Non-adherence after heart transplantation (HTx) is a significant problem. The main objective of this study was to evaluate if a mHealth strategy is more effective than standard care in improving adherence and patients’ experience in heart transplant recipients. Methods: This was a single-center, randomized controlled trial (RCT) in adult recipients >1.5 years post-HTx. Participants were randomized to standard care (control group) or to the mHeart Strategy (intervention group). For patients randomized to the mHeart strategy, multifaceted theory-based interventions were provided during the study period to optimize therapy management using the mHeart mobile application. Patient experience regarding their medication regimens were evaluated in a face-to-face interview. Medication adherence was assessed by performing self-reported questionnaires. A composite adherence score that included the SMAQ questionnaire, the coefficient of variation of drug levels and missing visits was also reported. Results: A total of 134 HTx recipients were randomized (intervention N = 71; control N = 63). Mean follow-up was 1.6 (SD 0.6) years. Improvement in adherence from baseline was significantly higher in the intervention group versus the control group according to the SMAQ questionnaire (85% vs. 46%, OR = 6.7 (2.9; 15.8), p-value < 0.001) and the composite score (51% vs. 23%, OR = 0.3 (0.1; 0.6), p-value = 0.001). Patients’ experiences with their drug therapy including knowledge of their medication timing intakes (p-value = 0.019) and the drug indications or uses that they remembered (p-value = 0.003) significantly improved in the intervention versus the control group. Conclusions: In our study, the mHealth-based strategy significantly improved adherence and patient beliefs regarding their medication regimens among the HTx population. The mHeart mobile application was used as a feasible tool for providing long-term, tailor-made interventions to HTx recipients to improve the goals assessed.

Aims The prognostic value of biomarkers in patients with heart failure (HF) and mid-range (HFmrEF) or preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) has not been widely addressed. The aim of this study was to assess whether the prognostic value of growth differentiation factor 15 (GDF-15) is superior to that of N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) in patients with HFmrEF or HFpEF. Methods and results Heart failure patients with either HFpEF or HFmrEF were included in the study. During their first visit to the HF unit, serum samples were obtained and stored for later assessment of GDF-15 and NT-proBNP concentrations. Patients were followed up by the HF unit. The main endpoint was all-cause mortality. A total of 311 patients, 90 (29%) HFmrEF and 221 (71%) HFpEF, were included. Mean age was 72 ± 13 years, and 136 (44%) were women. No differences were found in GDF-15 or NT-proBNP concentrations between both HF groups. During a median follow-up of 15 months (Q1-Q3: 9-30 months), 98 patients (32%) died, most (71%) of cardiovascular causes. Patients who died had higher median concentrations of GDF-15 (4085 vs. 2270 ng/L, P < 0.0001) and NT-proBNP (1984 vs. 1095 ng/L, P < 0.0001). A Cox multivariable model identified New York Heart Association Functional Class III (P = 0.04), systolic blood pressure (P = 0.01), left atrial diameter (P = 0.03), age >65 years (P < 0.0001), and GDF-15 concentrations (P = 0.01) but not NT-proBNP as independent predictors of allcause mortality. The area under the curve was 0.797 for the basic model including NT-proBNP, and the area under the curve comparing the overall model was 0.819, P = 0.016 (DeLong's test). Integrated discrimination improvement index after the inclusion of GDF-15 in the model with the mortality risk factors was 0.033; that is, the ability to predict death increased by 3.3% (P = 0.004). Net reclassification improvement was 0.548 (P < 0.001); that is, the capacity to improve the classification of the event (mortality) was 54.8%. GDF-15 concentrations were divided in tertiles (<1625, 1625-4330, and >4330 ng/L), and survival curves were evaluated using the Kaplan-Meier technique. Patients in the highest tertile had the poorest 5 year survival, at 16%, whereas the lowest tertile had the best survival, of 78% (P < 0.001). Conclusions Growth differentiation factor 15 was superior to NT-proBNP for assessing prognosis in patients with HFpEF and HFmrEF. GDF-15 emerges as a strong, independent biomarker for identifying HFmrEF and HFpEF patients with worse prognosis.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract