Abstract 4137531: A Pharmacist Medication Titration Program for Patients with Cardiac Sarcoidosis and Systolic Heart Failure

Introduction: Cardiac sarcoidosis (CS) often results in systolic heart failure (HF) and responds favorably to guideline directed medical therapy (GDMT). A multidisciplinary team approach to HF care is recommended but few published examples exist in CS patients. Methods: We queried an institutional registry of 599 CS patients (2000-2023) for patients with index LVEF < 50% (within 90 d of index CS evaluation) and follow-up TTE within 11-36 months. In our CS medication therapy management (MTM) program (started 1/8/2019), pharmacists conduct independent visits with CS patients (in person or remote), discuss GDMT tolerance and symptoms, review monitoring laboratory studies, and adjust GDMT (ACEi/ARB/ARNi, beta-blocker, MRA, and/or SGLT2i) via collaborative practice agreement with the CS cardiologists. Patients were classified as MTM (≥1 MTM encounter) or NMTM patients (0 encounters). We compared (1) GDMT, (2) cardiac remodeling, and (3) clinical outcomes (event free survival to first heart failure hospitalization, LVAD, heart transplant, or death). Results: Nineteen percent (113/599) CS patients met inclusion criteria (34% female, 92% white, median age 57 y, 19% definite CS, 58% probable CS, 31% presumed CS), with 44 MTM (median 11.5 encounters, IQR 11) and 69 NMTM patients. Both MTM and NMTM patients were on a median 2 GDMT agents at index evaluation (p=0.21). At follow-up (median 19 mo MTM, 15 mo NMTM, p=0.05), MTM patients were on more GDMT agents than NMTM (median 3.0 vs 2.0, p<0.001), with higher % target dose of ACEi/ARB/ARNi (98% vs 71%, p=0.009), beta-blocker (87% vs 57%, p=0.004), and SGLT2i use (30% vs 9%, p=0.004), but similar MRA use (48% vs 32%, p=0.09). Immunosuppressive therapy was used in 88% patients (89% MTM vs 87% NMTM, p=0.79). Index LVEF was similar (MTM 36%, NMTM 32%, p=0.07). Mean change in LVEF (excluding LVAD/transplant patients) demonstrated a non-significant trend towards improved remodeling in MTM (+8.6%) vs NMTM patients (+5.5%; p=0.39). MTM patients exhibited lower risk of the clinical outcome (1/44 MTM vs 16/69 MTM patients; univariable HR 0.08 [95%CI 0.01 - 0.63], log-rank p=0.016). Conclusions: A pharmacist MTM program for CS patients with HF is associated with improved GDMT uptitration and clinical outcomes, emphasizing the value of collaborative multidisciplinary CS care.