DMD. Thirty-one providers from 23 centers responded. Cardiac MRI and Holter monitoring are routinely obtained, but the frequency of use and indications for ordering these tests varied widely. Angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor and aldosterone antagonist are generally initiated prior to onset of systolic dysfunction, while the indications for initiating beta-blocker therapy vary more widely. Seventeen (55%) providers report their center has placed an implantable cardioverter defibrillator in at least 1 DMD patient, while 11 providers (35%) would not place an ICD for primary prevention in a DMD patient. Twenty-three providers (74%) would consider placement of a ventricular assist device (VAD) as destination therapy (n = 23, 74%) and three providers (10%) would consider a VAD only as bridge to transplant. Five providers (16%) would not consider VAD at their institution. Cardiac diagnostic and therapeutic approaches vary among ACTION centers, with notable variation present regarding the use of advanced therapies (ICD and VAD). The network is currently working to harmonize medical practices and optimize clinical care in an era of rapidly evolving outcomes and cardiac/skeletal muscle therapies.

Optimization of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction prognosis-modifying drugs: A 2021 heart failure expert consensus paper

Heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) is associated with high rates of hospitalization and death. It also has a negative impact on patients' functional capacity and quality of life, as well as on healthcare costs. In recent years, new HFrEF prognosis-modifying drugs have emerged, leading to intense debate within the international scientific community toward a paradigm shift for the management of HFrEF. In this article, we report the contribution of a Portuguese HF expert panel to the ongoing debate. Based on the most recently published clinical evidence, and the panel members' clinical judgment, three key principles are highlighted: (i) sacubitril/valsartan should be preferred as first-line therapy for HFrEF, instead of an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker; (ii) the four foundation HFrEF drugs are the angiotensin receptor/neprilysin inhibitor, beta-adrenergic blocking agents, mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists, and sodium-glucose co-transporter 2 inhibitors, regardless of the presence of type-2 diabetes mellitus; (iii) these four HFrEF drug classes should be introduced over a short-term period of four to six weeks, guided by a safety protocol, followed by a dose up-titration period of 8 weeks.

Optimization of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction prognosis-modifying drugs: A 2021 heart failure expert consensus paper

Heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) is associated with high rates of hospitalization and death. It also has a negative impact on patients' functional capacity and quality of life, as well as on healthcare costs. In recent years, new HFrEF prognosis-modifying drugs have emerged, leading to intense debate within the international scientific community toward a paradigm shift for the management of HFrEF. In this article, we report the contribution of a Portuguese HF expert panel to the ongoing debate. Based on the most recently published clinical evidence, and the panel members' clinical judgment, three key principles are highlighted: (i) sacubitril/valsartan should be preferred as first-line therapy for HFrEF, instead of an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker; (ii) the four foundation HFrEF drugs are the angiotensin receptor/neprilysin inhibitor, beta-adrenergic blocking agents, mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists, and sodium-glucose co-transporter 2 inhibitors, regardless of the presence of type-2 diabetes mellitus; (iii) these four HFrEF drug classes should be introduced over a short-term period of four to six weeks, guided by a safety protocol, followed by a dose up-titration period of 8 weeks.

Heart failure drug titration, discontinuation, mortality and heart failure hospitalization risk: a multinational observational study (US, UK and Sweden)

AIMS

Use and dosing of guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) in patients with heart failure (HF) have been shown to be suboptimal. Among new users of GDMT in HF, we followed the real-life patterns of dose titration and discontinuation of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEi), angiotensin receptor blockers (ARB), beta-blockers, mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRA) and angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitors (ARNI).

METHODS AND RESULTS

New users were identified in health care databases in Sweden, UK and US between 2016-2019. Inclusion criterion was a recent HF hospitalization (HHF) triggering the initiation of GDMT. Patients were grouped by GDMT, i.e. ACEi, ARB, beta-blocker, MRA and ARNI, and stratified by initial dose. Follow-up was 12 months, until death or study end. Outcomes were dose titration within each drug class, discontinuation and first HHF or death. Dose/discontinuation follow-up was assessed daily based on the coverage length of a filled prescription and reported on day 365. New users of ACEi (n = 8426), ARB (n = 2303), beta-blockers (n = 10 476), MRA (n = 17 421), and ARNI (n = 29 546) were identified. Over 12 months, target dose achievement was 15%, 10%, 12%, 30%, and discontinuation was 55%, 33%, 24% and 27% for ACEi, ARB, beta-blockers and ARNI, respectively. MRA was rarely titrated and discontinuation rates were high (40%). Event rates for HHF or death ranged from 40.0-86.9 per 100 patient-years across the treatment groups.

CONCLUSION

Despite high risk of clinical events following HHF, new initiation of GDMT was followed by consistent patterns of low up-titration and early GDMT discontinuation in three countries with different health care and economies. Our data highlight the urgent need for moving away from long sequential approach when initiating HF treatment and for improving just-in-time decision support for patients and health care providers.

Patient factors associated with titration of medical therapy in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction: data from the QUALIFY international registry

AIMS

Failure to prescribe key medicines at evidence-based doses is associated with increased mortality and hospitalization for patients with Heart Failure with reduced Ejection Fraction (HFrEF). We assessed titration patterns of guideline-recommended HFrEF medicines internationally and explored associations with patient characteristics in the global, prospective, observational, longitudinal registry.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Data were collected from September 2013 through December 2014, with 7095 patients from 36 countries [>18 years, previous HF hospitalization within 1-15 months, left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) ≤ 40%] enrolled, with dosage data at baseline and up to 18 months from 4368 patients. In 4368 patients (mean age 63 ± 17 years, 75% male) ≥ 100% target doses at baseline: 30.6% (ACEIs), 2.9% (ARBs), 13.9% (BBs), 53.8% (MRAs), 26.2% (ivabradine). At final follow-up, ≥100% target doses achieved in more patients for ACEI (34.8%), BB (18.0%), and ivabradine (30.5%) but unchanged for ARBs (3.2%) and MRAs (53.7%). Adjusting for baseline dosage, uptitration during follow-up was more likely with younger age, higher systolic blood pressure, and in absence of chronic kidney disease or diabetes for ACEIs/ARBs; younger age, higher body mass index, higher heart rate, lower LVEF, and absence of coronary artery disease for BBs. For ivabradine, uptitration was more likely with higher resting heart rate.

CONCLUSIONS

The international QUALIFY Registry suggests that few patients with HFrEF achieve target doses of disease-modifying medication, especially older patients and those with co-morbidity. Quality improvement initiatives are urgently required.