Initiation and Up-Titration of Guideline-Based Medications in Hospitalized Acute Heart Failure Patients - A Report From the West Tokyo Heart Failure Registry

BACKGROUND

Despite recommendations from clinical practice guidelines to initiate and titrate guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) during their hospitalization, patients with acute heart failure (AHF) are frequently undertreated. In this study we aimed to clarify GDMT implementation and titration rates, as well as the long-term outcomes, in hospitalized AHF patients.Methods and Results: Among 3,164 consecutive hospitalized AHF patients included in a Japanese multicenter registry, 1,400 (44.2%) with ejection fraction ≤40% were analyzed. We assessed GDMT dosage (β-blockers, renin-angiotensin inhibitors, and mineralocorticoid-receptor antagonists) at admission and discharge, examined the contributing factors for up-titration, and evaluated associations between drug initiation/up-titration and 1-year post-discharge all-cause death and rehospitalization for HF via propensity score matching. The mean age of the patients was 71.5 years and 30.7% were female. Overall, 1,051 patients (75.0%) were deemed eligible for GDMT, based on their baseline vital signs, renal function, and electrolyte values. At discharge, only 180 patients (17.1%) received GDMT agents up-titrated to >50% of the maximum titrated dose. Up-titration was associated with a lower risk of 1-year clinical outcomes (adjusted hazard ratio: 0.58, 95% confidence interval: 0.35-0.96). Younger age and higher body mass index were significant predictors of drug up-titration.

CONCLUSIONS

Significant evidence-practice gaps in the use and dose of GDMT remain. Considering the associated favorable outcomes, further efforts to improve its implementation seem crucial.

Early changes in renal function during rapid up-titration of guideline-directed medical therapy following an admission for acute heart failure

AIM

In this subgroup analysis of STRONG-HF, we explored the association between changes in renal function and efficacy of rapid up-titration of guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) according to a high-intensity care (HIC) strategy.

METHODS AND RESULTS

In patients randomized to the HIC arm (n = 542), renal function was assessed at baseline and during follow-up visits. We studied the association with clinical characteristics and outcomes of a decrease in estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) at week 1, defined as ≥15% decrease from baseline. Patients in the usual care group (n = 536) were seen at day 90. The treatment effect of HIC versus usual care was independent of baseline eGFR (p-interaction = 0.4809). A decrease in eGFR within 1 week occurred in 77 (15.5%) patients and was associated with more rales on examination (p = 0.004), and a higher New York Heart Association class at the corresponding visit. Following the decrease in eGFR at 1 week, lower average optimal doses of GDMT were prescribed during follow-up (p = 0.0210) and smaller reductions in N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide occurred (geometrical mean 0.81 in no eGFR decrease vs 1.12 in GFR decrease, p = 0.0003). The rate of heart failure (HF) readmission or death at 180 days was 12.3% in no eGFR decrease versus 18.5% in eGFR decrease (p = 0.2274) and HF readmissions were 7.8% versus 16.6% (p = 0.0496).

CONCLUSIONS

In the STRONG-HF study, HIC reduced 180-day HF readmission or death regardless of baseline eGFR. An early decrease in eGFR during rapid up-titration of GDMT was associated with more evidence of congestion, yet lower doses of GDMT during follow-up.

Optimization of guideline-directed medical treatment for heart failure patients with reduced ejection fraction

With the increasing number of medications demonstrating mortality benefits in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), the pharmacological treatment of HFrEF is entering a new phase. To enhance outcomes in heart failure patients through medical treatment, the choice of appropriate medications and simultaneous and rapid uptitration are critical. However, there are several challenges encountered during this medication uptitration, including issues like hypotension, fatigue, worsening renal function, and hyperkalemia. This paper addresses strategies for effectively managing these challenges to successfully reach the maximum tolerated dose in patients. Additionally, it will discuss the management of comorbidities often associated with heart failure, the importance of exercise and rehabilitation, and the significance of proper nutrition intake, in addition to guideline-directed medical therapy.

Sex-specific analysis of the rapid up-titration of guideline-directed medical therapies after a hospitalization for acute heart failure: Insights from the STRONG-HF trial

AIMS

The aim of this study was to evaluate efficacy and safety of rapid up-titration of guideline-directed medical therapies (GDMT) in men and women hospitalized for acute heart failure (AHF).

METHODS AND RESULTS

In STRONG-HF, AHF patients were randomized just prior to discharge to either usual care (UC) or a high-intensity care (HIC) strategy of GDMT up-titration. In these analyses, we compared the implementation, efficacy, and safety of the HIC strategy between men and women. In the randomized AHF population, 416/1078 (39%) were women. By day 90, a higher proportion of both sexes in the HIC group had been up-titrated to full doses of GDMT compared to UC. Overall, there were no differences in the primary endpoint between the sexes. The primary endpoint, 180-day heart failure readmission or death, occurred in 15.8% HIC women versus 23.5% women in the UC group (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 0.67, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.40-1.13) and in 14.9% HIC men versus 23.5% UC men (adjusted HR 0.57, 95% CI 0.38-0.88) (adjusted interaction p = 0.65). There was no significant treatment-by-sex interaction in quality-of-life improvement or in adverse events, including serious or fatal adverse events.

CONCLUSION

The results of the current analyses suggest that a rapid up-titration of GDMT immediately after an AHF hospitalization can and should be implemented similarly in men and women, as it results in reduction of 180-day all-cause death or heart failure readmission, quality-of-life improvement in both men and women with a similar safety profile.

Safety, tolerability and efficacy of up-titration of guideline-directed medical therapies for acute heart failure in elderly patients: A sub-analysis of the STRONG-HF randomized clinical trial

AIMS

STRONG-HF examined a high-intensity care (HIC) strategy of rapid up-titration of guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) and close follow-up after acute heart failure (AHF) admission. We assess the role of age on efficacy and safety of HIC.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Hospitalized AHF patients, not treated with optimal GDMT were randomized to HIC or usual care. The primary endpoint of 180-day death or HF readmission occurred equally in older (>65 years, n = 493, 74 ± 5 years) and younger patients (53 ± 11 years, adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 1.02, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.73-1.43, p = 0.89). Older patients received slightly lower GDMT to day 21, but same doses at day 90 and 180. The effect of HIC on the primary endpoint was numerically higher in younger (aHR 0.51, 95% CI 0.32-0.82) than older patients (aHR 0.73, 95% CI 0.46-1.15, adjusted interaction p = 0.30), partially related to COVID-19 deaths. After exclusion of COVID-19 deaths, the effect of HIC was similar in younger (aHR 0.51, 95% CI 0.32-0.82) and older patients (aHR 0.63, 95% CI 0.32-1.02, adjusted interaction p = 0.56), with no treatment-by-age interaction (interaction p = 0.57). HIC induced larger improvements in quality of life to day 90 in younger (EQ-VAS adjusted-mean difference 5.51, 95% CI 3.20-7.82) than in older patients (1.77, 95% CI -0.75 to 4.29, interaction p = 0.032). HIC was associated with similar rates of adverse events in older and younger patients.

CONCLUSION

High-intensity care after AHF was safe and resulted in a significant reduction of all-cause death or HF readmission at 180 days across the study age spectrum. Older patients have smaller benefits in terms of quality of life.

The initial timing and dosage pattern of sacubitril/valsartan in patients with acute myocardial infarction undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention

BACKGROUND

In real-world clinical practice, the initiation and up-titration of sacubitril/valsartan remain challenging due to symptomatic hypotension in patients with acute myocardial infarction(AMI). The purpose of this study was to investigate the efficacy of different initial timing and dosage of sacubitril/valsartan in AMI patients.

METHODS

This prospective and observational cohort study enrolled AMI patients treated with percutaneous coronary intervention(PCI), and were categorized according to the initial timing and average daily doses of sacubitril/valsartan prescription. The primary endpoint was defined as a composite of cardiovascular death, recurrent AMI, coronary revascularization, heart failure(HF) hospitalization and ischaemic stroke. Secondary outcomes included the new-onset HF, and the composite endpoints in AMI patients complicated with HF at baseline.

RESULTS

The study population consisted of 915 AMI patients. After a median follow-up of 38 months, early use or high dosage of sacubitril/valsartan was associated with an improvement in primary endpoint as well as the incidence of new-onset HF. Early use of sacubitril/valsartan also ameliorated the primary endpoint in AMI patients with left ventricular ejection fraction(LVEF) ≤50% as well as LVEF>50%. Besides, early use of sacubitril/valsartan improved the clinical outcomes in AMI patients complicated with HF at baseline. The low dose was well tolerated and may be associated with similar outcomes compared with high dose under some circumstances(LVEF>50% or HF at baseline).

CONCLUSIONS

Early use or high dosage of sacubitril/valsartan medication is associated with an improvement in clinical outcome. The low dose of sacubitril/valsartan is well tolerated and may be an acceptable alternative strategy.

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.

Noninferiority of heart failure nurse titration versus heart failure cardiologist titration. ETIFIC multicenter randomized trial

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES

Beta-blockers, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACE inhibitors), angiotensin-II-receptor-blockers (ARB), and mineralocorticoid-receptor antagonists decrease mortality and heart failure (HF) hospitalizations in HF patients with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction. The effect is dose-dependent. Careful titration is recommended. However, suboptimal doses are common in clinical practice. This study aimed to compare the safety and efficacy of dose titration of the aforementioned drugs by HF nurses vs HF cardiologists.

METHODS

ETIFIC was a multicenter (n=20) noninferiority randomized controlled open label trial. A total of 320 hospitalized patients with new-onset HF, reduced ejection fraction and New York Heart Association II-III, without beta-blocker contraindications were randomized 1:1 in blocks of 4 patients each stratified by hospital: 164 to HF nurse titration vs 156 to HF cardiologist titration (144 vs 145 analyzed). The primary endpoint was the beta-blocker mean relative dose (% of target dose) achieved at 4 months. Secondary endpoints included ACE inhibitors, ARB, and mineralocorticoid-receptor antagonists mean relative doses, associated variables, adverse events, and clinical outcomes at 6 months.

RESULTS

The mean±standard deviation relative doses achieved by HF nurses vs HF cardiologists were as follows: beta-blockers 71.09%±31.49% vs 56.29%±31.32%, with a difference of 14.8% (95%CI, 7.5-22.1), P <.001; ACE inhibitors 72.61%±29.80% vs 56.13%±30.37%, P <.001; ARB 44.48%±33.47% vs 43.51%±33.69%, P=.93; and mineralocorticoid-receptor antagonists 71%±32.12% vs 70.47%±29.78%, P=.86; mean±standard deviation visits were 6.41±2.82 vs 2.81±1.58, P <.001, while the number (%) of adverse events were 34 (23.6) vs 30 (20.7), P=.55; and at 6 months HF hospitalizations were 1 (0.69) vs 9 (5.51), P=.01.

CONCLUSIONS

ETIFIC is the first multicenter randomized trial to demonstrate the noninferiority of HF specialist-nurse titration vs HF cardiologist titration. Moreover, HF nurses achieved higher beta-blocker/ACE inhibitors doses, with more outpatient visits and fewer HF hospitalizations. Trial registry number: NCT02546856.

Heart failure treatment up-titration and outcome and age: an analysis of BIOSTAT-CHF

AIMS

Several studies have shown that older patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) are undertreated. The aim of this study was to evaluate the association of up-titration of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEI), angiotensin receptor blockers (ARB) and beta-blockers on outcome across the age spectrum in HFrEF patients.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We analysed HFrEF patients on sub-optimal doses of ACEI/ARB and/or beta-blockers from the BIOSTAT-CHF study stratified by age. Patients underwent a 3-month up-titration period. We used inverse probability weighting to adjust for the likelihood of successful up-titration to determine the association of achieved dose with mortality and/or heart failure hospitalisation, testing for an interaction with age. Over a median follow-up of 21 months in 1720 HFrEF patients (76.5% male, mean age 67 years), the primary outcome occurred in 558 patients. Increased percentage of target dose of ACEI/ARB and beta-blocker achieved at 3 months were both significantly associated with reduced incidence of the primary outcome, [ACEI-ARB: hazard ratio (HR) per 12.5% increase in dose: 0.92, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.91-0.94, P < 0.001; beta-blocker: HR 0.98, 95% CI 0.95-1.00, P = 0.046], with a significant interaction with age seen for beta-blockers but not ACEI/ARB (P = 0.034 and P = 0.22, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

Achieving higher doses of ACEI/ARB was associated with improved outcome regardless of age. However, achieving higher doses of beta-blockers was only associated with improved outcome in younger, but not in older patients.

Design of a multicentre randomized controlled trial to assess the safety and efficacy of dose titration by specialized nurses in patients with heart failure. ETIFIC study protocol

Aims

Heart failure (HF) is associated with many hospital admissions and relatively high mortality, rates decreasing with administration of beta‐blockers (BBs), angiotensin‐converting‐enzyme inhibitors, angiotensin II receptor blockers, and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists. The effect is dose dependent, suboptimal doses being common in clinical practice. The 2012 European guidelines recommend close monitoring and dose titration by HF nurses. Our main aim is to compare BB doses achieved by patients after 4 months in intervention (HF nurse‐managed) and control (cardiologist‐managed) groups. Secondary aims include comparing doses of the other aforementioned drugs achieved after 4 months, adverse events, and outcomes at 6 months in the two groups.

Methods

We have designed a multicentre (20 hospitals) non‐inferiority randomized controlled trial, including patients with new‐onset HF, left ventricular ejection fraction ≤40%, and New York Heart Association class II–III, with no contraindications to BBs. We will also conduct qualitative analysis to explore potential barriers to and facilitators of dose titration by HF nurses. In the intervention group, HF nurses will implement titration as prescribed by cardiologists, following a protocol. In controls, cardiologists will both prescribe and titrate doses. The study variables are doses of each of the drugs after 4 months relative to the target dose (%), New York Heart Association class, left ventricular ejection fraction, N‐terminal pro B‐type natriuretic peptide levels, 6 min walk distance, comorbidities, renal function, readmissions, mortality, quality of life, and psychosocial characteristics.

Conclusions

The trial seeks to assess whether titration by HF nurses of drugs recommended in practice guidelines is safe and not inferior to direct management by cardiologists. The results could have an impact on clinical practice.