Status and timing of angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor implementation in patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction: Data from the Swedish Heart Failure Registry.

AIMS: We explored timing, settings and predictors of angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI) initiation in a large, nationwide cohort of patients with heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). METHODS AND RESULTS: Patients with HFrEF (ejection fraction <40%) registered in the Swedish HF Registry in 2017-2021 and naïve to ARNI were evaluated for timing and location of, and their characteristics at ARNI initiation. ARNI use increased from 8.3% in 2017 to 26.7% in 2021. Among 3892 hospitalized patients, 8% initiated ARNI in-hospital or ≤14 days after discharge, 4% between 15 and 90 days, and 88% >90 days after discharge or never initiated. Factors associated with earlier initiation included follow-up in specialized HF care, more severe HF, previous HF treatment use and higher income, whereas older age, higher comorbidity burden and living alone were associated with later/no initiation. Of 16 486 HFrEF patients, 8.1% inpatients and 5.9% outpatients initiated an ARNI at the index date. Factors associated with initiation in outpatients were overall consistent with those linked with an in-hospital/earlier ARNI initiation; 4.9% of 10 209 with HF duration <6 months and 9.1% of 5877 with HF duration ≥6 months initiated ARNI. Predictors of ARNI initiation in HF duration <6 months were inpatient status, lower ejection fraction, hypertension, whereas previous angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor/angiotensin receptor blocker use was associated with less likely initiation. Discontinuation at 1 year ranged between 13% and 20% across the above-reported analyses. CONCLUSIONS: In-hospital and early initiation of ARNI are limited in real-world care but still slightly more likely than in outpatients. ARNI were more likely initiated in patients with more severe HF, which might suggest its use as a second-line treatment and only following worsening of clinical status. One-year discontinuation rates were consistent regardless of the timing/setting of ARNI initiation.

How to tackle therapeutic inertia in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction. A scientific statement of the Heart Failure Association of the ESC.

Guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) in patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) reduces morbidity and mortality, but its implementation is often poor in daily clinical practice. Barriers to implementation include clinical and organizational factors that might contribute to clinical inertia, i.e. avoidance/delay of recommended treatment initiation/optimization. The spectrum of strategies that might be applied to foster GDMT implementation is wide, and involves the organizational set-up of heart failure care pathways, tailored drug initiation/optimization strategies increasing the chance of successful implementation, digital tools/telehealth interventions, educational activities and strategies targeting patient/physician awareness, and use of quality registries. This scientific statement by the Heart Failure Association of the ESC provides an overview of the current state of GDMT implementation in HFrEF, clinical and organizational barriers to implementation, and aims at suggesting a comprehensive framework on how to overcome clinical inertia and ultimately improve implementation of GDMT in HFrEF based on up-to-date evidence.

Eligibility for omecamtiv mecarbil in a real-world heart failure population: Data from the Swedish Heart Failure Registry.

AIMS: We assessed eligibility for omecamtiv mecarbil (OM) in a real-world cohort with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) according to the selection criteria of the GALACTIC-HF trial (trial scenario) and selected trial´s criteria more likely to impact real-world use (pragmatic scenario). METHODS AND RESULTS: We included 31,015 patients with HFrEF lasting ≥3 months and registered in the Swedish HF registry between 2000-2021. Trial eligibility was calculated by applying all the GALACTIC-HF selection criteria. The pragmatic scenario considered only the New York Heart Association class, history of worsening HF, N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptides (NT-proBNP), blood pressure and renal failure criteria defined as in the trial. Eligibility for OM in chronic HFrEF was 21% and 36% in the trial and pragmatic scenarios, respectively. Eligibility was higher in those with EF<30% (trial: 27%, pragmatic: 44%), in-patients (trial:30%, pragmatic:57%), severe HF (trial: 35%, pragmatic: 60%), NYHA class III-IV (trial: 26%, pragmatic: 45%), and NT-proBNP≥5,000pg/mL (trial: 30%, pragmatic: 51%). The criteria that most limited eligibility were history of a recent worsening HF event (60% eligible in chronic HFrEF), elevated NT-proBNP (82% eligible), and deviating blood pressure (82% eligible). Overall, eligible patients were characterized by more severe HF and higher CV event-rates in both scenarios, and higher comorbidity burden in the pragmatic scenario. CONCLUSION: Approximately 21% of real-world chronic HFrEF patients would be eligible for OM according to the GALACTIC-HF selection criteria, and 36% according to the criteria more likely to affect OM use in clinical practice. Criteria in both scenarios identified a patient-group with severe HF and high CV event-rates.

Physician perceptions, attitudes, and strategies towards implementing guideline-directed medical therapy in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction. A survey of the Heart Failure Association of the ESC and the ESC Council for Cardiology Practice.

AIMS: Recent guidelines recommend four core drug classes (renin-angiotensin system inhibitor/angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor [RASi/ARNi], beta-blocker, mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist [MRA], and sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor [SGLT2i]) for the pharmacological management of heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). We assessed physicians' perceived (i) comfort with implementing the recent HFrEF guideline recommendations; (ii) status of guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) implementation; (iii) use of different GDMT sequencing strategies; and (iv) barriers and strategies for achieving implementation. METHODS AND RESULTS: A 26-question survey was disseminated via bulletin, e-mail and social channels directed to physicians with an interest in HF. Of 432 respondents representing 91 countries, 36% were female, 52% were aged <50 years, and 90% mainly practiced in cardiology (30% HF). Overall comfort with implementing quadruple therapy was high (87%). Only 12% estimated that >90% of patients with HFrEF without contraindications received quadruple therapy. The time required to initiate quadruple therapy was estimated at 1-2 weeks by 34% of respondents, 1 month by 36%, 3 months by 24%, and ≥6 months by 6%. The average respondent favoured traditional drug sequencing strategies (RASi/ARNi with/followed by beta-blocker, and then MRA with/followed by SGLT2i) over simultaneous initiation or SGLT2i-first sequences. The most frequently perceived clinical barriers to implementation were hypotension (70%), creatinine increase (47%), hyperkalaemia (45%) and patient adherence (42%). CONCLUSIONS: Although comfort with implementing all four core drug classes in patients with HFrEF was high among physicians, a majority estimated implementation of GDMT in HFrEF to be low. We identified several important perceived clinical and non-clinical barriers that can be targeted to improve implementation.

Mineralocorticoid receptor overactivation: targeting systemic impact with non-steroidal mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists.

The overactivation of the mineralocorticoid receptor (MR) promotes pathophysiological processes related to multiple physiological systems, including the heart, vasculature, adipose tissue and kidneys. The inhibition of the MR with classical MR antagonists (MRA) has successfully improved outcomes most evidently in heart failure. However, real and perceived risk of side effects and limited tolerability associated with classical MRA have represented barriers to implementing MRA in settings where they have been already proven efficacious (heart failure with reduced ejection fraction) and studying their potential role in settings where they might be beneficial but where risk of safety events is perceived to be higher (renal disease). Novel non-steroidal MRA have distinct properties that might translate into favourable clinical effects and better safety profiles as compared with MRA currently used in clinical practice. Randomised trials have shown benefits of non-steroidal MRA in a range of clinical contexts, including diabetic kidney disease, hypertension and heart failure. This review provides an overview of the literature on the systemic impact of MR overactivation across organ systems. Moreover, we summarise the evidence from preclinical studies and clinical trials that have set the stage for a potential new paradigm of MR antagonism.

Real-world use of sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors in patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction: Data from the Swedish Heart Failure Registry.

AIMS: Sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors (SGLT2i) reduce mortality/morbidity in heart failure (HF). We explored the implementation of SGLT2i over time, and patient characteristics associated with their use, in a large, nationwide population with HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). METHODS AND RESULTS: Patients with HFrEF (ejection fraction <40%), no type 1 diabetes, estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) <20 ml/min/1.73 m2 and/or on dialysis, registered in the Swedish HF Registry between 1 November 2020 and 5 August 2022 were included. Independent predictors of use were investigated by multivariable logistic regressions. Of 8192 patients, 37% received SGLT2i. Use increased overall from 20.5% to 59.0% over time, from 46.2% and 12.5% to 69.8% and 55.4% in patients with and without type 2 diabetes, from 14.7% and 22.3% to 58.0% and 59.8% in eGFR <60 versus ≥60 ml/min/1.73 m2 , from 21.0% and 18.9% to 61.6% and 52.0% in males versus females, from 24.2% and 18.0% to 60.8% and 57.7% in patients with versus without recent HF hospitalization, from 26.1% and 19.8% to 54.7% and 59.6% in inpatients versus outpatients, and from 20.2% and 21.2% to 59.2% and 58.7% in those with HF duration <6 versus ≥6 months, respectively. Important characteristics associated with SGLT2i use were male sex, recent HF hospitalization, specialized HF follow-up, lower ejection fraction, type 2 diabetes, higher education level, use of other HF/cardiovascular interventions. Older age, higher blood pressure, atrial fibrillation and anaemia were associated with less use. Discontinuation rate at 6 and 12 months was 13.1% and 20.0%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Use of SGLT2i increased three-fold over 2 years. Although this indicates a more rapid translation of trial results and guidelines into clinical practice compared to previous HF drugs, further efforts are advocated to complete the implementation process while avoiding inequities across different patient subgroups and discontinuations.

Eligibility for vericiguat in a real-world heart failure population according to trial, guideline and label criteria: Data from the Swedish Heart Failure Registry.

AIM: We investigated the eligibility for vericiguat in a real-world heart failure (HF) population based on trial, guideline and label criteria. METHODS AND RESULTS: From the Swedish HF registry, 23 573 patients with HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) enrolled between 2000 and 2018, with a HF duration ≥6 months, were considered. Eligibility for vericiguat was calculated based on criteria from (i) the Vericiguat Global Study in Subjects with Heart Failure and Reduced Ejection Fraction (VICTORIA) trial; (ii) European and American guidelines on HF; (iii) product labelling according to the Food and Drug Administration and European Medicines Agency. Estimated eligibility for vericiguat in the trial, guidelines, and label scenarios was 21.4%, 47.4%, and 47.4%, respectively. Prior HF hospitalization within 6 months was the criterion limiting eligibility the most in all scenarios (met by 49.1% of the population). In the trial scenario, other criteria meaningfully limiting eligibility were elevated N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide levels and nitrate use. In all scenarios, eligibility was higher among patients hospitalized for HF at baseline (44.3% vs. 21.4% [trial scenario] and 97.3% vs. 47.4% [guideline/label scenarios] for hospitalized vs. non-hospitalized patients). Overall, eligible patients were older, had more severe HF, more comorbidities, and consequently higher cardiovascular mortality and HF hospitalization rates compared with ineligible patients across all scenarios. CONCLUSION: In a large and contemporary real-world HFrEF cohort, we estimated that 21.4% of patients would be eligible for vericiguat according to the VICTORIA trial selection criteria, 47.4% based on guidelines and labelling. Eligibility for vericiguat translated into the selection of a population at high risk of morbidity/mortality.

Heart failure pharmacological treatments and outcomes in heart failure with mildly reduced ejection fraction.

BACKGROUND: Guideline recommendations for the treatment of heart failure with mildly reduced ejection fraction (HFmrEF) derive from small subgroups in post-hoc analyses of randomized trials. OBJECTIVES: We investigated predictors of renin-angiotensin system inhibitors/angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitors (RASI/ARNI) and beta-blockers use, and the associations between these medications and mortality/morbidity in a large real-world cohort with HFmrEF. METHODS AND RESULTS: Patients with HFmrEF (EF 40-49%) from the Swedish HF Registry were included. The associations between medications and cardiovascular (CV) mortality/HF hospitalization (HFH), and all-cause mortality were assessed through Cox regressions in a 1:1 propensity score-matched cohort. A positive control analysis was performed in patients with EF < 40%, while a negative control outcome analysis had cancer-related hospitalization as endpoint. Of 12 421 patients with HFmrEF, 84% received RASI/ARNI and 88% beta-blockers. Shared-independent predictors of RASI/ARNI and beta-blockers use were younger age, being an outpatient, follow-up in specialty care, and hypertension. In the matched cohorts, use of both RASI/ARNI and beta-blocker use was separately associated with lower risk of CV mortality/HFH [hazard ratio (HR) = 0.90, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.83-0.98 and HR = 0.82, 95% CI: 0.74-0.90, respectively] and of all-cause mortality (HR = 0.75, 95% CI: 0.69-0.81 and HR = 0.79, 95% CI: 0.72-0.87, respectively). Results were consistent at the positive control analysis, and there were no associations between treatment use and the negative control outcome. CONCLUSIONS: RASI/ARNI and beta-blockers were extensively used in this large real-world cohort with HFmrEF. Their use was safe since associated with lower mortality and morbidity. Our findings confirm the real-world evidence from previous post-hoc analyses of trials, and represent a further call for implementing guideline recommendations.

Iron deficiency in heart failure: screening, prevalence, incidence and outcome data from the Swedish Heart Failure Registry and the Stockholm CREAtinine Measurements collaborative project.

AIMS: Iron deficiency (ID) is common in heart failure (HF) and linked with poor prognosis regardless of anaemia. We assessed temporal trends in ID testing, ID prevalence, ID incidence, iron need, and outcomes associated with ID in HF across the ejection fraction (EF) spectrum. METHODS AND RESULTS: From the Swedish HF registry, we enrolled 15 197 patients from Region Stockholm with available EF and collected laboratory tests from routine practice. Iron screening improved since 2016 but remained <25% as of 2018. In 1486 patients with iron biomarkers at baseline, the prevalence of ID was 55% (HF with reduced EF 54%; mildly reduced EF 51%; preserved EF 61%). Iron need was ≥1500 mg in 72% of patients. ID was independently associated with higher risk for HF rehospitalizations (incidence rate ratio [IRR] 1.62, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.13-2.31) and with cardiovascular (CV) death or repeated HF hospitalizations (IRR 1.63, 95% CI 1.15-2.30) regardless of EF (p-interaction 0.21 and 0.26, respectively), but not with all-cause death, CV death, or first HF hospitalization. Among 96 patients without ID at baseline and with follow-up iron biomarkers, 21% developed ID within 6 months. CONCLUSIONS: Iron deficiency screening improved over time but is still limitedly implemented, despite being highly prevalent and incident, and independently associated with CV death or HF rehospitalizations regardless of EF. Most patients with ID had an iron need necessitating either repeated administrations of intravenous iron or a preparation permitting >1000 mg doses. These data highlight the need for improved screening for ID in HF.

Trajectories in New York Heart Association functional class in heart failure across the ejection fraction spectrum: data from the Swedish Heart Failure Registry.

AIMS: To investigate incidence, predictors and prognostic implications of longitudinal New York Heart Association (NYHA) class changes (i.e. improving or worsening vs. stable NYHA class) in heart failure (HF) across the ejection fraction (EF) spectrum. METHODS AND RESULTS: From the Swedish HF Registry, 13 535 patients with EF and ≥2 NYHA class assessments were considered. Multivariable multinomial regressions were fitted to identify the independent predictors of NYHA change. Over a 1-year follow-up, 69% of patients had stable, 17% improved, and 14% worsened NYHA class. Follow-up in specialty care predicted improving NYHA class, whereas an in-hospital patient registration, lower EF, renal disease, lower mean arterial pressure, older age, and longer HF duration predicted worsening. The association between NYHA change and subsequent outcomes was assessed with multivariable Cox models. When adjusting for the NYHA class at baseline, improving NYHA class was independently associated with lower while worsening with higher risk of all-cause and cardiovascular mortality, and first HF hospitalization. After adjustment for the NYHA class at follow-up, NYHA class change did not predict morbidity/mortality. NYHA class assessment at baseline and follow-up predicted morbidity/mortality on top of the changes. Results were consistent across the EF spectrum. CONCLUSION: In a large real-world HF population, NYHA class trajectories predicted morbidity/mortality after extensive adjustments. However, the prognostic role was entirely explained by the resulting NYHA class, i.e. the follow-up value. Our results highlight that considering one-time NYHA class assessment, rather than trajectories, might be the preferable approach in clinical practice and for clinical trial design.

Patient profile and outcomes associated with follow-up in specialty vs. primary care in heart failure.

AIMS: Factors influencing follow-up referral decisions and their prognostic implications are poorly investigated in patients with heart failure (HF) with reduced (HFrEF), mildly reduced (HFmrEF), and preserved (HFpEF) ejection fraction (EF). We assessed (i) the proportion of, (ii) independent predictors of, and (iii) outcomes associated with follow-up in specialty vs. primary care across the EF spectrum. METHODS AND RESULTS: We analysed 75 518 patients from the large and nationwide Swedish HF registry between 2000-2018. Multivariable logistic regression models were fitted to identify the independent predictors of planned follow-up in specialty vs. primary care, and multivariable Cox models to assess the association between follow-up type and outcomes. In this nationwide registry, 48 115 (64%) patients were planned for follow-up in specialty and 27 403 (36%) in primary care. The median age was 76 [interquartile range (IQR) 67-83] years and 27 546 (36.5%) patients were female. Key independent predictors of planned follow-up in specialty care included optimized HF care, that is follow-up in a nurse-led HF clinic [odds ratio (OR) 4.60, 95% confidence interval (95% CI) 4.41-4.79], use of HF devices (OR 3.99, 95% CI 3.62-4.40), beta-blockers (OR 1.39, 95% CI 1.32-1.47), renin-angiotensin system/angiotensin-receptor-neprilysin inhibitors (OR 1.21, 95% CI 1.15-1.27), and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (OR 1.31, 95% CI 1.26-1.37); and more severe HF, that is higher NT-proBNP (OR 1.13, 95% CI 1.06-1.20) and NYHA class (OR 1.13, 95% CI 1.08-1.19). Factors associated with lower likelihood of follow-up in specialty care included older age (OR 0.29, 95% CI 0.28-0.30), female sex (OR 0.89, 95% CI 0.86-0.93), lower income (OR 0.79, 95% CI 0.76-0.82) and educational level (OR 0.77, 95% CI 0.73-0.81), higher EF [HFmrEF (OR 0.65, 95% CI 0.62-0.68) and HFpEF (OR 0.56, 95% CI 0.53-0.58) vs. HFrEF], and higher comorbidity burden, such as presence of kidney disease (OR 0.91, 95% CI 0.87-0.95), atrial fibrillation (OR 0.85, 95% CI 0.81-0.89), and diabetes mellitus (OR 0.92, 95% CI 0.88-0.96). A planned follow-up in specialty care was independently associated with lower risk of all-cause [hazard ratio (HR) 0.78, 95% CI 0.76-0.80] and cardiovascular death (HR 0.76, 95% CI 0.73-0.78) across the EF spectrum, but not of HF hospitalization (HR 1.06, 95% CI 1.03-1.10). CONCLUSIONS: In a large nationwide HF population, referral to specialty care was linked with male sex, younger age, lower EF, lower comorbidity burden, better socioeconomic environment and optimized HF care, and associated with better survival across the EF spectrum. Our findings highlight the need for greater and more equal access to HF specialty care and improved quality of primary care.