High-intensity care for GDMT titration.

Heart failure (HF) is a systemic disease associated with a high risk of morbidity, mortality, increased risk of hospitalizations, and low quality of life. Therefore, effective, systemic treatment strategies are necessary to mitigate these risks. In this manuscript, we emphasize the concept of high-intensity care to optimize guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) in HF patients. The document highlights the importance of achieving optimal recommended doses of GDMT medications, including beta-blockers, renin-angiotensin-aldosterone inhibitors, mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists, and sodium-glucose cotransporter inhibitors to improve patient outcomes, achieve effective, sustainable decongestion, and improve patient quality of life. The document also discusses potential obstacles to GDMT optimization, such as clinical inertia, physiological limitations, comorbidities, non-adherence, and frailty. Lastly, it also attempts to provide possible future scenarios of high-intensive care that could improve patient outcomes.

Emicizumab dose up-titration in case of suboptimal bleeding control in people with haemophilia A.

INTRODUCTION: Emicizumab promotes effective haemostasis in people with haemophilia A (PwHA). It is indicated for routine prophylaxis of bleeding episodes in PwHA with or without factor (F)VIII inhibitors. AIM: To investigate the effect of emicizumab dose up-titration in PwHA with suboptimal bleeding control. METHODS: Data from seven completed or ongoing phase III studies were pooled. Pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics and bleeding events were evaluated before and after dose up-titration. Adverse events (AEs) were compared between PwHA with and without dose up-titration. RESULTS: Of 675 PwHA evaluable for the analysis, 24 (3.6%) had their maintenance dose up-titrated to 3 mg/kg once weekly (QW). Two participants had neutralising antibodies (nAbs) associated with decreased emicizumab exposure, and dose increase did not compensate for the effect of nAbs. In the other 22 participants, mean emicizumab steady-state trough concentrations increased from 44.0 to 86.2 µg/mL after up-titration. The median (interquartile range [IQR]) efficacy period prior to up-titration was 24.6 (24.0-32.0) weeks. The model-based annualised bleed rate for 'treated bleeds' and 'all bleeds' decreased by 70.2% and 72.9%, respectively, after a median (IQR) follow-up of 97.1 (48.4-123.3) weeks in the up-titration period. Incidences of injection-site reactions and serious AEs were higher in PwHA with up-titration; however, this was already observed in these participants before the dose up-titration. Overall, the safety profile appeared similar between PwHA with and without up-titration. CONCLUSION: The dose up-titration to 3 mg/kg QW was well tolerated. Bleed control improved in most participants whose bleeding tendency was inadequately controlled during clinical trials.

Initiation and Up-Titration of Guideline-Based Medications in Hospitalized Acute Heart Failure Patients　- A Report From the West Tokyo Heart Failure Registry.

BACKGROUND: Despite recommendations from clinical practice guidelines to initiate and titrate guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) during their hospitalization, patients with acute heart failure (AHF) are frequently undertreated. In this study we aimed to clarify GDMT implementation and titration rates, as well as the long-term outcomes, in hospitalized AHF patients.Methods and Results: Among 3,164 consecutive hospitalized AHF patients included in a Japanese multicenter registry, 1,400 (44.2%) with ejection fraction ≤40% were analyzed. We assessed GDMT dosage (ß-blockers, renin-angiotensin inhibitors, and mineralocorticoid-receptor antagonists) at admission and discharge, examined the contributing factors for up-titration, and evaluated associations between drug initiation/up-titration and 1-year post-discharge all-cause death and rehospitalization for HF via propensity score matching. The mean age of the patients was 71.5 years and 30.7% were female. Overall, 1,051 patients (75.0%) were deemed eligible for GDMT, based on their baseline vital signs, renal function, and electrolyte values. At discharge, only 180 patients (17.1%) received GDMT agents up-titrated to >50% of the maximum titrated dose. Up-titration was associated with a lower risk of 1-year clinical outcomes (adjusted hazard ratio: 0.58, 95% confidence interval: 0.35-0.96). Younger age and higher body mass index were significant predictors of drug up-titration. CONCLUSIONS: Significant evidence-practice gaps in the use and dose of GDMT remain. Considering the associated favorable outcomes, further efforts to improve its implementation seem crucial.

Extending the Continual Reassessment Method to accommodate step-up dosing in Phase I trials.

The Continual Reassessment Method (CRM) was developed for Phase I trials to identify a maximum-tolerated dose of an agent using a design in which each participant is treated with a single administration of the agent. We propose an extension of the CRM in which participants receive multiple administrations of an agent using a so-called step-up dosing procedure in which participants receive one or more administrations of lower doses of the agent before they receive their penultimate dose. We use methods developed for the CRM to model the probability of DLT for each administration, which leads to the use of conditional probability models to model the joint probability of DLT across multiple administrations. We compare our approach to two existing methods that use time-to-event modeling methods for modeling the probability of DLT. We demonstrate through simulations that our approach has operating characteristics similar to existing methods, but due to its foundations in the CRM, ours is simpler to implement than existing approaches and is therefore more likely to be adopted in practice.

Determinants and clinical outcome of uptitration of ACE-inhibitors and beta-blockers in patients with heart failure: a prospective European study.

INTRODUCTION: Despite clear guidelines recommendations, most patients with heart failure and reduced ejection-fraction (HFrEF) do not attain guideline-recommended target doses. We aimed to investigate characteristics and for treatment-indication-bias corrected clinical outcome of patients with HFrEF that did not reach recommended treatment doses of ACE-inhibitors/Angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) and/or beta-blockers. METHODS AND RESULTS: BIOSTAT-CHF was specifically designed to study uptitration of ACE-inhibitors/ARBs and/or beta-blockers in 2516 heart failure patients from 69 centres in 11 European countries who were selected if they were suboptimally treated while initiation or uptitration was anticipated and encouraged. Patients who died during the uptitration period (n = 151) and patients with a LVEF > 40% (n = 242) were excluded. Median follow up was 21 months. We studied 2100 HFrEF patients (76% male; mean age 68 ±12), of which 22% achieved the recommended treatment dose for ACE-inhibitor/ARB and 12% of beta-blocker. There were marked differences between European countries. Reaching <50% of the recommended ACE-inhibitor/ARB and beta-blocker dose was associated with an increased risk of death and/or heart failure hospitalization. Patients reaching 50-99% of the recommended ACE-inhibitor/ARB and/or beta-blocker dose had comparable risk of death and/or heart failure hospitalization to those reaching ≥100%. Patients not reaching recommended dose because of symptoms, side effects and non-cardiac organ dysfunction had the highest mortality rate (for ACE-inhibitor/ARB: HR 1.72; 95% CI 1.43-2.01; for beta-blocker: HR 1.70; 95% CI 1.36-2.05). CONCLUSION: Patients with HFrEF who were treated with less than 50% of recommended dose of ACE-inhibitors/ARBs and beta-blockers seemed to have a greater risk of death and/or heart failure hospitalization compared with patients reaching ≥100%.

Outcome in acute heart failure: prognostic value of acute kidney injury and worsening renal function.

BACKGROUND: The prognostic value of worsening renal function (WRF) in acute heart failure is debated. Moreover, it is not clear if the use of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) in this context is detrimental. METHOD AND RESULTS: In a retrospective cohort study of 646 patients hospitalized for acute heart failure, the risk of death or readmission associated with acute kidney injury (AKI) present at admission, WRF during the 1st 7 days, and up-titration of ACEI/ARB were analyzed in a Cox proportional hazards model. AKI, WRF, hemoglobin concentration, ACEI/ARB up-titration, and use of loop diuretics before admission were significantly associated with the primary outcome in univariate analysis. In a multivariate model, the association remained significant for AKI (hazard ratio [HR] 1.29, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.13-1.47; P = .0002), WRF (HR 1.24, 95% CI 1.06-1.45; P = .0059), and ACEI/ARB up-titration (HR 0.79, 95% CI 0.64-0.97; P = .026). There was no excess mortality in patients with ACEI/ARB up-titration despite WRF. CONCLUSIONS: Both AKI and WRF are strongly associated with poor outcome in patients hospitalized for acute heart failure. ACEI/ARB up-titration seems to be protective.

Hypotension at heart failure discharge: Should it be a limiting factor for drug titration?

BACKGROUND: Medical treatment in Heart Failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF; LVEF ≤40%) has shifted towards quadruple therapy. Maximum tolerated dose is the goal, yet no hypotension's cut-off point has been specified. In this work, we analyze the impact of intensive drug titration in clinical events, focusing on low blood pressure (BP) patients at hospital discharge. METHODS AND RESULTS: Retrospective analysis of 713 patients with HFrEF discharged after an acute HF event (mean LVEF 30 ± 5%). Mean SBP was 112.4 ± 16.5 mmHg and 50.6% were discharged on triple therapy. We considered hypotension as a Systolic blood pressure (SBP) <100 mmHg (21.7% of patients, mean SBP was 112.4 ± 16.5 mmHg) and codified the intensity of drug therapy in 5 stages from untreated to very high therapy intensity. The impact of the intensity of treatment was analysed with a propensity score and increasing the intensity was associated in the whole cohort with a reduction of the composite outcome of all-cause mortality and HF readmission, (HR 0.69; CI95% 0.57-0.85, p < 0.001) and benefit in mortality was maintained for SBP < 100 mmHg (HR 0.42; CI95% 0.22-0.82; p = 0.011). Moreover, therapy intensity was clearly associated with lower risk of HF-hospitalization and death after the additional regression, considering SBP as a covariate, in the whole cohort (HR 0.70; CI95% 0.57-0.85; p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: In this retrospective cohort analysis, patients with HFrEF and an acute-HF admission, intensive drug dose titration was related to better outcomes, even in patients with low blood pressure at hospital discharge. Therefore, hypotension is not a contraindication for NHB uptitration.

Early changes in renal function during rapid up-titration of guideline-directed medical therapy following an admission for acute heart failure.

AIM: In this subgroup analysis of STRONG-HF, we explored the association between changes in renal function and efficacy of rapid up-titration of guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) according to a high-intensity care (HIC) strategy. METHODS AND RESULTS: In patients randomized to the HIC arm (n = 542), renal function was assessed at baseline and during follow-up visits. We studied the association with clinical characteristics and outcomes of a decrease in estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) at week 1, defined as ≥15% decrease from baseline. Patients in the usual care group (n = 536) were seen at day 90. The treatment effect of HIC versus usual care was independent of baseline eGFR (p-interaction = 0.4809). A decrease in eGFR within 1 week occurred in 77 (15.5%) patients and was associated with more rales on examination (p = 0.004), and a higher New York Heart Association class at the corresponding visit. Following the decrease in eGFR at 1 week, lower average optimal doses of GDMT were prescribed during follow-up (p = 0.0210) and smaller reductions in N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide occurred (geometrical mean 0.81 in no eGFR decrease vs 1.12 in GFR decrease, p = 0.0003). The rate of heart failure (HF) readmission or death at 180 days was 12.3% in no eGFR decrease versus 18.5% in eGFR decrease (p = 0.2274) and HF readmissions were 7.8% versus 16.6% (p = 0.0496). CONCLUSIONS: In the STRONG-HF study, HIC reduced 180-day HF readmission or death regardless of baseline eGFR. An early decrease in eGFR during rapid up-titration of GDMT was associated with more evidence of congestion, yet lower doses of GDMT during follow-up.

The initial timing and dosage pattern of sacubitril/valsartan in patients with acute myocardial infarction undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention.

BACKGROUND: In real-world clinical practice, the initiation and up-titration of sacubitril/valsartan remain challenging due to symptomatic hypotension in patients with acute myocardial infarction(AMI). The purpose of this study was to investigate the efficacy of different initial timing and dosage of sacubitril/valsartan in AMI patients. METHODS: This prospective and observational cohort study enrolled AMI patients treated with percutaneous coronary intervention(PCI), and were categorized according to the initial timing and average daily doses of sacubitril/valsartan prescription. The primary endpoint was defined as a composite of cardiovascular death, recurrent AMI, coronary revascularization, heart failure(HF) hospitalization and ischaemic stroke. Secondary outcomes included the new-onset HF, and the composite endpoints in AMI patients complicated with HF at baseline. RESULTS: The study population consisted of 915 AMI patients. After a median follow-up of 38 months, early use or high dosage of sacubitril/valsartan was associated with an improvement in primary endpoint as well as the incidence of new-onset HF. Early use of sacubitril/valsartan also ameliorated the primary endpoint in AMI patients with left ventricular ejection fraction(LVEF) ≤50% as well as LVEF>50%. Besides, early use of sacubitril/valsartan improved the clinical outcomes in AMI patients complicated with HF at baseline. The low dose was well tolerated and may be associated with similar outcomes compared with high dose under some circumstances(LVEF>50% or HF at baseline). CONCLUSIONS: Early use or high dosage of sacubitril/valsartan medication is associated with an improvement in clinical outcome. The low dose of sacubitril/valsartan is well tolerated and may be an acceptable alternative strategy.

Optimization of guideline-directed medical treatment for heart failure patients with reduced ejection fraction.

With the increasing number of medications demonstrating mortality benefits in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), the pharmacological treatment of HFrEF is entering a new phase. To enhance outcomes in heart failure patients through medical treatment, the choice of appropriate medications and simultaneous and rapid uptitration are critical. However, there are several challenges encountered during this medication uptitration, including issues like hypotension, fatigue, worsening renal function, and hyperkalemia. This paper addresses strategies for effectively managing these challenges to successfully reach the maximum tolerated dose in patients. Additionally, it will discuss the management of comorbidities often associated with heart failure, the importance of exercise and rehabilitation, and the significance of proper nutrition intake, in addition to guideline-directed medical therapy.

Up-Titration of Sacubitril/Valsartan Among Patients With Heart Failure and Preserved Ejection Fraction.

AIMS: In recent large trials, sacubitril/valsartan demonstrated favorable effects in patients with HF. However, many patients do not achieve the target dose of treatment. This study investigated the factors linked to up-titration of sacubitril/valsartan in patients with heart failure and preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). METHODS: Using a multicenter retrospective database, 204 consecutive patients with HFpEF (left ventricular ejection fraction ≥ 40%) who were treated with sacubitril/valsartan between October 2020 and March 2022 were analyzed. Up-titration was defined as an increase in dosage above 24/26 mg BID beyond 12 weeks after the initiation of sacubitril/valsartan. RESULTS: Among the patients, 55% underwent up-titration, and 8% discontinued the drug. The baseline systolic blood pressure (SBP) was higher in patients with up-titration than in those with no up-titration; SBP values similar to that at baseline were observed between the 2 groups at 2 to 4 weeks and at 12 weeks after the commencement of sacubitril/valsartan treatment. The majority of those who discontinued sacubitril/valsartan did so because of hypotension. The multivariable logistic regression model showed that a history of hypertension, history of atrial fibrillation, baseline SBP, and baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate <60 mL/min/1.73 m2 were associated with sacubitril/valsartan up-titration. CONCLUSION: Approximately half of all patients did not undergo up-titration, and 8% of those with HFpEF discontinued the sacubitril/valsartan therapy. For aggressive up-titration and continuation of sacubitril/valsartan, patients with lower baseline SBP, renal dysfunction, absence of a history of hypertension, and presence of atrial fibrillation may require more careful monitoring.

Sex-specific analysis of the rapid up-titration of guideline-directed medical therapies after a hospitalization for acute heart failure: Insights from the STRONG-HF trial.

AIMS: The aim of this study was to evaluate efficacy and safety of rapid up-titration of guideline-directed medical therapies (GDMT) in men and women hospitalized for acute heart failure (AHF). METHODS AND RESULTS: In STRONG-HF, AHF patients were randomized just prior to discharge to either usual care (UC) or a high-intensity care (HIC) strategy of GDMT up-titration. In these analyses, we compared the implementation, efficacy, and safety of the HIC strategy between men and women. In the randomized AHF population, 416/1078 (39%) were women. By day 90, a higher proportion of both sexes in the HIC group had been up-titrated to full doses of GDMT compared to UC. Overall, there were no differences in the primary endpoint between the sexes. The primary endpoint, 180-day heart failure readmission or death, occurred in 15.8% HIC women versus 23.5% women in the UC group (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 0.67, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.40-1.13) and in 14.9% HIC men versus 23.5% UC men (adjusted HR 0.57, 95% CI 0.38-0.88) (adjusted interaction p = 0.65). There was no significant treatment-by-sex interaction in quality-of-life improvement or in adverse events, including serious or fatal adverse events. CONCLUSION: The results of the current analyses suggest that a rapid up-titration of GDMT immediately after an AHF hospitalization can and should be implemented similarly in men and women, as it results in reduction of 180-day all-cause death or heart failure readmission, quality-of-life improvement in both men and women with a similar safety profile.

Successful treatment with ivabradine in a ß-blocker-refractory patient with acute decompensated heart failure with reduced ejection fraction.

Ivabradine is an established treatment for chronic heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF); however, it is not used for acute heart failure treatment. Negative inotropic effects (NIE) often limit the up-titration of ß-blockers. Contrarily, ivabradine has no NIE, and enables ß-blockers usage for treating patients with acute decompensated HFrEF.

Safety, tolerability and efficacy of up-titration of guideline-directed medical therapies for acute heart failure in elderly patients: A sub-analysis of the STRONG-HF randomized clinical trial.

AIMS: STRONG-HF examined a high-intensity care (HIC) strategy of rapid up-titration of guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) and close follow-up after acute heart failure (AHF) admission. We assess the role of age on efficacy and safety of HIC. METHODS AND RESULTS: Hospitalized AHF patients, not treated with optimal GDMT were randomized to HIC or usual care. The primary endpoint of 180-day death or HF readmission occurred equally in older (>65 years, n = 493, 74 ± 5 years) and younger patients (53 ± 11 years, adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 1.02, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.73-1.43, p = 0.89). Older patients received slightly lower GDMT to day 21, but same doses at day 90 and 180. The effect of HIC on the primary endpoint was numerically higher in younger (aHR 0.51, 95% CI 0.32-0.82) than older patients (aHR 0.73, 95% CI 0.46-1.15, adjusted interaction p = 0.30), partially related to COVID-19 deaths. After exclusion of COVID-19 deaths, the effect of HIC was similar in younger (aHR 0.51, 95% CI 0.32-0.82) and older patients (aHR 0.63, 95% CI 0.32-1.02, adjusted interaction p = 0.56), with no treatment-by-age interaction (interaction p = 0.57). HIC induced larger improvements in quality of life to day 90 in younger (EQ-VAS adjusted-mean difference 5.51, 95% CI 3.20-7.82) than in older patients (1.77, 95% CI -0.75 to 4.29, interaction p = 0.032). HIC was associated with similar rates of adverse events in older and younger patients. CONCLUSION: High-intensity care after AHF was safe and resulted in a significant reduction of all-cause death or HF readmission at 180 days across the study age spectrum. Older patients have smaller benefits in terms of quality of life.

Association between dosing and combination use of medications and outcomes in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction: data from the Swedish Heart Failure Registry.

AIMS: To assess the association between combination, dose and use of current guideline-recommended target doses (TD) of renin-angiotensin system inhibitors (RASi), angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitors (ARNi) and ß-blockers, and outcomes in a large and unselected contemporary cohort of patients with heart failure (HF) and reduced ejection fraction. METHODS AND RESULTS: Overall, 17 809 outpatients registered in the Swedish Heart Failure Registry (SwedeHF) from May 2000 to December 2018, with ejection fraction <40% and duration of HF ≥90 days were selected. Primary outcome was a composite of time to cardiovascular death and first HF hospitalization. Compared with no use of RASi or ARNi, the adjusted hazard ratio (HR) (95% confidence interval [CI]) was 0.83 (0.76-0.91) with <50% of TD, 0.78 (0.71-0.86) with 50%-99%, and 0.73 (0.67-0.80) with ≥100% of TD. Compared with no use of ß-blockers, the adjusted HR (95% CI) was 0.86 (0.76-0.91), 0.81 (0.74-0.89) and 0.74 (0.68-0.82) with <50%, 50%-99% and ≥100% of TD, respectively. Patients receiving both an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor (ACEi)/angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB)/ARNi and a ß-blocker at 50%-99% of TD had a lower adjusted risk of the primary outcome compared with patients only receiving one drug, i.e. ACEi/ARB/ARNi or ß-blocker, even if this was at ≥100% of TD. CONCLUSION: Heart failure with reduced ejection fraction patients using higher doses of RASi or ARNi and ß-blockers had lower risk of cardiovascular death or HF hospitalization. Use of two drug classes at 50%-99% of TD dose was associated with lower risk than one drug class at 100% of TD.

Management of hypertension associated with cardiovascular failure.

Hypertension (HT) treatment should focus on the prevention of new-onset heart failure (HF) or its exacerbation due to the increasing trend of HF incidence in Japan. According to the SPRINT trial, strict control of blood pressure (BP) of approximately 120 mmHg suppresses the progression of HF stages A and B to a more severe stage. However, in stages C and D, the target value for BP reduction differs depending on whether HF is HF reduced ejection fraction (EF) (HFrEF) or HF preserved EF (HFpEF). Additionally, the relationship between BP control and the prognosis of HF mostly showed the J-curve phenomenon in both HFrEF and HFpEF; however, patients with HFpEF need a lower target BP value than those with HFrEF. One reason is that vascular failure is associated with the pathophysiology of HF. Therefore, it is important to utilize an antihypertensive treatment strategy that considers vascular insufficiency. In addition, the presence or absence of compelling indications is important for the selection of antihypertensive (with cardioprotective effects for HF) medications. The uptitration of cardioprotective medications such as angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors/angiotensin II type 1a receptor blockers and beta-blockers is recommended in patients with HFrEF; however, it is often not practically possible to increase the dosage. In these cases, the use of medications in combination with other medication classes is also useful. Moreover, it is also useful to properly use medications of the same class considering their onset of action and half-life in the blood. It is still unclear how cardioprotective medications are used in patients with HFrEF, especially on certain age groups. The optimal initiation and continuation of cardioprotective medications should be carefully determined.

Free Versus Fixed-Ratio Combination of Basal Insulin and GLP-1 Receptor Agonists in Type 2 Diabetes Uncontrolled With GLP-1 Receptor Agonists: A Systematic Review and Indirect Treatment Comparison.

Introduction: This study evaluates the efficacy and safety of the free up-titration of basal insulin and fixed-ratio combination (FRC) of basal insulin and glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RAs) in type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) patients inadequately controlled with GLP-1RA. Methods: With the use of a systematic literature review of PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library databases through July 2021, randomized controlled trials that compared the free up-titration or FRC with remaining on GLP-1RA in T2DM patients uncontrolled with GLP-1RA were included. A comparison of adding basal insulin to maintaining GLP-1RA and an indirect comparison between the two strategies were conducted on the change in HbA1c, fasting plasma glucose (FPG), target achievement [HbA1c < 7.0%], and the risk of confirmed hypoglycemia. The Cochrane Collaboration's tool was used to assess the risk of bias. Results: Two free up-titration and two FRC trials involving 1,612 participants, all lasting 26 weeks, were included. Both approaches significantly lowered HbA1c levels (weighted mean difference [WMD] -0.75%, 95% CI -0.97 to -0.53) but increased hypoglycemic risk [risk ratio (RR) 7.59, 95% CI 3.35-17.17] compared to the unchanged GLP-1RA. No significant differences were discovered between the two methods regarding the decrease in HbA1c (WMD 0.08%, 95% CI -1.07% to 1.23%), FPG (WMD -2.29 mg/dl, 95% CI -45.07 to 40.49 mg/dl), target achievement (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.50-2.14), and hypoglycemic risk (RR 0.32, 95% CI 0.03-3.59). Conclusion: In patients who failed to reach target HbA1c levels despite the GLP-1RA treatment, both strategies of adding basal insulin, free up-titration and FRC, are comparable options are comparable options.

Pulmonary Artery Pressure-Guided Telemonitoring Reduced Pulmonary Artery Pressure but Did Not Result in Higher Doses of Guideline-Directed Medical Therapy-Observations from an Advanced Elderly German Heart Failure Cohort.

Introduction: Remote pulmonary artery pressure (PAP)-guided heart failure (HF) therapy for NYHA class III patients has been shown to reduce hospitalizations and increase survival. We aimed to assess whether PAP monitoring allows for the increase in HF directed medication in an elderly German cohort of advanced HF patients already receiving clinically optimized HF medication. Methods: We analyzed PAP and HF medication dosage, including diuretics, in 24 patients (mean age, 76 years) using implanted PAP-sensors during the first 12 months of PAP-guided HF care in an interdisciplinary HF unit. Results: During 12 months of PAP-guided HF therapy, PAP decreased significantly (△PAP systolic−6 ± 10, △PAP diastolic−4 ± 7, △PAP mean−4 ± 8 mm Hg, p < 0.01 for all). 16% of patients had an unplanned HF hospitalization. There was no significant change over time with respect to the dosage of RAAS inhibitors (ACE-I/ARB/ARNI), Beta blockers, or MRA treatments. In contrast, the dosage of loop diuretics increased significantly (2.1 ± 0.5-fold) over time. In the comparison of a "responder" (patients with PAP and diuretic dose decline) and "non-responder" (patients with PAP and diuretic dose increase) group, there were no significant differences between any of the baseline, medication, or HF hospitalization characteristics between the two groups. Conclusions: In elderly patients treated with clinically optimized HF medication, no further evidence-based medication increase could be achieved using PAP-guided HF care. However, by individual adjustment of diuretic dosage, a significant decline in PAP over time occurred, which could not be predicted by any of the baseline characteristics.

Real-World Clinical Experience on the Usage of High-Dose Metformin (1500-2500 mg/day) in Type 2 Diabetes Management.

BACKGROUND: To evaluate the clinical characteristics, treatment patterns, and clinical effectiveness and safety of high doses of metformin (1500-2500 mg/day) in Indian adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective, multicentric (n = 241), real-world study included patients with T2DM (aged >18 years) receiving high doses of metformin. Details were retrieved from patient's medical records. RESULTS: Out of 5695 patients, 62.7% were men with median age was 50.0 years. Hypertension (67.5%) and dyslipidemia (48.7%) were the prevalent comorbidities. Doses of 2000 mg (57.4%) and 1500 mg (29.1%) were the most commonly used doses of metformin and median duration of high-dose metformin therapy was 24.0 months. Metformin twice daily was the most frequently used dosage pattern (94.2%). Up-titration of doses was done in 96.8% of patients. The mean HbA1c levels were significantly decreased post-treatment (mean change: 1.08%; P < .001). The target glycemic control was achieved in 91.2% patients. A total of 83.0% had decreased weight. Adverse events were reported in 156 patients. Physician global evaluation of efficacy and tolerability showed majority of patients on a good to excellent scale (98.2% and 97.7%). CONCLUSION: Clinical effectiveness and safety of a high-dose metformin was demonstrated through significant improvement in HbA1c levels and weight reduction.

Noninferiority of heart failure nurse titration versus heart failure cardiologist titration. ETIFIC multicenter randomized trial.

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES: Beta-blockers, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACE inhibitors), angiotensin-II-receptor-blockers (ARB), and mineralocorticoid-receptor antagonists decrease mortality and heart failure (HF) hospitalizations in HF patients with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction. The effect is dose-dependent. Careful titration is recommended. However, suboptimal doses are common in clinical practice. This study aimed to compare the safety and efficacy of dose titration of the aforementioned drugs by HF nurses vs HF cardiologists. METHODS: ETIFIC was a multicenter (n=20) noninferiority randomized controlled open label trial. A total of 320 hospitalized patients with new-onset HF, reduced ejection fraction and New York Heart Association II-III, without beta-blocker contraindications were randomized 1:1 in blocks of 4 patients each stratified by hospital: 164 to HF nurse titration vs 156 to HF cardiologist titration (144 vs 145 analyzed). The primary endpoint was the beta-blocker mean relative dose (% of target dose) achieved at 4 months. Secondary endpoints included ACE inhibitors, ARB, and mineralocorticoid-receptor antagonists mean relative doses, associated variables, adverse events, and clinical outcomes at 6 months. RESULTS: The mean±standard deviation relative doses achieved by HF nurses vs HF cardiologists were as follows: beta-blockers 71.09%±31.49% vs 56.29%±31.32%, with a difference of 14.8% (95%CI, 7.5-22.1), P <.001; ACE inhibitors 72.61%±29.80% vs 56.13%±30.37%, P <.001; ARB 44.48%±33.47% vs 43.51%±33.69%, P=.93; and mineralocorticoid-receptor antagonists 71%±32.12% vs 70.47%±29.78%, P=.86; mean±standard deviation visits were 6.41±2.82 vs 2.81±1.58, P <.001, while the number (%) of adverse events were 34 (23.6) vs 30 (20.7), P=.55; and at 6 months HF hospitalizations were 1 (0.69) vs 9 (5.51), P=.01. CONCLUSIONS: ETIFIC is the first multicenter randomized trial to demonstrate the noninferiority of HF specialist-nurse titration vs HF cardiologist titration. Moreover, HF nurses achieved higher beta-blocker/ACE inhibitors doses, with more outpatient visits and fewer HF hospitalizations. Trial registry number: NCT02546856.