Why the study?
The study aimed to evaluate physician adherence to guideline-recommended therapy for HFrEF and assess its effect on patient-reported outcomes in contemporary practice.
Does optimal physician adherence to guideline-recommended therapy improve patient-reported outcomes in patients with HFrEF?
Does optimal physician adherence to guideline-recommended therapy improve patient-reported outcomes in patients with HFrEF?
Optimal physician adherence to guideline-directed medical therapy for HFrEF is associated with significantly better patient-reported quality of life.
This Korean nationwide, multicenter, noninterventional, prospective cohort study aimed to analyze physician adherence to guideline-recommended therapy for heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and its effect on patient-reported outcomes (PROs). Patients diagnosed with or hospitalized for HFrEF within the previous year were enrolled. Treatment adherence was considered optimal when all 3 categories of guideline-recommended medications (angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, angiotensin receptor blockers, or angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitors; beta-blockers; and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists) were prescribed and suboptimal when ≤ 2 categories were prescribed. The 36-Item Short Form Survey (SF-36) scores were compared at baseline and 6 months between the 2 groups. Overall, 854 patients from 30 hospitals were included. At baseline, the optimal adherence group comprised 527 patients (61.7%), whereas during follow-up, the optimal and suboptimal adherence groups comprised 462 (54.1%) and 281 (32.9%) patients, respectively. Patients in the suboptimal adherence group were older, with a lower body mass index, and increased comorbidities, including renal dysfunction. SF-36 scores were significantly higher in the optimal adherence group for most domains (P < 0.05). This study showed satisfactory physician adherence to contemporary treatment for HFrEF. Optimal adherence to HF medication significantly correlated with better PROs.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kim et al. (2022) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: