Dataset Information

Diabetes and treatment of chronic heart failure in a large real-world heart failure population.

ABSTRACT:

Aims

Although diabetes mellitus (DM) is a common co-morbidity in chronic heart failure (HF) patients, European data on concurrent HF and DM treatment are lacking. Therefore, we have studied the HF treatment of patients with and without DM. Additionally, with the recent breakthrough of sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors in the field of HF, we studied the potential impact of this new drug in a large cohort of HF patients.

Methods and results

A total of 7488 patients with chronic HF with a left ventricular ejection fraction <50% from 34 Dutch outpatient HF clinics between 2013 and 2016 were analysed on diabetic status and background HF therapy. Average age of the total population was 72.8 years (±11.7 years), and 64% of the patients were male. Diabetes was present in 29% of the patients (N = 2174). Diabetics had a worse renal function (mean estimated glomerular filtration rate 56 vs. 61 mL/min/1.73 m² , P < 0.001). Renin-angiotensin system inhibitors were less often prescribed in diabetics compared with non-diabetics (79% vs. 82%, P = 0.001), while no significant differences regarding other guideline-recommended HF drugs were found. Target doses of beta-blockers (23% vs. 16%, P < 0.001), renin-angiotensin system inhibitors (47% vs. 43%, P = 0.009), and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (57% vs. 51%, P = 0.005) were more often prescribed in diabetics than non-diabetics. Based on the latest trials on SGLT2 inhibitors, 31-64% of all HF patients would fulfil the eligibility or enrichment criteria (with vs. without N-terminal prohormone BNP criterion).

Conclusions

In this large real-world HF registry, a high prevalence of DM was observed and diabetics more often received guideline-recommended target doses. Based on current evidence, the majority of patients would fulfil the enrichment criteria of SGLT2 trials in HF and the impact of this new drug class will be large.

SUBMITTER: Radhoe SP

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8788034 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:AimsThis study is aimed at investigating the eligibility in a real-world heart failure population for the DAPA-HF (testing dapagliflozin) and EMPEROR-reduced (testing empagliflozin) trials, comparing the eligible real-world patients to trial participants and to characterize the noneligible patients.MethodsMedical records of all heart failure patients who had a diagnosis of heart failure from the Heart Centre or Department of Internal Medicine at Umeå University Hospital were reviewed.Results2433 of the hospital's uptake population of 150 000 had a diagnosis of heart failure. 681 patients had left ventricle ejection fraction ≤ 40%, and of these 352 (52%) and 268 (39%) patients met eligibility criteria for DAPA-HF and EMPEROR-reduced, respectively. Comparing eligible patients in our population with the DAPA-HF- and EMPEROR-reduced trial populations, we found that eligible real-world patients were older (79.0 vs. 66.2 years and 80.3 vs. 67.2 years, respectively), had worse renal function (eGFR 54.4 vs. 66.0 ml/min/1.73m2 and 49.5 vs. 61.8 ml/min/1.73m2, respectively), higher prevalence of atrial fibrillation (56.0% vs. 36.1% and 53.0% vs. 35.6%, respectively), and lower prevalence of diabetes mellitus (21.0% vs. 41.8% and 26.1% vs. 49.8%, respectively). The main reasons for ineligibility were low NT-proBNP or low eGFR. Noneligible patients differed according to reason for ineligibility, where patients with low NT-proBNP were generally younger and healthier, and patients with low eGFR were older and had more comorbidities.Conclusions39-52% of patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction in this real-world heart failure population were eligible for SGLT2-inhibitor treatment, corresponding to 11-14% of all heart failure patients. Compared to trial participants, eligible real-world patients were significantly older with worse renal function, more atrial fibrillation, and less diabetes mellitus. Trial entry criteria exclude comparatively young and healthy patients, as well as comparatively old patients with more comorbid conditions.

Project description:PurposeGiven known differences between real-world and clinical trial populations, we characterized demographics, clinical characteristics, and outcomes using real-world (RW) data for patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), including those similar to subjects enrolled in an HFrEF clinical trial to better understand patient populations that could benefit from novel therapies.Patients and methodsUsing Vanderbilt University Medical Center electronic health records (2006-2019), two RW cohorts of HFrEF patients were identified. The "Clinical Cohort" was based on a validated HFrEF algorithm and left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) ≤40%. The "GALACTIC-HF-like Cohort" mirrored enrollment requirements of the GALACTIC-HF clinical trial including hospitalizations, medications, laboratory values, and LVEF ≤35%.ResultsMedian age at index for the Clinical Cohort (N = 3954) and GALACTIC-HF-like Cohort (N = 1541) were 65 and 61 years, respectively; both were 67% male and 80% white. Over half had coronary artery disease (55% Clinical vs 64% GALACTIC-HF-like); hypercholesterolemia was common (69% Clinical vs 74% GALACTIC-HF-like). Chronic kidney disease (31 vs 21%), atrial fibrillation (32 vs 29%), and cardiac resynchronization or implantable cardioverter defibrillator (26 vs 23%) were higher in the GALACTIC-HF-like Cohort. ACE inhibitor use was high in both groups but more common in the GALACTIC-HF-like Cohort (71% and 82%, respectively). Beta-blockers or loop diuretics were used by >90% of both cohorts. HF hospitalization rates were 261 (95% CI 224, 297) per 1000 person-years in Clinical versus 523 (484, 562) in GALACTIC-HF-like Cohort (median follow-up of 2.9 and 4.2 years, respectively).ConclusionApproximately 40% of RW HFrEF patients met criteria for the GALACTIC-HF trial. While findings of ongoing clinical trials may be directly generalizable to this sizable proportion of patients, future trials should examine whether the majority of patients with lower prevalence of comorbidities and rate of HF hospitalization could benefit from emerging HF treatments.

Project description:AimsThe prognostic significance of renal function variability has not been fully elucidated in heart failure (HF). This multicentre, prospective cohort study aimed to evaluate the usefulness of visit-to-visit variability in estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) for predicting patients' outcomes in a real-world HF population.MethodsA total of 564 patients who had survived HF hospitalization were randomly assigned with a 2:1 ratio to derivation and validation cohorts, and they were then followed after discharge. Using the data for 6 months after discharge, each patient's visit-to-visit eGFR variability (EGV) was estimated. In the derivation cohort, Cox regression analyses were performed to assess the association of EGV with a subsequent composite event (death and HF hospitalization). In the validation cohort, the predictive performance was compared among Cox regression models with EGV, those with B-type natriuretic peptide (BNP) and those with eGFR.ResultsIn the derivation cohort (376 patients), median age, left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), BNP and eGFR at discharge were 72 years, 53.3%, 134.8 pg/mL and 58.7 mL/min/1.73 m2 , respectively. During a median follow-up of 2.2 years, higher EGV was associated with an increased risk of the composite event (adjusted hazard ratio [per standard deviation increase in log-transformed EGV], 1.5; 95% confidence interval, 1.1-2.0). A similar finding was observed in a stratified analysis by LVEF. In the validation cohort (188 patients), better model fit, discrimination, reclassification and calibration were observed for EGV than for 6-month averaged BNP or eGFR for predicting the composite event when added to HF risk prediction models. Adding EGV to models with BNP or eGFR improved model discrimination and reclassification.ConclusionsEGV predicts HF outcomes regardless of LVEF. Risk prediction models with EGV have good performance in real-world HF patients. The study findings highlight the clinical importance of observing visit-to-visit fluctuations in renal function in this population.

Project description:OBJECTIVES:The aim of this study was to use a multicenter, observational outpatient registry of patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) to describe the association between changes in patients' medications with changes in health status. BACKGROUND:Alleviating symptoms and improving function and quality of life for patients with HFrEF are primary treatment goals and potential indicators of quality. Whether titrating medications in routine clinical care improves patients' health status is unknown. METHODS:The association of any change in HFrEF medications with 3-month change in health status, as measured using the 12-item Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire Overall Summary Scale, was determined in unadjusted and multivariate-adjusted (25 clinical characteristics, baseline health status) models using hierarchical linear regression. RESULTS:Among 3,313 outpatients with HFrEF from 140 centers, 21.9% had medication changes. Three months later, 23.7% and 46.4% had clinically meaningfully worse (?5-point decrease) and improved (?5-point increase) Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire Overall Summary Scale scores. The 3-month median change in Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire Overall Summary Scale score for patients whose HFrEF medications were changed was significantly larger (7.3 points; interquartile range: -3.1 to 20.8 points) than in patients whose medications were not changed (3.1 points; interquartile range: -4.7 to 12.5 points) (adjusted difference 3.0 points; 95% confidence interval: 1.4 to 4.6 points; p < 0.001). Among patients whose medications were adjusted, 26% had very large clinical improvement (?20 points) compared with 14% whose regimens were not changed. CONCLUSIONS:In routine care of patients with HFrEF, changes in HFrEF medications were associated with significant improvements in patients' health status, suggesting that health status-based performance measures can quantify the benefits of titrating medicines in patients with HFrEF.