Leveraging a Previously Published Population Pharmacokinetic Model to Predict Rivaroxaban Exposure in Real-World Patients.

Population pharmacokinetic (PK)/pharmacodynamic models are commonly used to inform drug dosing; however, often real-world patients are not well represented in the clinical trial population. We sought to determine how well dosing recommended in the rivaroxaban drug label results in exposure for real-world patients within a reference area under the concentration-time curve (AUC) range. To accomplish this, we assessed the utility of a prior published rivaroxaban population PK model to predict exposure in real-world patients. We used the model to predict rivaroxaban exposure for 230 real-world patients using 3 methods: (1) using patient phenotype information only, (2) using individual post hoc estimates of clearance from the prior model based on single PK samples of rivaroxaban collected at steady state without refitting of the prior model, and (3) using individual post hoc estimates of clearance from the prior model based on PK samples of rivaroxaban collected at steady state after refitting of the prior model. We compared the results across 3 software packages (NONMEM, Phoenix NLME, and Monolix). We found that while the average patient-assigned dosing per the drug label will likely result in the AUC falling within the reference range, AUC for most individual patients will be outside the reference range. When comparing post hoc estimates, the average pairwise percentage differences were all <10% when comparing the software packages, but individual pairwise estimates varied as much as 50%. This study demonstrates the use of a prior published rivaroxaban population PK model to predict exposure in real-world patients.

Angiotensin Receptor Neprilysin Inhibition and Associated Outcomes by Race and Ethnicity in Patients With Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction: Data From CHAMP-HF.

Background There are limited data on the use of angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitors (ARNIs) in minority populations with heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction. We used data from the CHAMP-HF (Change the Management of Patients With Heart Failure) registry to evaluate ARNI initiation and associated changes in health status and clinical outcomes across different races and ethnicities. Methods and Results CHAMP-HF was a prospective, observational registry of US outpatients with chronic HF with reduced ejection fraction. We compared patients starting ARNI with patients not starting ARNI using a propensity-matched analysis. Patients were grouped as Hispanic, non-Hispanic Black, non-Hispanic White, or non-Hispanic other individuals, where "non-Hispanic other" consists of all patients who did not identify as Hispanic, Black, or White. Health status was assessed using the 12-item Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire. Outcomes were analyzed with multivariable models that included race and ethnicity, ARNI initiation, and an interaction term between race and ethnicity and ARNI initiation. Cox proportional hazards models were used for death/HF hospitalization, and multiple regression was used for change in Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire score. The analysis included 1516 patients, with 758 patients in each group (ARNI and no ARNI). Changes in Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire score after ARNI initiation were similar among all race and ethnicity groups (mean [SD], non-Hispanic White individuals, 3.5 [19.0]; non-Hispanic Black individuals, 2.0 [17.0]; non-Hispanic other individuals, 5.5 [20.3]; and Hispanic individuals, 3.2 [20.1]), with no statistically significant interaction between race and ethnicity and ARNI initiation (P=0.21). There was similarly no statistically significant interaction between race and ethnicity and ARNI initiation for HF hospitalization (P=0.82) or all-cause mortality (P=0.92). Conclusions In a large registry of outpatients with HF with reduced ejection fraction, the association between ARNI initiation and outcomes did not differ by race and ethnicity. These data support the use of ARNI therapy for chronic HF with reduced ejection fraction irrespective of race and ethnicity.

The association of improvement in left ventricular ejection fraction with outcomes in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction: data from CHAMP-HF.

AIMS: We assessed for an association between improvements in left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and future outcomes, including health status, in routine clinical practice. METHODS AND RESULTS: CHAMP-HF was a registry of outpatients with heart failure (HF) and LVEF ≤40%. Enrolled participants completed the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire-12 (KCCQ-12) at regular intervals and were followed as part of routine care. We assessed for associations between improvements in LVEF (≥10%) over time and concurrent changes in KCCQ-12, as well as the subsequent risk of poor outcomes. We included 2092 participants in the study. They had the following characteristics: median age 67 years (25th-75th percentile 58-75), 29% female, median duration of HF 2.7 years (0.6-6.8), and median baseline LVEF 30% (23-35). Of the study participants, 689 (33%) had a ≥10% absolute improvement in LVEF. Participants with an LVEF improvement also had an improvement in KCCQ-12 overall summary score compared with participants without an LVEF improvement (+7.6 vs. +3.5, adjusted effect estimate +4.01 [95% confidence interval CI 2.3-5.7]). Similarly, subsequent all-cause death or HF hospitalization occurred in 12% in the LVEF improvement group versus 25% in the group without an LVEF improvement (adjusted hazard ratio 0.50, 95% confidence interval 0.41-0.61). CONCLUSION: In a large cohort of outpatients with chronic HF, improvements in LVEF were associated with improved health status and a reduced risk for future clinical events. These data underscore the importance of improvement in LVEF as a treatment target for medical interventions for patients with chronic HF.

Treatment Persistence of Renin-Angiotensin-Aldosterone-System Inhibitors Over Time in Heart Failure with Reduced Ejection Fraction.

BACKGROUND: Clinical practice guidelines support sustained use of renin-angiotensin-aldosterone-system (RAAS) inhibitors over time in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, yet few data are available regarding the frequency, timing or predictors of early treatment discontinuation in clinical practice. METHODS: Among prevalent or new users of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEis)/angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs), angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitors (ARNIs), and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRAs) in the CHAMP-HF (Change the Management of Patients with Heart Failure) registry, we estimated the frequency and independent predictors of treatment discontinuation during follow-up. Among sites with > 5 users of a given RAAS inhibitor, we evaluated practice variation in the proportion of patients with treatment discontinuation. RESULTS: Over median follow-up of 18 months, frequency of drug discontinuation of ACEis/ARBs, ARNIs and MRAs was 12.7% (444 of 3509 users), 10.4% (140 of 1352 users), and 20.4% (435 of 2129 users), respectively. An additional, 149 (11.0%) of ARNI users were switched to ACEis/ARBs, and 447 (12.7%) of ACEi/ARB users were switched to ARNIs during follow-up. Across sites, the median proportion of discontinuation of ACEis/ARBs, ARNIs and MRAs was 12.5% (25th-75th percentiles 6.9%-18.9%), 18.8% (25th-75th percentiles 12.5%-28.6%), and 19.6% (25th-75th percentiles 10.7%-27.0%), respectively. Chronic kidney disease was the only independent predictor of increased risk of discontinuation of each of the RAAS inhibitor classes (P < 0.02 for all). Higher Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire overall summary scores independently predicted lower risk of discontinuation of ACEis/ARBs and ARNIs (both P < 0.001) but not of MRAs. Investigator clinical experience was predictive of lower risks of discontinuation of ACEis/ARBs and MRAs (P < 0.02) but not of ARNIs. All other independent predictors of discontinuation were unique to individual therapeutic classes. CONCLUSIONS: One in 10 patients discontinue ACEis/ARBs or ARNIs, and 1 in 5 discontinue MRAs in routine clinical practice of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction. Unique patient-level and clinician/practice-level factors are associated with premature discontinuation of individual RAAS inhibitors, which may help to guide structured efforts to promote treatment persistence in clinical care.

Identifying patients at increased risk for poor outcomes from heart failure with reduced ejection fraction: the PROMPT-HF risk model.

AIMS: We aimed to develop a risk prediction tool that incorporated both clinical events and worsening health status for patients with heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). Identifying patients with HFrEF at increased risk of a poor outcome may enable proactive interventions that improve outcomes. METHODS AND RESULTS: We used data from a longitudinal HF registry, CHAMP-HF, to develop a risk prediction tool for poor outcomes over the next 6 months. A poor outcome was defined as death, an HF hospitalization, or a ≥20-point decrease (or decrease below 25) in 12-item Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ-12) overall summary score. Among 4546 patients in CHAMP-HF, 1066 (23%) experienced a poor outcome within 6 months (1.3% death, 11% HF hospitalization, and 11% change in KCCQ-12). The model demonstrated moderate discrimination (c-index = 0.65) and excellent calibration with observed data. The following variables were associated with a poor outcome: age, race, education, New York Heart Association class, baseline KCCQ-12, atrial fibrillation, coronary disease, diabetes, chronic kidney disease, smoking, prior HF hospitalization, and systolic blood pressure. We also created a simplified model with a 0-10 score using six variables (New York Heart Association class, KCCQ-12, coronary disease, chronic kidney disease, prior HF hospitalization, and systolic blood pressure) with similar discrimination (c-index = 0.63). Patients scoring 0-3 were considered low risk (event rate <20%), 4-6 were considered intermediate risk (event rate 20-40%), and 7-10 were considered high risk (event rate >40%). CONCLUSIONS: The PROMPT-HF risk model can identify outpatients with HFrEF at increased risk of poor outcomes, including clinical events and health status deterioration. With further validation, this model may help inform therapeutic decision making.

Comparative Effectiveness of Dosing of Medical Therapy for Heart Failure: From the CHAMP-HF Registry.

BACKGROUND: The comparative effectiveness of differing dosages of guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) on clinical and patient-reported outcomes in clinical practice in the United States is unknown. This study sought to characterize associations between the dosing of GDMT and outcomes for patients with HFrEF in U.S. clinical practice. METHODS: This analysis included 4832 outpatients who had chronic HFrEF across 150 practices in the U.S. in the Change the Management of Patients with Heart Failure (CHAMP-HF) registry with no contraindication and available dosing data for at least 1 GDMT at baseline. Baseline dosing of angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACEI)/angiotensin II receptor blocker (ARB)/angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI), beta-blocker, and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist (MRA) therapies were examined. For each medication class, multivariable models assessed associations between medication dosing and clinical outcomes over 24 months (all-cause mortality, HF hospitalization) and patient-reported outcomes at 12 months (change in the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire Overall Summary score [KCCQ-OS]). RESULTS: After adjustment, compared with target dosing, lower dosing was associated with higher all-cause mortality for ACEIs/ARBs/ARNIs (50% to < 100% target dosage, HR 1.16 [95% CI 0.87-1.55]; < 50% target dosage, HR 1.37 [95% CI 1.05-1.79]; none, HR 1.75 [95% CI 1.32-2.34; overall P< 0.001) and beta-blockers (50% to < 100% target dosage, HR 1.30 [95% CI 1.00-1.69]; < 50% target dosage, HR 1.41 [95% CI 1.11-1.79; none, HR 1.24 [95% CI 0.92-1.67]; overall P= 0.042). Lower dosing of ACEIs/ARBs/ARNIs was independently associated with higher risk of HF hospitalization (50% to < 100% target dosage, HR 1.08 [95% CI 0.90-1.30]; < 50% target dosage, HR 1.23 [1.04-1.47]; none, HR 1.29 [1.04-1.60]; overall P= 0.046), but beta-blocker dosing was not (overall P= 0.085). Target dosing of MRAs was not associated with risk of mortality or HF hospitalization. For each GDMT, compared with target dosing, lower dosing was not associated with change in the KCCQ-OS at 12 months, with the potential exception of worsening KCCQ-OS scores with lower dosing of ACEIs/ARBs/ARNIs. CONCLUSIONS: In this contemporary U.S. outpatient HFrEF registry, target dosing of ACEI/ARB/ARNI and beta-blocker therapy was associated with reduced mortality and was variably associated with HF hospitalization and patient-reported outcomes. MRA dosing was not associated with outcomes. The totality of these findings support the benefits of target dosing of GDMT in routine practice, as tolerated, with unmeasured differences among patients receiving differing dosages potentially explaining the differing results seen here compared with randomized clinical trials.

Diuretic Changes, Health Care Resource Utilization, and Clinical Outcomes for Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction: From the Change the Management of Patients With Heart Failure Registry.

BACKGROUND: Diuretics are a mainstay therapy for the symptomatic treatment of heart failure. However, in contemporary US outpatient practice, the degree to which diuretic dosing changes over time and the associations with clinical outcomes and health care resource utilization are unknown. METHODS: Among 3426 US outpatients with chronic heart failure with reduced ejection fraction in the Change the Management of Patients with Heart Failure registry with complete medication data and who were prescribed a loop diuretic, diuretic dose increase was defined as: (1) change to a total daily dose higher than their previous total daily dose, (2) addition of metolazone to the regimen, (3) change from furosemide to either bumetanide or torsemide, and the change persists for at least 7 days. Adjusted hazard ratios or rate ratios along with 95% CIs were reported for clinical outcomes among patients with an increase in oral diuretic dose versus no increase in diuretic dose. RESULTS: Overall, 796 (23%) had a diuretic dose increase (18 episodes per 100 patient-years). The proportion of patients with dyspnea at rest (38% versus 26%), dyspnea at exertion (79% versus 67%), orthopnea (32% versus 21%), edema (60% versus 43%), and weight gain (40% versus 23%) were significantly (all P <0.001) higher in the diuretic increase group. Baseline angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor/angiotensin receptor blocker (hazard ratio, 0.75 [95% CI, 0.65-0.87]) use were associated with lower likelihood of diuretic increase over time. Patients with a diuretic dose increase had a significantly higher number of heart failure hospitalizations (rate ratio, 2.53 [95% CI, 2.10-3.05]), emergency department visits (rate ratio, 1.84 [95% CI, 1.56-2.17]), and home health visits (rate ratio, 1.88 [95% CI, 1.39-2.54]), but not all-cause mortality (hazard ratio, 1.10 [95% CI, 0.89-1.36]). Similarly, greater furosemide dose equivalent increases were associated with greater resource utilization but not with mortality, compared with smaller increases. CONCLUSIONS: In this contemporary US registry, 1 in 4 patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction had outpatient escalation of diuretic therapy over longitudinal follow-up, and these patients were more likely to have sign/symptoms of congestion. Outpatient diuretic dose escalation of any magnitude was associated with heart failure hospitalizations and resource utilization, but not all-cause mortality.

Qualitative Evaluation of a Junior Faculty Team Mentoring Program.

Objective. To investigate the strengths and challenges of a structured junior faculty mentoring program at a public four-year school of pharmacy, identify areas of opportunity to improve the program, and describe the mentoring needs of mid-career faculty.Methods. Focus groups and interviews were conducted to elicit participants' experiences, perceptions, and suggestions for opportunity to improve the program. Stakeholder groups included junior faculty enrolled in the mentoring program, mid-career faculty who had graduated from the program, mid-career faculty who had not participated in the program, internal mentors, external mentors, and division chairs. Thematic coding was used to identify semantic themes, and summaries of participant perceptions were generated. The program was mapped to the PAIRS checklist from the 2014 American Association of Colleges of Pharmacy Joint Council Task Force on Mentoring.Results. Participants described the structure of the program and mentee-mentor relationships as strengths of the program. Challenges included finding time to meet and ensuring mentee-mentor fit. Several areas of opportunity were identified, such as adjusting the topics for large mentee seminars, providing mentors with training, and providing mentoring for mid-career faculty. The mentoring needs of mid-career faculty were described as unique and requiring potentially different strategies than those used for mentoring junior faculty.Conclusion. Mentoring is critical to the professional development of faculty, supporting faculty retention and job satisfaction, and reducing faculty burnout. Scholarly endeavors that explore faculty mentoring, specifically those using qualitative methods, can help the Academy better understand and meet the needs of faculty.

Association between sacubitril/valsartan initiation and real-world health status trajectories over 18 months in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction.

AIMS: Improving the health status (symptoms, function, and quality of life) of patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) is a primary treatment goal. Angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitors (ARNI) improve short-term health status in clinical practice, but the sustainability of these improvements is unknown. METHODS AND RESULTS: In CHAMP-HF, a multicentre observational study of outpatients with HFrEF, patients initiated on ARNI were propensity score matched 1:2 to patients not using ARNI with Cox regression modelling time to ARNI initiation, adjusted for sociodemographic and clinical variables, medical history, medications, and baseline Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ) scores. Repeated measures models for the overall KCCQ score and each domain compared the health status trajectories of patients initiated on ARNI vs. not. Among 3930 participants, 746 (19.0%) began ARNI, of whom 576 were matched to 1152 non-ARNI patients. Prior to matching, participants initiated on ARNI were younger, non-Hispanic, had lower EFs, more commonly had a history of ventricular arrhythmia, were less likely to be taking an ACEI/ARB, and more likely to be treated with beta-blockers and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists. There were no differences after matching. In the matched cohort, participants initiated on ARNI experienced improved health status by 3 months that persisted through 12 months [KCCQ Overall Summary Score (OSS) = 73.4 vs. 70.8; P < 0.001], with the largest benefit observed in the KCCQ Quality of Life domain (68.7 vs. 64.7; P < 0.001). Similar health status benefits were noted through 18 months (KCCQ-OSS = 73.9 vs. 71.3; P < 0.001). A responder analysis showed that 12 patients would need to be initiated on ARNI for one to experience at least a large improvement (≥10 points) in health status benefit at 12 months. CONCLUSIONS: In outpatient practice, ARNI therapy was associated with improved health status by 3 months and continued to 18 months after initiating therapy.

Comparison of New York Heart Association Class and Patient-Reported Outcomes for Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction.

Importance: It is unclear how New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional class compares with patient-reported outcomes among patients with heart failure (HF) in contemporary US clinical practice. Objective: To characterize longitudinal changes and concordance between NYHA class and the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire Overall Summary Score (KCCQ-OS), and their associations with clinical outcomes. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study included 2872 US outpatients with chronic HF with reduced ejection fraction across 145 practices enrolled in the CHAMP-HF registry between December 2015 and October 2017. All patients had complete NYHA class and KCCQ-OS data at baseline and 12 months. Longitudinal changes and correlations between the 2 measure were examined. Multivariable models landmarked at 12 months evaluated associations between improvement in NYHA and KCCQ-OS from baseline to 12 months with clinical outcomes occurring from months 12 through 24. Statistical analyses were performed from March to August 2020. Exposure: Change in health status, as defined by 12-month change in NYHA class or KCCQ-OS. Main Outcomes and Measures: All-cause mortality, HF hospitalization, and mortality or HF hospitalization. Results: In total, 2872 patients were included in this analysis (median [interquartile range] age, 68 [59-75] years; 872 [30.4%] were women; and 2156 [75.1%] were of White race). At baseline, 312 patients (10.9%) were NYHA class I, 1710 patients (59.5%) were class II, 804 patients (28.0%) were class III, and 46 patients (1.6%) were class IV. For KCCQ-OS, 1131 patients (39.4%) scored 75 to 100 (best health status), 967 patients (33.7%) scored 50 to 74, 612 patients (21.3%) scored 25 to 49, and 162 patients (5.6%) scored 0 to 24 (worst health status). At 12 months, 1002 patients (34.9%) had a change in NYHA class (599 [20.9%] with improvement; 403 [14.0%] with worsening) and 2158 patients (75.1%) had a change of 5 or more points in KCCQ-OS (1388 [48.3%] with improvement; 770 [26.8%] with worsening). The most common trajectory for NYHA class was no change (1870 [65.1%]), and the most common trajectory for KCCQ-OS was an improvement of at least 10 points (1047 [36.5%]). After adjustment, improvement in NYHA class was not associated with subsequent clinical outcomes, whereas an improvement of 5 or more points in KCCQ-OS was independently associated with decreased mortality (hazard ratio, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.44-0.80; P < .001) and mortality or HF hospitalization (hazard ratio, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.59-0.89; P = .002). Conclusions and Relevance: Findings of this cohort study suggest that, in contemporary US clinical practice, compared with NYHA class, KCCQ-OS is more sensitive to clinically meaningful changes in health status over time. Changes in KCCQ-OS may have more prognostic value than changes in NYHA class.

Variation in use and dosing escalation of renin angiotensin system, mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist, angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor and beta-blocker therapies in heart failure and reduced ejection fraction: Association of comorbidities.

BACKGROUND: In patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEi), angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARB), or angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI), mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRA), and beta-blockers (ßB) are underutilized. It is unknown if patients with and without comorbidities have similar ACEi/ARB/ARNI, MRA, and ßB prescription patterns. METHODS: Baseline data from the CHAMP-HF (Change the Management of Patients with Heart Failure) registry were categorized by history of atrial fibrillation, asthma/chronic lung disease, obstructive sleep apnea, and depression. Using multivariate hierarchical logistic models, associations of ACEi/ARB/ARNI, MRA and ßB medication use and dose by comorbidities were assessed after adjusting for patient characteristics. RESULTS: Of 4,815 HFrEF patients from 152 CHAMP-HF sites, ACEi/ARB/ARNI use was lower in patients with more comorbidities, and generally, MRA use was low and ßB use was high. In adjusted analyses, patients with HFrEF and comorbid obstructive sleep apnea, vs. without, were more likely to be prescribed ARNI (OR [95% CI]: 1.25 [1.00, 1.55]); P = .047 and MRA (1.31 [1.11, 1.55]); P = .002 and less likely to be prescribed ACEi (0.74 [0.63, 0.88]); P < .001. Patients with atrial fibrillation, vs. without, were less likely to receive ACEi/ARB (0.82 [0.71, 0.95]); P = .006 and any study medication (0.81 [0.67, 0.97]); P = .020. Comorbid lung disease and history of depression were not associated with HFrEF prescriptions. CONCLUSIONS: Renin-angiotensin-aldosterone blockade therapy prescription and dose varied by comorbidity status, but ßB therapy did not. In quality efforts, leaders need to consider use and dosing of prescriptions in light of prevalent comorbidities.

Heart Failure Hospitalization and Guideline-Directed Prescribing Patterns Among Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction Patients.

OBJECTIVES: The authors sought to evaluate the association of heart failure hospitalization (HFH) with guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) prescribing patterns among patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). BACKGROUND: HFH represents an important opportunity to titrate GDMT among patients with HFrEF. METHODS: The CHAMP-HF (Change the Management of Patients With Heart Failure) registry is a prospective registry of adults with HFrEF (ejection fraction ≤40%). Using data from the CHAMP-HF registry (N = 4,365), adjusted time-to-event models were created to study the association of HFH with GDMT prescribing patterns. RESULTS: HFH (compared with no HFH) was positively associated with initiation of angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor/angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB), angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor, beta-blocker, and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist (MRA). HFH positively associated with dose escalation of ACE inhibitor/ARB (probability ratio: 1.71, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.36 to 2.16) and MRA (probability ratio: 8.71, 95% CI: 4.19 to 18.10). In those on prior therapy, HFH was associated with discontinuation and de-escalation of all classes of GDMT. ACE inhibitor/ARB, angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor, beta-blocker, and MRA de-escalation/discontinuation after HFH was associated with increased risk of all-cause mortality with hazard ratios of 3.82 (95% CI: 2.42 to 6.03), 4.76 (95% CI: 2.06 to 11.03), 2.94 (95% CI: 2.04 to 4.25), and 4.81 (95% CI: 2.61 to 8.87), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: HFH positively associated with changes in GDMT, including initiation, dose escalation, discontinuation, and dose de-escalation. De-escalation/discontinuation of GDMT after HFH associated with increased risk of all-cause mortality. Educational endeavors are needed to ensure GDMT is not inappropriately held in the setting of HFH. For those in whom GDMT must be held/decreased, improvement tools at discharge and post-discharge titration clinics may help ensure lifesaving GDMT regimens remain optimized.

Improvement in Left Ventricular Ejection Fraction in Outpatients With Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction: Data From CHAMP-HF.

BACKGROUND: Among patients with heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction (EF), improvements in left ventricular EF (LVEF) are associated with better outcomes and remain an important treatment goal. Patient factors associated with LVEF improvement in routine clinical practice have not been clearly defined. METHODS: CHAMP-HF (Change the Management of Patients with Heart Failure) is a prospective registry of outpatients with HF with reduced EF. Assessments of LVEF are recorded when performed for routine care. We analyzed patients with both baseline and ≥1 follow-up LVEF assessments to describe factors associated with LVEF improvement. RESULTS: In CHAMP-HF, 2623 patients had a baseline and follow-up LVEF assessment. The median age was 67 (interquartile range, 58-75) years, 40% had an ischemic cardiomyopathy, and median HF duration was 2.8 years (0.7-6.8). Median LVEF was 30% (23-35), and median change on follow-up was 4% (-2 to -13); 19% of patients had a decrease in LVEF, 31% had no change, 49% had a ≥5% increase, and 34% had a ≥10% increase. In a multivariable model, the following factors were associated with ≥5% LVEF increase: shorter HF duration (odds ratio [OR], 1.21 [95% CI, 1.17-1.25]), no implantable cardioverter defibrillator (OR, 1.46 [95% CI, 1.34-1.55]), lower LVEF (OR, 1.15 [95% CI, 1.10-1.19]), nonischemic cardiomyopathy (OR, 1.24 [95% CI, 1.09-1.36]), and no coronary disease (OR, 1.20 [95% CI, 1.03-1.35]). CONCLUSIONS: In a large cohort of outpatients with chronic HF with reduced EF, improvements in LVEF were common. Common baseline cardiac characteristics identified a population that was more likely to respond over time. These data may inform clinical decision making and should be the basis for future research on myocardial recovery.

Contemporary Treatment Patterns and Clinical Outcomes of Comorbid Diabetes Mellitus and HFrEF: The CHAMP-HF Registry.

OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to characterize the clinical profile, treatment patterns, and clinical outcomes of patients with comorbid diabetes mellitus (DM) and heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) in a contemporary, real-world U.S. outpatient registry in the context of evolving treatment strategies. BACKGROUND: Specific antihyperglycemic classes have differential risks and benefits with respect to HF. Limited data are available evaluating contemporary treatment patterns and outcomes of patients with comorbid DM and HFrEF. METHODS: Among 4,970 patients with chronic HFrEF (≤40%) across 152 U.S. sites in the CHAMP-HF prospective, observational registry (2015 to 2017), we examined therapies and clinical outcomes by DM status. RESULTS: Median age was 68 (58 to 75) years of age; 29% were women; 73.5% were white; and 64% had coronary artery disease. Overall, 42% (n = 2,085) had comorbid DM with a median hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) level of 7.2% (interquartile range [IQR]: 6.4% to 8.3%). One-fourth of DM patients (24%) were not treated with an antihyperglycemic therapy. Most patients with DM were taking 1 (46%) or 2 (23%) antihyperglycemic therapies: metformin (40%); insulin (33%); sulfonylureas (24%); dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (10%); glucagon-like peptide (GLP)-1 receptor agonists (4%); sodium-glucose cotransporter (SGLT)-2 inhibitors (2%); and thiazolidinediones (2%). Among patients with DM, 62%, 16%, 80%, and 33.5% were receiving any angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor/angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs), angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI), ß-blockers, or mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRAs) at baseline, respectively. Among patients without DM, corresponding baseline rates were 65%, 15%, 80%, and 37%, respectively. Patients with or without DM were infrequently treated with guideline-directed HFrEF therapies at target doses (≤27% across classes). During median 15-month follow-up, patients with DM experienced higher rates of all-cause mortality or HF hospitalization (30% vs. 23%, respectively), independent of 11 pre-specified covariates (adjusted hazard ratio: 1.35 (95% confidence interval: 1.21 to 1.52); p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Despite higher risk-adjusted clinical event rates in patients with comorbid HFrEF and DM, guideline-directed medical therapies for both disease states are incomplete and represent an important target for quality improvement through multidisciplinary care pathways.

Precision Dosing Priority Criteria: Drug, Disease, and Patient Population Variables.

The administered dose of a drug modulates whether patients will experience optimal effectiveness, toxicity including death, or no effect at all. Dosing is particularly important for diseases and/or drugs where the drug can decrease severe morbidity or prolong life. Likewise, dosing is important where the drug can cause death or severe morbidity. Since we believe there are many examples where more precise dosing could benefit patients, it is worthwhile to consider how to prioritize drug-disease targets. One key consideration is the quality of information available from which more precise dosing recommendations can be constructed. When a new more precise dosing scheme is created and differs significantly from the approved label, it is important to consider the level of proof necessary to either change the label and/or change clinical practice. The cost and effort needed to provide this proof should also be considered in prioritizing drug-disease precision dosing targets. Although precision dosing is being promoted and has great promise, it is underutilized in many drugs and disease states. Therefore, we believe it is important to consider how more precise dosing is going to be delivered to high priority patients in a timely manner. If better dosing schemes do not change clinical practice resulting in better patient outcomes, then what is the use? This review paper discusses variables to consider when prioritizing precision dosing candidates while highlighting key examples of precision dosing that have been successfully used to improve patient care.

Comparison of Hydralazine/Nitrate and Angiotensin Receptor Neprilysin Inhibitor Use Among Black Versus Nonblack Americans With Heart Failure and Reduced Ejection Fraction (from CHAMP-HF).

Underuse of hydralazine/nitrate (HYD/NIT) in black patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) has been previously described, but whether this important treatment gap persists in contemporary practice is unknown. Sacubitril/valsartan has become a part of guideline-directed medical therapy for HFrEF but data on utilization of this therapy in black patients is lacking. This study addressed these issues by assessing the frequency of HYD/NIT and sacubitril/valsartan use in black patients with HFrEF in the Change the Management of Patients with Heart Failure Registry, a multicenter cohort study. The association of race with utilization rates of these agents was also evaluated. Clinical and medication data at baseline and during 12 months of follow-up from black and nonblack registry patients without documented contraindications or intolerance to the medications of interest were analyzed. Data were available from December 2015 to October 2017, in 4,848 HFrEF patients, of whom 853 were black (18%) and 3995 were nonblack. Black patients were younger, more likely to be female, and had lower ejection fractions compared with nonblacks. Only 11% of black patients were receiving HYD/NIT therapy at baseline and 13% at 1 year. The percentage of black patients treated at baseline with sacubitril/valsartan was also low at 18% and remained unchanged at 1 year. After adjustment for covariates, race was independently associated with HYD/NIT use (odds ratio 8.32; 95% confidence interval 6.12 to 11.3; p < 0.0001), but not for sacubitril/valsartan. In conclusion, study findings demonstrate a marked persistent treatment gap for HYD/NIT and similar poor utilization of sacubitril/valsartan in black patients with HFrEF despite current guideline recommendations.

Association Between Sacubitril/Valsartan Initiation and Health Status Outcomes in Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction.

OBJECTIVES: This study sought to describe the short-term health status benefits of angiotensin-neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI) therapy in patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). BACKGROUND: Although therapy with sacubitril/valsartan, a neprilysin inhibitor, improved patients' health status (compared with enalapril) at 8 months in the PARADIGM-HF (Prospective Comparison of ARNI with ACE inhibitor to Determine Impact on Global Mortality and Morbidity in Heart Failure) study, the early impact of ARNI on patients' symptoms, functions, and quality of life is unknown. METHODS: Health status was assessed by using the 12-item Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ) in 3,918 outpatients with HFrEF and left ventricular ejection fraction ≤40% across 140 U.S. centers in the CHAMP-HF (Change the Management of Patients with Heart Failure) registry. ARNI therapy was initiated in 508 patients who were matched 1:2 to 1,016 patients who were not initiated on ARNI (no-ARNI), using a nonparsimonious time-dependent propensity score (6 sociodemographic factors, 23 clinical characteristics), prior KCCQ overall summary (KCCQ-OS) score, and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor/angiotensin receptor blocker status. RESULTS: Multivariate linear regression demonstrated a greater mean improvement in KCCQ-OS in patients initiated on ARNI therapy (5.3 ± 19 vs. 2.5 ± 17.4, respectively; p < 0.001) over a median (interquartile range [IQR]) of 57 (32 to 104) days. The proportions of ARNI versus no-ARNI groups with ≥10-point (large) and ≥20-point (very large) improvements in KCCQ-OS were 32.7% versus 26.9%, respectively, and 20.5% versus 12.1%, respectively, consistent with numbers needed to treat of 18 and 12, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: In routine clinical care, ARNI therapy was associated with early improvements in health status, with 20% experiencing a very large health status benefit compared with 12% who were not started on ARNI therapy. These findings support the use of ARNI to improve patients' symptoms, functions, and quality of life.

Association of Changes in Heart Failure Treatment With Patients' Health Status: Real-World Evidence From CHAMP-HF.

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.