Assessing the practicality of a novel heart failure therapeutic score (QUAD Score) for drug optimisation in heart failure with a reduced ejection fraction

Abstract Introduction The 4 pillars of drug treatment for heart failure with a reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) [Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEi)/Angiotensin receptor–neprilysin inhibitors (ARNi), β-blockers (BB), Mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRA), and Sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors (SGLT2i)], are recommended by international HF guidelines to improve patient outcomes. Treatment inertia remains a challenge with non-prescription or sub-optimal dosing of these therapies. We developed a pragmatic HFrEF treatment score (QUAD score) (Figure 1) to prompt initiation and/or titration of sub-optimally dosed foundational therapies. Patients are categorized as poor (<8), good (8-14), and excellent (15-24) based on the dose and number of foundational drugs prescribed. This study aims to assess the practical utility of the QUAD score and its influence on treatment optimization. Methods Unwarned prescribing HCPs were approached consecutively in person, within clinical settings. Participants were told the questions were part of a research project and they provided verbal consent. Responses were anonymous and no patients were involved; therefore, verbal consent was considered proportionate and reasonable. HCPs were given an information sheet describing the QUAD score (Figure 1). They were then presented with 3 hypothetical clinical scenarios of haemodynamically stable and uncomplicated HFrEF patients with uncalculated poor, good and excellent QUAD scores. They were asked to calculate the QUAD score and if they proposed any changes to treatment. Time was recorded using a stopwatch and proposed changes were recorded. They were then invited to answer a series of follow-on questions. Results Between September 2023 and February 2024, there were 70 respondents. 71% (50) were doctors and 29% (20) allied HCPs. 83% (58) placed patients in the correct treatment grade in at least one scenario. 62.9% (44) did so for all three scenarios (Figure 2) with numerically more HCPs compared to doctors (80% vs 56% p=0.06).The median (IQR) time in seconds required to calculate the QUAD score for clinical scenarios 1,2 and 3 was 158 (100-234), 86 (54-122) and 83 (53-119) respectively. In response to the calculated QUAD score, 94.3% (66), recommended drug treatment optimisations. On a 5-point Likert scale (1 -poor, 5- excellent), 77.1% of participants rated the QUAD score ≥3 for ease of use, and 88.6% rated ≥3 as an incentive for treatment optimization. Conclusion We demonstrated the rapid clinical usability of the QUAD Score in a cohort of unselected prescribing HCPs, with a decremental calculation time with each presented clinical scenario. HCPs were also motivated to achieve further HF drug therapy optimization based on the calculated score. We conclude that the QUAD Score as a HFrEF drug therapy score may have a role in addressing treatment inertia however, it needs validation against clinically relevant outcomes in a larger cohort of HFrEF patients.