Search

Multiple drug classes have shown incremental benefits in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction. Most of these trials were designed to achieve specific doses of the investigational agent. Clinical practice guidelines recommend using the same target dosing of therapies, as tolerated. However, with the increasing number of available therapies, clinicians face the challenge of simultaneously using several drugs, achieving target doses, and managing side effects that are often overlapping. Blood pressure, renal function, hyperkalaemia, and other factors may impede achieving target doses of all medications, leaving clinicians with dilemmas as to how to sequence and dose these various classes of drugs. The guideline-directed eligibility for certain drugs and devices requires stability on maximally tolerated doses of background therapies. However, significant variability exists in dosing achieved in clinical practice. We discuss the existing background data regarding the doses of heart failure medications in clinical trials and in practice, and provide recommendations on how to navigate this complex therapeutic decision-making.

AimsTo examine associations of below-target and target dose of enalapril, an angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor, with outcomes in patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) in the Studies of Left Ventricular Dysfunction (SOLVD) Treatment trial.Methods and resultsTwo thousand five hundred and sixty-nine patients with HFrEF (ejection fraction ≤35%) were randomized to below-target (5-10 mg/day) dose placebo (n = 1284) or enalapril (n = 1285). One month post-randomization, blind up-titration to target (20 mg/day) dose was attempted for both study drugs in 2458 patients. Among the 1444 patients who achieved dose up-titration (placebo, n = 748; enalapril, n = 696; mean dose for both groups, 20.0 mg/day), target dose enalapril (vs. target dose placebo) was associated with a 9% absolute lower risk of the combined endpoint of heart failure hospitalization or all-cause mortality [adjusted hazard ratio (HR) 0.70; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.60-0.81; P < 0.001] during 4 years of follow-up. Among the 1014 patients who could not achieve target dose (placebo, n = 486; enalapril, n = 528; mean dose for both groups, 8.8 mg/day), below-target dose enalapril (vs. below-target dose placebo) was associated with a 12% absolute lower risk of the combined endpoint of heart failure hospitalization or all-cause mortality (adjusted HR 0.68; 95% CI 0.57-0.81; P < 0.001). Among the 1224 patients receiving enalapril, target (vs. below-target) dose had no association with the combined endpoint of heart failure hospitalization or all-cause mortality (adjusted HR 1.04; 95% CI 0.87-1.23; P = 0.695).ConclusionIn patients with HFrEF, the clinical benefits of ACE inhibitors appear to be similar at both below-target and target doses.

Aims: According to the Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) guideline, the definition of chronic kidney disease (CKD) requires the presence of abnormal kidney structure or function for >3 months with implications for health. CKD in patients with heart failure (HF) has not been defined using this definition, and less is known about the true health implications of CKD in these patients. The objective of the current study was to identify patients with HF who met KDIGO criteria for CKD and examine their outcomes. Methods and results: Of the 1 419 729 Veterans with HF not receiving kidney replacement therapy, 828 744 had data on ≥2 ambulatory serum creatinine >90 days apart. CKD was defined as estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) <60 ml/min/1.73 m2 (n = 185 821) or urinary albumin‐to‐creatinine ratio (uACR) >30 mg/g (n = 32 730) present twice >3 months apart. Normal kidney function (NKF) was defined as eGFR ≥60 ml/min/1.73 m2, present for >3 months, without any uACR >30 mg/g (n = 365 963). Patients with eGFR <60 ml/min/1.73 m2 were categorized into four stages: 45–59 (n = 72 606), 30–44 (n = 74 812), 15–29 (n = 32 077), and <15 (n = 6326) ml/min/1.73 m2. Five‐year all‐cause mortality occurred in 40.4%, 57.8%, 65.6%, 73.3%, 69.7%, and 47.5% of patients with NKF, four eGFR stages, and uACR >30mg/g (albuminuria), respectively. Compared with NKF, hazard ratios (HR) (95% confidence intervals [CI]) for all‐cause mortality associated with the four eGFR stages and albuminuria were 1.63 (1.62–1.65), 2.00 (1.98–2.02), 2.49 (2.45–2.52), 2.28 (2.21–2.35), and 1.22 (1.20–1.24), respectively. Respective age‐adjusted HRs (95% CIs) were 1.13 (1.12–1.14), 1.36 (1.34–1.37), 1.87 (1.84–1.89), 2.24 (2.18–2.31) and 1.19 (1.17–1.21), and multivariable‐adjusted HRs (95% CIs) were 1.11 (1.10–1.12), 1.24 (1.22–1.25), 1.46 (1.43–1.48), 1.42 (1.38–1.47), and 1.13 (1.11–1.16). Similar patterns were observed for associations with hospitalizations. Conclusion: Data needed to define CKD using KDIGO criteria were available in six out of ten patients, and CKD could be defined in seven out of ten patients with data. HF patients with KDIGO‐defined CKD had higher risks for poor outcomes, most of which was not explained by abnormal kidney structure or function. Future studies need to examine whether CKD defined using a single eGFR is characteristically and prognostically different from CKD defined using KDIGO criteria. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]