Speaker
Gregg C. Fonarow, MD, FACC, FAHA, FHFSA
Eliot Corday Professor of Cardiovascular Medicine and Science
Director, Ahmanson-UCLA Cardiomyopathy Center
Codirector, UCLA Preventative Cardiology Program
UCLA Division of Cardiology
Keywords
Heart failure; HFrEF; guideline-directed medical therapy; implementation; systematic review
Key Points
- Despite the availability of effective therapies for heart failure (HF), a large number of eligible patients are not receiving one or more evidence-based, guideline-recommended therapies. This implementation gap has stymied improvements in morbidity and mortality.
- The benefits of evidence-based heart failure medications are cumulative. If all therapies are used, there is a relative risk reduction of 74.0% and an absolute risk reduction of 25.9%. Simultaneous or rapid initiation of therapies reduces HF hospitalizations, rehospitalizations, and mortality.
- Reasons for underutilization of Guideline-Directed Medical Therapy (GDMT) for heart failure include a lack of systems to reliably implement therapies; gaps in knowledge and awareness of guidelines; therapeutic inertia; and insufficient urgency.
- Dr. Fonarow’s team conducted a systematic review of interventions for the optimization of GDMT, including 28 randomized clinical trials with an aggregate sample of over 19,000 patients. They found that the initiatives that used interdisciplinary teams, largely comprised of nurses and pharmacists, most consistently led to improvements in GDMT. Clinician education, electronic health record initiatives, and patient interventions, on the other hand, resulted in no or modest improvements in GDMT.
- Implementation of GDMT needs to improve in all clinical settings. Programs that successfully implement GDMT often have access to current and accurate data on treatment outcomes; administrative and clinician support; use care maps and pathways; and use data to provide feedback. There is also a need for further implementation science innovation and testing.
Discussion Themes
– Do you still see lack of education as a major problem that needs to be approached differently, or should we really be focusing on something else? I do think it need to be further studied. I think our educational efforts around the clinician need to center on the really practical aspects, on what the common pitfalls are in trying to apply and uptitrate these medications. Interdisciplinary teams and cross-discipline education are critically important. [The study results] don’t mean that education shouldn’t be part of further interventions, but I think we need to look at what’s truly going to see a meaningful increase in medication titration and persistence of GDMT.
– The polypill could address some of the clinical inertia issues and patient resistance. Patients hate it when you keep adding on four different medications and you’re increasing the doses. Is it being studied in this context? There is work going on, editorials have been written about it, the concept has been laid out. There are small pilot studies that have been done. There are challenges; is titration necessary? You’ll need a series of polypills to uptitrate, or you’ll get the therapy started and then you’ll bring them together as a polypill. One thing I do want to highlight, though, is that starting medications simultaneously defeats that patient question of, “Why are you adding this extra medication? Are the prior medications not working?” It’s a different mindset upfront: “Here are these four medications you’re going to be on.”
Tags
#pctGR, @Collaboratory1