Clinical Care Pathway for the Risk Stratification and Management of Patients With Nonalcoholic Fatty Liver Disease.

Find AGA's NASH Clinical Care Pathway App for iOS and Android mobile devices at nash.gastro.org. Scan this QR code to be taken directly to the website.Nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) is becoming increasingly common, currently affecting approximately 37% of US adults. NAFLD is most often managed in primary care or endocrine clinics, where clinicians must determine which patients might benefit from secondary care to address hepatic manifestations, comorbid metabolic traits, and cardiovascular risks of the disease. Because NAFLD is largely asymptomatic, and because optimal timing of treatment depends on accurate staging of fibrosis risk, screening at the primary care level is critical, together with consistent, timely, evidence-based, widely accessible, and testable management processes. To achieve these goals, the American Gastroenterological Association assembled a multidisciplinary panel of experts to develop a Clinical Care Pathway providing explicit guidance on the screening, diagnosis, and treatment of NAFLD. This article describes the NAFLD Clinical Care Pathway they developed and provides a rationale supporting proposed steps to assist clinicians in diagnosing and managing NAFLD with clinically significant fibrosis (stage F2-F4) based on the best available evidence. This Pathway is intended to be applicable in any setting where care for patients with NAFLD is provided, including primary care, endocrine, obesity medicine, and gastroenterology practices.

Management of NAFLD in primary care settings.

Non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) affects at least 25% of the general population and is an increasingly important cause of cirrhosis and hepatocellular carcinoma. Although it is the research focus of the hepatology field, it is clear that primary care physicians are seeing the majority of NAFLD patients and are in a pivotal position to provide quality care. In this article, we review the role of primary care in the management of NAFLD. NAFLD is common in patients with diabetes, obesity and other metabolic risk factors. Abdominal ultrasonography is the most commonly used method to diagnose fatty liver. Simple fibrosis scores have high negative predictive values in excluding advanced liver fibrosis and future liver-related events and can be used in primary care as initial evaluation. An abnormal result should be followed by subsequent workup or specialist referral. Primary care is the ideal setting to institute multidisciplinary care, especially the involvement of dietitians and physical activity trainers in lifestyle intervention, as well as initiating the discussion of bariatric surgery in patients with severe obesity. Although specific drug treatment for steatohepatitis would require a more precise diagnosis, metabolic drugs that improve both steatohepatitis and cardiovascular outcomes (e.g. glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists) may be considered in patients with NAFLD.

Use of Flash Continuous Glucose Monitoring Is Associated With A1C Reduction in People With Type 2 Diabetes Treated With Basal Insulin or Noninsulin Therapy.

BACKGROUND: Glycemic control is suboptimal in many individuals with type 2 diabetes. Although use of flash continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) has demonstrated A1C reductions in patients with type 2 diabetes treated with a multiple daily injection or insulin pump therapy regimen, the glycemic benefit of this technology in patients with type 2 diabetes using nonintensive treatment regimens has not been well studied. METHODS: This retrospective, observational study used the IBM Explorys database to assess changes in A1C after flash CGM prescription in a large population with suboptimally controlled type 2 diabetes treated with nonintensive therapy. Inclusion criteria were diagnosis of type 2 diabetes, age <65 years, treatment with basal insulin or noninsulin therapy, naive to any CGM, baseline A1C ≥8%, and a prescription for the FreeStyle Libre flash CGM system during the period between October 2017 and February 2020. Patients served as their own control subject. RESULTS: A total of 1,034 adults with type 2 diabetes (mean age 51.6 ± 9.2 years, 50.9% male, baseline A1C 10.1 ± 1.7%) were assessed. More patients received noninsulin treatments (n = 728) than basal insulin therapy (n = 306). We observed a significant reduction in A1C within the full cohort: from 10.1 ± 1.7 to 8.6 ± 1.8%; Δ -1.5 ± 2.2% (P <0.001). The largest reductions were seen in patients with a baseline A1C ≥12.0% (n = 181, A1C reduction -3.7%, P <0.001). Significant reductions were seen in both treatment groups (basal insulin -1.1%, noninsulin -1.6%, both P <0.001). CONCLUSION: Prescription of the flash CGM system was associated with significant reductions in A1C in patients with type 2 diabetes treated with basal insulin or noninsulin therapy. These findings provide evidence for expanding access to flash CGM within the broader population of people with type 2 diabetes.

Post Hoc Analysis Evaluating the Impact of Antihyperglycemic Background Therapies on Attainment of A1C Targets Without Hypoglycemia in the ACHIEVE Control Pragmatic, Real-Life Study.

BACKGROUND: ACHIEVE Control, a prospective, open-label, randomized, pragmatic, real-life study in insulin-naive people with type 2 diabetes (A1C 8.0-11.0%), demonstrated superiority of insulin glargine 300 units/mL (Gla-300) versus first-generation standard-of-care basal insulin (SOC-BI; glargine 100 units/mL or insulin detemir) in achieving individualized A1C targets without documented symptomatic (glucose ≤3.9 mmol/L [≤70 mg/dL] or <3.0 mmol/L [<54 mg/dL]) or severe hypoglycemia (American Diabetes Association level 3) at 6 months. Noninsulin antihyperglycemic background therapies are commonly used; however, sulfonylureas may increase hypoglycemia risk. This post hoc analysis assessed outcomes according to background therapy. METHODS: Subgroup analyses were performed per concomitant use/nonuse of sulfonylureas, glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists, dipeptidyl peptidase 4 inhibitors, or sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors. End points (6 and 12 months) included A1C target attainment without documented symptomatic or severe hypoglycemia, A1C target attainment, and absence of documented symptomatic or severe hypoglycemia. RESULTS: Odds ratios (ORs) at 12 months mostly favored Gla-300 versus SOC-BI across subgroups except in analysis of SGLT2 inhibitors, in which ORs were similar. Among sulfonylurea users, ORs at 12 months strongly favored Gla-300 versus SOC-BI for all end points, particularly A1C target achievement without documented symptomatic hypoglycemia (glucose ≤3.9 mmol/L [≤70 mg/dL]; OR 1.25, 95% CI 1.02-1.53) or severe hypoglycemia and achievement of no documented symptomatic hypoglycemia (glucose <3.0 mmol/L [<54 mg/dL]; OR 1.25, 95% CI 1.02-1.52) or severe hypoglycemia. CONCLUSION: The results suggest that, in insulin-naive people with type 2 diabetes, Gla-300 is effective with a risk of hypoglycemia that is lower than or similar to that of SOC-BI regardless of background medication. Individuals receiving concomitant sulfonylureas were more likely to remain without symptomatic or severe hypoglycemia with Gla-300.

Time in Range: How to Measure It, How to Report It, and Its Practical Application in Clinical Decision-Making.

The A1C metric has been the gold standard for assessing glycemia for decades. This biologic assay, based on averaging, is fraught with limitations and may be giving way to more holistic approaches. This article reviews glycemic time in range as the new standard for assessing patients with continuous glucose monitoring data. Information from the International Consensus Group on Time in Range will be summarized.

Using Flash Continuous Glucose Monitoring in Primary Practice.

IN BRIEF Obstacles to realizing the clinical benefits of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) for daily diabetes management are being overcome with more affordable, user-friendly technologies. This article describes a novel category of CGM known as "flash" that may allow more routine use of continuous data for greater numbers of patients treated in primary care.

A Pilot Study to Assess Clinical Utility and User Experience of Professional Continuous Glucose Monitoring Among People With Type 2 Diabetes.

IN BRIEF Glucose variability is a potential independent risk factor of poor clinical outcome among people with diabetes, with adequate measurement technically difficult and cumbersome. For this study, a novel 14-day continuous sensor was used to assess glucose variability among people with type 2 diabetes (T2D). The aim was to characterize glucose profiles for up to 2 weeks in T2D and to survey device utilization in a standard clinical setting and its potential to collect clinically meaningful data.

Glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists compared with basal insulins for the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

AIMS: Since 2005, several glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) have been approved to treat people with type 2 diabetes. These agents are considered for use at the same point in the treatment paradigm as basal insulins. A comprehensive comparison of these drug classes, therefore, can help inform treatment decisions. This systematic review and meta-analysis assessed the clinical efficacy and safety of GLP-1 RAs compared with basal insulins. MATERIALS AND METHODS: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL and PubMed databases were searched. Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) of ≥16 weeks' duration comparing GLP-1 RAs vs basal insulins in adults with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled with oral antihyperglycemic drugs were included. Data on the change from baseline to 26 weeks (±10 weeks) of treatment in hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) and weight, as well as the proportion of patients experiencing hypoglycaemia, were extracted. Fixed-effect pairwise meta-analyses were conducted where data were available from ≥2 studies. RESULTS: Fifteen RCTs were identified and 11 were meta-analysed. The once-weekly GLP-1 RAs, exenatide long acting release (LAR) and dulaglutide, led to greater, statistically significant mean HbA1c reductions vs basal insulins (exenatide: -0.31% [95% confidence interval -0.42, -0.19], dulaglutide: -0.39% [-0.49, -0.29]) whilst once-daily liraglutide and twice-daily exenatide did not (liraglutide: 0.06% [-0.06, 0.18], exenatide: 0.01% [-0.11, 0.13]). Mean weight reduction was seen with all GLP-1 RAs while mean weight gain was seen with basal insulins. Interpretation of the analysis of hypoglycaemia was limited by inconsistent definitions and reporting. Because of the limited number of available studies sensitivity analyses to explore heterogeneity could not be conducted. CONCLUSIONS: Although weight reduction is seen with all GLP-1 RA's, only the once-weekly agents, exenatide LAR and dulaglutide, demonstrate significant HbA1c reductions when compared to basal insulins.

Making treatment guideline recommendations in chronic kidney disease and type 2 diabetes more accessible to primary care providers in the United States.

Clinical practice guidelines for the management of chronic kidney disease (CKD) associated with type 2 diabetes (T2D) are designed to assist healthcare professionals with clinical decision making by providing recommendations on the screening, detection, management, and treatment of these conditions. However, primary care practitioners (PCPs) may have clinical inertia when it comes to routinely enacting CKD and T2D guideline recommendations in their clinical practices. Guideline developers have published a range of resources with the aim of facilitating easier access to guideline recommendations to support efficient and consistent implementation into clinical practice of PCPs. Challenges remain in providing strategies to reduce inertia in the application of guideline recommendations in primary care. In this review, we explore reasons behind the low level of awareness and poor uptake of published evidence-based care approaches to the optimal management of patients with T2D and CKD. Finally, we present suggestions on strategies to improve the implementation of guideline-directed recommendations in primary care.

Clinical practice guidelines for managing chronic kidney disease (CKD) for people who also have type 2 diabetes (T2D) provide healthcare providers with recommendations on how to identify, diagnose, and treat CKD. Although treatments cannot cure CKD, they can help to reduce the risk of CKD getting worse. The recommendations are based on results of clinical trials that tested how safe and how well a medication works among many people with CKD and T2D. If these clinical trials show that the medicine is beneficial for people with CKD and T2D, then it may be included in guideline recommendations. Most people living with T2D and early-stage CKD are treated by their primary care practitioner (PCP). If PCPs are not fully aware of guideline recommendations, then their patients may lose the opportunity to receive medications that can benefit them. PCPs have said that barriers to implementing guideline recommendations in their clinical practices include too many guidelines and that the guidelines are difficult to understand and use in their offices. Guideline developers have thought of ways to make the guidelines easier to access and use. This includes putting the guidelines onto mobile apps, providing online resources, making versions more relevant to PCPs, and combining multiple guidelines. These approaches are helpful, but more work is needed. This review article talks about the reasons why PCPs are not always aware of the most up-to-date guideline recommendations for CKD and T2D, how guideline developers have found different ways of sharing the guideline recommendations, and what more can be done.

Summary of Research: Cardiovascular and Kidney Outcomes with Finerenone in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes and Chronic Kidney Disease-The FIDELITY Pooled Analysis.

People living with type 2 diabetes (T2D) and chronic kidney disease (CKD) are at risk of CKD progression and kidney failure. This is a summary of the FIDELITY pooled analysis where two clinical trials (FIDELIO-DKD and FIGARO-DKD) were performed to investigate the safety and efficacy of finerenone in people with T2D and CKD. The data from these two studies were combined and analyzed and it was found that those who took finerenone on top of standard-of-care medicine had a 14% reduced risk of having a cardiovascular event and 23% reduced risk of having a kidney event versus those who took placebo. Those who took finerenone were also more likely to have high blood potassium, but this was mostly manageable.A graphical abstract and translations of all content (Chinese, Japanese, German, Spanish, Brazilian-Portuguese, French) are available for this article.

Association of Changes in A1C Following Continuous Glucose Monitoring Acquisition in People with Sub-Optimally Treated Type 2 Diabetes Taking GLP-1 RA Therapy.

INTRODUCTION: Both glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RA) and continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) improve glycemia in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D). However, it is unknown whether adding CGM to GLP-1 RA therapy further improves A1c. We evaluated changes in A1c levels 6 months after initiation of FreeStyle Libre (FSL) in adults with sub-optimally controlled T2D already on GLP-1 RA therapy. METHODS: This retrospective, observational study used Optum's de-identified Market Clarity Data, a linked electronic health record-claims database to assess changes in A1c after FSL acquisition. Inclusion criteria were T2D diagnosis, ≥ 18 years, baseline A1c ≥ 8%, with the first FSL acquisition between 2018 and 2022. Patients were required to be on GLP-1 RA prior to FSL with at least one GLP-1 RA prescription within 90 days of FSL acquisition. GLP-1 RA initiation was defined as the earliest GLP-1 RA prescription from 2017 onwards. Paired changes in A1c were assessed at 6 months after initial FSL acquisition. RESULTS: The study cohort included 1454 adults with T2D (age 55 ± 10 years, 52% male, 38% with intensive insulin therapy, median 471 days from GLP-1 RA initiation to FSL, and baseline A1c 9.8 ± 1.5%). After FSL acquisition, patients experienced an A1c decrease of 1.5 ± 1.9% (p < 0.001). Patients with a baseline A1c > 10% had the largest reduction (n = 497, - 2.7 ± 2.2%, p < 0.001). Significant improvements were observed in subgroups based on insulin therapy and GLP-1 RA formulation. Those initiating GLP-1 RA therapy > 24 months before FSL acquisition also showed improvements in A1c (n = 478; - 1.3 ± 1.7%, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: In a large, real-world study of adults with T2D, those on prior GLP-1 RA therapy experienced significant A1c improvements after acquiring FSL, irrespective of GLP-1 RA duration, GLP-1 RA formulation, or insulin therapy type. These findings support the use of FSL in adults with T2D treated with GLP-1 RA.

Initiating GLP-1 Therapy in Combination with FreeStyle Libre Provides Greater Benefit Compared with GLP-1 Therapy Alone.

Background and Aim: Glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RA) therapy provides glycemic benefits to individuals with type 2 diabetes (T2D). However, the effects of GLP-1 RA therapy in combination with FreeStyle Libre systems (FSL) are unknown. This study aimed to compare changes in hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) between people acquiring GLP-1 with FSL (GLP-1+FSL) versus GLP-1 without FSL (GLP-1). Methods: This real-world study used Optum's de-identified Market Clarity Data, a linked electronic health records (EHR)-claims database, and included adults with T2D and HbA1c ≥8% who acquired their first GLP-1 RA medication between 2018 and 2022. GLP-1+FSL subjects acquired their first FSL within ±30 days of their first GLP-1 acquisition. Cohorts were matched 1:5 on baseline insulin therapy, age, sex, baseline HbA1c, and GLP-1 type. Paired changes in HbA1c were compared between unmatched and matched groups at 6 months. Results: The study included 24,724 adults in the unmatched cohort (GLP-1+FSL, n = 478; GLP-1, n = 24,246). The matched cohort included 478 GLP-1+FSL users and 2,390 GLP-1 users: mean age 53.5 ± 11.8 and 53.5 ± 11.3 years, HbA1c 10.25 ± 1.68% and 10.22 ± 1.69%, respectively. HbA1c reduction was greater in the GLP-1+FSL group compared with the GLP-1 group in the unmatched cohort (-2.43% vs. -1.73%, difference 0.70%, P < 0.001, respectively) and in the matched cohort (-2.43% vs. -2.06%, difference 0.37%, P < 0.001). GLP-1+FSL vs. GLP-1 treatment was associated with greater HbA1c reduction in the intensive insulin (-2.32% vs. -1.50%), nonintensive insulin (-2.50% vs. -1.74%), and noninsulin group (-2.46% vs. -1.78%), as well as in patients using semaglutide (-2.73% vs. -1.92%) and dulaglutide (-2.45% vs. -1.71%) GLP-1 RA, all P < 0.001. Conclusions: Adults with suboptimally controlled T2D, initiating GLP-1 RA with FreeStyle Libre, had greater improvement in HbA1c compared with those treated with GLP-1 RA only. These results suggest an additional glycemic benefit of FSL when used with a GLP-1 RA in T2D treatment.

Expert Panel Recommendations for a Standardized Ambulatory Glucose Profile Report for Connected Insulin Pens.

Background: Connected insulin pens capture data on insulin dosing/timing and can integrate with continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) devices with essential insulin and glucose metrics combined into a single platform. Standardization of connected insulin pen reports is desirable to enhance clinical utility with a single report. Methods: An international expert panel was convened to develop a standardized connected insulin pen report incorporating insulin and glucose metrics into a single report containing clinically useful information. An extensive literature review and identification of examples of current connected insulin pen reports were performed serving as the basis for creation of a draft of a standardized connected insulin pen report. The expert panel participated in three virtual standardization meetings and online surveys. Results: The Ambulatory Glucose Profile (AGP) Report: Connected Insulin Pen brings all clinically relevant CGM-derived glucose and connected insulin pen metrics into a single simplified two-page report. The first page contains the time in ranges bar, summary of key insulin and glucose metrics, the AGP curve, and detailed basal (long-acting) insulin assessment. The second page contains the bolus (mealtime and correction) insulin assessment periods with information on meal timing, insulin-to-carbohydrate ratio, average bolus insulin dose, and number of days with bolus doses recorded. The report's second page contains daily glucose profiles with an overlay of the timing and amount of basal and bolus insulin administered. Conclusion: The AGP Report: Connected Insulin Pen is a standardized clinically useful report that should be considered by companies developing connected pen technology as part of their system reporting/output.

Is Continuous Glucose Monitoring a Tool, an Intervention, or Both?

Studies that investigate use of diabetes technologies such as blood glucose monitoring (BGM) and continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) often report contradictory findings regarding efficacy and clinical utility. Whereas some studies of a given technology have shown no benefit, others have reported significant benefits. These incongruities derive from how the technology is viewed. Is it viewed as a tool, or is it an intervention? In this article, we discuss earlier studies that illustrate the contrast between use of BGM as a tool versus use as an intervention, compare and contrast the roles of BGM and CGM as tools and/or interventions in diabetes management, and suggest that CGM can function effectively as both.

Advancements in Diabetes Technology Are Outpacing the Evidence.

Diabetes technologies such as continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) continue to evolve at an increasingly rapid pace. Seventeen new CGM devices have been introduced to the market during the past decade. The introduction of each new system is supported by well-designed randomized controlled trials and real-world retrospective and prospective studies. However, translation of the evidence into clinical guidelines and coverage policies often lags. This article reviews the major limitations of the current approach to clinical evidence assessment and presents a more appropriate method for evaluating rapidly evolving technologies such as CGM.

Optimizing Multidisciplinary Care of Patients with Chronic Kidney Disease and Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus.

Diabetes is the leading cause of chronic kidney disease (CKD), a condition associated with significant morbidity and mortality. As these patients have a high risk of developing cardiovascular disease and end-stage kidney disease, there is a need for early detection and early initiation of appropriate therapeutic interventions that slow disease progression and prevent adverse outcomes. Due to the complex nature of diabetes and CKD management, a holistic, patient-centered, collaborative care approach delivered by a coordinated multidisciplinary team (ideally including a clinical pharmacist as part of a comprehensive medication management program) is needed. In this review, we discuss the barriers to effective care, the current multidisciplinary approach used for CKD prevention and treatment, and the potential ways that the multidisciplinary management of CKD associated with type 2 diabetes mellitus can be refined to improve patient outcomes.

People living with type 2 diabetes mellitus are at risk of developing chronic kidney disease. Having chronic kidney disease means that over time the kidneys may not work as well as they should. Some people with chronic kidney disease will eventually need a new kidney (transplant) or will need to use a machine that does the job of their kidneys (dialysis). To slow the rate at which the kidneys get worse, chronic kidney disease needs to be detected and treated early. A multidisciplinary team of healthcare professionals is needed to help people with type 2 diabetes reduce their chances of getting chronic kidney disease, or to prevent their chronic kidney disease from getting worse. Some healthcare teams include a clinical pharmacist who makes sure medicines are given in the correct amount and at the correct time. It is important that the healthcare team members communicate well and include the person with type 2 diabetes and chronic kidney disease and their family members or caregivers (if needed) in the decision-making process to achieve better health results. Barriers stopping people with type 2 diabetes and chronic kidney disease from getting good healthcare include a shortage of nephrologists, not having enough healthcare insurance, limited access to healthcare, and poor understanding about what chronic kidney disease is and how it can be treated. This review article discusses the barriers to better healthcare in chronic kidney disease and how the current healthcare team approach could be changed to improve health results.

Living with Chronic Kidney Disease and Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: The Patient and Clinician Perspective.

Comorbid type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2D) and chronic kidney disease (CKD) is associated with poor health outcomes and a high economic burden. Management of these conditions remains a significant challenge for current healthcare systems. The objective of this article is to describe the experiences of patients living with T2D and CKD and their thoughts on how communication between patients and their clinicians could be improved despite the multiple comorbidities that need to be addressed. We present the individual perspectives of three patient authors, followed by relevant discussion around the management of CKD in patients with T2D by clinician authors.Audio abstract available for this article. Audio Abstract. In this audio introduction, the authors Patrick Gee (a patient author) and Eugene Wright (a clinician author) provide a brief overview and discuss the key findings of their article titled "Living with Chronic Kidney Disease and Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: The Patient and Clinician Perspective".

People living with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2D for short) and chronic kidney disease (CKD for short) may have worse health over time. Managing long-term health conditions can be expensive for those living with the conditions and for healthcare systems. To optimize their quality of life, people with T2D and CKD need the necessary resources to better manage their conditions. Healthcare professionals desire the best outcomes for their patients. Currently, communication between healthcare professionals and their patients is suboptimal, and ineffective communication creates a barrier to effective optimal care. The aim of this article is to describe the experiences of three people living with T2D and CKD (patients), who are also authors of the article. They outline their thoughts on how communication between patients and healthcare professionals might be improved when managing multiple conditions. We also present responses from three healthcare professionals (clinicians), who are co-authors of this article, to the points made by the patients, as well as their views on how to manage these long-term conditions.

Early intervention and intensive management of patients with diabetes, cardiorenal, and metabolic diseases.

Increasing rates of obesity and diabetes have driven corresponding increases in related cardiorenal and metabolic diseases. In many patients, these conditions occur together, further increasing morbidity and mortality risks to the individual. Yet all too often, the risk factors for these disorders are not addressed promptly in clinical practice, leading to irreversible pathologic progression. To address this gap, we convened a Task Force of experts in cardiology, nephrology, endocrinology, and primary care to develop recommendations for early identification and intervention in obesity, diabetes, and other cardiorenal and metabolic diseases. The recommendations include screening and diagnosis, early interventions with lifestyle, and when and how to implement medical therapies. These recommendations are organized into primary and secondary prevention along the continuum from obesity through the metabolic syndrome, prediabetes, diabetes, hypertension, dyslipidemia, nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD), atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) and atrial fibrillation, chronic kidney disease (CKD), and heart failure (HF). The goal of early and intensive intervention is primary prevention of comorbidities or secondary prevention to decrease further worsening of disease and reduce morbidity and mortality. These efforts will reduce clinical inertia and may improve patients' well-being and adherence.