24 SGLT-2I therapy in heart failure : challenges and opportunities. (30th September 2020)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Radhakrishna, A; Cusack, R; Barton, J
• Is Part Of: Heart. Volume 106(2020)Supplement 4
• Page Start: A16
• Page End: A17
• Publication Date: 2020-09-30
• Subjects: Heart -- Diseases -- Treatment -- Periodicals; Cardiology -- Periodicals; 616.12
• DOI: 10.1136/heartjnl-2020-ICS.24
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1355-6037

Abstract

Abstract : Introduction: Heart failure (HF) is a complex disease which is growing to be a significant cause of morbidity and mortality leading to increased cost of chronic care and hospitalization. In the DAPA-HF study, the sodium-glucose co-transporter 2 inhibitor (SGLT-2i) dapagliflozin was shown to reduce the risk of worsening HF and death in patients with HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). Our goal was to conduct an audit in a tertiary referral centre at University Hospital Galway (UHG) to identify patients with HFrEF who fulfil the eligibility criteria for SGLT-2i therapy, as seen in the DAPA-HF study. We also sought to identify patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus (T2DM) in our HFrEF cohort who are potential candidates for improvement of glycaemic control with SGLT-2i therapy according to the ADA-EASD Guidelines. Methodology: A retrospective audit was conducted on 129 patients with HFrEF attending the specialist-led heart failure clinic at UHG between January and March 2020. Demographic, clinical, biochemical and medication data were collected from medical charts and our local digital database:EVOLVE® and CVWeb®. Patients had to meet the DAPA-HF inclusion criteria to be deemed eligible for dapagliflozin therapy. Results: Table 1 summarises the baseline clinical data and table 2 summarises the list of medical therapy at our centre. Of note, the 129 patients in our study represented a more elderly cohort compared to the DAPA-HF study population. Only 49/129 (38%) of our HFrEF patients were eligible for SGLT-2i therapy based on the DAPA-HF inclusion criteria. This is primarily due to the higher than expected percentage of patients in our cohort who were asymptomatic (34.9%) and who had low NT-proBNP levels (29.6%). 16/129 (12.4%) had severe CKD with an eGFR <30 ml/min/1.73 m 2 . There were only 26/129 (20.2%) patients with T2DM of which 6 patients were already on SGLT-2i. The majority had ischemic cardiomyopathy (69%) with concomitant risk factors and (30.8%) had poor glycaemic control. Conclusion: This study shows a lower than expected number of patients in our centre who would have been included in the DAPA-HF trial. This could be because many patients in this cohort were already on optimal HF treatment, many being asymptomatic and had low NT-proBNP levels. Some patients were also ineligible for SGLT-2i because of Stage 4 CKD. One-third of the diabetic patients in this HFrEF cohort were not at target HbA1C range and according to the ADA-EASD Guidelines, all these patients should have SGLT-2i added to intensify glycaemic control. Lately, the Canadian Heart Society have updated their guidelines with a strong recommendation to introduce SGLT-2i in diabetics with ischemic cardiomyopathy despite adequate glycaemic control for cardiovascular benefits. SGLT-2i represents an important, but underutilized therapeutic option by cardiologists, likely due to the lack of familiarity on its use. This study reveals that SGLT-2i prescription could potentially increase in HFrEF patients with or without T2DM as guidelines will soon be updated based on robust evidence from large-scale clinical trials and when prescribers become aware of the indication for primary prevention of heart failure hospitalization and death.