ABSTRACT
AIMS: Despite clear guideline recommendations for initiating four drug classes in all patients with heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and the availability of rapid titration schemes, information on real-world implementation lags behind. Closely following the 2021 ESC HF guidelines and 2023 focused update, the TITRATE-HF study started to prospectively investigate the use, sequencing, and titration of guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) in HF patients, including the identification of implementation barriers. METHODS AND RESULTS: TITRATE-HF is an ongoing long-term HF registry conducted in the Netherlands. Overall, 4288 patients from 48 hospitals were included. Among these patients, 1732 presented with de novo, 2240 with chronic, and 316 with worsening HF. The median age was 71 years (interquartile range [IQR] 63-78), 29% were female, and median ejection fraction was 35% (IQR 25-40). In total, 44% of chronic and worsening HFrEF patients were prescribed quadruple therapy. However, only 1% of HFrEF patients achieved target dose for all drug classes. In addition, quadruple therapy was more often prescribed to patients treated in a dedicated HF outpatient clinic as compared to a general cardiology outpatient clinic. In each GDMT drug class, 19% to 36% of non-use in HFrEF patients was related to side-effects, intolerances, or contraindications. In the de novo HF cohort, 49% of patients already used one or more GDMT drug classes for other indications than HF. CONCLUSION: This first analysis of the TITRATE-HF study reports relatively high use of GDMT in a contemporary HF cohort, while still showing room for improvement regarding quadruple therapy. Importantly, the use and dose of GDMT were suboptimal, with the reasons often remaining unclear. This underscores the urgency for further optimization of GDMT and implementation strategies within HF management.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Colchicine reduces risk of cardiovascular events in patients post-myocardial infarction and in patients with chronic coronary disease. It remains unclear whether this effect is related to the time of onset of treatment following an acute coronary syndrome (ACS). OBJECTIVES: This study investigates risk for major adverse cardiovascular events in relation to history and timing of prior ACS, to determine whether the benefits of colchicine are consistent independent of prior ACS status. METHODS: The LoDoCo2 (Low-Dose Colchicine 2) trial randomly allocated patients with chronic coronary disease to colchicine 0.5 mg once daily or placebo. The rate of the composite of cardiovascular death, spontaneous myocardial infarction, ischemic stroke, or ischemia-driven coronary revascularization was compared between patients with no prior, recent (6-24 months), remote (2-7 years), or very remote (>7 years) ACS; interaction between ACS status and colchicine treatment effect was assessed. RESULTS: In 5,522 randomized patients, risk of the primary endpoint was independent of prior ACS status. Colchicine consistently reduced the primary endpoint in patients with no prior ACS (incidence: 2.8 vs 3.4 events per 100 person-years; hazard ratio [HR]: 0.81; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.52-1.27), recent ACS (incidence: 2.4 vs 3.3 events per 100 person-years; HR: 0.75; 95% CI: 0.51-1.10), remote ACS (incidence: 1.8 vs 3.2 events per 100 person-years, HR: 0.55; 95% CI: 0.37-0.82), and very remote ACS (incidence: 3.0 vs 4.3 events per 100 person-years, HR: 0.70; 95% CI: 0.51-0.96) (P for interaction = 0.59). CONCLUSIONS: The benefits of colchicine are consistent irrespective of history and timing of prior ACS. (The LoDoCo2 Trial: Low Dose Colchicine for secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease [LoDoCo2] ACTRN12614000093684).
