BACKGROUND: Myxomatous mitral valve degeneration is the most common canine heart disease. Several clinical trials have investigated various treatments. The latest recommendations are published in the ACVIM consensus guidelines (2019). Our study aimed to investigate how closely veterinary practitioners apply the treatment recommendations of these guidelines and the latest clinical trials.
METHODS: An online survey was sent to Dutch and Belgian veterinary practices via digital channels.
RESULTS: The data from 363 fully completed surveys were analyzed. For stage B1 disease, 93% recommended, correctly, no treatment. For stage B2 disease, 67% of the respondents recommended starting pimobendan as monotherapy. For chronic treatment of stage C disease, 16 different drug combinations were mentioned, but nobody recommended surgery. Only 48% of the respondents recommended the only evidence-based drug combination: a loop diuretic with pimobendan. A concerning finding was the simultaneous prescription of two loop diuretics, by 19% of the respondents.
CONCLUSIONS: Treatment recommendations showed an increasing variation with more advanced disease stages from B1 through B2 to C. This reflects the increasing disagreement among the panelists who prepared the ACVIM consensus guidelines. Practitioners of our study seem to practice more evidence-based medicine than veterinary cardiologists, as it was reported in a recent survey-based study.

To describe the adaptation of a global health economic model to determine whether treatment with the angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor LCZ696 is cost effective compared with the angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor enalapril in adult patients with chronic heart failure with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction in the Netherlands; and to explore the effect of performing the cost-effectiveness analyses according to the new pharmacoeconomic Dutch guidelines (updated during the submission process of LCZ696), which require a value-of-information analysis and the inclusion of indirect medical costs of life-years gained.
We adapted a UK model to reflect the societal perspective in the Netherlands by including travel expenses, productivity loss, informal care costs, and indirect medical costs during the life-years gained and performed a preliminary value-of-information analysis.
The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio obtained was €17,600 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. This was robust to changes in most structural assumptions and across different subgroups of patients. Probability sensitivity analysis results showed that the probability that LCZ696 is cost-effective at a €50,000 per QALY threshold is 99.8%, with a population expected value of perfect information of €297,128. On including indirect medical costs of life-years gained, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was €26,491 per QALY gained, and LCZ696 was 99.46% cost effective at €50,000 per QALY, with a population expected value of perfect information of €2,849,647.
LCZ696 is cost effective compared with enalapril under the former and current Dutch guidelines. However, the (monetary) consequences of making a wrong decision were considerably different in both scenarios.

We will shortly celebrate the 25th anniversary of the publication of the Co-operative North Scandinavian Enalapril Survival Study (CONSENSUS), a clinical trial which revolutionized the treatment of heart failure and highlighted the importance of the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS) in the pathophysiology of heart failure (Figure 1). In this article I will give a brief, historical overview of this exciting quarter-century of discovery related to the RAAS. My focus is on the treatment of heart failure in patients with a low left ventricular ejection fraction.

Surveys of prescribing patterns in both hospitals and primary care have usually shown delays in translating the evidence from clinical trials of pharmacological agents into clinical practice, thereby denying patients with heart failure (HF) the benefits of drug treatments proven to improve well-being and prolong life. This may be due to unfamiliarity with the evidence-base for these therapies, the clinical guidelines recommending the use of these treatments or both, as well as concerns regarding adverse events. ACE inhibitors have long been the cornerstone of therapy for systolic HF irrespective of aetiology. Recent trials have now shown that treatment with beta-blockers, aldosterone antagonists and angiotensin receptor blockers also leads to substantial improvements in outcome. In order to accelerate the safe uptake of these treatments and to ensure that all eligible patients receive the most appropriate medications, a clear and concise set of clinical recommendations has been prepared by a group of clinicians with practical expertise in the management of HF. The objective of these recommendations is to provide practical guidance for non-specialists, in order to increase the use of evidenced based therapy for HF. These practical recommendations are meant to serve as a supplement to, rather than replacement of, existing HF guidelines.

Drug therapy of coronary heart disease (CHD) is a life-long treatment. With every change from in-patient to out-patient care and back, changes in medication may occur. If a drug is chosen which provides no proven long-term benefit in terms of reduced morbidity and mortality, the expected therapeutic benefit may be missed. We investigated in 224 patients admitted to the medical departments of two hospitals (one with a specialized Cardiology Unit, one with a General Internal Medicine Unit) the prescriptions for CHD by the general practitioner before admittance into the hospital, the prescriptions recommended at the time of discharge, and the prescriptions made by the general practitioner three months after discharge. Of the drug classes with proven effects on morbidity and mortality (acetylsalicylic acid, beta-blockers, statins, ACE inhibitors), none had sufficiently high prescription rates. Prescription rates at discharge were 30% for beta-blockers and statins, 70% for acetylsalicylic acid, and 60% for ACE inhibitors. Only in patients with acute myocardial infarction were the prescription rates for these drug classes higher at this time point. The presence of contraindications was not of prime importance for the low prescription rates, as even in patients without contraindications prescription rates were not significantly higher than in the total patient cohort. Out of the patients with hypercholesterolemia, one third of those treated in the Cardiology Department and two thirds of those treated in the General Internal Medicine Department were not given any lipid-lowering medication. Prescription rates for those drug classes that provide symptomatic relief but have little impact on mortality rates (calcium channel blockers, nitrates) were high in both hospitals. The present study shows that evidence-based guidelines for the drug treatment of coronary heart disease are not adequately put into practice.

This consensus is the result of a recent meeting to establish the ideal approach for thrombolysis in acute stroke patients in Brazil. Some peculiarities concerning the emergency rooms, stroke units, available equipments and stroke teams are considered in order to characterize the stroke centers. Protocols concerning the use of thrombolytic drugs are reviewed. This is the official guideline for thrombolysis in acute stroke of the Brazilian Society of Cerebrovascular Disease.

During the past 10 years, the philosophy of heart failure treatment has evolved from symptom control to a combined prevention and symptom-management strategy. Recent clinical trials have proved that early detection can delay progression. Treatment of asymptomatic left ventricular dysfunction is as important as treatment of symptomatic disease. The purpose of this review is to simplify recent guidelines for pharmacological management of chronic systolic heart failure for the primary care physician and the heart failure specialist. Early recognition and prevention therapies, combined with lifestyle modification, are essential in the treatment of heart failure. Therapy with angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, beta-blockers, and diuretics is now standard. Digoxin is added to improve clinical symptoms, especially in patients with atrial fibrillation. Aldosterone antagonists may be recommended in select patients with stable New York Heart Association class III or IV heart failure. If angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors are not tolerated, angiotensin receptor blockers, hydralazine hydrochloride, and isosorbide dinitrate are recommended. The data on antiarrhythmic and anticoagulation therapies are inconclusive.

BACKGROUND: We wanted to determine the clinical cost of managing hypertension when following the Joint National Committee on Hypertension (JNC) guidelines, including drug therapy, the cost of monitoring for and treating side effects, compliance, and the cost of switching after therapeutic failures.
METHODS: The base-case analysis considers antihypertensive agents from four therapeutic classes that were recently evaluated in a large randomized trial: enalapril, amlodipine, acebutolol, and chlorthalidone. Clinical evaluation, therapy, and monitoring for hypertension are modeled with an incidence-based Markov model. Clinical inputs include agent efficacy, side effects, and compliance with dosing schedules. JNC-recommended clinical and laboratory monitoring schedules are followed for each agent. Switches between classes occur for therapeutic failures. Drug and medical care costs are valued in 1995 US dollars.
RESULTS: Although patients whose hypertension was initially treated with amlodipine achieved control more readily than patients who were given the other agents, the initial costs to achieve and maintain hypertension control were lowest for chlorthalidone ($641), followed by acebutolol ($920), amlodipine ($946), and enalapril ($948). Maintenance costs were lowest for chlorthalidone. For all agents except chlorthalidone, drug costs were the largest component of overall costs, followed by the costs of office visits, laboratory monitoring, and switching between classes for therapeutic failures.
CONCLUSIONS: By following JNC guidelines, a slightly higher percentage of patients will achieve hypertension control with a newer class calcium channel blocker (amlodipine) but at a substantially higher cost than with a generic diuretic (chlorthalidone).

BACKGROUND: The CONSENSUS trial was the first study to show prognostic improvement by an ACE inhibitor. Patients in NYHA class IV heart failure were treated with enalapril or placebo. After study completion (average 183 days) all patients were offered open-label enalapril therapy. This paper reports on the survival at the 10-year follow up of the patients randomized in the CONSENSUS trial.
METHODS: All 35 participating centres in CONSENSUS I were asked to complete a questionnaire on the survival status at 1 November 1996 of patients randomized in CONSENSUS.
RESULTS: At 10-year follow up, one patient was lost to follow-up. Five patients, all in the enalapril group, were long-term survivors (P = 0.004). Averaged over the duration of the trial (double-blind plus open-label extension) the risk reduction was 30% (P = 0.008), with a 95% confidence interval of 11% to 46%. At the end of the double-blind study period, mortality was considerably higher among patients who did not receive open ACE inhibitor therapy compared to those who did.
CONCLUSIONS: After a treatment period of, on average, 6 months, enalapril was shown to be effective. The effect was sustained for at least 4 years i.e. for another 3.5 years. The present follow-up is the first heart failure trial where the full life-cycle has been followed from randomization. In severe heart failure, mortality is significantly reduced by enalapril. On average, the beneficial effect is maintained for several years and overall survival time is prolonged by 50% (from 521 to 781 days).

In the Cooperative New Scandinavian Enalapril Survival Study (CONSENSUS II), in which enalapril treatment was initiated intravenously within 24 h after acute myocardial infarction, there was a neutral effect on 6-month mortality, whereas a beneficial effect on the progression of congestive heart failure was noted. We studied the effect of enalapril on left ventricular systolic function in terms of cardiac output and mean acceleration time measured by pulsed-wave Doppler in the left ventricular outflow tract and peripheral resistance. Early angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibition after acute myocardial infarction did not result in a general improvement of cardiac output. However, a small increase in cardiac output was observed in a subgroup of enalapril-treated patients with ejection fraction > or = 45%, probably due to a reduction in peripheral resistance in these patients.