Diagnostic and therapeutic challenges for PCPs regarding heart failure with preserved ejection fraction and obesity: results of an online internet-based survey.

BACKGROUND: Obesity (body mass index ≥ 30 kg/m2) is a major risk factor for heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) and affects most patients with HFpEF. Patients living with obesity may experience delays in HFpEF diagnosis and management. We aimed to understand the clinical journey of patients with obesity and HFpEF and the role of primary care providers (PCPs) in diagnosing and managing patients with both conditions. METHODS: An anonymous, US population-based online survey was conducted in September 2020 among 114 patients with self-reported HFpEF and obesity and 200 healthcare providers, 61 of whom were PCPs who treat patients with HFpEF and obesity. RESULTS: Half of patients (51%) with HFpEF reported waiting an average of 11 months to discuss their symptoms with a PCP; 11% then received their diagnosis from a PCP. PCPs initiated treatment and oversaw the management of HFpEF only 35% of the time, and 44% of PCPs discussed obesity treatment medication options with their patients. Only 20% of PCPs indicated they had received formal obesity management training, and 79% of PCPs indicated they would be interested in obesity management training and support. CONCLUSION: PCPs could play a valuable role in addressing obesity and referring patients with obesity and signs and symptoms of HFpEF to cardiologists. Increased awareness of HFpEF and its link to obesity may help PCPs more quickly identify and diagnose their patients with these conditions.

Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) is a common form of heart failure. Many patients who have HFpEF also have obesity or excess weight. We wanted to understand the medical experience of patients with HFpEF and obesity and the role that primary care providers (PCPs) play in managing patients with these diseases. We surveyed 114 patients with HFpEF and obesity and 200 healthcare providers who treat patients with HFpEF and obesity, 61 of whom were PCPs. One-quarter of patients had a major heart-related event that led to their HFpEF diagnosis. Half of the patients said they had an initial discussion about HFpEF symptoms with a PCP, but only one in ten were diagnosed by a PCP. Few PCPs said they received obesity management training, but most were interested in receiving more obesity management training and support. PCPs play an important role in organizing care for patients with HFpEF and obesity. However, there is room to improve HFpEF awareness and access to obesity management tools and strategies among PCPs.

Effects of an Intervention to Improve Evidence-Based Care for People With Diabetes and Cardiovascular Disease Across Sex, Race, and Ethnicity Subgroups: Insights From the COORDINATE-Diabetes Trial.

BACKGROUND: Results from the COORDINATE-Diabetes trial (Coordinating Cardiology Clinics Randomized Trial of Interventions to Improve Outcomes - Diabetes) demonstrated that a multifaceted, clinic-based intervention increased prescription of evidence-based medical therapies to participants with type 2 diabetes and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. This secondary analysis assessed whether intervention success was consistent across sex, race, and ethnicity. METHODS: COORDINATE-Diabetes, a cluster randomized trial, recruited participants from 43 US cardiology clinics (20 randomized to intervention and 23 randomized to usual care). The primary outcome was the proportion of participants prescribed all 3 groups of evidence-based therapy (high-intensity statin, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor/angiotensin receptor blocker, and sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitor or glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonist) at last trial assessment (6 to 12 months). In this prespecified analysis, mixed-effects logistic regression models were used to assess the outcome by self-reported sex, race, and ethnicity in the intervention and usual care groups, with adjustment for baseline characteristics, medications, comorbidities, and site location. RESULTS: Among 1045 participants with type 2 diabetes and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, the median age was 70 years, 32% were female, 16% were Black, and 9% were Hispanic. At the last trial assessment, there was an absolute increase in the proportion of participants prescribed all 3 groups of evidence-based therapy in women (36% versus 15%), Black participants (41% versus 18%), and Hispanic participants (46% versus 18%) with the intervention compared with usual care, with consistent benefit across sex (male versus female; Pinteraction=0.44), race (Black versus White; Pinteraction=0.59), and ethnicity (Hispanic versus Non-Hispanic; Pinteraction= 0.78). CONCLUSIONS: The COORDINATE-Diabetes intervention successfully improved delivery of evidence-based care, regardless of sex, race, or ethnicity. Widespread dissemination of this intervention could improve equitable health care quality, particularly among women and minority communities who are frequently underrepresented in clinical trials. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT03936660.

Coordinated Care to Optimize Cardiovascular Preventive Therapies in Type 2 Diabetes: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Evidence-based therapies to reduce atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease risk in adults with type 2 diabetes are underused in clinical practice. Objective: To assess the effect of a coordinated, multifaceted intervention of assessment, education, and feedback vs usual care on the proportion of adults with type 2 diabetes and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease prescribed all 3 groups of recommended, evidence-based therapies (high-intensity statins, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors [ACEIs] or angiotensin receptor blockers [ARBs], and sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 [SGLT2] inhibitors and/or glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists [GLP-1RAs]). Design, Setting, and Participants: Cluster randomized clinical trial with 43 US cardiology clinics recruiting participants from July 2019 through May 2022 and follow-up through December 2022. The participants were adults with type 2 diabetes and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease not already taking all 3 groups of evidence-based therapies. Interventions: Assessing local barriers, developing care pathways, coordinating care, educating clinicians, reporting data back to the clinics, and providing tools for participants (n = 459) vs usual care per practice guidelines (n = 590). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was the proportion of participants prescribed all 3 groups of recommended therapies at 6 to 12 months after enrollment. The secondary outcomes included changes in atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease risk factors and a composite outcome of all-cause death or hospitalization for myocardial infarction, stroke, decompensated heart failure, or urgent revascularization (the trial was not powered to show these differences). Results: Of 1049 participants enrolled (459 at 20 intervention clinics and 590 at 23 usual care clinics), the median age was 70 years and there were 338 women (32.2%), 173 Black participants (16.5%), and 90 Hispanic participants (8.6%). At the last follow-up visit (12 months for 97.3% of participants), those in the intervention group were more likely to be prescribed all 3 therapies (173/457 [37.9%]) vs the usual care group (85/588 [14.5%]), which is a difference of 23.4% (adjusted odds ratio [OR], 4.38 [95% CI, 2.49 to 7.71]; P < .001) and were more likely to be prescribed each of the 3 therapies (change from baseline in high-intensity statins from 66.5% to 70.7% for intervention vs from 58.2% to 56.8% for usual care [adjusted OR, 1.73; 95% CI, 1.06-2.83]; ACEIs or ARBs: from 75.1% to 81.4% for intervention vs from 69.6% to 68.4% for usual care [adjusted OR, 1.82; 95% CI, 1.14-2.91]; SGLT2 inhibitors and/or GLP-1RAs: from 12.3% to 60.4% for intervention vs from 14.5% to 35.5% for usual care [adjusted OR, 3.11; 95% CI, 2.08-4.64]). The intervention was not associated with changes in atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease risk factors. The composite secondary outcome occurred in 23 of 457 participants (5%) in the intervention group vs 40 of 588 participants (6.8%) in the usual care group (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.79 [95% CI, 0.46 to 1.33]). Conclusions and Relevance: A coordinated, multifaceted intervention increased prescription of 3 groups of evidence-based therapies in adults with type 2 diabetes and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03936660.

Type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease: risk reduction and early intervention.

People with type 2 diabetes (T2D) have a higher risk of cardiovascular (CV) disease (CVD) than those without. This increased risk begins with pre-diabetes, potentially 7-10 years before T2D is diagnosed. Selecting medication for patients with T2D should focus on reducing the risk of CVD and established CVD. Within the last decade, several antihyperglycemic agents with proven CV benefit have been approved for the treatment of hyperglycemia and for the prevention of primary and secondary CV events, including glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RAs) and sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors. T2D treatment guidelines recommend that an antihyperglycemic agent with proven CV benefit should be used after metformin in patients with high risk of or established CVD, regardless of glycated hemoglobin levels. Despite the availability of antihyperglycemic agents with proven CV benefit, and guidelines on when to use them, less than one in four patients with T2D and CVD receive this type of therapy. These findings suggest a potential gap between current recommendations and clinical practice. This article reviews the approved agents with CV indications, with a focus on injectable GLP-1RAs, and their place in the T2D treatment paradigm according to current guidelines. We aim to provide primary healthcare providers with in-depth information on subsets of patients who would benefit from this type of therapy and when it should be initiated, taking into consideration safety and tolerability and other disease factors. An individualized treatment approach is increasingly recommended in the management of T2D, employing a shared decision-making strategy between patients and healthcare professionals.

Coordinating Cardiology clinics randomized trial of interventions to improve outcomes (COORDINATE) - Diabetes: rationale and design.

Several medications that are proven to reduce cardiovascular events exist for individuals with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, however they are substantially underused in clinical practice. Clinician, patient, and system-level barriers all contribute to these gaps in care; yet, there is a paucity of high quality, rigorous studies evaluating the role of interventions to increase utilization. The COORDINATE-Diabetes trial randomized 42 cardiology clinics across the United States to either a multifaceted, site-specific intervention focused on evidence-based care for patients with T2DM or standard of care. The multifaceted intervention comprised the development of an interdisciplinary care pathway for each clinic, audit-and-feedback tools and educational outreach, in addition to patient-facing tools. The primary outcome is the proportion of individuals with T2DM prescribed three key classes of evidence-based medications (high-intensity statin, angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker, and either a sodium/glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitor (SGLT-2i) inhibitor or glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonist (GLP-1RA) and will be assessed at least 6 months after participant enrollment. COORDINATE-Diabetes aims to identify strategies that improve the implementation and adoption of evidence-based therapies.

GLP-1 receptor agonists and cardiovascular outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes: Clinical evidence and best practice.

ABSTRACT: Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is a major cause of death and disability among people with type 2 diabetes (T2D), presenting a significant impact on longevity, patient quality of life, and health care costs. In the United States, attainment of recommended glycemic targets is low and T2D-related cardiovascular complications remain a significant burden. Many glucose-lowering treatment options are available, but glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RAs) and sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT-2) inhibitors are recommended in recent guidelines as the preferred add-on therapy to metformin to improve glycemic control. This is particularly the case for patients with T2D and established atherosclerotic CVD, at high risk of atherosclerotic CVD, and/or with chronic kidney disease. Recommendations were based on GLP-1RA and SGLT-2 inhibitor cardiovascular outcomes trials (CVOTs), which consistently showed that these agents pose no additional cardiovascular risk compared with placebo. Three GLP-1RAs (liraglutide, dulaglutide, and subcutaneous semaglutide) demonstrated significantly lower major adverse cardiovascular events versus placebo and are now approved for this indication. However, to realize improvement in outcomes in the clinical setting, organized, systematic, and coordinated approaches to patient management are also needed. For example, nurse-led diabetes self-management education and support programs have been shown to be effective. This article explores T2D management with emphasis on cardiovascular risk and CVOTs performed to date and reviews the clinical experience with GLP-1RAs for managing hyperglycemia and their impact on cardiovascular risk. In addition, practical guidance is given for key health care providers involved in the care of patients with T2D with cardiovascular risk outside of diabetes clinics/endocrinology centers.

Use of Lipid-, Blood Pressure-, and Glucose-Lowering Pharmacotherapy in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes and Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease.

Importance: Based on contemporary estimates in the US, evidence-based therapies for cardiovascular risk reduction are generally underused among patients with type 2 diabetes and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD). Objective: To determine the use of evidence-based cardiovascular preventive therapies in a broad US population with diabetes and ASCVD. Design, Setting, and Participants: This multicenter cohort study used health system-level aggregated data within the National Patient-Centered Clinical Research Network, including 12 health systems. Participants included patients with diabetes and established ASCVD (ie, coronary artery disease, cerebrovascular disease, and peripheral artery disease) between January 1 and December 31, 2018. Data were analyzed from September 2020 until January 2021. Exposures: One or more health care encounters in 2018. Main Outcomes and Measures: Patient characteristics by prescription of any of the following key evidence-based therapies: high-intensity statin, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor (ACEI) or angiotensin-receptor blocker (ARB) and sodium glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors (SGLT2I) or glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist (GLP-1RA). Results: The overall cohort included 324 706 patients, with a mean (SD) age of 68.1 (12.2) years and 144 169 (44.4%) women and 180 537 (55.6%) men. A total of 59 124 patients (18.2% ) were Black, and 41 470 patients (12.8%) were Latinx. Among 205 885 patients with specialized visit data from the prior year, 17 971 patients (8.7%) visited an endocrinologist, 54 330 patients (26.4%) visited a cardiologist, and 154 078 patients (74.8%) visited a primary care physician. Overall, 190 277 patients (58.6%) were prescribed a statin, but only 88 426 patients (26.8%) were prescribed a high-intensity statin; 147 762 patients (45.5%) were prescribed an ACEI or ARB, 12 724 patients (3.9%) were prescribed a GLP-1RA, and 8989 patients (2.8%) were prescribed an SGLT2I. Overall, 14 918 patients (4.6%) were prescribed all 3 classes of therapies, and 138 173 patients (42.6%) were prescribed none. Patients who were prescribed a high-intensity statin were more likely to be men (59.9% [95% CI, 59.6%-60.3%] of patients vs 55.6% [95% CI, 55.4%-55.8%] of patients), have coronary atherosclerotic disease (79.9% [95% CI, 79.7%-80.2%] of patients vs 73.0% [95% CI, 72.8%-73.3%] of patients) and more likely to have seen a cardiologist (40.0% [95% CI, 39.6%-40.4%] of patients vs 26.4% [95% CI, 26.2%-26.6%] of patients). Conclusions and Relevance: In this large cohort of US patients with diabetes and ASCVD, fewer than 1 in 20 patients were prescribed all 3 evidence-based therapies, defined as a high-intensity statin, either an ACEI or ARB, and either an SGLT2I and/or a GLP-1RA. These findings suggest that multifaceted interventions are needed to overcome barriers to the implementation of evidence-based therapies and facilitate their optimal use.

Incorporating SGLT2i and GLP-1RA for Cardiovascular and Kidney Disease Risk Reduction: Call for Action to the Cardiology Community.

Multiple sodium glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors (SGLT-2i) and glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RA) have been shown to impart significant cardiovascular and kidney benefits, but are underused in clinical practice. Both SGLT-2i and GLP-1RA were first studied as glucose-lowering drugs, which may have impeded uptake by cardiologists in the wake of proven cardiovascular efficacy. Their significant effect on cardiovascular and kidney outcomes, which are largely independent of glucose-lowering effects, must drive a broader use of these drugs. Cardiologists are 3 times more likely than endocrinologists to see patients with both type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease, thus they are ideally positioned to share responsibility for SGLT-2i and GLP-1RA treatment with primary care providers. In order to increase adoption, SGLT-2i and GLP-1RA must be reframed as primarily cardiovascular and kidney disease risk-reducing agents with a side effect of glucose-lowering. Coordinated and multifaceted interventions engaging clinicians, patients, payers, professional societies, and health systems must be implemented to incentivize the adoption of these medications as part of routine cardiovascular and kidney care. Greater use of SGLT-2i and GLP-1RA will improve outcomes for patients with type 2 diabetes at high risk for cardiovascular and kidney disease.

Effects of GLP-1 receptor agonists and SGLT-2 inhibitors in heart transplant patients with type 2 diabetes: Initial report from a cardiometabolic center of excellence.

Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2D) is a common comorbidity among patients who have undergone heart transplantation. Recently two classes of glucose-lowering medications (sodium-glucose cotransporter type-2 inhibitors [SGLT-2Is] and glucagon-like-peptide-1 receptor agonists [GLP-1RAs]), have been shown to significantly improve cardiovascular outcomes. There is a paucity of data regarding their use in immunosuppressed patients, with many studies specifically excluding this population. We retrospectively evaluated the safety and efficacy of GLP-1RAs and SGLT-2Is in patients who had undergone orthotopic heart transplant at a high-volume center. Among 21 patients, we found significant weight loss, reductions in insulin use, hemoglobin A1c, and low-density lipoprotein-cholesterol. Moreover, both SGLT-2Is and GLP-1RAs were well tolerated with no adverse events leading to discontinuation of either therapy. While larger studies of patients after solid organ transplant are needed, this small hypothesis-generating study demonstrates that SGLT-2Is and GLP-1RAs appear safe and effective therapies among patients with T2D after heart transplant.

The elephant in the room: Why cardiologists should stop ignoring type 2 diabetes.

Type 2 Diabetes (T2D) is a growing public health threat that is evolving into a global pandemic with debilitating, expensive and often lethal complications. Even when hemoglobin A1c (HbA1C) levels are well controlled, and concomitant cardiovascular (CV) risk factors are effectively treated, two out of every three patients with T2D are destined to die from CV complications. Several large randomized controlled trials (RCT) indicate that two classes of glucose-lowering medications, oral sodium-glucose cotransporter type 2 inhibitors (SGLT2-i) and injectable glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RA), confer significant CV benefits, including reductions in: hospitalizations for heart failure (HF), progression of diabetic kidney disease, atherosclerotic CV events, and (with some agents) CV death. These CV benefits appear to be independent of the glucose-lowering effects of these agents. These compelling findings are triggering a fundamental paradigm shift in T2D management whereby the focus is no longer on HbA1c alone, but instead on implementing a comprehensive CV risk reduction strategy prioritizing the use of these evidence-based therapies (along with other evidence-based treatment strategies) with the objective of reducing the risk of morbid complications, and improving the quantity and quality of life of patients with T2D. Cardiologists are uniquely positioned to become more involved in the management of T2D and established CV disease, which at this time should include initiation (either by prescribing or by making recommendations) of agents proven to reduce CV risk. Specifically, SGLT2-is and/or GLP-1RA have now been shown to have a favorable risk-benefit balance, and are being increasingly emphasized by the practice guidelines as preferable treatment options in vulnerable patients with T2D. The cardiology community should collaborate with other care providers to ensure that when and where appropriate these new T2D therapies are used along with other evidence-based therapies to improve patient outcomes.

Initiating Titratable Fixed-Ratio Combinations of Basal Insulin Analogs and Glucagon-Like Peptide-1 Receptor Agonists: What You Need to Know.

IN BRIEF Titratable fixed-ratio combinations (FRCs) of a basal insulin and a glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist are new therapeutic options for people with type 2 diabetes. Two FRCs-insulin degludec/liraglutide and insulin glargine/lixisenatide-have been approved for use in the United States. The two components in these FRCs target different aspects of diabetes pathophysiology, working in a complementary manner to decrease blood glucose while mitigating the side effects associated with each component (hypoglycemia and weight gain with insulin and gastrointestinal side effects with GLP-1 receptor agonists). This article reviews these products and key considerations for their use.

Addressing barriers to insulin therapy: the role of insulin pens.

Despite the fundamental role of insulin therapy in diabetes management, many patients and some clinicians may resist insulin initiation due to concerns about its complexity or a general resistance to injections. Many patients' concerns about insulin initiation may stem from perceptions about the pain and inconvenience of using vials and syringes for delivering insulin. However, insulin pen devices offer an easier method for insulin administration that is more accurate, less painful, and more discreet compared with vials and syringes. Advances in insulin pen technology have enhanced their utility by increasing their accuracy, reducing the injection force required, and incorporating mechanisms to store the dose, time, and date of previous insulin injections. Substantial evidence demonstrates that insulin pen devices are preferred by both patients and clinicians and have the potential to improve adherence, enhance quality of life, reduce the risk of hyperglycemia, and decrease costs. Ultimately, the advantages of insulin pens may reduce resistance to initiating and adhering to insulin therapy. Because insulin pens are underused in the United states compared with in other countries, it is critical that clinicians understand the potential benefits of insulin pens and communicate them to their patients.