Search

Multiple landmark trials have helped to advance the treatment of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) significantly over the past decade. These trials have led to the introduction of four main drug classes into the 2021 ESC guideline, namely angiotensin-receptor neprilysin inhibitors/angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibitors, beta-blockers, mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists, and sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors. The life-saving effect of these therapies has been shown to be additive and becomes apparent within weeks, which is why maximally tolerated or target doses of all drug classes should be strived for as quickly as possible. Recent evidence, such as the STRONG-HF trial, demonstrated that rapid drug implementation and up-titration is superior to the traditional and more gradual step-by-step approach where valuable time is lost to up-titration. Accordingly, multiple rapid drug implementation and sequencing strategies have been proposed to significantly reduce the time needed for the titration process. Such strategies are urgently needed since previous large-scale registries have shown that guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) implementation is a challenge. This challenge is reflected by generally low adherence rates, which can be attributed to factors considering the patient, health care system, and local hospital/health care provider. This review of the four medication classes used to treat HFrEF seeks to present a thorough overview of the data supporting current GDMT, discuss the obstacles to GDMT implementation and up-titration, and identify multiple sequencing strategies that could improve GDMT adherence. Sequencing strategies for GDMT implementation. GDMT: guideline-directed medical therapy; ACEi: angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor; ARB: Angiotensin II receptor blocker; ARNi: angiotensin receptor–neprilysin inhibitor; BB: beta-blocker; MRA: mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist; SGLT2i: sodium–glucose co-transporter 2 inhibitor [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

There is controversy whether IL-6 (receptor) antagonists are beneficial in treating COVID-19 patients. We therefore update our systematic review to answer the following research questions: (1) Do patients hospitalized for COVID-19 treated with IL-6 (receptor) antagonists have lower mortality compared to standard of care? (2) Do patients hospitalized for COVID-19 treated with IL-6 (receptor) antagonists have more side effects compared to standard of care? The following databases were search up to December 1st 2020: PubMed, PMC PubMed Central, MEDLINE, WHO COVID-19 Database, Embase, Web-of-Science, COCHRANE LIBRARY, Emcare and Academic Search Premier. In order to pool the risk ratio (RR) and risk difference of individual studies we used random effects meta-analysis. The search strategy retrieved 2975 unique titles of which 71 studies (9 RCTs and 62 observational) studies comprising 29,495 patients were included. Mortality (RR 0.75) and mechanical ventilation (RR 0.78) were lower and the risk of neutropenia (RR 7.3), impaired liver function (RR 1.67) and secondary infections (RR 1.26) were higher for patients treated with IL-6 (receptor) antagonists compared to patients not treated with treated with IL-6 (receptor) antagonists. Our results showed that IL-6 (receptor) antagonists are effective in reducing mortality in COVID-19 patients, while the risk of side effects was higher. The baseline risk of mortality was an important effect modifier: IL-6 (receptor) antagonists were effective when the baseline mortality risk was high (e.g. ICU setting), while they could be harmful when the baseline mortality risk was low. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]