Background: Increasing the knowledge about heart failure (HF) costs and their determinants is important to ascertain how HF management can be optimized, leading to a significant decrease of HF costs. This study evaluated the cumulative costs and healthcare utilisation in HF patients in Spain. Methods: Observational, retrospective, population-based study using BIG-PAC database, which included data from specialized and primary care of people ≥18 years, from seven autonomous communities in Spain, who received care for HF between 2015 and 2019. The healthcare and medication costs were summarized on a yearly basis starting from the index date (1st January 2015), and then cumulatively until 2019. Results: We identified 17,163 patients with HF (year 2015: mean age 77.3 ± 11.8 years, 53.5% men, 51.7% systolic HF, 43.6% on NYHA functional class II). During the 2015–2019 period, total HF associated costs reached 15,373 Euros per person, being cardiovascular disease hospitalizations the most important determinant (75.8%), particularly HF hospitalizations (51.0%). Total medication cost accounted for 7.0% of the total cost. During this period, there was a progressive decrease of cardiovascular disease hospital costs per year (from 2834 Euros in 2015 to 2146 Euros in 2019, P < 0.001), as well as cardiovascular and diabetic medication costs. Conclusions: During the 2015–2019 period, costs of HF patients in Spain were substantial, being HF hospitalizations the most important determinant. Medication costs represented only a small proportion of total costs. Improving HF management, particularly through the use of drugs that reduce HF hospitalization may be helpful to reduce HF burden.

Objective: To estimate the prevalence, incidence, and describe the characteristics and management of patients with heart failure with preserved (HFpEF), mildly reduced (HFmrEF), and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) in Spain. Methods: Adults with ≥1 inpatient or outpatient HF diagnosis between 1 January 2013 and 30 September 2019 were identified through the BIG-PAC database. Annual incidence and prevalence by EF phenotype were estimated. Characteristics by EF phenotype were described in the 2016 and 2019 HF prevalent cohorts and outcomes in the 2016 HF prevalent cohort. Results: Overall, HF incidence and prevalence were 0.32/100 person-years and 2.34%, respectively, but increased every year. In 2019, 49.3% had HFrEF, 38.1% had HFpEF, and 4.3% had HFmrEF (in 8.3%, EF was not available). Compared with HFrEF, patients with HFpEF were largely female, older, and had more atrial fibrillation but less atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. Among patients with HFrEF, 76.3% were taking renin-angiotensin system inhibitors, 69.5% beta-blockers, 36.8% aldosterone antagonists, 12.5% sacubitril/valsartan and 6.7% SGLT2 inhibitors. Patients with HFpEF and HFmrEF took fewer HF drugs compared to HFrEF. Overall, the event rates of HF hospitalization were 231.6/1000 person-years, which is more common in HFrEF patients. No clinically relevant differences were found in patients with HFpEF, regardless EF (50- < 60% vs. ≥60%). Conclusions: >2% of patients have HF, of which around 50% have HFrEF and 40% have HFpEF. The prevalence of HF is increasing over time. Clinical characteristics by EF phenotype are consistent with previous studies. The risk of outcomes, particularly HF hospitalization, remains high, likely related to insufficient HF treatment.

Despite steady improvements in cardiovascular disease (CVD) prevention, a scarce proportion of patients achieve the recommended LDL-C goals, even under high-intensity lipid-lowering therapy (LLT). Our study aimed to evaluate the attainment rate of LDL-C targets recommended by the 2019 European guidelines, and to characterize potential factors associated with LDL-C goal achievement and change patterns in LLT. We conducted a retrospective, observational study on patients treated with high-intensity atorvastatin or rosuvastatin ± ezetimibe at cardiology and internal medicine clinics across Spain. It included 1570 evaluable patients (median age: 62 years; established CVD: 77.5% [myocardial infarction: 34.3%]; and 85.8% at very high cardiovascular risk). Rosuvastatin ± ezetimibe was the LLT in 52.2% of patients, and atorvastatin ± ezetimibe in 47.8%. LLT had been modified in 36.8% of patients (side effects: 10%), being the most common switch from atorvastatin- to rosuvastatin-based treatment (77.2%). The risk-based LDL-C goal attainment rate was 31.1%, with 78.2% high-risk and 71.7% very high-risk patients not achieving the recommended LDL-C targets. Established CVD and familial hypercholesterolemia were significantly associated with the non-achievement of LDL-C goals. Although having limitations, this study shows that the guideline-recommended LDL-C goal attainment rate is still suboptimal despite using high-intensity statin therapy in a real-world setting in Spain.

Objective: To determine the therapeutic behavior of primary care physicians in uncontrolled hypertensive patients in Spain during the last decade. Methods: Data were taken from three cross-sectional surveys aimed to determine the blood pressure (BP) control rates in treated hypertensive patients followed in a setting of primary care in Spain during 2002, 2006, and 2010, respectively. Adequate BP control was globally defined as BP lower than 140/90 mmHg for the hypertensive population in the three studies. In patients with diabetes, chronic kidney disease, or cardiovascular disease, BP control was established as lower than 130/85 mmHg in PRESión arterial en la población Española en los Centros de Atención Primaria (PRESCAP) 2002 and lower than 130/80 mmHg in PRESCAP 2006 and 2010. Results: A total of 12 754, 10 520, and 12 961 patients were included in PRESCAP 2002, 2006, and 2010 studies. Of them, 36.1, 41.4, and 46.3%, respectively, achieved BP targets. In those patients with uncontrolled BP, physicians modified the treatment in 18.3, 30.4, and 41.4% of the cases, respectively (P = 0.0001). The most frequent action taken was the change to another drug in PRESCAP 2002 (47.0%), and the addition of other antihypertensive agent in PRESCAP 2006 and 2010 (46.3 and 55.6%, respectively). Predictors of therapeutic inertia were the physicians’ perception of BP control, being on treatment with combined therapy, and the absence of risk factors or cardiovascular disease. Conclusion: Although therapeutic inertia has decreased in the last years in primary care setting in Spain, nowadays in nearly 60% of patients with uncontrolled BP, no therapeutic action is actually taken. Therefore, despite a significant improvement, therapeutic inertia still remains a relevant clinical problem in hypertension general practice.