"GOLD or lower limit of normal definition? a comparison with expert-based diagnosis of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in a prospective cohort-study"

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>The Global initiative for chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) defines COPD as a fixed post-bronchodilator ratio of forced expiratory volume in 1 second and forced vital capacity (FEV1/FVC) below 0.7. Age-dependent cut-off values below the lower fifth percentile (LLN) of this ratio derived from the general population have been proposed as an alternative. We wanted to assess the diagnostic accuracy and prognostic capability of the GOLD and LLN definition when compared to an expert-based diagnosis.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>In a prospective cohort study, 405 patients aged ≥ 65 years with a general practitioner's diagnosis of COPD were recruited and followed up for 4.5 (median; quartiles 3.9; 5.1) years. Prevalence rates of COPD according to GOLD and three LLN definitions and diagnostic performance measurements were calculated. The reference standard was the diagnosis of COPD of an expert panel that used all available diagnostic information, including spirometry and bodyplethysmography.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Compared to the expert panel diagnosis, 'GOLD-COPD' misclassified 69 (28%) patients, and the three LLNs misclassified 114 (46%), 96 (39%), and 98 (40%) patients, respectively. The GOLD classification led to more false positives, the LLNs to more false negative diagnoses. The main predictors beyond the FEV1/FVC ratio for an expert diagnosis of COPD were the FEV1 % predicted, and the residual volume/total lung capacity ratio (RV/TLC). Adding FEV1 and RV/TLC to GOLD or LLN improved the diagnostic accuracy, resulting in a significant reduction of up to 50% of the number of misdiagnoses. The expert diagnosis of COPD better predicts exacerbations, hospitalizations and mortality than GOLD or LLN.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>GOLD criteria over-diagnose COPD, while LLN definitions under-diagnose COPD in elderly patients as compared to an expert panel diagnosis. Incorporating FEV1 and RV/TLC into the GOLD-COPD or LLN-based definition brings both definitions closer to expert panel diagnosis of COPD, and to daily clinical practice.</p

Contribution of comorbidities to functional impairment is higher in heart failure with preserved than with reduced ejection fraction

Background Comorbidities negatively affect prognosis more strongly in heart failure with preserved (HFpEF) than with reduced (HFrEF) ejection fraction. Their comparative impact on physical impairment in HFpEF and HFrEF has not been evaluated so far. Methods and results The frequency of 12 comorbidities and their impact on NYHA class and SF-36 physical functioning score (SF-36 PF) were evaluated in 1,294 patients with HFpEF and 2,785 with HFrEF. HFpEF patients had lower NYHA class (2.0 ± 0.6 vs. 2.4 ± 0.6, p 0.05) negative effect in both groups. Obesity, coronary artery disease and peripheral arterial occlusive disease exerted a significantly (p < 0.05) more adverse effect in HFpEF, while hypertension and hyperlipidemia were associated with fewer (p < 0.05) symptoms in HFrEF only. The total impact of comorbidities on NYHA (AUC for prediction of NYHA III/IV vs. I/II) and SF-36 PF (r 2) in multivariate analyses was approximately 1.5-fold higher in HFpEF, and also much stronger than the impact of a 10% decrease in ejection fraction in HFrEF or a 5 mm decrease in left ventricular end-diastolic diameter in HFpEF. Conclusion The impact of comorbidities on physical impairment is higher in HFpEF than in HFrEF. This should be considered in the differential diagnosis and in the treatment of patients with HFpEF

Heart failure therapy in diabetic patients-comparison with the recent ESC/EASD guideline

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>To assess heart failure therapies in diabetic patients with preserved as compared to impaired systolic ventricular function.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>3304 patients with heart failure from 9 different studies were included (mean age 63 ± 14 years); out of these, 711 subjects had preserved left ventricular ejection fraction (≥ 50%) and 994 patients in the whole cohort suffered from diabetes.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>The majority (>90%) of heart failure patients with reduced ejection fraction (SHF) and diabetes were treated with an ACE inhibitor (ACEi) or angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) or with beta-blockers. By contrast, patients with diabetes and preserved ejection fraction (HFNEF) were less likely to receive these substance classes (p < 0.001) and had a worse blood pressure control (p < 0.001). In comparison to patients without diabetes, the probability to receive these therapies was increased in diabetic HFNEF patients (p < 0.001), but not in diabetic SHF patients. Aldosterone receptor blockers were given more often to diabetic patients with reduced ejection fraction (p < 0.001), and the presence and severity of diabetes decreased the probability to receive this substance class, irrespective of renal function.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Diabetic patients with HFNEF received less heart failure medication and showed a poorer control of blood pressure as compared to diabetic patients with SHF. SHF patients with diabetes were less likely to receive aldosterone receptor blocker therapy, irrespective of renal function.</p

Sodium-glucose co-transporter 2 inhibition in patients hospitalized for acute decompensated heart failure:rationale for and design of the EMPULSE trial

Aims Treatment with sodium-glucose co-transporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors improves outcomes in patients with chronic heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction. There is limited experience with the in-hospital initiation of SGLT2 inhibitors in patients with acute HF (AHF) with or without diabetes. EMPULSE is designed to assess the clinical benefit and safety of the SGLT2 inhibitor empagliflozin compared with placebo in patients hospitalized with AHF. Methods EMPULSE is a randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, placebo-controlled multinational trial comparing the in-hospital initiation of empagliflozin (10 mg once daily) with placebo. Approximately 500 patients admitted for AHF with dyspnoea, signs of fluid overload, and elevated natriuretic peptides will be randomized 1:1 stratified to HF status (de-novo and decompensated chronic HF) to either empagliflozin or placebo at approximately 165 sites across North America, Europe and Asia. Patients will be enrolled regardless of ejection fraction and diabetes status and will be randomized during hospitalization and after stabilization (between 24 h and 5 days after admission), with treatment continued up to 90 days after initiation. The primary outcome is clinical benefit at 90 days, consisting of a composite of all-cause death, HF events, and >= 5 point change from baseline in Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire total symptom score (KCCQ-TSS), assessed using a 'win-ratio' approach. Secondary outcomes include assessments of safety, change in KCCQ-TSS from baseline to 90 days and change in natriuretic peptides from baseline to 30 days. Conclusion The EMPULSE trial will evaluate the clinical benefit and safety of empagliflozin in patients hospitalized for AHF

Post-discharge prognosis of patients admitted to hospital for heart failure by world region, and national level of income and income disparity (REPORT-HF): a cohort study

Background: Heart failure is a global public health problem, affecting a large number of individuals from low-income and middle-income countries. REPORT-HF is, to our knowledge, the first prospective global registry collecting information on patient characteristics, management, and prognosis of acute heart failure using a single protocol. The aim of this study was to investigate differences in 1-year post-discharge mortality according to region, country income, and income inequality. Methods: Patients were enrolled during hospitalisation for acute heart failure from 358 centres in 44 countries on six continents. We stratified countries according to a modified WHO regional classification (Latin America, North America, western Europe, eastern Europe, eastern Mediterranean and Africa, southeast Asia, and western Pacific), country income (low, middle, high) and income inequality (according to tertiles of Gini index). Risk factors were identified on the basis of expert opinion and knowledge of the literature. Findings: Of 18 102 patients discharged, 3461 (20%) died within 1 year. Important predictors of 1-year mortality were old age, anaemia, chronic kidney disease, presence of valvular heart disease, left ventricular ejection fraction phenotype (heart failure with reduced ejection fraction [HFrEF] vs preserved ejection fraction [HFpEF]), and being on guideline-directed medical treatment (GDMT) at discharge (p&lt;0·0001 for all). Patients from eastern Europe had the lowest 1-year mortality (16%) and patients from eastern Mediterranean and Africa (22%) and Latin America (22%) the highest. Patients from lower-income countries (ie, ≤US$3955 per capita; hazard ratio 1·58, 95$12 235 per capita) or lower income inequality (ie, from the lowest Gini tertile). Compared with patients with HFrEF, patients with HFpEF had a lower 1-year mortality with little variation by income level (pinteraction for HFrEF vs HFpEF &lt;0·0001). Interpretation: Acute heart failure is associated with a high post-discharge mortality, particularly in patients with HFrEF from low-income regions with high income inequality. Regional differences exist in the proportion of eligible patients discharged on GDMT, which was strongly associated with mortality and might reflect lack of access to post-discharge care and prescribing of GDMT. Funding: Novartis Pharma