Optimization of Evidence-Based Heart Failure Medications After an Acute Heart Failure Admission

Abstract

ImportanceThe Safety, Tolerability, and Efficacy of Rapid Optimization, Helped by N-Terminal Pro–Brain Natriuretic Peptide Testing of Heart Failure Therapies (STRONG-HF) trial strived for rapid uptitration aiming to reach 100% optimal doses of guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) within 2 weeks after discharge from an acute heart failure (AHF) admission.ObjectiveTo assess the association between degree of GDMT doses achieved in high-intensity care and outcomes.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsThis was a post hoc secondary analysis of the STRONG-HF randomized clinical trial, conducted from May 2018 to September 2022. Included in the study were patients with AHF who were not treated with optimal doses of GDMT before and after discharge from an AHF admission. Data were analyzed from January to October 2023.InterventionsThe mean percentage of the doses of 3 classes of HF medications (renin-angiotensin system inhibitors, β-blockers, and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists) relative to their optimal doses was computed. Patients were classified into 3 dose categories: low (<50%), medium (≥50% to <90%), and high (≥90%). Dose and dose group were included as a time-dependent covariate in Cox regression models, which were used to test whether outcomes differed by dose.Main Outcome MeasuresPost hoc secondary analyses of postdischarge 180-day HF readmission or death and 90-day change in quality of life.ResultsA total of 515 patients (mean [SD] age, 62.7 [13.4] years; 311 male [60.4%]) assigned high-intensity care were included in this analysis. At 2 weeks, 39 patients (7.6%) achieved low doses, 254 patients (49.3%) achieved medium doses, and 222 patients (43.1%) achieved high doses. Patients with lower blood pressure and more congestion were less likely to be uptitrated to optimal GDMT doses at week 2. As a continuous time-dependent covariate, an increase of 10% in the average percentage optimal dose was associated with a reduction in 180-day HF readmission or all-cause death (primary end point: adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 0.89; 95% CI, 0.81-0.98; P = .01) and a decrease in 180-day all-cause mortality (aHR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.73-0.95; P = .007). Quality of life at 90 days, measured by the EQ-5D visual analog scale, improved more in patients treated with higher doses of GDMT (mean difference, 0.10; 95% CI, −4.88 to 5.07 and 3.13; 95% CI, −1.98 to 8.24 points in the medium- and high-dose groups relative to the low-dose group, respectively; P = .07). Adverse events to day 90 occurred less frequently in participants with HIC who were prescribed higher GDMT doses at week 2.Conclusions and RelevanceResults of this post hoc analysis of the STRONG-HF randomized clinical trial show that, among patients randomly assigned to high-intensity care, achieving higher doses of HF GDMT 2 weeks after discharge was feasible and safe in most patients.Trial RegistrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03412201

Is it NICE to measure natriuretic peptides after a hospitalization for heart failure?

“…3,9 Last but not least, differences in GDMT optimization between the intervention and control arms were absent or modest in GUIDE-IT and PRIMA II, 5,6 whereas there was a huge difference in achieved GDMT doses between the high-intensity care and control arms in STRONG-HF. 3,10 Although treatment in the usual care arm of STRONG-HF resembled that of real-world registry-based data reporting undertreatment of patients with HF, [11][12][13][14][15] it is difficult that it may be reproduced in the context of a clinical trial performed in highly specialized tertiary care centres. These differences between trials in background medical therapy (control arms) and active GDMT optimization (intervention arms) may have contributed to the different outcomes.…”