PHYSICIANS’ ADHERENCE TO GUIDELINES ON MEDICAL THERAPY FOR HEART FAILURE AND PATIENTS’ OUTCOMES IN A KENYAN REFERRAL HOSPITAL

Willy Mucyo, Jasmit Shah, Jeilan Mohamed, Mohamed Hasham Varwani, Mzee Ngunga
doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2023.10.31.23297731

ABSTRACT

Background Adherence to guidelines on prescription and uptitration of GDMT for HFrEF is associated with reduced mortality and hospitalization. Published data on physicians’ GDMT prescription in sub-Saharan Africa is scarce. In addition, there is a need for data on patients’ characteristics, treatment, and outcomes in this region.

Objective To determine physicians’ level of adherence to guidelines on prescription and uptitration of medical therapy for HFrEF at AKUHN, a referral hospital in Nairobi, Kenya.

Methods We reviewed 280 files of all HFrEF patients admitted over a 3-year period. Detailed patients’ characteristics and outcomes were analyzed. We calculated the Guideline Adherence Index (GAI) and the QUality of Adherence to guideline recommendations for LIFe-saving treatment in heart failure (QUALIFY) scores. From worst to best, GAI ranges from 0 to 100%, while QUALIFY scores were categorized as poor, moderate, or good.

Results The median age (IQR) was 63 years (53,74); 165(58.9%) were male; and 207(74.2%) were black; 98(35%) had ischemic heart disease; 153(54.6%) had hypertension, and 101(36.1%) had diabetes. At six months follow-up, 43.8% of patients had been readmitted at least once and 8.8% had died. GAI at discharge were 66.2%, 71.7%, and 42.6% for ACEI/ARNI/ARBs, B-blockers, and MRAs, respectively. At 6 months, the scores were 86.3%, 84.4%, and 61.2%, respectively. GAI for SGLT2is was 38.9% at 6 months. The proportions for good QUALIFY scores for ACEI/ARNI/ARBs, B- blockers, and MRAs were 35.8%, 38.5%, and 9.5%, respectively. Uptitration to ≥ 50% of target dose was done in 51.9%, 48.7%, and 7.9% of patients for ACEI/ARNI/ARBs, B- blockers, and MRAs, respectively.

Conclusion Physicians’ level of adherence to prescription and up-titration of GDMT was satisfactory for ACEI/ARNI/ARBs and B-blockers, however, it was poor for SGLT2is and MRAs. There is a need for regular surveys on prescription and uptitration of GDMT with a special attention to MRAs and SGLT2is.

INTRODUCTION

Background

It is estimated that 64.3 million people live with heart failure (HF) worldwide.[1] The prevalence of heart failure in adult population is estimated at 1% to 2% in developed countries, and up to 5% in low and middle-income communities in these countries. The evidence suggests that the number of HF patients in low and middle-income countries is rising.[2] A review of HF in Africa found the most common causes to be hypertensive heart disease (HHD), ischemic heart disease (IHD), and dilated cardiomyopathy (DCM). In sub-Saharan Africa (SSA), the most prevalent cause was HHD, in contrast with IHD in north Africa [3] A single-center study conducted in Kenya reported cardiomyopathy as the most common cause of HF, closely followed by HHD.[4] HF accounts for 9.4 – 15% of all hospital admissions in SSA and patients tend to be younger compared to those in developed countries.[5]

In 2018 the Kenyan ministry of health published guidelines for management of cardiovascular diseases. Key recommendations for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) treatment (i.e., use of angiotensin receptor blockers [ACEIs] / angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor [ARNI] / angiotensin receptor blockers [ARBs], beta blockers [B-blockers], and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists [MRAs]) do not differ from those by the American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology (AHA/ACC) and the European Society of Cardiology(ESC), except for the addition of sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors (SGLT2is) in the 2021 ESC guidelines.[6]–[9] The guidelines strongly recommend (Class IA) that, provided that there are no contra- indications, medications in the three aforementioned classes should be started before discharge and gradually uptitrated (every 2 weeks for ACEI/ARNI/ARBs and B-blockers and 4-8 weeks for MRAs) to target doses or maximally tolerated doses.[10] The recommendations are based on a large body of evidence from randomized clinical trials supporting the use of guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) in HFrEF[11]–[23].

Physicians’ guideline adherence

Although measuring guideline adherence is not a perfect science, efforts have been made to quantify it. One of the three domains of the ESC quality indicators for HF care solely focuses on guideline adherence. This quality indicator, also referred to as Guideline Adherence Index (GAI) is measured separately for each IA drug class. The score is expressed as a proportion of patients with prescriptions out of eligible patients (see supplement III).[10]Eligibility is defined as lack of contraindications or reasons for discontinuation.[10] Supplement I contains the list of contraindications and reasons for discontinuation, for each drug class, as published by the ESC. GAI is a simple score that does not require robust data analysis and can be used in various healthcare settings. However, the score is limited as it does not take into account dose uptitration. In addition, GAI cannot be used to assess variations between individual or patient subgroups.

National and international HF registries have used different methods to assess guideline adherence. The QUality of Adherence to guideline recommendations for LIFe-saving treatment in heart failure (QUALIFY) investigators calculated guideline adherence scores for each drug class for each patient. The scores varied from 0 (poor) to 1 (good). The scores were calculated as follows (see supplement III): lack of prescription for an eligible patient = 0 points; prescription of < 50% of the target dose for an eligible patient = 0.5 points; prescription of >= 50% of the target dose for an eligible patient = 1 point; prescription for an ineligible patient = 0 points; and lack of prescription for an ineligible patient = 1 point.[24], [25] The overall guideline adherence level for three drug classes was qualified as good if all indicated drugs were prescribed, moderate if > 50% of indicated medications were prescribed, and poor if ≤ 50% of indicated medications are prescribed. The QUALIFY score provides adherence scores for individual patients and may be used to assess subgroup differences. Furthermore, it takes into account dose uptitration.

The Korean Acute Heart Failure registry (KorAHF) used a modified version of the QUALIFY score which adds anticoagulation for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation. Three levels of adherence were defined: good (prescription of all indicated medications), moderate (half or more of the indicated medications), and poor (prescription of less than half of indicated medications). This scoring system considers differences between patients but does not account for dosage uptitration. In a sense, it is more complex compared with GAI and simpler compared with the original QUALIFY.

Guideline adherence is associated with reduced HF mortality and HF hospitalization. The QUALIFY study which has a registry of 6118 ambulatory HFrEF patients in 549 centers in 36 countries, found that physicians’ guideline adherence was associated with reduced HF death and HF hospitalization or CV death.[25] A recent large systematic review and meta-analysis of 45866 patients from 11 multi-center studies, including the QUALIFY study, found significant association between good adherence and reduced all-cause mortality.[26] In KorAHF registry which has 5625 patients with HF and atrial fibrillation, guideline adherence at discharge was associated with significantly reduced mortality at 60-day and 1-year follow-up.[27] The evidence shows that guideline adherence at discharge is as important as long-term adherence.[25], [27] Uptitration to more than 50% of the target dose is also essential as it has been shown to decrease mortality in HF patients.[26]

The QUALIFY registry includes 19 and 15 centers in two African countries, Egypt and Morocco respectively. This survey found satisfactory and comparable guideline adherence scores in all geographic regions except for central and eastern Europe which had significantly lower scores. In the north African region, the guideline adherence was good, moderate, and poor in 71%, 22%, and 7% of patients, respectively, and the global adherence was 67%, 25%, and 8%, respectively.[24] The recent large systematic review and meta-analysis on physicians’ adherence to HF guidelines reported a 80.9% prescription rate for ACEI/ARBs, 78.0% for B-blockers, and 47.4% for MRAs.[26] Two studies conducted in Nigeria and Ethiopia found prescription rates of 83% and 79.8%, 48% and 79.4%, and 41% and 49%, for ACEI/ARBs, B-blockers, and MRAs, respectively.[28], [29]

Justification of the study

Since physicians’ guideline adherence has been shown to reduce HFrEF mortality and hospitalization, societal guidelines recommend assessing the adherence as a major quality indicator of HFrEF care. The present study determines the current guideline adherence at AKUHN which may help improve HFrEF care. Furthermore, it contributes to the currently scarce published data on HFrEF patients’ characteristics, treatment, and outcomes in the SSA region.

Study objectives

The primary objective is to determine physicians’ level of adherence to guidelines on prescription and uptitration of medical therapy for HFrEF at AKUHN. Secondary objectives are to determine the association between adherence scores and mortality rate at 6 months and to determine the association between adherence scores and readmission for heart failure within 6 months.

METHODS

Study population

The study was conducted at the Aga Khan University Hospital, Nairobi, a tertiary care, teaching and referral facility. It included adult patients (18 years and above) with documented diagnosis of heart failure with reduced LVEF (≤40%). We excluded patients who died during the first hospitalization and those with missing LVEF data.

As shown in figure 1, between January 2020 and December 2022, we identified and reviewed 736 admissions files for “congestive heart failure (I50.0), left ventricular failure (I50.1), and heart failure unspecified (I50.9)”. Of these files, the following were excluded: 227 were not heart failure conditions, 86 were heart failure with preserved ejection fraction, 30 were heart failure with mid-range ejection fraction, and 38 had no ejection fraction (EF) record. Of the remaining 355 HFrEF files, 75 were readmissions, hence 280 unique HFrEF patients.

Figure 1:
Figure 1: Patients selection

Data analysis

Continuous data was presented as medians with interquartile ranges or means with standard deviations, whereas categorical data was presented as frequencies with percentages. The levels of guideline adherence were calculated using GAI and QUALIFY scores as published by the ESC and QUALIFY investigators, respectively (supplement III). GAI were reported as percentages and individual QUALIFY scores were reported as follows: poor (score = 0), moderate (score = 0.5), and good (score = 1) for each drug class for each patient. The overall guideline adherence was qualified as good if all indicated drugs were prescribed, moderate if > 50% of indicated medications were prescribed, and poor if ≤ 50% of indicated medications are prescribed. Regarding exploratory outcomes, univariate analysis was done using univariate logistic regression for categorical or continuous data. Furthermore, multivariate logistic regression analysis was used in identifying independent associations between independent variables.

Ethical consideration

Ethical clearance was obtained from the Aga Khan University Nairobi Institutional Scientific Ethics Review Committee.

RESULTS

Patients’ characteristics

As shown in Table 1, the median age (interquartile range) was 63 years (53, 74); 165 (58.9%) patients were male; and 207 (74.2%) were black. Most patients (68.6%) were admitted in non-critical units. The most prevalent primary cause of HF was IHD, accounting for 35% of cases, followed by HHD (21.1%). 182 (65%) patients were under general practice, as defined by the hospital, while 93 (35%) were under private practice. 153 patients (54.6%) had hypertension, 101 (36.1%) had diabetes, and 48 (17.2%) had atrial fibrillation. 131 (46.8%) patients had undergone coronary angiogram at some point in the past and 53 (19%) had a history of myocardial infarction. 86.3% of patients had functional limitation classified as NYHA class II or III. The median LVEF was 30% (10, 35) and the prevalence of atrial fibrillation on ECG was 16.4%. The initiation rate of cardiac rehabilitation initiation before discharge was 10.5%.

View this table:
Table 1: Patients’ characteristics

Table 2 shows patients’ characteristics at 6 months follow-up. Most patients (61.1%) had a heart rate equal to or above 70 bpm. Most patients (89.7%) were classified as NYHA functional class I or II. Within the 6 months of follow-up, 63 (36.1%) patients were readmitted once, 10 (6.9%) were readmitted twice, and 1 (0.7%) was readmitted three times. 16 (8.8%) patients died during the 6-month follow-up period. Of those who died, 7 (43.8%) died of non-cardiovascular cause, 6 (37.5%) died of cardiovascular cause, and 3 (18.8%) died of unknown cause.

View this table:
Table 2: Six months follow-up

GAI and QUALIFY scores

As shown in Table 3, at discharge, the highest prescription rate for eligible patients was with B-blockers while the lowest was with MRAs. Out of 272 patients who were eligible for B-blockers, 195 had prescriptions, resulting in a GAI of 71.8%. The GAI for ACEI/ARNI/ARBs was 66.2% (out of 234 patients who were eligible, 155 had prescriptions). As for MRAs, only 112 of 263 patients who were eligible had prescriptions (GAI: 42.6%).

View this table:
Table 3: GAI and QUALIFY scores at discharge and at 6 months.

GAI and QUALIFY scores were calculated at 6 months follow-up. The highest GAI was with ACEI/ARNI/ARBs at 86.3% (113 had prescriptions out of 131 who were eligible); and of those with prescriptions, 51.9% had ≥50% of the target dose. QUALIFY scores for ACEI/ARNI/ARBs were good, moderate, and poor in 35.8%, 26.6%, and 37.8% of patients, respectively. GAI for B-blockers was 84.4% (154 were eligible and 130 had prescriptions); among those with prescriptions, 48.7% had ≥50% of the target dose. QUALIFY scores for B-blockers were good, moderate, and poor in 38.5%, 37.2%, and 24.3% of patients, respectively, while they were 9.5%, 50.6%, and 39.9% for MRAs, respectively. GAI for MRAs was 61.2% (152 were eligible and 93 had prescriptions); and of those with prescriptions, only 7.9% had 100% of the target dose.

Figure 2:
Figure 2:
Figure 2: GAI at discharge
Figure 3:
Figure 3:
Figure 3: GAI at 6 months follow-up

The overall QUALIFY scores for the 3 drug classes (i.e., ACEI/ARNI/ARBs, B-blockers, and MRAs) were 43.1% good, 33.1% moderate, and 23.8% poor. The analysis of SGLT2is prescription at 6 months showed that out of the 131 patients who were eligible, only 44 had prescriptions, resulting in a GAI of 38%, which was the lowest. Data on SGLT2is prescription at discharge was not collected because some patients had been discharged before the addition of SGLT2is to HFrEF treatment guidelines.

Figure 4:
Figure 4: QUALIFY scores at 6 months follow-up

Exploratory outcomes

Multivariate analysis identified eligibility for ACEI/ARNI/ARBs at discharge as the independent factor of survival at 6 months. Eligible patients were 6 times less likely to die within 6 months compared to non-eligible patients (OR: 0.158, CI=0.041, 0.611, P=0.008). Considering the three drug classes, among eligible patients at discharge, the mortality rate was consistently lower among those with prescriptions compared with those without prescriptions at discharge, but the differences were not statistically significant for B-blockers and MRAs. Comparing eligible patients at discharge with prescriptions and those without prescriptions, the mortality rates were 2.1% vs 8.8%, 8.2% vs 9.5%, and 4.6% vs 8.1%, for ACEI/ARNI/ARBs, B-blockers, and MRAs, respectively (Supplement V). The analysis of independent factors associated with readmission within 6 months of follow-up found no statistically significant associations (Supplement VI).

DISCUSSION

We conducted an analysis of HFrEF patients’ characteristics and physicians’ GDMT prescriptions at discharge and 6 months follow-up. Our study population has a similar mean age compared to the QUALIFY international registry (62.8 ±14.2 years vs 63.1 ±12.5 years, respectively), but younger compared to KorAHF registry (62.8 ±14.2 years vs 68.5 ±14.5 years). Our study population is predominantly black (74.2% vs <11.3% in the registries.[24], [30] Although 35% of our study population had ischemic heart disease, only 19% had documented history of MI which is much lower than 46.3% MI prevalence in QUALIFY registry.[24] This difference may signal considerable prevalence of undiagnosed MI in Kenya. In contrast to previous literature from the SSA region, IHD was the most prevalent cause of HF.[3] Patients in the current study had a prevalence of diabetes comparable to that of QUALIFY and KorAHF (36.1% vs 34.3% vs 40%, respectively), whereas the prevalence of hypertension was slightly lower (54.6% vs 64.6% vs 62.2%, respectively).

Regarding the clinical presentation, patients’ distribution according to NYHA functional classes I, II, III, and IV were similar to that of QUALIFY registry (5.2%, 56.4%, 29.9%, 8.5% vs 13%, 46%, 36%, 15% respectively). The SBP and HR were similar (125 ±23 vs 126.5 ± 20.3, however the mean HR was higher in our population (86 ±20 bpm vs 76.4 ± 14.4 bpm). The mean BMI was similar to that of QUALIFY registry (28.1 ±5.7 vs 27.9 ±5.4) but higher than that of KorAHF (28.1 ±5.7 vs 23.3 ±3.9). The LVEF was slightly lower in our study population comparable with QUALIFY and KorAHF study populations (27.6 ± 9.5% vs 31.9 ±7% vs 37.7±15.6% respectively).

Compared to published studies in SSA, the proportions of patients with prescriptions among eligible patients were worse for ACEI/ARNI/ARBs, similar or better for B- blockers, and similar for MRAs. These proportions were 66.2%, 71.8%, and 42.6%, respectively, compared to 83%, 48%, and 41%, respectively, found in a single-center study conducted in Lagos, Nigeria.[28] Another single-center study conducted in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia found these proportions to be 79.8%, 79.4%, and 49%, respectively.[29] The consistently low prescription rate of MRAs for eligible patients requires further studies on physicians’ knowledge, attitudes, and practices regarding this drug class.

The overall adherence was lower than that of QUALIFY registry. QUALIFY scores were good in 43.1%, moderate in 33.1%, and poor in 23.8% of patients, while the scores in the QUALIFY registry were good in 67%, moderate in 25% and poor 8% of patients. In the QUALIFY registry, the proportions of patients who were prescribed ≥50% of the target dose of ACEIs, ARBs, B-blockers, were 63.3%, 39.5%, and 51.8%, respectively. These proportions were lower in our study, being 51.9% for ACEI/ARNI/ARBs and 48.7% for B-blockers. Only 7.9% of patients were on 100% of MRAs target dose in our study compared to 70.4% in the QUALIFY registry.

The multivariate analysis of factors associated with mortality found that the odds of dying within 6 months were 6 times lower for patients who were eligible for ACEI/ARNI/ARBs at discharge than those who were not (OR: 0.158, CI: 0.041 - 0.611, p: 0.008). A possible explanation is that the same reasons for non-eligibility for ACEI/ARNI/ARBs are the same risk factors for death. In the current study, compared to patients eligible for ACEI/ARNI/ARBs, non-eligible patients had, lower blood pressure (SBP <90 mmHg), lower eGFR, and higher potassium levels (>5.5 mmol/L). KoAHF and other studies have reported a significant association between low eGFR and high mortality risk in HF patients.[30], [31] In the same registry, low BP (<100 mmHg) was associated with higher all-cause mortality (OR: 2.45, CI: 1.6 - 3.5), p: <0.001).

The multivariate analysis did not identify factors statistically significantly associated with readmission within 6 months. Previous studies have identified hemoglobin level, BP at admission, patient’s compliance to treatment, age, NYHA functional class, diabetes, hypothyroidism, and hypertension as independent factors for HF readmission within 6 months.[32], [33] The reason for lack of statistically significant association between readmissions and patients’ factors or HF treatment factors in our study could be low statistical power to detect these associations. A bigger sample size would potentially have more events and significant associations.

Study limitations

The current study has several limitations. It was a retrospective study, which among other limitations, had missing data. Loss to follow-up was a significant limitation as well. The reasons for not coming for follow-up are not known and may have skewed the results at six months. Furthermore, loss to follow-up has led to limited statistical power in assessing the association between GDMT prescription and clinical outcomes at six months. However, these were secondary outcomes of the study and do not affect the primary outcome which is descriptive.

We did not capture all the possible reasons for non-prescription or non-uptitration of GDMT. We acknowledge that there are potentially more contraindications and reasons for discontinuation than those listed in the 2021 ESC guidelines. Additionally, our study does not capture physicians’ factors leading to their prescription habits. Finally, we conducted the study in a referral university hospital in the capital city, consequently, the findings are not generalizable to the whole country or region.

CONCLUSION

Physicians’ level of adherence to prescription and up-titration of GDMT was satisfactory for ACEI/ARNI/ARBs and B-blockers, however, it was poor for SGLT2is and MRAs which had the lowest prescription rates for eligible patients. Uptitration to ≥50% of the target dose was low for all the drug classes. Exploratory analysis showed that eligibility for ACEI/ARNI/ARBs was associated with increased survival at 6 months. There is a need for regular surveys on prescription and uptitration of GDMT for HFrEF with a special attention to MRAs and SGLT2is.

Data Availability

All data produced in the present study are available upon reasonable request to the authors.

DISCLOSURE

The abstract of the present study was presented in the 40th Kenyan Cardiac Society’s Annual Scientific Congress.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We would like to acknowledge the QUALIFY investigators’ contribution to the assessment of heart failure guideline adherence globally. Their work has been invaluable in advancing our understanding of the subject matter and the execution of the present study. Thank you for your hard work and dedication to this field.

Footnotes

  • Title changed from: PHYSICIANS' ADHERENCE TO GUIDELINE-DIRECTED MEDICAL THERAPY FOR HEART FAILURE AND PATIENTS' OUTCOMES IN A KENYAN REFERRAL HOSPITAL to: PHYSICIANS' ADHERENCE TO GUIDELINES ON MEDICAL THERAPY FOR HEART FAILURE AND PATIENTS' OUTCOMES IN A KENYAN REFERRAL HOSPITAL

REFERENCES

  1. [1].↵
    S. L. James et al., “Global, regional, and national incidence, prevalence, and years lived with disability for 354 Diseases and Injuries for 195 countries and territories, 1990-2017: A systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2017,” The Lancet, vol. 392, no. 10159, pp. 1789–1858, Nov. 2018, doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(18)32279-7/ATTACHMENT/DB6E3413-74DC-43AE-B7CC-CA155C28589E/MMC2.PDF.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  2. [2].↵
    A. Groenewegen, F. H. Rutten, A. Mosterd, and A. W. Hoes, “Epidemiology of heart failure,” Eur J Heart Fail, vol. 22, no. 8, pp. 1342–1356, Aug. 2020, doi: 10.1002/EJHF.1858.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  3. [3].↵
    I. Gtif, F. Bouzid, S. Charfeddine, L. Abid, and N. Kharrat, “Heart failure disease: An African perspective,” Arch Cardiovasc Dis, vol. 114, no. 10, pp. 680–690, Oct. 2021, doi: 10.1016/J.ACVD.2021.07.001.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  4. [4].↵
    J. A. Ogeng’o, P. M. Gatonga, B. O. Olabu, and N. M. Ogeng’o, “Pattern of Heart Failure in an Adult Kenyan Population,” 2014, doi: 10.4172/2324-8602.1000185.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  5. [5].↵
    K. Kimani, E. Namukwaya, L. Grant, and S. A. Murray, “What is known about heart failure in sub-Saharan Africa: a scoping review of the English literature,” BMJ Support Palliat Care, vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 122–127, Jun. 2017, doi: 10.1136/BMJSPCARE-2015-000924.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  6. [6].↵
    S. El Hadidi, E. Darweesh, S. Byrne, and M. Bermingham, “A tool for assessment of heart failure prescribing quality: A systematic review and meta-analysis,” Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf, no. May 2017, pp. 1–10, 2018, doi: 10.1002/pds.4430.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  7. [7].
    C. W. Yancy et al., “2013 ACCF/AHA guideline for the management of heart failure: A report of the American college of cardiology foundation/american heart association task force on practice guidelines,” J Am Coll Cardiol, vol. 62, no. 16, 2013, doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2013.05.019.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  8. [8].
    T. A. McDonagh et al., “2021 ESC Guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of acute and chronic heart failure,” Eur Heart J, vol. 42, no. 36, pp. 3599–3726, 2021, doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehab368.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  9. [9].↵
    C. W. Yancy et al., “2017 ACC/AHA/HFSA Focused Update of the 2013 ACCF/AHA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Clinical Practice Guidelines and the Heart Failure Society of Amer,” J Am Coll Cardiol, vol. 70, no. 6, pp. 776–803, 2017, doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2017.04.025.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  10. [10].↵
    T. A. McDonagh et al., “2021 ESC Guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of acute and chronic heart failure,” Eur Heart J, vol. 42, no. 36, pp. 3599–3726, 2021, doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehab368.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  11. [11].↵
    T. C. T. S. Group*, “Effects of Enalapril on Mortality in Severe Congestive Heart Failure,” doi:10.1056/NEJM198706043162301, vol. 316, no. 23, pp. 1429–1435, Jan. 2010, doi: 10.1056/NEJM198706043162301.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  12. [12].
    S. Yusuf, “Effect of Enalapril on Survival in Patients with Reduced Left Ventricular Ejection Fractions and Congestive Heart Failure,” doi:10.1056/NEJM199108013250501, vol. 115, no. SUPPL.3, p. 67, Jan. 2010, doi: 10.1056/NEJM199108013250501.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  13. [13].
    M. Packer et al., “Comparative Effects of Low and High Doses of the Angiotensin- Converting Enzyme Inhibitor, Lisinopril, on Morbidity and Mortality in Chronic Heart Failure,” Circulation, vol. 100, no. 23, pp. 2312–2318, Dec. 1999, doi: 10.1161/01.CIR.100.23.2312.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  14. [14].
    M. Packer et al., “Effect of Carvedilol on Survival in Severe Chronic Heart Failure,” doi:10.1056/NEJM200105313442201, vol. 344, no. 22, pp. 1651–1658, Aug. 2009, doi: 10.1056/NEJM200105313442201.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  15. [15].
    P. A. Poole-Wilson et al., “The cardiac insufficiency bisoprolol study II (multiple letters) [3],” Lancet, vol. 353, no. 9161, pp. 1360–1361, Apr. 1999, doi: 10.1016/s0140-6736(05)74354-3.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  16. [16].
    A. Hjalmarson et al., “Effect of metoprolol CR/XL in chronic heart failure: Metoprolol CR/XL Randomised Intervention Trial in-Congestive Heart Failure (MERIT-HF),” The Lancet, vol. 353, no. 9169, pp. 2001–2007, Jun. 1999, doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(99)04440-2.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  17. [17].
    M. D. Flather et al., “Randomized trial to determine the effect of nebivolol on mortality and cardiovascular hospital admission in elderly patients with heart failure (SENIORS),” Eur Heart J, vol. 26, no. 3, pp. 215–225, 2005, doi: 10.1093/EURHEARTJ/EHI115.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  18. [18].
    B. Ertram et al., “The Effect of Spironolactone on Morbidity and Mortality in Patients with Severe Heart Failure,” doi:10.1056/NEJM199909023411001, vol. 341, no. 10, pp. 709–717, Oct. 2008, doi: 10.1056/NEJM199909023411001.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  19. [19].
    F. Zannad et al., “Eplerenone in Patients with Systolic Heart Failure and Mild Symptoms,” New England Journal of Medicine, vol. 364, no. 1, pp. 11–21, Jan. 2011, doi: 10.1056/NEJMOA1009492/SUPPL_FILE/NEJMOA1009492_DISCLOSURES.PD F.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  20. [20].
    N. Okumura et al., “Effects of sacubitril/valsartan in the PARADIGM-HF trial (Prospective Comparison of ARNI with ACEI to Determine Impact on Global Mortality and Morbidity in Heart Failure) according to background therapy,” Circ Heart Fail, vol. 9, no. 9, Sep. 2016, doi: 10.1161/CIRCHEARTFAILURE.116.003212.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  21. [21].
    J. J. V. McMurray et al., “Effects of candesartan in patients with chronic heart failure and reduced left-ventricular systolic function taking angiotensin-converting- enzyme inhibitors: the CHARM-Added trial,” The Lancet, vol. 362, no. 9386, pp. 767–771, Sep. 2003, doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(03)14283-3.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  22. [22].
    J. J. V. McMurray et al., “Dapagliflozin in Patients with Heart Failure and Reduced Ejection Fraction,” N Engl J Med, vol. 381, no. 21, pp. 1995–2008, Nov. 2019, doi: 10.1056/NEJMOA1911303.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  23. [23].↵
    M. Packer et al., “Cardiovascular and Renal Outcomes with Empagliflozin in Heart Failure,” N Engl J Med, vol. 383, no. 15, pp. 1413–1424, Oct. 2020, doi: 10.1056/NEJMOA2022190.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  24. [24].↵
    M. Komajda et al., “Physicians’ adherence to guideline-recommended medications in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction: data from the QUALIFY global survey,” Eur J Heart Fail, vol. 18, no. 5, pp. 514–522, May 2016, doi: 10.1002/EJHF.510.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  25. [25].↵
    M. Komajda et al., “Physicians’ guideline adherence is associated with long-term heart failure mortality in outpatients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction: the QUALIFY international registry,” Eur J Heart Fail, vol. 21, no. 7, pp. 921–929, Jul. 2019, doi: 10.1002/EJHF.1459.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  26. [26].↵
    G. Tsigkas et al., “Real-world implementation of guidelines for heart failure management: A systematic review and meta-analysis,” Hellenic Journal of Cardiology, vol. 66, pp. 72–79, Jul. 2022, doi: 10.1016/J.HJC.2022.04.006.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  27. [27].↵
    M. S. Ahn et al., “Guideline-directed therapy at discharge in patients with heart failure and atrial fibrillation,” Heart, vol. 106, no. 4, pp. 292–298, Feb. 2020, doi: 10.1136/HEARTJNL-2019-315240.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  28. [28].↵
    J. N. Ajuluchukwu, A. Emmanuel, and K. A. Raji, “Physician-adherence to pharmacotherapy guidelines for chronic heart failure in a tertiary health facility in Lagos, Nigeria,” J Hosp Adm, vol. 3, no. 2, p. 32, Oct. 2013, doi: 10.5430/JHA.V3N2P32.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  29. [29].↵
    R. Verena et al., “ASSESSMENT OF PHYSICIAN ADHERENCE TO GUIDELINE RECOMMENDED MEDICATION IN Heart failure WITH REDUCED Ejection fraction AT OUTPATIENT CARDIAC CLINIC; RETROSPECTIVE CROSS SECTIONAL STUDY AT BLACK LION SPECIALIZED HOSPITAL,” Ethiop Med J, vol. 60, no. 2, pp. 86–92, Mar. 2022, doi: 10.4103/sja.SJA_543_18.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  30. [30].↵
    S. E. Lee et al., “Clinical Characteristics and Outcome of Acute Heart Failure in Korea: Results from the Korean Acute Heart Failure Registry (KorAHF),” Korean Circ J, vol. 47, no. 3, p. 341, May 2017, doi: 10.4070/KCJ.2016.0419.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  31. [31].↵
    K. Damman, M. A. E. Valente, A. A. Voors, C. M. O’Connor, D. J. Van Veldhuisen, and H. L. Hillege, “Renal impairment, worsening renal function, and outcome in patients with heart failure: an updated meta-analysis,” Eur Heart J, vol. 35, no. 7, pp. 455–469, Feb. 2014, doi: 10.1093/EURHEARTJ/EHT386.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  32. [32].↵
    S. S. L. Akkineni, O. Mohammed, J. P. K. Pathiraj, T. Devasia, R. Chandrababu, and V. Kunhikatta, “Readmissions and clinical outcomes in heart failure patients: A retrospective study,” Clin Epidemiol Glob Health, vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 495–500, Jun. 2020, doi: 10.1016/j.cegh.2019.11.002.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  33. [33].↵
    M. A. A. Al-Tamimi, S. W. Gillani, M. E. Abd Alhakam, and K. G. Sam, “Factors Associated With Hospital Readmission of Heart Failure Patients,” Front Pharmacol, vol. 12, Oct. 2021, doi: 10.3389/FPHAR.2021.732760/FULL.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  34. [34].
    D. R. Parajuli, S. Shakib, J. Eng-Frost, R. A. McKinnon, G. E. Caughey, and D. Whitehead, “Evaluation of the prescribing practice of guideline-directed medical therapy among ambulatory chronic heart failure patients,” BMC Cardiovasc Disord, vol. 21, no. 1, pp. 1–16, Dec. 2021, doi: 10.1186/S12872-021-01868-Z/TABLES/6.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  35. [35].
    J. F. Veenis, H. P. Brunner-La Rocca, G. C. M. Linssen, M. W. F. Van Gent, A. W. Hoes, and J. J. Brugts, “Treatment Differences in Chronic Heart Failure Patients with Reduced Ejection Fraction According to Blood Pressure,” Circ Heart Fail, vol. 13, no. 5, p. E006667, May 2020, doi: 10.1161/CIRCHEARTFAILURE.119.006667.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
Back to top
Posted November 15, 2023.
Download PDF

Supplementary Material

Data/Code
Email
PHYSICIANS’ ADHERENCE TO GUIDELINES ON MEDICAL THERAPY FOR HEART FAILURE AND PATIENTS’ OUTCOMES IN A KENYAN REFERRAL HOSPITAL
Willy Mucyo, Jasmit Shah, Jeilan Mohamed, Mohamed Hasham Varwani, Mzee Ngunga
medRxiv 2023.10.31.23297731; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2023.10.31.23297731
Twitter logo Facebook logo LinkedIn logo Mendeley logo
Citation Tools

Subject Area