064 Temporal trends in prescription rates of recommended treatments in chronic heart failure outpatients: a comparison of three French surveys IMPACT RECO I, II & III

BackgroundRecent registries have shown that recommended drugs for the treatment of congestive heart failure (CHF) remain under-prescribed in daily practice.AimsTo compare prescription rates of CHF drugs in three French surveys Impact Reco I, II and III.MethodsWe included outpatients followed by private cardiologists: 1947 in Impact Reco I (2005), 1974 in Impact Reco II (2005/2006) and 1574 in Impact Reco III (2007), with NYHA class II-IV heart failure and a left ventricular ejection fraction < 40%, and we compared treatment modalities. Recommended treatments and target doses were defined according to ESC guidelines.ResultsThere was an improvement in both the rate of prescription, and in the proportion of patients reaching target dose or 50% of target dose of ACE I, ARBs and beta blockers (see table).ConclusionWe observed an improvement with time in the management of CHF outpatients with an increase in prescription rates of recommended CHF drugs, as well as in the dosage used for ACE-I, ARB and beta-blockers,PrescriptionIMPACT I 2005IMPACT II 2005/2006IMPACT III 2007Global population191719741574ACE INumber patients with prescriptionN (%)1361 (71.0)1349 (68.3)1099 (70.2)Target dose%48.757.3*52.3•50% Target dose%80.484.5*88.4†,•ARBsNumber patients with prescriptionN (%)395 (20.6)592 (30.0)*516 (33.3)†,•Target dose%9.17.420.7†,•50% Target dose%52.949.768.6†,•BetablockersNumber patients with prescriptionN (%)1245 (65.2)1382 (70.0)*1229 (78.3)†,•Target dose%18.423.4*25.7†50% Target dose%47.353.5*59.9†•*: p<0.05 Impact II vs I•: p<0.05 Impact III vs II†: p<0.05 Impact III vs Ialthough there is still room for improvement particularly for beta blockers. These encouraging findings suggest a better awareness and implementation of ESC guidelines by French private cardiologists

PRODIAB: Perspectives on the use of patient-reported outcome measures among diabetic patients

Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) are recognized by health authorities as fundamental and can be evaluated by several questionnaires. The main complexity of evaluating PROMs in People with Diabetes (PwD), be it type 1 (PwT1D) or type 2 (PwT2D), is choosing the right tool (generic or specific) with the right constructs. This study explores the use of PROMs in PwD. The main objective was to compare generic and specific QoL PROMs in a diabetic population. The secondary objective was to assess potential overlaps of assessed constructs in the different PROMs frequently used in diabetes.PRODIAB was an online quantitative survey conducted between January and February 2022. The scientific committee selected the following oft-used questionnaires: EuroQol 5-Dimensions 5-Level (EQ-5D-5L), Audit of Diabetes Dependent Quality of Life (ADDQOL), Treatment Burden Questionnaire (TBQ), Hospital Anxiety and-Depression Scale (HADS-A; HADS-D) and Patient-Health-Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9). All PROMs used were validated in French.Responses from 2,796 French PwD were analyzed. Compared to PwT2D, PwT1D reported a better general Quality of Life (QoL) on the EQ-5D-5L index (0.75 vs 0.66; p < 0.001) and a lower specific QoL on the ADDQOL (-2.8 vs -2.5; p < 0.001). Adjusted analysis showed that age was inversely associated with EQ-5D-5L index score (-0.11; p < 0.001) and a positively associated with ADDQOL score (0.14; p < 0.001). All PROMs were significantly correlated with each other and the HADS-A, HADS-D and PHQ9 (r 0.60 to 0.72) even more so. While principal component analyses suggested that all PROMs measured only one dimension (mental health) (eigenvalue=3.39; first dimension percentage of variance 56.5), adjusted analyses suggested that the EQ-5D-5L is not adequate for assessing the specific impact of diabetes on QoL.Our study emphasizes the importance of identifying the constructs assessed by each PROM as well as the target population in order to choose the best-suited questionnaire type with the most appropriate constructs

100 Renal dysfunction and use of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers in chronic heart failure

BackgroundEuropean Guidelines for the treatment of CHF 2008 underline that there is no absolute level of creatinine which precludes the use of angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors (ACE-Is) or angiotensin receptor blocker (ARBs).AimsThe IMPACT-RECO program III analysed the impact of NYHA class and of comorbidities on therapeutic management of French outpatients with stable CHF and low left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF).MethodsThis survey was carried on 2007 among randomly selected French private cardiologists. 1574 patients with CHF and LVEF < 40% were included.ResultsMean age was 71 ± 11 years, 75% of the patients were men, 34% were in NYHA class III-IV, 54% had coronary artery diseases, 30% had atrial fibrillation and the mean LVEF was 34 ± 7%. Creatinine value was recorded in 1332 patients. Mean creatinine concentration was 119 ± 50 μmol/L and mean creatinine clearance was 59.6 ± 26.8 ml/kg/min. Renal dysfunction defined by creatinine concentration > 220 μmol/L or 25 mg/dL was found in 173 patients. In the 467 patients not receiving ACEIs, reasons for non prescription were firstly contra-indication in 69 patients (14.8%) mostly because of renal dysfunction in 54 patients (78.3%), secondly side effects in 365 patients (78.2%) with renal insufficiency found in 25 patients (6.85%). In 1033 patients, ARBs was also not prescribed because of contra-indication for renal dysfunction in 79 patients (90.8%), or intolerance with renal insufficiency in 40 patients (32.8%). Thus, despite a mean creatinine clearance of 33.3 ± 15.1 mL/kg/min in 173 patients with renal dysfunction, ACEIs/ARB were not prescribed in 133 patients considering renal dysfunction as a contra-indication.ConclusionRenal dysfunction remains the main reason for not prescribing ACEIs/ARBs in CHF despite the possibility to easily adapt their dose to creatinine clearance. Improvement is still necessary so that ACEIs/ARBs should not be denied to CHF patients with concomitant renal dysfunction

082 Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: the new deal for b-blocker prescription in chronic heart failure

BackgroundThe recent European Guidelines for the treatment of CHF 2008 underlined that the majority of patient with CHF and COPD can safely tolerate β-blocker therapy.AimsThe IMPACT-RECO program III analysed the impact of NYHA class and of comorbidities on therapeutic management of French outpatients with stable CHF and left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) < 40%.MethodsThis survey was carried out from March 2007 to December 2007 among randomly selected French private cardiologists. 1574 patients with CHF and LVEF < 40% were included. Key demographics including comorbidities such as asthma and COPD, as well as ongoing medical treatment of CHF were collected. Physicians were asked about reasons for not prescribing β-blockers.ResultsMean age was 71±11 years, 75% of the patients were men, 34% were in NYHA class III-IV, 54% had coronary artery disease, 30% atrial fibrillation and the mean LVEF was 34±7%. 78.3% of the patients received a β-blocker, and asthma or BPCO were reported in 13.7%. 341 patients were not receiving β-blockers. The first reason for non-prescription was presumed contra-indication in 51.9% (177 pts). This contra-indication was asthma or COPD in 71%, symptomatic hypotension in 15%, bradycardia in 12% and other problems in 8%. The second reason for non prescribing β-blockers was previous side effects in 35.2% (120 pts) including heart failure decompensation in 39%, symptomatic hypotension in 36%, asthenia in 26%, bradycardia in 18%, impotence in 5% and others in 6%. Lastly, in 10.9% of patients without β-blockers, the reason for non prescription was fear of potential side effect.ConclusionRespiratory disease remains the main reason for not prescribing β-blockers in CHF despite the fact that selective β-blockers are now recommended in this population. Room remains for improvement in β-blockers prescription rate in CHF patients with concomitant COPD, underscoring the importance of pursuing education of cardiologists

Development and validation of a Type 1 and Type 2 diabetes-specific patient-reported experience measure e-questionnaire: Diabetes reported experience measures (DREMS)

Introduction: Successful diabetes management is associated with an effective partnership between People with Diabetes (PwD) and healthcare professionals. Though possible to measure using Patient-Reported Experience Measures (PREMs), none are specific to Type 1 or Type 2 Diabetes (T1D/T2D) and validated in French. Thus, we developed and validated the DREMS (Diabetes Reported Experience MeasureS) e-questionnaire. Methodology: DREMS is comprised of 18 items evaluating 5 different factors. Validation for use by PwT1D and PwT2D (recruited online) was performed using: Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA); Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) and Cronbach's Alpha. Test-retest reliability was evaluated through Intraclass Correlation Coefficients (ICC) in a subsample. Results: DREMS was tested by 2,513 respondents, including 942 PwT1D and 1,571 PwT2D. For both groups, EFA results indicated 18 items loaded substantially onto 5 clear factors. CFA showed all coefficients were significant in their respective factors. Goodness-of-fit, assessed using the Comparative Fit Index was >0.90 and by the RMSEA was <0.080. Cronbach's α for the entire DREMS e-questionnaire was ≥0.90. ICC was 0.87 for PwT1D (n = 136) and 0.74 for PwT2D (n = 169). Innovation: DREMS is the first validated French-language diabetes-specific PREM for both PwT1D and PwT2D and can be useful to evaluate and improve health care management and patient health

Blood glucose levels and COVID-19. Reply to Sardu C, D’Onofrio N, Balestrieri ML et al [letter] and Lepper PM, Bals R, Jüni P et al [letter]

International audienc

Phenotypic characteristics and prognosis of inpatients with COVID-19 and diabetes: the CORONADO study

International audienceAims/hypothesis Coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) is a life-threatening infection caused by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) virus. Diabetes has rapidly emerged as a major comorbidity for COVID-19 severity. However, the phenotypic characteristics of diabetes in COVID-19 patients are unknown.Methods We conducted a nationwide multicentre observational study in people with diabetes hospitalised for COVID-19 in 53 French centres in the period 10-31 March 2020. The primary outcome combined tracheal intubation for mechanical ventilation and/or death within 7 days of admission. Age-and sex-adjusted multivariable logistic regressions were performed to assess the prognostic value of clinical and biological features with the endpoint. ORs are reported for a 1 SD increase after standardisation.Results The current analysis focused on 1317 participants: 64.9% men, mean age 69.8 ± 13.0 years, median BMI 28.4 (25th-75th percentile: 25.0-32.7) kg/m 2 ; with a predominance of type 2 diabetes (88.5%). Microvascular and macrovascular diabetic complications were found in 46.8% and 40.8% of cases, respectively. The primary outcome was encountered in 29.0% (95% CI 26.6, 31.5) of participants, while 10.6% (9.0, 12.4) died and 18.0% (16.0, 20.2) were discharged on day 7. In univariate analysis, characteristics prior to admission significantly associated with the primary outcome were sex, BMI and previous treatment with renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS) blockers, but not age, type of diabetes, HbA 1c diabetic complications or glucose-lowering therapies. In multivariable analyses with covariates prior to admission, only BMI remained positively associated with the primary outcome (OR 1.28 [1.10, 1.47]). On admission, dyspnoea (OR 2.10 [1.31, 3.35]), as well as lymphocyte count (OR 0.67 [0.50, 0.88]), C-reactive protein (OR 1.93 [1.43, 2.59]) and AST (OR 2.23 [1.70, 2.93]) levels were independent predictors of the primary outcome. Finally, age (OR 2.48 [1.74, 3.53]), treated obstructive sleep apnoea (OR 2.80 [1.46, 5.38]), and microvascular (OR 2.14 [1.16, 3.94]) and macrovascular complications (OR 2.54 [1.44, 4.50]) were independently associated with the risk of death on day 7.Conclusions/interpretations: In people with diabetes hospitalised for COVID-19, BMI, but not long-term glucose control, was positively and independently associated with tracheal intubation and/or death within 7 day

Correction to: Phenotypic characteristics and prognosis of inpatients with COVID-19 and diabetes: the CORONADO study

International audienc