Treatment Persistence of Renin-Angiotensin-Aldosterone-System Inhibitors Over Time in Heart Failure with Reduced Ejection Fraction.

BACKGROUND: Clinical practice guidelines support sustained use of renin-angiotensin-aldosterone-system (RAAS) inhibitors over time in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, yet few data are available regarding the frequency, timing or predictors of early treatment discontinuation in clinical practice. METHODS: Among prevalent or new users of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEis)/angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs), angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitors (ARNIs), and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRAs) in the CHAMP-HF (Change the Management of Patients with Heart Failure) registry, we estimated the frequency and independent predictors of treatment discontinuation during follow-up. Among sites with > 5 users of a given RAAS inhibitor, we evaluated practice variation in the proportion of patients with treatment discontinuation. RESULTS: Over median follow-up of 18 months, frequency of drug discontinuation of ACEis/ARBs, ARNIs and MRAs was 12.7% (444 of 3509 users), 10.4% (140 of 1352 users), and 20.4% (435 of 2129 users), respectively. An additional, 149 (11.0%) of ARNI users were switched to ACEis/ARBs, and 447 (12.7%) of ACEi/ARB users were switched to ARNIs during follow-up. Across sites, the median proportion of discontinuation of ACEis/ARBs, ARNIs and MRAs was 12.5% (25th-75th percentiles 6.9%-18.9%), 18.8% (25th-75th percentiles 12.5%-28.6%), and 19.6% (25th-75th percentiles 10.7%-27.0%), respectively. Chronic kidney disease was the only independent predictor of increased risk of discontinuation of each of the RAAS inhibitor classes (P < 0.02 for all). Higher Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire overall summary scores independently predicted lower risk of discontinuation of ACEis/ARBs and ARNIs (both P < 0.001) but not of MRAs. Investigator clinical experience was predictive of lower risks of discontinuation of ACEis/ARBs and MRAs (P < 0.02) but not of ARNIs. All other independent predictors of discontinuation were unique to individual therapeutic classes. CONCLUSIONS: One in 10 patients discontinue ACEis/ARBs or ARNIs, and 1 in 5 discontinue MRAs in routine clinical practice of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction. Unique patient-level and clinician/practice-level factors are associated with premature discontinuation of individual RAAS inhibitors, which may help to guide structured efforts to promote treatment persistence in clinical care.

Variation in use and dosing escalation of renin angiotensin system, mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist, angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor and beta-blocker therapies in heart failure and reduced ejection fraction: Association of comorbidities.

BACKGROUND: In patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEi), angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARB), or angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI), mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRA), and beta-blockers (ßB) are underutilized. It is unknown if patients with and without comorbidities have similar ACEi/ARB/ARNI, MRA, and ßB prescription patterns. METHODS: Baseline data from the CHAMP-HF (Change the Management of Patients with Heart Failure) registry were categorized by history of atrial fibrillation, asthma/chronic lung disease, obstructive sleep apnea, and depression. Using multivariate hierarchical logistic models, associations of ACEi/ARB/ARNI, MRA and ßB medication use and dose by comorbidities were assessed after adjusting for patient characteristics. RESULTS: Of 4,815 HFrEF patients from 152 CHAMP-HF sites, ACEi/ARB/ARNI use was lower in patients with more comorbidities, and generally, MRA use was low and ßB use was high. In adjusted analyses, patients with HFrEF and comorbid obstructive sleep apnea, vs. without, were more likely to be prescribed ARNI (OR [95% CI]: 1.25 [1.00, 1.55]); P = .047 and MRA (1.31 [1.11, 1.55]); P = .002 and less likely to be prescribed ACEi (0.74 [0.63, 0.88]); P < .001. Patients with atrial fibrillation, vs. without, were less likely to receive ACEi/ARB (0.82 [0.71, 0.95]); P = .006 and any study medication (0.81 [0.67, 0.97]); P = .020. Comorbid lung disease and history of depression were not associated with HFrEF prescriptions. CONCLUSIONS: Renin-angiotensin-aldosterone blockade therapy prescription and dose varied by comorbidity status, but ßB therapy did not. In quality efforts, leaders need to consider use and dosing of prescriptions in light of prevalent comorbidities.

Trends in Lung and Bronchus, Prostate, Female Breast, and Colon and Rectum Cancers Incidence and Mortality in Oklahoma and the United States from 1999 to 2012.

BACKGROUND: Cancer is the second-leading cause of death in the United States (US) and Oklahoma ranks near the top with the highest rates of mortality from cancer. The top four major sites of cancer were prostate, female breast, lung and bronchus, and colon and rectum. METHODS: Joinpoint software was used to examine the incidence and mortality for the four cancers over time from 1999-2012 for both the US and Oklahoma. RESULTS: Incidence and mortality rates declined from 1999-2012 for the four cancer sites. The average annual, age-adjusted incidence rate was higher in the US than Oklahoma for prostate cancer, but higher in Oklahoma for female breast, lung and bronchus, and colon and rectum cancer sites. CONCLUSIONS: Over the course of 14 years from 1999-2012, the age-adjusted incidence and mortality rates of prostate cancer, female breast cancer, lung and bronchus cancer, and colon and rectum cancer decreased over time nationally and in Oklahoma.

Cardiology Encounters for Underrepresented Racial and Ethnic Groups with Human Immunodeficiency Virus and Borderline Cardiovascular Disease Risk.

BACKGROUND: Underrepresented racial and ethnic groups (UREGs) with HIV have a higher risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD) compared with the general population. Referral to a cardiovascular specialist improves CVD risk factor management in high-risk individuals. However, patient and provider factors impacting the likelihood of UREGs with HIV to have an encounter with a cardiologist are unknown. METHODS: We evaluated a cohort of UREGs with HIV and borderline CVD risk (10-year risk ≥ 5% by the pooled cohort equations or ≥ 7.5% by Framingham risk score). Participants received HIV-related care from 2014-2020 at four academic medical centers in the United States (U.S.). Adjusted Cox proportional hazards regression was used to estimate the association of patient and provider characteristics with time to first ambulatory cardiology encounter. RESULTS: A total of 2,039 people with HIV (PWH) and borderline CVD risk were identified. The median age was 45 years (IQR: 36-50); 52% were female; and 94% were Black. Of these participants, 283 (14%) had an ambulatory visit with a cardiologist (17% of women vs. 11% of men, p < .001). In fully adjusted models, older age, higher body mass index (BMI), atrial fibrillation, multimorbidity, urban residence, and no recent insurance were associated with a greater likelihood of an encounter with a cardiologist. CONCLUSION: In UREGs with HIV and borderline CVD risk, the strongest determinants of a cardiology encounter were diagnosed CVD, insurance type, and urban residence. Future research is needed to determine the extent to which these encounters impact CVD care practices and outcomes in this population. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04025125.

Physician judgement in predicting obstructive coronary artery disease and adverse events in chest pain patients.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate informal physician judgement versus pretest probability scores in estimating risk in patients with suspected coronary artery disease (CAD). METHODS: We included 4533 patients from the PROMISE (Prospective Multicenter Imaging Study for Evaluation of Chest Pain) trial. Physicians categorised a priori the pretest probability of obstructive CAD (≥70% or ≥50% left main); Diamond-Forrester (D-F) and European Society of Cardiology (ESC) pretest probability estimates were calculated. Agreement was calculated using the κ statistic; logistic regression evaluated estimates of pretest CAD probability and actual CAD (as determined by CT coronary angiography), and clinical outcomes were modelled using Cox proportional hazard models. RESULTS: Physician estimates agreed poorly with D-F (κ 0.16; 95% CI 0.14 to 0.18) and ESC (κ 0.04; 95% CI 0.02 to 0.05). Actual obstructive CAD was significantly more prevalent in both the high-likelihood (OR 3.30; 95% CI 2.30 to 4.74) and the intermediate-likelihood (OR 1.43; 95% CI 1.16 to 1.76) physician-estimated groups versus the low-likelihood group; ESC similarly differentiated between the three groups (OR 9.07; 95% CI 2.87 to 28.70; and OR 3.87; 95% CI 1.22 to 12.28). However, using D-F, only the high-probability group differed (OR 2.49; 95% CI 1.74 to 3.54). Only physician estimates were associated with a higher incidence of adjusted death/myocardial infarction/unstable angina hospitalisation in the high-probability versus low-probability group (HR 2.68; 95% CI 1.52 to 4.74); neither pretest probability score provided prognostic information. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with D-F and ESC estimates, physician judgement more accurately identified obstructive CAD and worse patient outcomes. Integrating physician judgement may improve risk prediction for patients with stable chest pain. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT01174550.

Presenting Symptoms in Patients Undergoing Coronary Artery Disease Evaluation: Association With Noninvasive Test Results and Clinical Outcomes in the PROMISE Trial.

BACKGROUND: Patients evaluated for coronary artery disease have a range of symptoms and underlying risk. The relationships between patient-described symptoms, clinician conclusions, and subsequent clinical management and outcomes remain incompletely described. METHODS: In this secondary analysis, we examined the association between 4 types of presenting symptoms (substernal/left-sided chest pain, other chest/neck/arm pain, dyspnea, and other symptoms) and patient risk, noninvasive test results, clinical management, and outcomes for stable outpatients randomized in the PROMISE (Prospective Multicenter Imaging Study for Evaluation of Chest Pain) trial. Multivariable regression models were used to evaluate differences in noninvasive test result, all-cause death/myocardial infarction/unstable angina hospitalization and cardiovascular death/myocardial infarction by symptom type. RESULTS: Among 9996 patients, most presented with chest pain (47.2% substernal, 29.2% other), followed by dyspnea (14.9%), and other symptoms (8.7%). Patients with dyspnea were older (median age 63 versus 60, P≤0.02) with higher baseline risk (78.2% with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease >7.5% versus 67.6%, P≤0.02). Using patients with substernal chest pain as a reference, there was no difference in noninvasive test positivity across symptom groups (all P>0.05), but test-positive patients with dyspnea (adjusted odds ratio, 0.66 [95% CI, 0.51-0.85]) or other symptoms (adjusted odds ratio, 0.65 [95% CI, 0.47-0.90]) were less likely to be referred for cardiac catheterization. While symptom type alone was not associated with outcomes, symptom presentation with chest pain or dyspnea did modify the association between a positive noninvasive test and clinical outcome (interaction P=0.025 for both all-cause death/myocardial infarction/unstable angina hospitalization and cardiovascular death/MI). CONCLUSIONS: Among low-risk outpatients evaluated for coronary artery disease, typicality of symptoms was not closely associated with higher baseline risk but was related to differences in processes of care and the prognostic value of a positive test. Adverse events were not associated with clinician risk estimates or symptoms alone. These unexpected findings highlight the limitation of relying solely on symptom presentation or clinician risk estimation to evaluate patients for suspected coronary artery disease. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov; Unique identifier: NCT01174550.

The PROMISE Minimal Risk Score Improves Risk Classification of Symptomatic Patients With Suspected CAD.

BACKGROUND: Guidelines for evaluating patients with suspected coronary artery disease (CAD) recommend pretest probability (PTP) estimation but provide no clear recommendations regarding diagnostic testing in patients with >5% to 15% risk of obstructive CAD. The diagnostic and prognostic value of PROMISE (Prospective Multicenter Imaging Study for Evaluation of Chest Pain) minimal risk score (PMRS) calculation in this patient group is unknown. OBJECTIVES: This work aims to improve the evaluation of stable patients with suspected CAD by using the PMRS, which identifies patients at minimal risk of CAD and events in patients with >5% to 15% PTP of obstructive CAD. METHODS: Greater than 5% to 15% PTP patients from 2 large clinical trials were used for subcohort derivation: PROMISE (N = 10,003) and Dan-NICAD (Danish study of Non-Invasive Testing in Coronary Artery Disease) (N = 3,252). First, the PMRS cutoff associated with a prevalence of obstructive CAD ≤5% was determined in the >5% to 15% PTP PROMISE core lab computed tomographic angiography patients (discovery cohort: n = 2,191). This cutoff was validated for obstructive CAD in >5% to 15% PTP Dan-NICAD patients (CAD validation cohort: n = 1,386) and for prognostic impact on death and myocardial infarction in >5% to 15% PTP PROMISE non-core lab computed tomographic angiography patients (prognosis validation cohort: n = 2,753). RESULTS: In the discovery cohort, a CAD prevalence of ≤5% was found at a PMRS of ≥34%. In the CAD validation cohort, this cutoff down-classified 442 (31.9%) of >5% to 15% PTP patients into the low PTP group (CAD ≤5%); the prevalence of obstructive CAD in down-classified patients was 3.2% compared to 7.1% in non-down-classified patients. A PMRS ≥34% was nonsignificantly associated with a lower risk of myocardial infarction and death in the prognosis validation cohort (HR: 0.58 [95% CI: 0.29-1.18]; P = 0.13). CONCLUSIONS: For evaluating patients with suspected CAD, a combined use of traditional PTP and the PMRS correctly down-classified one-third of >5% to 15% PTP patients into a group with very low prevalence of obstructive CAD and adverse events. The proposed strategy may improve risk stratification and help reduce unneeded diagnostic testing.

Risk Adjustment Model for Preserved Health Status in Patients With Heart Failure and Reduced Ejection Fraction: The CHAMP-HF Registry.

BACKGROUND: Health status outcomes are increasingly being promoted as measures of health care quality, given their importance to patients. In heart failure (HF), an American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force proposed using the proportion of patients with preserved health status as a quality measure but not as a performance measure because risk adjustment methods were not available. METHODS: We built risk adjustment models for alive with preserved health status and for preserved health status alone in a prospective registry of outpatients with HF with reduced ejection fraction across 146 US centers between December 2015 and October 2017. Preserved health status was defined as not having a ≥5-point decrease in the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire Overall Summary score at 1 year. Using only patient-level characteristics, hierarchical multivariable logistic regression models were developed for 1-year outcomes and validated using data from 1 to 2 years. We examined model calibration, discrimination, and variability in sites' unadjusted and adjusted rates. RESULTS: Among 3932 participants (median age [interquartile range] 68 years [59-75], 29.7% female, 75.4% White), 2703 (68.7%) were alive with preserved health status, 902 (22.9%) were alive without preserved health status, and 327 (8.3%) had died by 1 year. The final risk adjustment model for alive with preserved health status included baseline Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire Overall Summary, age, race, employment status, annual income, body mass index, depression, atrial fibrillation, renal function, number of hospitalizations in the past 1 year, and duration of HF (optimism-corrected C statistic=0.62 with excellent calibration). Similar results were observed when deaths were ignored. The risk standardized proportion of patients alive with preserved health status across the 146 sites ranged from 62% at the 10th percentile to 75% at the 90th percentile. Variability across sites was modest and changed minimally with risk adjustment. CONCLUSIONS: Through leveraging data from a large, outpatient, observational registry, we identified key factors to risk adjust sites' proportions of patients with preserved health status. These data lay the foundation for building quality measures that quantify treatment outcomes from patients' perspectives.

Clinical and Economic Implications of Inconclusive Noninvasive Test Results in Stable Patients With Suspected Coronary Artery Disease: Insights From the PROMISE Trial.

BACKGROUND: Inconclusive noninvasive tests complicate the care of patients with suspected coronary artery disease, but their prevalence and impact on management, outcomes, and costs are not well described. METHODS: PROMISE (Prospective Multicenter Imaging Study for Evaluation of Chest Pain) patients were randomized to stress testing (n=4533) or computed tomographic angiography (CTA; n=4677). We assessed relationships between inconclusive results, subsequent testing, a composite outcome (death, myocardial infarction, or hospitalization for unstable angina), and healthcare expenditures. RESULTS: Overall, 8.0% of tests were inconclusive (9.7% stress, 6.4% CTA). Compared with negative tests, inconclusive tests were more often referred to a second noninvasive test (stress: 14.6% versus 8.5%, odds ratio [OR], 1.91; CTA: 36.5% versus 8.4%, OR, 5.95; P<0.001) and catheterization (stress: 5.5% versus 2.4%, OR, 2.36; CTA: 23.4% versus 4.1%, OR, 6.49; P<0.001), and composite outcomes were higher for both inconclusive tests (stress: 3.7% versus 2.0%, hazard ratio, 1.81, P=0.034; CTA: 5.0% versus 2.2%, hazard ratio, 1.85; P=0.044) and positive tests (stress: 8.3% versus 2.0%, hazard ratio, 3.50; CTA: 9.2% versus 2.2%, hazard ratio, 3.66; P<0.001). Twenty-four-month costs were higher for inconclusive tests than negative tests by $2905 (stress) and $4030 (CTA). CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with stable chest pain undergoing a noninvasive test, inconclusive results occurred in 6% of CTA and 10% of stress tests. Compared with those with conclusive negative tests, individuals with inconclusive results more often underwent subsequent testing, had increased medical costs, and experienced worse outcomes. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT01174550.

Age-Related Differences in the Noninvasive Evaluation for Possible Coronary Artery Disease: Insights From the Prospective Multicenter Imaging Study for Evaluation of Chest Pain (PROMISE) Trial.

Importance: Although cardiovascular (CV) disease represents the leading cause of morbidity and mortality that increases with age, the best noninvasive test to identify older patients at risk for CV events remains unknown. Objective: To determine whether the prognostic utility of anatomic vs functional testing varies based on patient age. Design, Setting, and Participants: Prespecified analysis of the Prospective Multicenter Imaging Study for Evaluation of Chest Pain (PROMISE) study, which used a pragmatic comparative effectiveness design. Participants were enrolled from 193 sites across North America and comprised outpatients without known coronary artery disease (CAD) but with symptoms suggestive of CAD. Data were analyzed between October 2018 and April 2019. Interventions: Randomization to noninvasive testing with coronary computed tomographic angiography or functional testing. Main Outcomes and Measures: The composite of CV death/myocardial infarction (MI) over a median follow-up of 25 months. Results: Among 10 003 PROMISE patients, we included the 8966 who received the noninvasive test to which they were randomized and had interpretable results; 6378 (71.1%) were younger than 65 years, 2062 (23.0%) were between ages 65 and 74 years, and 526 (5.9%) were 75 years and older. More than half of participants were women (4720 of 8966 [52.6%]). Only a minority of patients were of nonwhite race/ethnicity, a proportion that was lower among the older age groups (1071 of 6378 [16.8%] for <65 years; 258 of 2062 [12.5%] for age 65-74 years; 41 of 526 [7.8%] for ≥75 years). Compared with patients younger than 65 years, older patients were more likely to have a positive test result (age 65-74 years: odds ratio, 1.65; 95% CI, 1.42-1.91; age ≥75 years: odds ratio, 2.32; 95% CI, 1.83-2.95), regardless of noninvasive test completed. A positive functional test result was not associated with CV death/MI in patients younger than 65 years (hazard ratio [HR], 1.09; 95% CI, 0.43-2.82) but it was among older patients (age 65-74 years: HR, 3.18; 95% CI, 1.44-7.01; age ≥75 years: HR, 6.55; 95% CI, 1.46-29.35). Conversely, a positive anatomic test result was associated with CV death/MI among patients younger than 65 years (HR, 3.04; 95% CI, 1.46-6.34) but not among older patients (age, 65-74 years: HR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.15-2.94; age ≥75 years: HR, 1.07; 95% CI, 0.22-5.34; P for interaction = .01). An elevated coronary artery calcium score was predictive of events in patients younger than 65 years (HR, 2.73; 95% CI, 1.31-5.69) but not for older patients (age 65-74 years: HR, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.14-1.42; age ≥75 years: HR, 1.31; 95% CI, 0.25-6.88). Conclusions and Relevance: Older patients with stable symptoms suggestive of CAD are more likely to have a positive noninvasive test result and more coronary artery calcium. However, only a positive functional test result was associated with risk of CV death/MI. Age-specific approaches to noninvasive evaluation of CAD should be further examined. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01174550.

Contemporary Treatment Patterns and Clinical Outcomes of Comorbid Diabetes Mellitus and HFrEF: The CHAMP-HF Registry.

OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to characterize the clinical profile, treatment patterns, and clinical outcomes of patients with comorbid diabetes mellitus (DM) and heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) in a contemporary, real-world U.S. outpatient registry in the context of evolving treatment strategies. BACKGROUND: Specific antihyperglycemic classes have differential risks and benefits with respect to HF. Limited data are available evaluating contemporary treatment patterns and outcomes of patients with comorbid DM and HFrEF. METHODS: Among 4,970 patients with chronic HFrEF (≤40%) across 152 U.S. sites in the CHAMP-HF prospective, observational registry (2015 to 2017), we examined therapies and clinical outcomes by DM status. RESULTS: Median age was 68 (58 to 75) years of age; 29% were women; 73.5% were white; and 64% had coronary artery disease. Overall, 42% (n = 2,085) had comorbid DM with a median hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) level of 7.2% (interquartile range [IQR]: 6.4% to 8.3%). One-fourth of DM patients (24%) were not treated with an antihyperglycemic therapy. Most patients with DM were taking 1 (46%) or 2 (23%) antihyperglycemic therapies: metformin (40%); insulin (33%); sulfonylureas (24%); dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (10%); glucagon-like peptide (GLP)-1 receptor agonists (4%); sodium-glucose cotransporter (SGLT)-2 inhibitors (2%); and thiazolidinediones (2%). Among patients with DM, 62%, 16%, 80%, and 33.5% were receiving any angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor/angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs), angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI), ß-blockers, or mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRAs) at baseline, respectively. Among patients without DM, corresponding baseline rates were 65%, 15%, 80%, and 37%, respectively. Patients with or without DM were infrequently treated with guideline-directed HFrEF therapies at target doses (≤27% across classes). During median 15-month follow-up, patients with DM experienced higher rates of all-cause mortality or HF hospitalization (30% vs. 23%, respectively), independent of 11 pre-specified covariates (adjusted hazard ratio: 1.35 (95% confidence interval: 1.21 to 1.52); p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Despite higher risk-adjusted clinical event rates in patients with comorbid HFrEF and DM, guideline-directed medical therapies for both disease states are incomplete and represent an important target for quality improvement through multidisciplinary care pathways.

Discordances between predicted and actual risk in obese patients with suspected cardiac ischaemia.

OBJECTIVES: To test the relationship between increasing severity of obesity, calculated risk and observed outcomes. METHODS: Patients with symptoms suggestive of coronary artery disease (CAD) (n=10 003) were stratified according to body mass index (BMI). We compared risk factors, pooled risk scores and physicians' perception of risk. Cox regression tested the association between BMI and (1) presence of obstructive CAD and (2) composite clinical endpoints (death, cardiovascular death, unstable angina hospitalisation and myocardial infarction). RESULTS: BMI was ≥30 kg/m2 in 48% of patients and ≥35 in 20%. Increasingly obese patients were younger, female and non-smoking but with higher prevalence of hypertension, diabetes, black race and sedentary lifestyle. Pooled risk estimates of CAD were highest in those with mid-range BMI. In contrast, physicians' estimation of the likelihood of significant CAD based on clinical impression increased progressively with BMI. For a 10% increase in the Diamond-Forrester probability of CAD, the adjusted OR for obstructive CAD was 1.5 (95% CI 1.4 to 1.5) in patients with BMI <35, but only 1.2 (95% CI 1.1 to 1.3) in those with BMI ≥35 (interaction p<0.001). Framingham Risk Score increased across increasing BMI categories. However, there was a strong and consistent inverse relationship between degree of obesity and all three composite clinical endpoints over a median 25 months of follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: Despite perceptions of higher risk and higher risk scores, increasingly obese patients had obstructive CAD less frequently than predicted and had fewer adverse clinical outcomes. There is a need for risk assessment tools and guidelines that account for obesity. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT01174550.

Titration of Medical Therapy for Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction.

BACKGROUND: Guidelines recommend that patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) have medical therapy titrated to target doses derived from clinical trials, as tolerated. The degree to which titration occurs in contemporary U.S. practice is unknown. OBJECTIVES: This study sought to characterize longitudinal titration of HFrEF medical therapy in clinical practice and to identify associated factors and reasons for medication changes. METHODS: Among 2,588 U.S. outpatients with chronic HFrEF in the CHAMP-HF (Change the Management of Patients with Heart Failure) registry with complete medication data and no contraindications to medical therapy, use and dose of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor (ACEI)/angiotensin II receptor blocker (ARB), angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI), beta-blocker, and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist (MRA) were examined at baseline and at 12-month follow-up. RESULTS: At baseline, 658 (25%), 525 (20%), 287 (11%), and 45 (2%) patients were receiving target doses of MRA, beta-blocker, ACEI/ARB, and ARNI therapy, respectively. At 12 months, proportions of patients with medication initiation or dose increase were 6% for MRA, 10% for beta-blocker, 7% for ACEI/ARB, and 10% for ARNI; corresponding proportions with discontinuation or dose decrease were 4%, 7%, 11%, and 3%, respectively. Over 12 months, <1% of patients were simultaneously treated with target doses of ACEI/ARB/ARNI, beta-blocker, and MRA. In multivariate analysis, across the classes of medications, multiple patient characteristics were associated with a higher likelihood of initiation or dose increase (e.g., previous HF hospitalization, higher blood pressure, lower ejection fraction) and discontinuation or dose decrease (e.g., previous HF hospitalization, impaired quality of life, more severe functional class). Medical reasons were the most common reasons for discontinuations and dose decreases of each therapy, but the relative contributions from patient preference, health team, and systems-based reasons varied by medication. CONCLUSIONS: In this contemporary U.S. registry, most eligible HFrEF patients did not receive target doses of medical therapy at any point during follow-up, and few patients had doses increased over time. Although most patients had no alterations in medical therapy, multiple clinical factors were independently associated with medication changes. Further quality improvement efforts are urgently needed to improve guideline-directed medication titration for HFrEF.

Comparison of International Guidelines for Assessment of Suspected Stable Angina: Insights From the PROMISE and SCOT-HEART.

OBJECTIVES: This study sought to compare the performance of major guidelines for the assessment of stable chest pain including risk-based (American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association and European Society of Cardiology) and symptom-focused (National Institute for Health and Care Excellence) strategies. BACKGROUND: Although noninvasive testing is not recommended in low-risk individuals with stable chest pain, guidelines recommend differing approaches to defining low-risk patients. METHODS: Patient-level data were obtained from the PROMISE (Prospective Multicenter Imaging Study for Evaluation of Chest Pain) and SCOT-HEART (Scottish Computed Tomography of the Heart) trials. Pre-test probability was determined and patients dichotomized into low-risk and intermediate-high-risk groups according to each guideline's definitions. The primary endpoint was obstructive coronary artery disease on coronary computed tomography angiography. Secondary endpoints were coronary revascularization at 90 days and cardiovascular death or nonfatal myocardial infarction up to 3 years. RESULTS: In total, 13,773 patients were included of whom 6,160 had coronary computed tomography angiography. The proportions of patients identified as low risk by the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association, European Society of Cardiology, and National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidelines, respectively, were 2.5%, 2.5%, and 10.0% within PROMISE, and 14.0%, 19.8%, and 38.4% within SCOT-HEART. All guidelines identified lower rates of obstructive coronary artery disease in low- versus intermediate-high-risk patients with a negative predictive value of ≥0.90. Compared with low-risk groups, all intermediate-high-risk groups had greater risks of coronary revascularization (odds ratio [OR]: 2.2 to 24.1) and clinical outcomes (OR: 1.84 to 5.8). CONCLUSIONS: Compared with risk-based guidelines, symptom-focused assessment identifies a larger group of low-risk chest pain patients potentially deriving limited benefit from noninvasive testing. (Scottish Computed Tomography of the Heart Trial [SCOT-HEART]; NCT01149590; Prospective Multicenter Imaging Study for Evaluation of Chest Pain [PROMISE]; NCT01174550).

Patient, Provider, and Practice Characteristics Associated With Sacubitril/Valsartan Use in the United States.

Background Current guidelines recommend sacubitril/valsartan for patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, but the rate of adoption in the United States has been slow. Methods and Results Using data from CHAMP-HF (Change the Management of Patients With Heart Failure), we described current sacubitril/valsartan use and identified patient, provider, and practice characteristics associated with its use. We considered patients to be on sacubitril/valsartan if they were prescribed it before enrollment or initiated on it at the baseline visit. We excluded patients with a contraindication to sacubitril/valsartan and practices with <10 patients enrolled. Of 4216 patients from 121 sites, 616 (15%) were prescribed sacubitril/valsartan, 2506 (59%) an angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor/angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB), and 1094 (26%) neither. Patients prescribed sacubitril/valsartan were younger (63 years versus 66 years ACE inhibitor/ARB versus 69 years neither, P<0.001), less likely to have chronic kidney disease (15% versus 17% ACE inhibitor/ARB versus 30% neither, P<0.001), more likely to have cardiac resynchronization therapy (12% versus 7% ACE inhibitor/ARB versus 7% neither, P<0.001), and had lower ejection fraction (27% versus 30% ACE inhibitor/ARB versus 30% neither, P<0.001). Larger practices, based on number of cardiologists and advanced practice providers, were associated with the highest sacubitril/valsartan use. After multivariable adjustment, the number of advanced practice providers was associated with sacubitril/valsartan use (adjusted odds ratio,1.08; 95% CI, 1.03-1.14). Conclusions Despite current guideline recommendations, adoption of sacubitril/valsartan remains low. Provider and practice characteristics associated with sacubitril/valsartan use were related to general practice size and were not associated with practice characteristics specific for heart failure. Further research is needed to identify strategies for effective quality improvement interventions in chronic heart failure with reduced ejection fraction.

Medical Therapy for Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction: The CHAMP-HF Registry.

BACKGROUND: Guidelines strongly recommend patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) be treated with multiple medications proven to improve clinical outcomes, as tolerated. The degree to which gaps in medication use and dosing persist in contemporary outpatient practice is unclear. OBJECTIVES: This study sought to characterize patterns and factors associated with use and dose of HFrEF medications in current practice. METHODS: The CHAMP-HF (Change the Management of Patients with Heart Failure) registry included outpatients in the United States with chronic HFrEF receiving at least 1 oral medication for management of HF. Patients were characterized by baseline use and dose of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor (ACEI)/angiotensin II receptor blocker (ARB), angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI), beta-blocker, and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist (MRA). Patient-level factors associated with medication use were examined. RESULTS: Overall, 3,518 patients from 150 primary care and cardiology practices were included. Mean age was 66 ± 13 years, 29% were female, and mean EF was 29 ± 8%. Among eligible patients, 27%, 33%, and 67% were not prescribed ACEI/ARB/ARNI, beta-blocker, and MRA therapy, respectively. When medications were prescribed, few patients were receiving target doses of ACEI/ARB (17%), ARNI (14%), and beta-blocker (28%), whereas most patients were receiving target doses of MRA therapy (77%). Among patients eligible for all classes of medication, 1% were simultaneously receiving target doses of ACE/ARB/ARNI, beta-blocker, and MRA. In adjusted models, older age, lower blood pressure, more severe functional class, renal insufficiency, and recent HF hospitalization generally favored lower medication utilization or dose. Social and economic characteristics were not independently associated with medication use or dose. CONCLUSIONS: In this contemporary outpatient HFrEF registry, significant gaps in use and dose of guideline-directed medical therapy remain. Multiple clinical factors were associated with medication use and dose prescribed. Strategies to improve guideline-directed use of HFrEF medications remain urgently needed, and these findings may inform targeted approaches to optimize outpatient medical therapy.