Key result
Digital support pathway linked to ~28% higher adherence and improved GDMT optimization in HFrEF.
Why the study?
Many patients with HFrEF remain undertreated due to delayed treatment intensification, poor adherence, and fragmented follow-up, and low-cost digital support may reduce this implementation gap.
Does a digital support pathway improve treatment adherence and GDMT optimization in ambulatory patients with stable HFrEF?
Cohort (n=200)
No
Does a digital support pathway improve treatment adherence and GDMT optimization in ambulatory patients with stable HFrEF?
A low-cost digital support pathway significantly improved 6-month treatment adherence and GDMT optimization compared to usual care in ambulatory HFrEF patients.
Digital support was associated with higher adherence; hypothesis-generating and requires RCTs before practice change.
Background: Many patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) remain undertreated in routine practice. Delayed treatment intensification, poor adherence, and fragmented follow-up are common barriers. Low-cost digital support may help reduce this implementation gap. Objective: This study evaluated whether a simple digital support pathway was associated with better 6-month treatment adherence and guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) optimization in ambulatory patients with stable HFrEF. Methods: This single-center matched cohort study compared a prospective digital-support cohort with a historical usual-care cohort. The intervention combined smartphone-based telemanagement, home blood pressure and heart-rate reporting, daily weight surveillance, and scheduled video consultations. The co-primary endpoints were treatment adherence at 6 months and GDMT optimization, assessed by change in foundational HFrEF drug classes and by a prespecified exploratory GDMT optimization score. Results: After 1:1 propensity-score matching, 200 patients were included, with 100 patients in each cohort. Treatment adherence at 6 months was higher in the digital-support cohort than in usual care (82.0% vs. 64.0%, p = 0.004). The intervention cohort also had more frequent class addition, more dose escalation, a greater increase in foundational drug classes, and a larger improvement in GDMT optimization score (all p < 0.001). Heart failure hospitalization and the composite of heart failure hospitalization or all-cause death were less frequent in the digital-support cohort, but these clinical outcomes were exploratory. Conclusions: A pragmatic low-cost digital support pathway was associated with better adherence and more complete GDMT optimization in ambulatory patients with HFrEF. The findings support further prospective multicenter evaluation.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Popovici et al. (2026) conducted a cohort in Heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) (n=200). Digital support pathway vs. Historical usual care was evaluated on Treatment adherence at 6 months (p=0.004). A digital support pathway was associated with higher 6-month treatment adherence compared to historical usual care (82.0% vs. 64.0%, p=0.004) and improved GDMT optimization in HFrEF.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: