6This 8-week, randomized, double-blind, controlled study compared efficacy and tolerability of telmisartan ⁄ amlodipine (T ⁄ A) single-pill combination (SPC) vs the respective monotherapies in 858 patients with severe hypertension (systolic ⁄ diastolic blood pressure [SBP ⁄ DBP] !180 ⁄ 95 mm Hg). At 8 weeks, T ⁄ A provided significantly greater reductions from baseline in seated trough cuff SBP ⁄ DBP ()47.5 mm Hg ⁄ )18.7 mm Hg) vs T (P<.0001) or A (P=.0002) monotherapy; superior reductions were also evident at 1, 2, 4, and 6 weeks. Blood pressure (BP) goal and response rates were consistently higher with T ⁄ A vs T or A. T ⁄ A was well tolerated, with less frequent treatmentrelated adverse events vs A (12.6% vs 16.4%) and a numerically lower incidence of peripheral edema and treatment discontinuation. In conclusion, treatment of patients with substantially elevated BP with T ⁄ A SPCs resulted in high and significantly greater BP reductions and higher BP goal and response rates than the respective monotherapies. T ⁄ A SPCs were well tolerated. J Clin Hypertens (Greenwich). 2012;14:206-215. Ó2012 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.Based on evidence from a number of large antihypertensive trials, 1-9 most guidelines acknowledge that combination therapy is needed to reduce blood pressure (BP) successfully to goal in the majority of patients; only a minority of patients achieve their BP goal with a single agent.10-14 Also, the Avoiding Cardiovascular Events Through Combination Therapy in Patients Living With Systolic Hypertension (ACCOMPLISH) study showed a significant reduction of cardiovascular (CV) events and death in hypertensive patients at high CV risk treated with a combination of an angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor and a calcium channel blocker (CCB).15 Nevertheless, despite rigorous and comprehensive guidelines, and a trend towards an increase in the use of combination therapy in treatment practice, 16 several studies have demonstrated the persistence of poor BP goal rates in treated patients. [17][18][19] The impact of poor BP control is compounded by the often high prevalence of other CV risk factors in hypertensive patients (eg, hypercholesterolemia, obesity, type 2 diabetes mellitus [T2DM], and smoking).13 Therefore, an urgent need still remains to improve the management of hypertension. One logical approach would be to use 2 drugs from different classes and complementary mechanisms of action in combination. Such combinations may result in additional BP decreases and improved goal rates, compared with either agent used alone. 20-23Furthermore, single-pill combinations (SPCs) are known to increase treatment adherence and reduce health care costs. [24][25][26][27] A combination of a CCB and an angiotensin II receptor blocker (ARB) is a rational approach for managing hypertension and there is increasing evidence that this combination is effective. 11,13,28,29 The aim of the current study was to compare the efficacy and tolerability of the SPC of telmisartan 80 mg ⁄ amlodipine 10 mg (T80 ⁄ A10) with that of...

Aims To assess the proportion of patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) who are eligible for sacubitril/valsartan (LCZ696) based on the European Medicines Agency/Food and Drug Administration (EMA/FDA) label, the PARADIGM‐HF trial and the 2016 ESC guidelines, and the association between eligibility and outcomes. Methods and results Outpatients with HFrEF in the ESC‐EORP‐HFA Long‐Term Heart Failure (HF‐LT) Registry between March 2011 and November 2013 were considered. Criteria for LCZ696 based on EMA/FDA label, PARADIGM‐HF and ESC guidelines were applied. Of 5443 patients, 2197 and 2373 had complete information for trial and guideline eligibility assessment, and 84%, 12% and 12% met EMA/FDA label, PARADIGM‐HF and guideline criteria, respectively. Absent PARADIGM‐HF criteria were low natriuretic peptides (21%), hyperkalemia (4%), hypotension (7%) and sub‐optimal pharmacotherapy (74%); absent Guidelines criteria were LVEF>35% (23%), insufficient NP levels (30%) and sub‐optimal pharmacotherapy (82%); absent label criteria were absence of symptoms (New York Heart Association class I). When a daily requirement of ACEi/ARB ≥ 10 mg enalapril (instead of ≥ 20 mg) was used, eligibility rose from 12% to 28% based on both PARADIGM‐HF and guidelines. One‐year heart failure hospitalization was higher (12% and 17% vs. 12%) and all‐cause mortality lower (5.3% and 6.5% vs. 7.7%) in registry eligible patients compared to the enalapril arm of PARADIGM‐HF. Conclusions Among outpatients with HFrEF in the ESC‐EORP‐HFA HF‐LT Registry, 84% met label criteria, while only 12% and 28% met PARADIGM‐HF and guideline criteria for LCZ696 if requiring ≥ 20 mg and ≥ 10 mg enalapril, respectively. Registry patients eligible for LCZ696 had greater heart failure hospitalization but lower mortality rates than the PARADIGM‐HF enalapril group.

IntroductionData on management of atrial fibrillation (AF) in the Balkan Region are scarce. To capture the patterns in AF management in contemporary clinical practice in the Balkan countries a prospective survey was conducted between December 2014 and February 2015, and we report results pertinent to the use of non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs).MethodsA 14-week prospective, multicenter survey of consecutive AF patients seen by cardiologists or internal medicine specialists was conducted in Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, Montenegro, Romania, and Serbia (a total of about 50 million inhabitants).ResultsOf 2712 enrolled patients, 2663 (98.2%) had complete data relevant to oral anticoagulant (OAC) use (mean age 69.1 ± 10.9 years, female 44.6%). Overall, OAC was used in 1960 patients (73.6%) of whom 338 (17.2%) received NOACs. Malignancy [odds ratio (OR), 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.06, 1.20–3.56], rhythm control (OR 1.64, 1.25–2.16), and treatment by cardiologists were independent predictors of NOAC use (OR 2.32, 1.51–3.54) [all p < 0.01)], whilst heart failure and valvular disease were negatively associated with NOAC use (both p < 0.01). Individual stroke and bleeding risk were not significantly associated with NOAC use on multivariate analysis.ConclusionsNOACs are increasingly used in AF patients in the Balkan Region, but NOAC use is predominantly guided by factors other than evidence-based decision-making (e.g., drug availability on the market or reimbursement policy). Efforts are needed to establish an evidence-based approach to OAC selection and to facilitate the optimal use of OAC, thus improving the outcomes in AF patients in this large region.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s12325-017-0589-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Background Clinical complexity is increasingly prevalent among patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). The ‘Atrial fibrillation Better Care’ (ABC) pathway approach has been proposed to streamline a more holistic and integrated approach to AF care; however, there are limited data on its usefulness among clinically complex patients. We aim to determine the impact of ABC pathway in a contemporary cohort of clinically complex AF patients. Methods From the ESC-EHRA EORP-AF General Long-Term Registry, we analysed clinically complex AF patients, defined as the presence of frailty, multimorbidity and/or polypharmacy. A K-medoids cluster analysis was performed to identify different groups of clinical complexity. The impact of an ABC-adherent approach on major outcomes was analysed through Cox-regression analyses and delay of event (DoE) analyses. Results Among 9966 AF patients included, 8289 (83.1%) were clinically complex. Adherence to the ABC pathway in the clinically complex group reduced the risk of all-cause death (adjusted HR [aHR]: 0.72, 95%CI 0.58–0.91), major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs; aHR: 0.68, 95%CI 0.52–0.87) and composite outcome (aHR: 0.70, 95%CI: 0.58–0.85). Adherence to the ABC pathway was associated with a significant reduction in the risk of death (aHR: 0.74, 95%CI 0.56–0.98) and composite outcome (aHR: 0.76, 95%CI 0.60–0.96) also in the high-complexity cluster; similar trends were observed for MACEs. In DoE analyses, an ABC-adherent approach resulted in significant gains in event-free survival for all the outcomes investigated in clinically complex patients. Based on absolute risk reduction at 1 year of follow-up, the number needed to treat for ABC pathway adherence was 24 for all-cause death, 31 for MACEs and 20 for the composite outcome. Conclusions An ABC-adherent approach reduces the risk of major outcomes in clinically complex AF patients. Ensuring adherence to the ABC pathway is essential to improve clinical outcomes among clinically complex AF patients.

Aims The 4S-AF classification scheme comprises of four domains: stroke risk (St), symptoms (Sy), severity of atrial fibrillation (AF) burden (Sb), and substrate (Su). We sought to examine the implementation of the 4S-AF scheme in the EORP-AF General Long-Term Registry and compare outcomes in AF patients according to the 4S-AF-led decision-making process. Methods and results  Atrial fibrillation patients from 250 centres across 27 European countries were included. A 4S-AF score was calculated as the sum of each domain with a maximum score of 9. Of 6321 patients, 8.4% had low (St), 47.5% EHRA I (Sy), 40.5% newly diagnosed or paroxysmal AF (Sb), and 5.1% no cardiovascular risk factors or left atrial enlargement (Su). Median follow-up was 24 months. Using multivariable Cox regression analysis, independent predictors of all-cause mortality were (St) [adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) 8.21, 95% confidence interval (CI): 2.60–25.9], (Sb) (aHR 1.21, 95% CI: 1.08–1.35), and (Su) (aHR 1.27, 95% CI: 1.14–1.41). For CV mortality and any thromboembolic event, only (Su) (aHR 1.73, 95% CI: 1.45–2.06) and (Sy) (aHR 1.29, 95% CI: 1.00–1.66) were statistically significant, respectively. None of the domains were independently linked to ischaemic stroke or major bleeding. Higher 4S-AF score was related to a significant increase in all-cause mortality, CV mortality, any thromboembolic event, and ischaemic stroke but not major bleeding. Treatment of all 4S-AF domains was associated with an independent decrease in all-cause mortality (aHR 0.71, 95% CI: 0.55–0.92). For each 4S-AF domain left untreated, the risk of all-cause mortality increased substantially (aHR 1.35, 95% CI: 1.16–1.56). Conclusion  Implementation of the novel 4S-AF scheme is feasible, and treatment decisions based on this scheme improve mortality rates in AF.