Non-cardiac comorbidities and intensive up-titration of oral treatment in patients recently hospitalized for heart failure: Insights from the STRONG-HF trial.

AIMS: To assess the potential interaction between non-cardiac comorbidities (NCCs) and the efficacy and safety of high-intensity care (HIC) versus usual care (UC) in the STRONG-HF trial, including stable patients with improved but still elevated natriuretic peptides. METHODS AND RESULTS: In the trial, eight NCCs were reported: anaemia, diabetes, renal dysfunction, severe liver disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease/asthma, stroke/transient ischaemic attack, psychiatric/neurological disorders, and malignancies. Patients were classified by NCC number (0, 1, 2 and ≥3). The treatment effect of HIC versus UC on the primary endpoint, 180-day death or heart failure (HF) rehospitalization, was compared by NCC number and by each individual comorbidity. Among the 1078 patients, the prevalence of 0, 1, 2 and ≥3 NCCs was 24.3%, 39.8%, 24.5% and 11.4%, respectively. Achievement of full doses of HF therapies at 90 and 180 days in the HIC was similar irrespective of NCC number. In HIC, the primary endpoint occurred in 10.0%, 16.6%, 13.6% and 26.2%, in those with 0, 1, 2 and ≥3 NCCs, respectively, as compared to 19.1%, 25.4%, 23.3% and 26.2% in UC (interaction-p = 0.80). The treatment benefit of HIC versus UC on the primary endpoint did not differ significantly by each individual comorbidity. There was no significant treatment interaction by NCC number in quality-of-life improvement (p = 0.98) or the incidence of serious adverse events (p = 0.11). CONCLUSIONS: In the STRONG-HF trial, NCCs neither limited the rapid up-titration of HF therapies, nor attenuated the benefit of HIC on the primary endpoint. In the context of a clinical trial, the benefit-risk ratio favours the rapid up-titration of HF therapies even in patients with multiple NCCs.

Heart failure during the COVID-19 pandemic: clinical, diagnostic, management, and organizational dilemmas.

The coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) infection pandemic has affected the care of patients with heart failure (HF). Several consensus documents describe the appropriate diagnostic algorithm and treatment approach for patients with HF and associated COVID-19 infection. However, few questions about the mechanisms by which COVID can exacerbate HF in patients with high-risk (Stage B) or symptomatic HF (Stage C) remain unanswered. Therefore, the type of HF occurring during infection is poorly investigated. The diagnostic differentiation and management should be focused on the identification of the HF phenotype, underlying causes, and subsequent tailored therapy. In this framework, the relationship existing between COVID and onset of acute decompensated HF, isolated right HF, and cardiogenic shock is questioned, and the specific management is mainly based on local hospital organization rather than a standardized model. Similarly, some specific populations such as advanced HF, heart transplant, patients with left ventricular assist device (LVAD), or valve disease remain under investigated. In this systematic review, we examine recent advances regarding the relationships between HF and COVID-19 pandemic with respect to epidemiology, pathogenetic mechanisms, and differential diagnosis. Also, according to the recent HF guidelines definition, we highlight different clinical profile identification, pointing out the main concerns in understudied HF populations.