Search

There is an unmet need for effective treatment strategies to reduce morbidity and mortality in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). Until recently, attention in patients with HFpEF was almost exclusively focused on the left side. However, it is now increasingly recognized that right heart dysfunction is common and contributes importantly to poor prognosis in HFpEF. More insights into the development of right heart dysfunction in HFpEF may aid to our knowledge about this complex disease and may eventually lead to better treatments to improve outcomes in these patients. In this position paper from the Heart Failure Association of the European Society of Cardiology, the Committee on Heart Failure with Preserved Ejection Fraction reviews the prevalence, diagnosis, and pathophysiology of right heart dysfunction and failure in patients with HFpEF. Finally, potential treatment strategies, important knowledge gaps and future directions regarding the right side in HFpEF are discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The coexistence of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and heart failure (HF), either with reduced (HFrEF) or preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), is frequent (30-40% of patients) and associated with a higher risk of HF hospitalization, all-cause and cardiovascular (CV) mortality. The most important causes of HF in T2DM are coronary artery disease, arterial hypertension and a direct detrimental effect of T2DM on the myocardium. T2DM is often unrecognized in HF patients, and vice versa, which emphasizes the importance of an active search for both disorders in the clinical practice. There are no specific limitations to HF treatment in T2DM. Subanalyses of trials addressing HF treatment in the general population have shown that all HF therapies are similarly effective regardless of T2DM. Concerning T2DM treatment in HF patients, most guidelines currently recommend metformin as the first-line choice. Sulphonylureas and insulin have been the traditional second- and third-line therapies although their safety in HF is equivocal. Neither glucagon-like preptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists, nor dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP4) inhibitors reduce the risk for HF hospitalization. Indeed, a DPP4 inhibitor, saxagliptin, has been associated with a higher risk of HF hospitalization. Thiazolidinediones (pioglitazone and rosiglitazone) are contraindicated in patients with (or at risk of) HF. In recent trials, sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitors, empagliflozin and canagliflozin, have both shown a significant reduction in HF hospitalization in patients with established CV disease or at risk of CV disease. Several ongoing trials should provide an insight into the effectiveness of SGLT2 inhibitors in patients with HFrEF and HFpEF in the absence of T2DM., (© 2018 The Authors. European Journal of Heart Failure © 2018 European Society of Cardiology.)

The European Restless Legs Syndrome (RLS) Study Group (EURLSSG) is an association of European RLS experts who are actively involved in RLS research. A major aim of the Study Group is the development and continuous improvement of standards for diagnosis and treatment of RLS. Several members developed study designs and evaluation methods in investigator-initiated trials early in the 1990s, and all members have since contributed to many pivotal and nonpivotal drug trials for the treatment of RLS. The recommendations on clinical investigations of pharmacological treatment of RLS patients summarize the group's expertise and knowledge acquired through clinical trials. The recommendations primarily address how to plan and conduct confirmatory, randomized clinical studies in patients with idiopathic RLS. Advice is presented for the diagnosis of RLS and clinical and polysomnographic inclusion and exclusion criteria. Primary and secondary endpoints for an evaluation of efficacy are based on a critical description of validated methods for both short- and long-term trials, also in special populations (children, pregnant women, elderly patients). The recommendations include the assessment of augmentation. Finally, general issues including the evaluation of safety and tolerability, as well as specific neurological and cardiovascular risks and sleep attacks/daytime somnolence, are discussed. The aim of these recommendations is to support research groups or pharmaceutical companies in the design of optimized study protocols.