Guideline-Directed Medical Therapy in Patients With Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction and Incident Cancer.

BACKGROUND: It has been postulated that cancer hampers the delivery of guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) for heart failure (HF). However, few data are available in this regard. METHODS: We performed a retrospective analysis from the HF Outpatient Clinic of the IRCCS Ospedale Policlinico San Martino in Genova, Italy. All HF patients evaluated between 2010 and 2019, with a left ventricular ejection fraction <50% and at least two visits ≥3 months apart with complete information about GDMT were included in the study. We assessed the prescription of GDMT-in particular, beta-blockers (BB), renin-angiotensin system inhibitors (RASi), and mineralocorticoid antagonists (MRA)-at the time of the last HF evaluation and compared it between patients with and without incidental cancer. For those with incidental cancer, we also evaluated modifications of GDMT comparing the HF evaluations before and after cancer diagnosis. RESULTS: Of 464 HF patients, 39 (8%) had incidental cancer. There were no statistical differences in GDMT between patients with and without incidental cancer at last evaluation. In the year following cancer diagnosis, of 33 patients with incidental cancer on BB, none stopped therapy, but two had a down-titration to a dosage <50%; of 27 patients on RASi, two patients stopped therapy and three had a down-titration to a dosage <50%; of 19 patients on MRA, four stopped therapy. CONCLUSIONS: Although HF patients with incidental cancer may need to have GDMT down-titrated at the time of cancer diagnosis, this does not appear to significantly hinder the delivery of HF therapies during follow-up.

Direct Oral Anticoagulants for Cancer-Associated Venous Thromboembolism.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: To present the randomized controlled trial (RCT) evidence and highlight the areas of uncertainty regarding direct oral anticoagulants (DOAC) for cancer-associated venous thromboembolism (CAT). RECENT FINDINGS: In the last years, four RCTs have shown that rivaroxaban, edoxaban, and apixaban are at least as effective as low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) for the treatment of both incidental and symptomatic CAT. On the other hand, these drugs increase the risk of major gastrointestinal bleeding in patients with cancer at this site. Another two RCTs have demonstrated that apixaban and rivaroxaban also prevent CAT in subjects at intermediate-to-high risk commencing chemotherapy, albeit at the price of higher likelihood of bleeding. By contrast, data are limited about the use DOAC in individuals with intracranial tumors or concomitant thrombocytopenia. It is also possible that some anticancer agents heighten the effects of DOAC via pharmacokinetic interactions, up to making their effectiveness-safety profile unfavorable. Leveraging the results of the aforementioned RCTS, current guidelines recommend DOAC as the anticoagulants of choice for CAT treatment and, in selected cases, prevention. However, the benefit of DOAC is less defined in specific patient subgroups, in which the choice of DOAC over LMWH should be carefully pondered.

Cancer and atrial fibrillation: Epidemiology, mechanisms, and anticoagulation treatment.

Cancer patients are at an increased risk of developing atrial fibrillation (AF) and thrombosis. However, the management of anticoagulation in patients with both diseases may be challenging, and data on these patients are lacking. We summarize the current evidence on the incidence and prevalence of cancer in AF and vice versa and provide some practical considerations on the management of oral anticoagulation in specific clinical situations. Low-molecular weight heparins are not approved for thromboprophylaxis in AF, and management of warfarin can be difficult. The use of direct oral anticoagulants may be particularly attractive for their rapid onset/offset action and lower bleeding risk.

How to Monitor Cardiac Complications of Immune Checkpoint Inhibitor Therapy.

Immune-checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) represent a successful paradigm in the treatment of cancer. ICIs elicit an immune response directed against cancer cells, by targeting the so-called immune checkpoints, key regulators of the immune system that when stimulated can dampen the immune response to an immunologic stimulus. Such response, however, is not entirely tumor-specific and may result in immune-related adverse events (irAEs), involving a number of organs and systems. Cardiovascular (CV) irAEs are rare, although potentially severe. In particular, several cases of ICI-related myocarditis with life-threatening course have been reported: the possibility of fulminant cases, thus, requires a high level of awareness among both oncologists and cardiologists. Aggressive work-up and management of symptomatic patients taking ICIs is fundamental for early recognition and initiation of specific immunosuppressive therapies. Notably, myocarditis occurs within few weeks from ICIs initiation, offering opportunity for a targeted screening. Troponin testing is the cornerstone of this screening, yet uncertainties remain regarding timing and candidates. Moreover, troponins positivity should be carefully interpreted. We herein review the main aspects of ICI-related myocarditis and suggest a practical approach. In particular, we focus on the opportunities that a baseline CV evaluation offers for subsequent management by collecting clinical and instrumental data, essential for the interpretation of troponin results, for differential diagnosis and for the formulation of a diagnostic and therapeutic workup.