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

Regional differences among female patients with heart failure from the Cardiac Insufficiency BIsoprolol Study in ELDerly (CIBIS-ELD)

Background: The aim of our study was to examine regional differences in the demographics, etiology, risk factors, comorbidities and treatment of female patients with heart failure (HF) in the Cardiac Insufficiency BI soprolol Study in ELDerly (CIBIS-ELD) clinical trial.Methods and results: One hundred and fifty-nine female patients from Germany and 169 from Southeastern (SE) Europe (Serbia, Slovenia and Montenegro) were included in this subanalysis of the CIBIS-ELD trial. Women comprised 54% of the study population in Germany and 29% in SE Europe. German patients were significantly older. The leading cause of HF was arterial hypertension in German patients, 71.7% of whom had a preserved ejection fraction. The leading etiology in SE Europe was the coronary artery disease; 67.6% of these patients had a reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (34.64 ± 7.75%). No significant differences were found in the prevalence of traditional cardiovascular risk factors between the two regions (hypertension, diabetes, hypercholesterolemia, smoking and family history of myocardial infarction). Depression, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and malignancies were the comorbidities that were noted more frequently in the German patients, while the patients from SE Europe had a lower glomerular filtration rate. Compared with the German HF patients, the females in SE Europe received significantly more angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors, loop diuretics and less frequently angiotensin receptor blockers and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists.Conclusions: Significant regional differences were noted in the etiology, comorbidities and treatment of female patients with HF despite similar risk factors. Such differences should be considered in the design and implementation of future clinical trials, especially as women remain underrepresented in large trial populations.

Titration to target dose of bisoprolol vs. carvedilol in elderly patients with heart failure: the CIBIS-ELD trial

AIMS: Various beta-blockers with distinct pharmacological profiles are approved in heart failure, yet they remain underused and underdosed. Although potentially of major public health importance, whether one agent is superior in terms of tolerability and optimal dosing has not been investigated. The aim of this study was therefore to compare the tolerability and clinical effects of two proven beta-blockers in elderly patients with heart failure. METHODS AND RESULTS: We performed a double-blind superiority trial of bisoprolol vs. carvedilol in 883 elderly heart failure patients with reduced or preserved left ventricular ejection fraction in 41 European centres. The primary endpoint was tolerability, defined as reaching and maintaining guideline-recommended target doses after 12 weeks treatment. Adverse events and clinical parameters of patient status were secondary endpoints. None of the beta-blockers was superior with regards to tolerability: 24% [95% confidence interval (CI) 20-28] of patients in the bisoprolol arm and 25% (95% CI 21-29) of patients in the carvedilol arm achieved the primary endpoint (P= 0.64). The use of bisoprolol resulted in greater reduction of heart rate (adjusted mean difference 2.1 b.p.m., 95% CI 0.5-3.6, P= 0.008) and more, dose-limiting, bradycardic adverse events (16 vs. 11%; P= 0.02). The use of carvedilol led to a reduction of forced expiratory volume (adjusted mean difference 50 mL, 95% CI 4-95, P= 0.03) and more, non-dose-limiting, pulmonary adverse events (10 vs. 4%; P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Overall tolerability to target doses was comparable. The pattern of intolerance, however, was different: bradycardia occurred more often in the bisoprolol group, whereas pulmonary adverse events occurred more often in the carvedilol group. This study is registered with controlled-trials.com, number ISRCTN34827306

Guilt in Marketing Research: An Elicitation–Consumption Perspective and Research Agenda

"This is the peer reviewed version of the following article: Antonetti, P. and Baines, P. (2015), Guilt in Marketing Research: An Elicitation–Consumption Perspective and Research Agenda. International Journal of Management Reviews, 17: 333–355. which has been published in final form at https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/ijmr.1204

Primary care-based multifaceted, interdisciplinary medical educational intervention for patients with systolic heart failure: lessons learned from a cluster randomised controlled trial

Abstract Background Chronic (systolic) heart failure (CHF) is a common and disabling condition. Adherence to evidence-based guidelines in primary care has been shown to improve health outcomes. The aim was to explore the impact of a multidisciplinary educational intervention for general practitioners (GPs) (Train the trainer = TTT) on patient and performance outcomes. Methods This paper presents the key findings from the trial and discusses the lessons learned during the implementation of the TTT trial. Primary care practices were randomly assigned to the TTT intervention or to the control group. 37 GPs (18 TTT, 19 control) were randomised and 168 patients diagnosed with ascertained CHF (91 TTT, 77 control) were enrolled. GPs in the intervention group attended four meetings addressing clinical practice guidelines and pharmacotherapy feedback. The primary outcome was patient self-reported quality of life at seven months, using the SF-36 Physical Functioning scale. Secondary outcomes included other SF-36 scales, the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ), total mortality, heart failure hospital admissions, prescribing, depressive disorders (PHQ-9), behavioural change (European Heart Failure Self-Care Behaviour Scale), patient-perceived quality of care (EUROPEP) and improvement of heart failure using NT-proBNP-levels. Because recruitment targets were not achieved an exploratory analysis was conducted. Results There was high baseline achievement in both groups for many outcomes. At seven months, there were no significant mean difference between groups for the primary outcome measure (-3.3, 95%CI -9.7 to 3.1, p = 0.30). The only difference in secondary outcomes related to the prescribing of aldosterone antagonists by GPs in the intervention group, with significant between group differences at follow-up (42 vs. 24%, adjusted OR = 4.0, 95%CI 1.2–13; p = 0.02). Conclusion The intervention did not change the primary outcome or most secondary outcomes. Recruitment targets were not achieved and the under-recruitment of practices and patients alongside a selection bias of participating GPs, prohibit definite conclusions, but the CI indicates a non-effectiveness of the intervention in this sample. We describe the lessons learned from conducting the trial for the future planning and conduct of confirmatory trials in primary care. Trial registration ISRCTN08601529.</p