Contemporary outpatient management of patients with worsening heart failure with reduced ejection fraction: Rationale and design of the CHART-HF study

Treatment patterns of patients with worsening heart failure with reduced ejection fraction

AIMS

Patients with HFrEF and worsening HF events (WHFE) are at particularly high risk and urgently need disease-modifying therapy. CHART-HF assessed treatment patterns and reasons for medication decisions among HFrEF patients with and without WHFE.

METHODS AND RESULTS

CHART-HF collected retrospective electronic medical records of outpatients with HF and EF < 45% between 2017-2019 from a nationwide panel of 238 cardiologists (458 patients) and the Geisinger Health System (GHS) medical record (1000 patients). The index visit in the WHFE cohort was the first outpatient cardiologist visit ≤6 months following the WHFE, and in the reference cohort was the last visit in a calendar year without WHFE. Demographic characteristics were similar between patients with and without WHFE in both the nationwide panel and GHS. In the nationwide panel, the proportion of patients with versus without WHFE receiving ≥50% of guideline-recommended dose on index visit was 35% versus 40% for beta blocker, 74% versus 83% for ACEI/ARB/ARNI, and 48% versus 49% for MRA. The proportion of patients receiving ≥50% of guideline-recommended dose was lower in the GHS: 29% versus 34% for beta-blocker, 16% versus 31% for ACEI/ARB/ARNI, and 18% versus 22% for MRA. For patients with and without WHFE, triple therapy on index date was 42% and 44% of patients from the nationwide panel, and 14% and 17% in the GHS. Comparing end of index clinic visit with 12-month follow-up in the GHS, the proportion of patients on no GDMT increased from 14% to 28% in the WHFE cohort and from 14 to 21% in the non-WHFE group.

CONCLUSIONS

Major gaps in use of GDMT, particularly combination therapy, remain among US HFrEF patients. These gaps persist during longitudinal follow-up and are particularly large among patients with recent WHFE.

Health Status in Heart Failure and Cancer: Analysis of the Medicare Health Outcomes Survey 2016-2020

BACKGROUND

People with heart failure (HF) and cancer experience impaired physical and mental health status. However, health-related quality of life (HRQOL) has not been directly compared between these conditions in a contemporary population of older people.

OBJECTIVES

The authors sought to compare HRQOL in people with HF vs those with lung, colorectal, breast, and prostate cancers.

METHODS

The authors performed a pooled analysis of Medicare Health Outcomes Survey data from 2016 to 2020 in participants ≥65 years of age with a self-reported history of HF or active treatment for lung, colon, breast, or prostate cancer. They used the Veterans RAND-12 physical component score (PCS) and mental component score (MCS), which range from 0-100 with a mean score of 50 (based on the U.S. general population) and an SD of 10. The authors used pairwise Student's t-tests to evaluate for differences in PCS and MCS between groups.

RESULTS

Among participants with HF (n = 71,025; 54% female, 16% Black), mean PCS was 29.5 and mean MCS 47.9. Mean PCS was lower in people with HF compared with lung (31.2; n = 4,165), colorectal (35.6; n = 4,270), breast (37.7; n = 14,542), and prostate (39.6; n = 17,670) cancer (all P < 0.001). Participants with HF had a significantly lower mean MCS than those with lung (31.2), colon (50.0), breast (52.0), and prostate (53.0) cancer (all P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

People with HF experience worse HRQOL than those with cancer actively receiving treatment. The pervasiveness of low HRQOL in HF underscores the need to implement evidence-based interventions that target physical and mental health status and scale multidisciplinary clinics.

Contemporary outpatient management of patients with worsening heart failure with reduced ejection fraction: Clinical outcome results from the CHART-HF study

Background

Based on available data from randomized clinical trials, patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and worsening HF events (WHFE) have substantial disease burden and poor outcomes. WHFE clinical outcome data in non-clinical trial patients, more representative of the US clinical practice, has not been demonstrated.

Methods and results

CHART-HF collected data from two complementary, non-clinical trial cohort with HFrEF (LVEF <45 %): 1) 1,000 patients from an integrated delivery network and 2) 458 patients from a nationwide physician panel. CHART-HF included patients with WHFE between 2017 and 2019 followed by an index outpatient cardiology visit ≤6 months, and patients without WHFE in a given year between 2017 and 2019, with the last outpatient cardiology visit in the same year as the index visit. Compared to patients without WHFE (after covariate adjustment, all p < 0.05), patients with WHFE had a greater risk of HF-related hospitalization (hazard ratio [HR]: 1.53-2.40) and next WHFE event (HR: 1.67-2.41) following index visits in both cohorts.

Conclusion

HFrEF patients with recent WHFE consistently had worse clinical outcomes in these non-clinical trial cohorts. Despite advances in therapies, unmet need to improve clinical outcomes in HFrEF patients with WHFE remains.

Developing Clinical Risk Prediction Models for Worsening Heart Failure Events and Death by Left Ventricular Ejection Fraction

Background There is a need to develop electronic health record-based predictive models for worsening heart failure (WHF) events across clinical settings and across the spectrum of left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). Methods and Results We studied adults with heart failure (HF) from 2011 to 2019 within an integrated health care delivery system. WHF encounters were ascertained using natural language processing and structured data. We conducted boosted decision tree ensemble models to predict 1-year hospitalizations, emergency department visits/observation stays, and outpatient encounters for WHF and all-cause death within each LVEF category: HF with reduced ejection fraction (EF) (LVEF <40%), HF with mildly reduced EF (LVEF 40%-49%), and HF with preserved EF (LVEF ≥50%). Model discrimination was evaluated using area under the curve and calibration using mean squared error. We identified 338 426 adults with HF: 61 045 (18.0%) had HF with reduced EF, 49 618 (14.7%) had HF with mildly reduced EF, and 227 763 (67.3%) had HF with preserved EF. The 1-year risks of any WHF event and death were, respectively, 22.3% and 13.0% for HF with reduced EF, 17.0% and 10.1% for HF with mildly reduced EF, and 16.3% and 10.3% for HF with preserved EF. The WHF model displayed an area under the curve of 0.76 and mean squared error of 0.13, whereas the model for death displayed an area under the curve of 0.83 and mean squared error of 0.076. Performance and predictors were similar across WHF encounter types and LVEF categories. Conclusions We developed risk prediction models for 1-year WHF events and death across the LVEF spectrum using structured and unstructured electronic health record data and observed no substantial differences in model performance or predictors except for death, despite differences in underlying HF cause.

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.

Regional management of worsening heart failure: rationale and design of the CHAIN-HF registry

AIMS

Heart failure (HF) is a progressive disease in which periods of clinical stability are interrupted by episodes of clinical deterioration known as worsening heart failure (WHF). Patients who develop WHF are at high risk of subsequent death, rehospitalization, and excessive healthcare costs. As such, WHF could be seen as a separate disease stage and precursor of advanced HF. Whether WHF has a substantial health, societal, and economic impact evidence regarding its multifactorial nature and the specific barriers in treatment, including advanced HF therapies, remains scarce. The CHAIN-HF registry aims to describe the incidence, characteristics, current treatment, and outcomes of WHF. Additionally, it will promote structured regional collaboration and educate on increasing awareness for WHF and describe the implementation of guideline directed medical therapy and utilization of advanced HF therapies in a collaborative network.

METHODS AND RESULTS

The CHAIN-HF registry is a prospective, observational, and multicentre study from the collaborating hospitals (Rijnmond HF Network) in the Rotterdam area. Unselected and consecutive patients (irrespective of ejection fraction) with a WHF event will be included. Comprehensive data including demographics, co-morbidities, treatment, and in-hospital and post-discharge outcomes will be collected. Notably, data on socio-economic status, treatment decisions, and referral for advanced HF therapies will be included.

CONCLUSIONS

CHAIN-HF will be the first prospective, dedicated WHF registry in a collaborative network of hospitals that will provide robust real-world evidence on the incidence, characteristics, and outcomes of WHF. Moreover, it will provide information on of the value of regional collaboration to improve awareness and outcomes of WHF.