Adoption of Sacubitril/Valsartan for the Management of Patients With Heart Failure

An interactive visualization dashboard for predicting the effect of sacubitril/valsartan initiation in patients with heart failure

BACKGROUND

Sacubitril/valsartan (S/V) reduces mortality and hospitalization rates in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), but low adherence remains a challenge. Early initiation of S/V is recommended, yet no practical tool currently exists to effectively communicate its benefits to outpatients or assess patient stability before S/V initiation during hospitalization.

METHODS

We collected data retrospectively from 527 HFrEF patients who started S/V between March 2017 and January 2020 at the National Taiwan University Hospital, with follow-up through September 2022. A modern stepwise variable selection approach was applied to fit the optimal Cox's proportional-hazards model to address nonlinear covariate effects and potential multicollinearity. Penalized smoothing splines were used to visualize nonlinear effects and identify cutoff values for continuous covariates. The model was then integrated into an interactive Streamlit dashboard for real-time simulation and risk prediction based on patient-specific covariates.

RESULTS

We identified 20 key variables - 12 associated with increased risk and 8 conferring protective effects. Some variables presented actionable cutoff values. The predictive model helped estimate individualized hazard ratios and covariate-adjusted survival curves, which serve as both a patient engagement platform in outpatient settings and a practical tool for physicians to assess inpatient stability before initiating S/V.

CONCLUSION

Our interactive visualization dashboard can potentially improve medication adherence and clinical outcomes by involving patients in their treatment journey and facilitating more informed decision-making. A pragmatic clinical trial is currently underway to further evaluate the dashboard's clinical utility and effectiveness in both outpatient and inpatient environments.

Challenges Related to Out-of-Pocket Costs in Heart Failure Management

High out-of-pocket costs and financial toxicity related to heart failure treatment are substantial concerns. Two of 4 pillars of guideline-directed medical therapy for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, for example, carry high costs that may attenuate their uptake. Furthermore, heart failure rarely occurs in isolation. Many patients have other comorbidities that require treatment, further driving up patients' out-of-pocket costs. Developing treatment plans that improve mortality without subjecting patients to financial toxicity can be challenging for several reasons. First, patients with heart failure can accrue out-of-pocket costs from multiple domains and can depend on a variety of insurance and pharmacy-related factors that can make determining patient-specific out-of-pocket cost estimates complicated. Second, strategies to mitigate financial toxicity involve health policy-level interventions and patient-level interventions. These have their own unique sets of challenges. Third, integrating out-of-pocket costs into shared decision-making requires nuanced and challenging discussions about whether a therapy is worth the cost. Though shared decision-making has been advocated, there are little data on how to best conduct these discussions. Health policies like the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 may provide relief to some patients, and efforts to improve transparency have the potential to be beneficial. Over the long term, policy solutions such as value-based insurance design and patient engagement solutions that emphasize enhancing shared decision-making have important potential to yield durable results.

Primary medication adherence in Medicare beneficiaries prescribed sacubitril-valsartan or renin-angiotensin system blockers for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction

BACKGROUND

Sacubitril-valsartan is an angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI) that is now preferred over angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACE-Is) and angiotensin-II-receptor blockers (ARBs) for treating heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). Primary medication adherence to a costly brand-name ARNI, compared to inexpensive generic ACE-Is or ARBs, is unknown.

METHODS

This cohort study used a linked database of electronic health records and Medicare fee-for-service claims from a large integrated health care system in Boston to compare primary medication adherence among Medicare beneficiaries with HFrEF newly prescribed sacubitril-valsartan, those newly prescribed a generic ACE-I or ARB, and those switching from an ACE-I or ARB to sacubitril-valsartan. The primary outcome was the proportion of individuals who filled their first prescription for any ARNI, ACE-I, or ARB within 90 days; a secondary outcome was the mean number of days to first fill. We used logistic regression to adjust for variations in patient characteristics, including demographics, comorbidities, medication use, and qualification for subsidized out-of-pocket prescription drug costs.

RESULTS

Among 50 new sacubitril-valsartan prescription recipients, 33 (66%) demonstrated primary adherence at 90 days, compared to 141 of 231 (61%) new ACE-I or ARB prescription recipients (adjusted odds ratio 1.32, 95% CI, 0.63-2.73, P = .51). The mean time to first fill was 18 days for those prescribed sacubitril-valsartan and 9 days for those prescribed generic ACE-Is or ARBs (P < .001). By contrast, primary adherence at 90 days was higher (329 of 364, 90%) among those who switched from a generic ACE-I or ARB to newly prescribed sacubitril-valsartan.

CONCLUSIONS

In this small, single-center cohort study of Medicare beneficiaries with HFrEF, there was no difference in primary medication adherence among individuals newly prescribed sacubitril-valsartan and those newly prescribed generic ACE-Is or ARBs, although it took sacubitril-valsartan prescription recipients longer to fill their medication. Adherence was high among patients switching from an ACE-I or ARB to sacubitril-valsartan, suggesting that this switch was not associated with interruptions in renin-angiotensin blockade.

Industry marketing payments to physicians and prescription patterns for sacubitril/valsartan in the USA

OBJECTIVES

Although financial interactions between physicians and pharmaceutical and medical device companies could be potential conflicts of interest, in certain instances, industry promotion targeted at physicians may facilitate the early adoption of effective, novel care for patients such as sacubitril/valsartan in the USA. This study aims to evaluate associations between industry-sponsored meal payments to physicians and their prescribing patterns for sacubitril/valsartan in the USA.

METHODS

Using the publicly accessible Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Medicare Part D database and the Open Payments Database, this study assessed associations between industry-sponsored meal payments to physician prescribers and total amounts of Medicare claims and spending for sacubitril/valsartan between 2015 and 2021.

RESULTS

Among 220 147 eligible physician prescribers, 60 568 (27.5%) received at least one meal payment related to sacubitril/valsartan from the manufacturer, totaling US$13.9 million. The receipt of meal payments was significantly associated with a higher proportion of sacubitril/valsartan prescriptions to all sacubitril/valsartan, angiotensin receptor blocker and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor prescriptions, with an OR of 2.04 (95% CI: 1.98 to 2.10, p<0.001). Moreover, a 10% increase in the annual number of meal payments was associated with a 2.6% (95% CI: 2.5% to 2.6%, p<0.001) increase in the annual number of Medicare claims and a 7.3% (95% CI: 7.1% to 7.5%, p<0.001) increase in annual Medicare spending per physician.

CONCLUSIONS

Given the underprescription of sacubitril/valsartan in the USA, the positive associations between meal payments and physicians' prescribing patterns suggest that industry-sponsored meals may contribute to the early adoption of this cost-effective, novel heart failure drug among US Medicare beneficiaries.

Integrating Out-of-Pocket Costs Into Shared Decision-Making for Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction: A Stepped-Wedge Trial (POCKET-COST-HF)

BACKGROUND

Guideline-directed medical therapy for heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction can entail high out-of-pocket (OOP) costs, prompting concerns about financial toxicity and access. OOP costs are generally unavailable during encounters. This trial assessed the impact of providing patient-specific OOP costs to patients and clinicians.

METHODS

This trial was conducted between June 2021 and August 2023 at 6 clinics in 2 health systems using a stepped-wedge, clinic-level cluster-randomized design. Adult patients with HF with reduced ejection fraction (left ventricular ejection fraction ≤40%) were enrolled. The intervention was built upon the EPIC-HF (Electronically Delivered, Patient-Activation Tool for Intensification of Medications for Chronic Heart Failure with Reduced Ejection Fraction) checklist of approved HF with reduced ejection fraction medications. Patients and clinicians received this checklist with (intervention) or without (control) patient-specific OOP cost estimates for higher-cost medications at the time of encounter. Estimates were obtained by providing pharmacy benefit information to a financial navigation firm. Encounters were audio-recorded, and patients were surveyed 2 weeks later. The primary outcome was cost-informed decision-making, defined by mentioning HF medication cost during the encounter. The primary analysis used a generalized linear mixed model. Secondary outcomes were assessed via transcript subcoding and analysis of survey responses.

RESULTS

Demographic characteristics of 247 patients (mean age, 62.9 years; 29.5% female; 26.3% Black; and 3.2% Hispanic/LatinX) treated by 39 clinicians in intervention and control periods were similar. In the primary model, the rate of cost-informed decision-making was higher in the intervention group than the control group (68% versus 49%; P=0.021). Baseline rates of cost discussions and the impact of the intervention varied across sites. When cost discussions were present, fewer discussions in the intervention group involved contingency plans to address potential costs (16.5% versus 31.9%; P=0.028). Most other secondary outcomes were not significantly different.

CONCLUSIONS

Disclosing comprehensive OOP medication costs to patients with HF with reduced ejection fraction increased cost-informed decision-making. Further work is needed to optimize implementation and assess the impact on medication choices and adherence.

REGISTRATION

URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT04793880.

The Impact of Sacubitril/Valsartan on Heart Failure Patient with Reduced Left Ventricular Ejection Fraction: Single Center Retrospective Study in Saudi Arabia

Background

Sacubitril/valsartan (S/V) is used in managing heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), reducing morbidity and mortality while improving symptoms and prognosis. This study aims to evaluate the effectiveness of S/V in patients with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and its safety.

Methods

 This retrospective cohort study included adult patients aged ≥18 years diagnosed with HFrEF, receiving S/V, and followed up at a tertiary hospital in Riyadh. Primary outcomes included improvements in LVEF on echocardiography and the number of hospitalizations due to acute decompensated heart failure (ADHF). Secondary outcomes assessed the safety profile of S/V. Multinomial logistic regression analysis was performed with statistical significance set at P < 0.05. .

Results

The study included 107 patients: 80 with LVEF < 30% and 27 with LVEF 30-40%. Six-month follow-up, LVEF improvement was categorized into three groups: no improvement, LVEF increased by 1 to <10 points, and LVEF increased by ≥10 points. The LVEF was similar across groups (P = 0.59). Although hospitalizations due to ADHF were not significantly different between groups, they numerically decreased after initiating S/V (P = 0.1). S/V was generally well tolerated.

Conclusion

This study suggests no significant benefit from S/V regarding LVEF improvement. It is recommended that heart failure clinics assess and titrate S/V to the maximum tolerated dose.

Assessment of a systematic approach for implementing novel medications in clinical practice: an observational study with dapagliflozin

OBJECTIVE

To assess a systematic implementation approach for introducing dapagliflozin to individuals with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction in an outpatient clinical setting.

METHODS

Retrospective medical record data were analysed. All individuals diagnosed with heart failure who resided within the hospital catchment area and had visited cardiology or internal medicine department between 2010 and 2019 were screened by using the main inclusion criteria from the DAPA-HF trial. The effectiveness of the previously described seven-step systematic implementation approach was assessed by the proportion receiving information letter, dapagliflozin treatment, follow-ups at 2-12 weeks and 12 months post-dapagliflozin initiation, persistence on dapagliflozin, adverse events, and reasons for discontinuation.

RESULTS

Of the 2433 individuals, 352 met the main DAPA-HF trial criteria in step 2. After exclusions in steps 3 and 4, 191 individuals remained. Of these, 158 were invited for eligibility discussion in step 5, with 107 having received an information letter beforehand. In step 6, dapagliflozin was prescribed to 69 individuals, and in step 7, follow-ups were conducted with 56 individuals at 2-12 weeks and 62 individuals at 12 months. Sixty out of 69 persisted on dapagliflozin after 12 months. Adverse events were reported by nine individuals. Discontinuation was attributed to reasons such as urinary tract infections, genital or abdominal discomfort, and hypotension.

CONCLUSION

The systematic introduction of dapagliflozin to heart failure patients was effective. Despite this, challenges in uniformly implementing procedures across patients were evident, emphasizing the necessity for a systematic implementation approach.

Sacubitril-Valsartan in Patients Requiring Hemodialysis

Importance

Randomized clinical trials have shown that sacubitril-valsartan reduces the risks of mortality and hospitalization in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), but patients with kidney failure requiring dialysis were excluded.

Objective

To investigate the comparative effectiveness of sacubitril-valsartan vs angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers (ACEIs or ARBs) in patients with HFrEF requiring hemodialysis.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This retrospective, 1:1 propensity score-matched comparative effectiveness study included patients who were 18 years or older with HFrEF, enrolled in Medicare Parts A, B, and D, and survived at least 90 days receiving in-center hemodialysis from July 8, 2015, to December 31, 2020. Patients were excluded for less than 180 days of continuous Medicare Parts A, B, and D primary payer coverage or prior dispensing of sacubitril-valsartan. Data analysis was conducted from September 23, 2023, to June 25, 2024.

Exposures

New use of sacubitril-valsartan vs new or continued use of ACEIs or ARBs.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The associations between initiation of sacubitril-valsartan therapy and all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, all-cause hospitalization, and HF hospitalization were assessed using Cox proportional hazards regression models in a propensity score-matched sample.

Results

Participants included 1:1 matched pairs of 1434 sacubitril-valsartan users and 1434 ACEI or ARB users (mean [SD] age, 64 [13] years). Of the 2868 matched participants, 996 (65%) were male; 987 (34%) were Black or African American and 1677 (58%) were White; and median dialysis vintage was 3.8 (IQR, 1.8-6.3) years. The median follow-up was 0.9 (IQR, 0.4-1.7) years. Sacubitril-valsartan (vs ACEI or ARB) therapy was associated with a reduction in all-cause mortality (hazard ratio [HR], 0.82 [95% CI, 0.73-0.92]) and all-cause hospitalization (HR, 0.86 [95% CI, 0.79-0.93]) but not cardiovascular mortality (HR, 1.01 [95% CI, 0.86-1.19]) or HF hospitalization (HR, 0.91 [95% CI, 0.82-1.02]). There was a decrease in hyperkalemia (HR, 0.71 [95% CI, 0.62-0.81]) and no difference in hypotension (HR, 0.99 [95% CI, 0.83-1.19]). Only 195 participants (14%) ever received the maximum combination dose of sacubitril (97 mg twice daily) and valsartan (103 mg twice daily).

Conclusions and Relevance

In this comparative effectiveness study of patients with HFrEF requiring hemodialysis, sacubitril-valsartan therapy was associated with beneficial effects in all-cause mortality and all-cause hospitalization.

Costs of care and financial hardship among patients with heart failure

With the implementation of new therapies, more patients are living with heart failure (HF) as a chronic condition. Alongside these advances, out-of-pocket (OOP) medical costs have increased, and patients experience significant financial burden. Despite increasing interest in understanding and mitigating financial burdens, there is a relative paucity of data specific to HF. Here, we explore financial hardship in HF from the patient perspective, including estimated OOP costs for guideline-directed medical therapy for HF with reduced ejection fraction, hospitalizations, and total direct medical costs, as well as the consequences of high OOP costs. Studies estimate that high OOP costs are common in HF, and a large proportion are related to prescription drugs. Subsequently, the effects on patients can lead to worsening adherence, delayed care, and poor outcomes, leading to a financial toxicity spiral. Further, we summarize patients' cost preferences and outline future research that is needed to develop evidence-based solutions to reduce costs in HF.

Pharmacoutilization and adherence to sacubitril/valsartan in real world: the REAL.IT study in HFrEF

AIMS

The current European Society of Cardiology (ESC) guidelines provide clear indications for the treatment of acute and chronic heart failure (HF). Nevertheless, there is a constant need for real-world evidence regarding the effectiveness, adherence, and persistence of drug therapy. We investigated the use of sacubitril/valsartan for the treatment of HF with reduced ejection fraction in real-world clinical practice in Italy.

METHODS AND RESULTS

An observational, retrospective, non-interventional cohort study based on electronic medical records from nine specialized hospital HF centres in Italy was carried out on patients with prescription of sacubitril/valsartan. Overall, 948 patients had a prescription of sacubitril/valsartan, with 924 characterized over 6 months and followed up for 12 months. Pharmacoutilization data at 1 year of follow-up were available for 225 patients {mean age 69.7 years [standard deviation (SD) = 10.8], 81.8% male}. Of those, 398 (45.2%) reached the target dose of sacubitril/valsartan of 97/103 mg in a mean time of 6.9 (SD = 6.2) weeks. Blood pressure and hypotension in 61 patients (65%) and worsening of chronic kidney disease in 10 patients (10.6%) were the main reasons for not reaching the target dose. Approximatively 50% of patients had a change in sacubitril/valsartan dose during follow-up, and 158 (70.2%) were persistent with the treatment during the last 3 months of follow-up. A sensitivity analysis (persistence during the last 4 months of follow-up) showed persistence for 162 patients (72.0%). Adherence data, available for 387 patients, showed full adherence for 205 (53%). Discontinuation (102/717 patients, 14.2%) was mainly due to hypotension and occurred after a mean time of 34.3 (SD = 28.7) weeks. During follow-up, out of 606 patients with available data, 434 patients (71.6%) had an HF add-on drug or drugs concomitant with sacubitril/valsartan. HF-related hospitalization during follow-up was numerically higher in non-persistent (16/67 patients, 23.9%) vs. patients persistent to sacubitril/valsartan (30/158, 19%) (P = 0.405).

CONCLUSIONS

Real-world data on the use of sacubitril/valsartan in clinical practice in Italy show a rapid titration to the target dose, high therapeutic adherence enabling a good level of therapeutic management in line with ESC guidelines for patients with reduced ejection fraction.

Eliminating Health Disparities in Atrial Fibrillation, Heart Failure, and Dyslipidemia: A Path Toward Achieving Pharmacoequity

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Pharmacoequity refers to the goal of ensuring that all patients have access to high-quality medications, regardless of their race, ethnicity, gender, or other characteristics. The goal of this article is to review current evidence on disparities in access to cardiovascular drug therapies across sociodemographic subgroups, with a focus on heart failure, atrial fibrillation, and dyslipidemia.

RECENT FINDINGS

Considerable and consistent disparities to life-prolonging heart failure, atrial fibrillation, and dyslipidemia medications exist in clinical trial representation, access to specialist care, prescription of guideline-based therapy, drug affordability, and pharmacy accessibility across racial, ethnic, gender, and other sociodemographic subgroups. Researchers, health systems, and policy makers can take steps to improve pharmacoequity by diversifying clinical trial enrollment, increasing access to inpatient and outpatient cardiology care, nudging clinicians to increase prescription of guideline-directed medical therapy, and pursuing system-level reforms to improve drug access and affordability.

Optimizing outcomes in heart failure: 2022 and beyond

Although the development of therapies and tools for the improved management of heart failure (HF) continues apace, day-to-day management in clinical practice is often far from ideal. A Cardiovascular Round Table workshop was convened by the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) to identify barriers to the optimal implementation of therapies and guidelines and to consider mitigation strategies to improve patient outcomes in the future. Key challenges identified included the complexity of HF itself and its treatment, financial constraints and the perception of HF treatments as costly, failure to meet the needs of patients, suboptimal outpatient management, and the fragmented nature of healthcare systems. It was discussed that ongoing initiatives may help to address some of these barriers, such as changes incorporated into the 2021 ESC HF guideline, ESC Heart Failure Association quality indicators, quality improvement registries (e.g. EuroHeart), new ESC guidelines for patients, and the universal definition of HF. Additional priority action points discussed to promote further improvements included revised definitions of HF 'phenotypes' based on trial data, the development of implementation strategies, improved affordability, greater regulator/payer involvement, increased patient education, further development of patient-reported outcomes, better incorporation of guidelines into primary care systems, and targeted education for primary care practitioners. Finally, it was concluded that overarching changes are needed to improve current HF care models, such as the development of a standardized pathway, with a common adaptable digital backbone, decision-making support, and data integration, to ensure that the model 'learns' as the management of HF continues to evolve.

A machine learning evaluation of patient characteristics associated with prescribing of guideline-directed medical therapy for heart failure

Introduction/background

Patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) are consistently underprescribed guideline-directed medications. Although many barriers to prescribing are known, identification of these barriers has relied on traditional a priori hypotheses or qualitative methods. Machine learning can overcome many limitations of traditional methods to capture complex relationships in data and lead to a more comprehensive understanding of the underpinnings driving underprescribing. Here, we used machine learning methods and routinely available electronic health record data to identify predictors of prescribing.

Methods

We evaluated the predictive performance of machine learning algorithms to predict prescription of four types of medications for adults with HFrEF: angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor/angiotensin receptor blocker (ACE/ARB), angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI), evidence-based beta blocker (BB), or mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist (MRA). The models with the best predictive performance were used to identify the top 20 characteristics associated with prescribing each medication type. Shapley values were used to provide insight into the importance and direction of the predictor relationships with medication prescribing.

Results

For 3,832 patients meeting the inclusion criteria, 70% were prescribed an ACE/ARB, 8% an ARNI, 75% a BB, and 40% an MRA. The best-predicting model for each medication type was a random forest (area under the curve: 0.788-0.821; Brier score: 0.063-0.185). Across all medications, top predictors of prescribing included prescription of other evidence-based medications and younger age. Unique to prescribing an ARNI, the top predictors included lack of diagnoses of chronic kidney disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, or hypotension, as well as being in a relationship, nontobacco use, and alcohol use.

Discussion/conclusions

We identified multiple predictors of prescribing for HFrEF medications that are being used to strategically design interventions to address barriers to prescribing and to inform further investigations. The machine learning approach used in this study to identify predictors of suboptimal prescribing can also be used by other health systems to identify and address locally relevant gaps and solutions to prescribing.

Financial Toxicity of Medical Management of Heart Failure: JACC Review Topic of the Week

Optimal medical management of heart failure (HF) improves quality of life, decreases mortality, and decreases hospitalizations. Cost may contribute to suboptimal adherence to HF medications, especially angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitors and sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors. Patients' experiences with HF medication cost include financial burden, financial strain, and financial toxicity. Although there has been research studying financial toxicity in patients with some chronic diseases, there are no validated tools for measuring financial toxicity of HF, and very few data on the subjective experiences of patients with HF and financial toxicity. Strategies to decrease HF-associated financial toxicity include making systemic changes to minimize cost sharing, optimizing shared decision-making, implementing policies to lower drug costs, broadening insurance coverage, and using financial navigation services and discount programs. Clinicians may also improve patient financial wellness through various strategies in routine clinical care. Future research is needed to study financial toxicity and associated patient experiences for HF.

Deciding Whether to Take Sacubitril/Valsartan: How Cardiologists and Patients Discuss Out-of-Pocket Costs

Background Out-of-pocket costs have significant implications for patients with heart failure and should ideally be incorporated into shared decision-making for clinical care. High out-of-pocket cost is one potential reason for the slow uptake of newer guideline-directed medical therapies for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction. This study aims to characterize patient-cardiologist discussions involving out-of-pocket costs associated with sacubitril/valsartan during the early postapproval period. Methods and Results We conducted content analysis on 222 deidentified transcripts of audio-recorded outpatient encounters taking place between 2015 and 2018 in which cardiologists (n=16) and their patients discussed whether to initiate, continue, or discontinue sacubitril/valsartan. In the 222 included encounters, 100 (45%) contained discussions about cost. Cost was discussed in a variety of contexts: when sacubitril/valsartan was initiated, not initiated, continued, and discontinued. Of the 97 cost conversations analyzed, the majority involved isolated discussions about insurance coverage (64/97 encounters; 66%) and few addressed specific out-of-pocket costs or affordability (28/97 encounters; 29%). Discussion of free samples of sacubitril/valsartan was common (52/97 encounters; 54%), often with no discussion of a longer-term plan for addressing cost. Conclusions Although cost conversations were somewhat common in patient-cardiologist encounters in which sacubitril/valsartan was discussed, these conversations were generally superficial, rarely addressing affordability or cost-value judgments. Cardiologists frequently provided patients with a course of free sacubitril/valsartan samples without a plan to address the cost after the samples ran out.

Effects of sacubitril-valsartan on central and obstructive apneas in heart failure patients with reduced ejection fraction

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to evaluate the effect of sacubitril-valsartan (SV) on central apneas (CA) and obstructive apneas (OA) in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF).

METHODS

In patients with HFrEF, SV initiation was titrated to the highest tolerable dosage. Patients were evaluated with portable apnea monitoring, echocardiography, and cardiopulmonary exercise testing at baseline and 3 months later.

RESULTS

Of a total of 18 patients, 9 (50%) had OA, 7 (39%) had CA, and 2 (11%) had normal breathing. SV therapy was related to a reduction in NT-pro BNP and an improvement in LV function after 3 months. Portable apnea monitoring revealed a significant decrease of the respiratory event index (REI) after treatment with SV (20 ± 23 events/h to 7 ± 7 events/h, p = 0.003). When subgrouping according to type of apneas, REI, and time spent below 90% saturation (T90) decreased in patients with CA and OA (all p < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

In this prospective study, SV treatment for 3 months in patients with CA and OA is associated with a significant decrease in REI.

A population-based study of factors associated with systemic treatment in advanced prostate cancer decedents

INTRODUCTION

Life-prolonging therapies (LPTs) are rapidly evolving for the treatment of advanced prostate cancer, although factors associated with real-world uptake are not well characterized.

METHODS

In this cohort of prostate-cancer decedents, we analyzed factors associated with LPT access. Population-level databases from Ontario, Canada identified patients 65 years or older with prostate cancer receiving androgen deprivation therapy and who died of prostate cancer between 2013 and 2017. Univariate and multivariable analyses assessed the association between baseline characteristics and receipt of LPT in the 2 years prior to death.

RESULTS

Of 3575 patients who died of prostate cancer, 40.4% (n = 1443) received LPT, which comprised abiraterone (66.3%), docetaxel (50.3%), enzalutamide (17.2%), radium-223 (10.0%), and/or cabazitaxel (3.5%). Use of LPT increased by year of death (2013: 22.7%, 2014: 31.8%, 2015: 41.8%, 2016: 49.1%, and 2017: 57.9%, p < 0.0001), driven by uptake of all agents except docetaxel. Adjusted odds of use were higher for patients seen at Regional Cancer Centers (OR: 1.8, 95% CI: 1.5-2.1) and who received prior prostate-directed therapy (OR: 1.3, 95% CI: 1.0-1.5), but lower with advanced age (≥85: OR: 0.54, 95% CI:0.39-0.75), increased chronic conditions (≥6: OR: 0.62, 95% CI: 0.43-0.92), and long-term care residency (OR: 0.38, 95% CI: 0.17-0.89). Income, stage at presentation, and distance to the cancer center were not associated with LPT uptake.

CONCLUSION

In this cohort of prostate cancer-decedents, real-world uptake of novel prostate cancer therapies occurred at substantially higher rates for patients receiving care at Regional Cancer Centers, reinforcing the potential benefits for treatment access for patients referred to specialist centers.

Association Between Copayment Amount and Filling of Medications for Angiotensin Receptor Neprilysin Inhibitors in Patients With Heart Failure

Background Angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitors (ARNI) reduce mortality and hospitalization for patients with heart failure. However, relatively high copayments for ARNI may contribute to suboptimal adherence, thus potentially limiting their benefits. Methods and Results We conducted a retrospective cohort study within a large, multi-site health system. We included patients with: ARNI prescription between November 20, 2020 and June 30, 2021; diagnosis of heart failure or left ventricular ejection fraction ≤40%; and available pharmacy or pharmacy benefit manager copayment data. The primary exposure was copayment, categorized as $0, $0.01 to $10, $10.01 to $100, and >$100. The primary outcome was prescription fill nonadherence, defined as the proportion of days covered <80% over 6 months. We assessed the association between copayment and nonadherence using multivariable logistic regression, and nonbinarized proportion of days covered using multivariable Poisson regression, adjusting for demographic, clinical, and neighborhood-level covariates. A total of 921 patients met inclusion criteria, with 192 (20.8%) having $0 copayment, 228 (24.8%) with $0.01 to $10 copayment, 206 (22.4%) with $10.01 to $100, and 295 (32.0%) with >$100. Patients with higher copayments had higher rates of nonadherence, ranging from 17.2% for $0 copayment to 34.2% for copayment >$100 (P<0.001). After multivariable adjustment, odds of nonadherence were significantly higher for copayment of $10.01 to $100 (odds ratio [OR], 1.93 [95% CI, 1.15-3.27], P=0.01) or >$100 (OR, 2.58 [95% CI, 1.63-4.18], P<0.001), as compared with $0 copayment. Similar associations were seen when assessing proportion of days covered as a proportion. Conclusions We found higher rates of not filling ARNI prescriptions among patients with higher copayments, which persisted after multivariable adjustment. Our findings support future studies to assess whether reducing copayments can increase adherence to ARNI and improve outcomes for heart failure.

Real-world use patterns of angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor (sacubitril/valsartan) among patients with heart failure within a large integrated health system

BACKGROUND: Sacubitril/valsartan is a first-in-class angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI) that is now preferred in guidelines over angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) or angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) for patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). However, it has not been broadly adopted in clinical practice. OBJECTIVE: To characterize ARNI use within a large diverse real-world population and assess for any racial disparities. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional study within Kaiser Permanente Southern California. Adult patients with HFrEF who received ARNIs, ACEIs, or ARBs between January 1, 2014, and November 30, 2020, were identified. The prevalence of ARNI use among the cohort and patient characteristics by ARNIs vs ACEIs/ARBs use were described. Multivariable regression was performed to estimate odds ratios and 95% CIs of receiving ARNI by race and ethnicity. RESULTS: Among 12,250 patients with HFrEF receiving ACEIs, ARBs, or ARNIs, 556 (4.54%) patients received ARNIs. ARNI use among this cohort increased from 0.02% in 2015 to 7.48% in 2020. Patients receiving ARNIs were younger (aged 62 vs 69 years) and had a lower median ejection fraction (27% vs 32%) compared with patients receiving ACEIs/ARBs. They also had higher use of mineralocorticoid antagonists (24.1% vs 19.8%) and automatic implantable cardioverterdefibrillators (17.4% vs 13.3%). There were no significant differences in rate of ARNI use by race and ethnicity. CONCLUSIONS: Within a large diverse integrated health system in Southern California, the rate of ARNI use has risen over time. Patients given ARNIs were younger with fewer comorbidities, while having worse ejection fraction. Racial minorities were no less likely to receive ARNIs compared with White patients. DISCLOSURES: Dr Huang had stock ownership in Gilead and Pfizer. Dr Liang received support for article processing and medical writing.

Towards better reporting of the proportion of days covered method in cardiovascular medication adherence: A scoping review and new tool TEN-SPIDERS

Although medication adherence is commonly measured in electronic datasets using the proportion of days covered (PDC), no standardized approach is used to calculate and report this measure. We conducted a scoping review to understand the approaches taken to calculate and report the PDC for cardiovascular medicines to develop improved guidance for researchers using this measure. After prespecifying methods in a registered protocol, we searched Ovid Medline, Embase, Scopus, CINAHL Plus and grey literature (1 July 2012 to 14 December 2020) for articles containing the terms "proportion of days covered" and "cardiovascular medicine", or synonyms and subject headings. Of the 523 articles identified, 316 were reviewed in full and 76 were included (93% observational studies; 47% from the USA; 2 grey literature articles). In 45 articles (59%), the PDC was measured from the first dispensing/claim date. Good adherence was defined as 80% PDC in 61 articles, 56% of which contained a rationale for selecting this threshold. The following parameters, important for deriving the PDC, were often not reported/unclear: switching (53%), early refills (45%), in-hospital supplies (45%), presupply (28%) and survival (7%). Of the 46 articles where dosing information was unavailable, 59% reported how doses were imputed. To improve the transparent and systematic reporting of the PDC, we propose the TEN-SPIDERS tool, covering the following PDC parameters: Threshold, Eligibility criteria, Numerator and denominator, Survival, Presupply, In-hospital supplies, Dosing, Early Refills, and Switching. Use of this tool will standardize reporting of the PDC to facilitate reliable comparisons of medication adherence estimates between studies.

Use and Out-of-Pocket Cost of Sacubitril-Valsartan in Patients With Heart Failure

Background

Current guidelines recommend use of sacubitril‐valsartan in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). Early data suggested low uptake of sacubitril‐valsartan, but contemporary data on real‐world use and their associated cost are limited.

Methods and Results

This was a retrospective study of individuals enrolled in Optum Clinformatics, a national insurance claims data set from 2016 to 2018. We included all adult patients with HFrEF with 2 outpatient encounters or 1 inpatient encounter with an International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision (ICD‐10), diagnosis of HFrEF and 6 months of continuous enrollment, also receiving β‐blockers and angiotensin‐converting enzyme inhibitors/angiotensin receptor blockers within 6 months of HFrEF diagnosis. We included 70 245 patients with HFrEF, and 5217 patients (7.4%) received sacubitril‐valsartan prescriptions. Patients receiving care through a cardiologist compared with a primary care physician alone were more likely to receive sacubitril‐valsartan (odds ratio, 1.61 [95% CI, 1.52–1.71]). Monthly out‐of‐pocket (OOP) cost for sacubitril‐valsartan, compared with angiotensin‐converting enzyme inhibitors/angiotensin receptor blockers, was higher for both commercially insured patients (mean, $69 versus $6.74) and Medicare Advantage (mean, $62 versus $2.52). For patients with commercial insurance, OOP cost was lower in 2016 than in 2018. For patients with Medicare Advantage, there was a significant geographic variation in the OOP costs across the country, ranging from $31 to $68 per month across different regions, holding all other patient‐related factors constant.

Conclusions

Sacubitril‐valsartan use was infrequent among patients with HFrEF. Patients receiving care with a cardiologist were more likely to receive sacubitril‐valsartan. OOP costs remain high, potentially limiting use. Significant geographic variation in OOP costs, unexplained by patient factors, was noted.

Sacubitril/valsartan in Heart Failure and Beyond-From Molecular Mechanisms to Clinical Relevance

As the ultimate pathophysiological event, heart failure (HF) may arise from various cardiovascular (CV) conditions, including sustained pressure/volume overload of the left ventricle, myocardial infarction or ischemia, and cardiomyopathies. Sacubitril/valsartan (S/V; formerly termed as LCZ696), a first-in-class angiotensin receptor/neprilysin inhibitor, brought a significant shift in the management of HF with reduced ejection fraction by modulating both renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (angiotensin II type I receptor blockage by valsartan) and natriuretic peptide system (neprilysin inhibition by sacubitril) pathways. Besides, the efficacy of S/V has been also investigated in the setting of other CV pathologies which are during their pathophysiological course and progression deeply interrelated with HF. However, its mechanism of action is not entirely clarified, suggesting other off-target benefits contributing to its cardioprotection. In this review article our goal was to highlight up-to-date clinical and experimental evidence on S/V cardioprotective effects, as well as most discussed molecular mechanisms achieved by this dual-acting compound. Although S/V was extensively investigated in HF patients, additional large studies are needed to elucidate its effects in the setting of other CV conditions. Furthermore, with its antiinflamatory potential, this agent should be investigated in animal models of inflammatory heart diseases, such as myocarditis, while it may possibly improve cardiac dysfunction as well as inflammatory response in this pathophysiological setting. Also, discovering other signalling pathways affected by S/V should be of particular interest for basic researches, while it can provide additional understanding of its cardioprotective mechanisms.

Medicare Coverage and Out-of-Pocket Costs of Quadruple Drug Therapy for Heart Failure

BACKGROUND

Beta-blockers, angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI), mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists, and sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors (SGLT2i), known as quadruple therapy, are recommended for patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF).

OBJECTIVES

This study sought to determine Medicare coverage and out-of-pocket (OOP) costs of quadruple therapy and regimens excluding ARNI or SGLT2i.

METHODS

This study assessed cost sharing, prior authorization, and step therapy in all 4,068 Medicare prescription drug plans in 2020. OOP costs were determined during the standard coverage period and annually based on the Medicare Part D standard benefit, inclusive of deductible, standard coverage, coverage gap, and catastrophic coverage.

RESULTS

Tier ≥3 cost sharing was required by 99.1% of plans for ARNI and 98.5% for at least 1 SGLT2i. Only ARNI required prior authorization (24.3% of plans), and step therapy was required only for SGLT2is (5.4%) and eplerenone (0.8%). The median 30-day standard coverage OOP cost of quadruple therapy was $94 (IQR: $84-$100), including $47 (IQR: $40-$47) for ARNI and $45 (IQR: $40-$47) for SGLT2i. The median annual OOP cost of quadruple therapy was $2,217 (IQR: $1,956-$2,579) compared with $1,319 (IQR: $1,067-$1,675) when excluding SGLT2i and $1,322 (IQR: $1,025-$1,588) when including SGLT2i and substituting an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker for ARNI. The median 30-day OOP cost of generic regimens was $3 (IQR: $0-$9).

CONCLUSIONS

Medicare drug plans restrict coverage of quadruple therapy through cost sharing, with OOP costs that are substantially higher than generic regimens. Quadruple therapy may be unaffordable for many Medicare patients with HFrEF unless medication prices and cost sharing are reduced.

Impact of Financial Considerations on Willingness to Take Sacubitril/Valsartan for Heart Failure

Background Sacubitril/valsartan improves health outcomes for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction relative to angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers, but it carries higher out-of-pocket costs. Neither the impact of cost nor how to integrate cost into medical decisions is well studied. Methods and Results To evaluate the impact of out-of-pocket costs and a novel cost-priming intervention on willingness to take sacubitril/valsartan for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, participants with self-reported heart disease were surveyed using the online Ipsos Knowledge Panel. Participants were presented with a modified decision aid for sacubitril/valsartan and then, in a 3×2 factorial design, randomly assigned to 1 of 3 cost conditions ($10, $50, or $100/month) and to a control group or cost-priming intervention, defined by being asked questions about their financial situation before learning about the benefits of sacubitril/valsartan. Of the 1013 participants included in the analysis, 85% of respondents were willing to take sacubitril/valsartan at $10, 62% at $50, and 33% at $100 (P<0.0001). In a multivariable logistic regression model, participants were more likely to take sacubitril/valsartan at $10 versus $100 (odds ratio [OR], 14.3 [95% CI, 9.4-21.8]) and $50 compared with $100 (OR, 3.6 [95% CI, 2.5-5.1]). Overall, participants in the cost-primed group were more willing to take sacubitril/valsartan than those not primed to consider their financial situation (63% versus 56%, P=0.04). There was no statistically significant interaction between cost conditions and cost priming. Perceived benefit of sacubitril/valsartan over angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers decreased as cost increased but did not vary by cost priming. Conclusions Commonly encountered out-of-pocket costs of sacubitril/valsartan may impact individuals' willingness to take the medication even when recommended by their physicians. Priming individuals to consider personal finances before learning about the drug increased willingness to take sacubitril/valsartan.

Sacubitril/valsartan use patterns among older adults with heart failure in clinical practice: a population-based cohort study of >25 000 Medicare beneficiaries

AIMS

Sacubitril/valsartan is strongly supported in guidelines for the management of heart failure, but suboptimal adherence and treatment non-persistence may limit the population-level benefit that this therapy might otherwise offer.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We identified a cohort of Medicare beneficiaries (2014-2017) initiating sacubitril/valsartan after ≥6 months of continuous enrolment. We assessed adherence as the proportion of days covered (PDC) and proportion of patients non-persistent (having no prescription available) at 180 days after initiation. We fit a multivariable negative binomial model with a count of adherent days to evaluate independent factors associated with of sacubitril/valsartan adherence. Among 27 063 new sacubitril/valsartan users, most (n = 17 663, 65%) were prescribed low-dose at 24 mg/26 mg and most (n = 19 984, 74%) were switched from prior angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor/angiotensin receptor blocker (ACEi/ARB) rather than being RASi treatment naïve. Median 180-day PDC was 86% (25th-75th percentiles 58-98%). Black patients, those with high comorbid disease burden (≥8 comorbidities), and patients with recent hospitalization within 30 days had fewer adherent days, while those treated with preceding ACEi/ARB had more adherent days. Thirty-four percent of patients did not have an active sacubitril/valsartan prescription at day 180. Among these, few had preceding dose down-titrations (6% among patients on 49 mg/51 mg and 9% among patients on 97 mg/103 mg) and 68% did not have a subsequent ACEi/ARB prescription. Among patients who remained persistent, dose up-titrations occurred in 29% of patients who started on 24 mg/26 mg and 27% of patients on 49 mg/51 mg.

CONCLUSIONS

Overall adherence to sacubitril/valsartan among Medicare beneficiaries is acceptable, but is lower in Black patients, those with higher comorbidities or those who started therapy after recent hospitalization. While broad implementation of guideline-directed medical therapy is a key priority, additional focused efforts to improve adherence early after hospitalization and among at-risk patients are needed in parallel.

A Mistake Not to Be Repeated: What Can We Learn from the Underutilization of Statin Therapy for Efficient Dissemination of Cardioprotective Glucose Lowering Agents?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To review the factors contributing to underutilization of guideline-directed therapies, identify strategies to alleviate these factors, and apply these strategies for effective and timely dissemination of novel cardioprotective glucose-lowering agents.

RECENT FINDINGS

Recent analyses demonstrate underutilization of cardioprotective glucose lowering agents despite guideline recommendations for their use. Major contributors to underutilization of guideline-directed therapies include therapeutic inertia, perceptions about side effects, and factors found at the level of the clinicians, patients, and the healthcare system. The recent emergence of several novel therapies, such as sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors and glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists, for use in cardiovascular disease provides a unique avenue to improve patient outcomes. To effectively utilize novel cardioprotective glucose lowering agents to improve cardiovascular outcomes, clinicians must recognize and learn from prior barriers to application of guideline-directed therapies. Further endeavors are prudent to ensure uptake of novel agents.

Relation of Household Income to Access and Adherence to Combination Sacubitril/Valsartan in Heart Failure: A Retrospective Analysis of Commercially Insured Patients

Background: Outcomes in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), are influenced by access and adherence to guideline-directed medical therapy. Our objective was to study the association between annual household income and: (1) the odds of having a claim for sacubitril/valsartan among insured patients with HFrEF and (2) medication adherence (measured as the proportion of days covered [PDC]). We hypothesized that lower annual household income is associated with decreased odds of having a claim for and adhering to sacubitril/valsartan. Methods: Using the Optum de-identified Clinformatics® Data Mart, patients with HFrEF and ≥6 months of enrollment for follow up (2016-2020) were included. Covariates included age, sex, race, ethnicity, educational attainment, US region, number of prescribed medications, and Elixhauser Comorbidity Index. Prescription for sacubitril/valsartan was defined by the presence of a claim within 6 months of HFrEF diagnosis. Adherence was defined as PDC≥80%. We fit multivariable-adjusted logistic regression models and hierarchical logistic regression accounting for covariates. Results: Among 322,007 individuals with incident HFrEF, 135,282 had complete data for analysis. Of the patients eligible for sacubitril/valsartan, 4.7% (6,372) had a claim within 6 months of HFrEF diagnosis. Following multivariable adjustment, individuals in the lowest annual income category (<$40,000) were significantly less likely (OR=0.83, 95% CI [0.76, 0.90]) to have a sacubitril/valsartan claim within 6 months of HFrEF diagnosis than those in the highest annual income category (≥$100,000). Annual income <$40,000 was associated with lower odds of PDC≥80% compared with income ≥$100,000 (OR=0.70, 95% CI [0.59, 0.83]). Conclusions: Lower household income is associated with decreased likelihood of a sacubitril/valsartan claim and medication adherence within 6 months of HFrEF diagnosis, even after adjusting for sociodemographic and clinical factors. Future analyses are needed to identify additional social factors associated with delays in sacubitril/valsartan initiation and long-term adherence.

Economic Issues in Heart Failure in the United States

The cost of heart failure care is high owing to the cost of hospitalization and chronic treatments. Heart failure treatments vary in their benefit and cost. The cost effectiveness of therapies can be determined by comparing the cost of treatment required to obtain a certain benefit, often defined as an increase in 1 year of life. This review was sponsored by the Heart Failure Society of America and describes the growing economic burden of heart failure for patients and the health care system in the United States. It also provides a summary of the cost effectiveness of drugs, devices, diagnostic tests, hospital care, and transitions of care for patients with heart failure. Many medications that are no longer under patent are inexpensive and highly cost-effective. These include angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, beta-blockers and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists. In contrast, more recently developed medications and devices, vary in cost effectiveness, and often have high out-of-pocket costs for patients.

Differences in Outcomes between Heart Failure Phenotypes in Patients with Coexistent COPD: A Cohort Study

RATIONALE

Differences in clinical presentation and outcomes between HF phenotypes in patients with COPD have not been assessed.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to compare clinical outcomes and healthcare resource use (HRU) between patients with COPD and HF with preserved (HFpEF), mildly-reduced (HFmrEF), and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF).

METHODS

Patients with COPD and HF were identified in the United States (US) administrative claims database OptumLabs® DataWarehouse between 2008-2018. All-cause and cause-specific (HF) hospitalization, acute exacerbation of COPD (AECOPD, severe and moderate combined), mortality and HRU were compared between HF phenotypes.

RESULTS

From 5,419 patients with COPD, 70% had HFpEF, 20% had HFrEF and 10% had HFmrEF. All-cause hospitalization did not differ across groups, however patients with COPD and HFrEF had a greater risk of HF-specific hospitalization (HR 1.54, 95%CI 1.29-1.84) and mortality (HR: 1.17, 95%CI 1.03-1.33) compared to patients with COPD and HFpEF. Conversely, patients with COPD and HFrEF had a lower risk of AECOPD compared with those with COPD and HFpEF (HR 0.75, 95%CI 0.66-0.87). Rates of long-term stays (in skilled-nursing facilities) and emergency room visits were lower for those with COPD and HFrEF than for those with COPD and HFpEF.

CONCLUSION

Outcomes in patients with comorbid COPD and HFpEF are largely driven by COPD. Given the paucity in treatments for HFpEF, better differentiation between cardiac and respiratory symptoms may provide an opportunity to reduce the risk of AECOPD. Risk of death and HF hospitalization were highest among patients with COPD and HFrEF, emphasizing the importance of optimizing guideline-recommended HFrEF therapies in this group.

Sacubitril/Valsartan Initiation Among Veterans Who Are Renin-Angiotensin-Aldosterone System Inhibitor Naïve With Heart Failure and Reduced Ejection Fraction

Background

Sacubitril/valsartan, a first‐in‐class angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor, received US Food and Drug Administration approval in 2015 for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). Our objective was to describe the sacubitril/valsartan initiation rate, associated characteristics, and 6‐month follow‐up dosing among veterans with HFrEF who are renin‐angiotensin‐aldosterone system inhibitor (RAASi) naïve.

Methods and Results

Retrospective cohort study of veterans with HFrEF who are RAASi naïve defined as left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) ≤40%; ≥1 in/outpatient heart failure visit, first RAASi (sacubitril/valsartan, angiotensin‐converting enzyme inhibitor [ACEI]), or angiotensin‐II receptor blocker [ARB]) fill from July 2015 to June 2019. Characteristics associated with sacubitril/valsartan initiation were identified using Poisson regression models. From July 2015 to June 2019, we identified 3458 sacubitril/valsartan and 29 367 ACEI or ARB initiators among veterans with HFrEF who are RAASi naïve. Sacubitril/valsartan initiation increased from 0% to 26.5%. Sacubitril/valsartan (versus ACEI or ARB) initiators were less likely to have histories of stroke, myocardial infarction, or hypertension and more likely to be older and have diabetes mellitus and lower LVEF. At 6‐month follow‐up, the prevalence of ≥50% target daily dose for sacubitril/valsartan, ACEI, and ARB initiators was 23.5%, 43.2%, and 47.1%, respectively.

Conclusions

Sacubitril/valsartan initiation for HFrEF in the Veterans Administration increased in the 4 years immediately following Food and Drug Administration approval. Sacubitril/valsartan (versus ACEI or ARB) initiators had fewer baseline cardiovascular comorbidities and the lowest proportion on ≥50% target daily dose at 6‐month follow‐up. Identifying the reasons for lower follow‐up dosing of sacubitril/valsartan could support guideline recommendations and quality improvement strategies for patients with HFrEF.

The Price of Progress: Cost, Access, and Adoption of Novel Cardiovascular Drugs in Clinical Practice

Purpose of Review

The launch of new effective and safe cardiovascular drugs has produced large gains in health outcomes for several cardiovascular conditions. But this innovation comes at the cost of rapidly increasing pharmaceutical spending and high out-of-pocket costs.

Recent Findings

In the USA, manufacturers are able to set prices according to what the market will bear rather than value to patients or society, with a complicated system of discounts and rebates obscuring the final price borne by payors. Some of these costs are passed on to patients in the form of co-payments or co-insurance, making these effective but high-cost medications unaffordable for many patients. Orphan drugs developed to treat rare diseases—for which manufactures are presented substantial financial and regulatory benefits—are particularly problematic, as they typically enter the market at very high prices compared with drugs for other indications.

Summary

Systematic cost-effectiveness analyses from the healthcare sector or societal perspectives can help identify the value-based price of a medication at market entry as well as later in the lifecycle of the drug when more data on effectiveness and safety becomes available. Despite bipartisan support, legislative progress on drug pricing has been slow. Clinicians should know the cost of the drugs they prescribe frequently, use generics where feasible, and regularly discuss out-of-pocket costs with patients to pre-empt cost-related non-adherence.

Characteristics and Outcomes of Patients With Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction After a Recent Worsening Heart Failure Event

Background Contemporary trials of patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) required a recent worsening heart failure (WHF) event for inclusion. We aimed to describe characteristics and outcomes of patients with HFrEF and a recent WHF event at a large tertiary referral center. Methods and Results We identified adult patients with chronic symptomatic HFrEF (ejection fraction ≤35%) treated at Duke University between January 1, 2009, and December 31, 2018, and applied a set of exclusion criteria to generate a cohort similar to those enrolled in contemporary heart failure trials. Patients were stratified by presence or absence of a recent WHF event, defined as an emergency department visit for heart failure or hospitalization for heart failure in the prior 12 months. Characteristics and outcomes including death and hospitalization were assessed. Of 3867 patients with HFrEF meeting study criteria, 2823 (73.0%) had a WHF event in the prior 12 months. Compared with patients without a WHF event, those with a WHF event were more likely to be under-represented racial and ethnic groups and had lower ejection fraction, a greater burden of comorbidities, and more echocardiographic evidence of cardiac dysfunction. Despite higher use of guideline-directed therapies, patients with a WHF event had higher rates of death (hazard ratio, 2.30; 95% CI, 2.01-2.63), all-cause hospitalization (hazard ratio, 1.56; 95% CI, 1.42-1.71), and heart failure hospitalization (hazard ratio, 1.59; 95% CI, 1.44-1.75) through 5 years compared with those without a recent WHF event. Conclusions WHF events are common in patients with HFrEF and are associated with more advanced disease. Patients with recent WHF have high rates of death and hospitalization, underscoring the need for novel therapies in this large subgroup of patients with HFrEF.

Influence of physician networks on prescribing a new ingredient combination in heart failure: a longitudinal claim data-based study

Background

Since 2016, the combination of sacubitril/valsartan, which combines an angiotensin receptor and neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI), has been recommended in the guidelines for the treatment of heart failure. The adoption of new drugs may be influenced by collaboration and exchange between physicians. We aimed to determine whether characteristics of the professional networks of prescribing physicians were associated with the prescribing of ARNI in Germany.

Methods

We conducted a longitudinal analysis based on claims data in 2016–2018 in Germany. The characteristics of ambulatory care physicians’ networks were determined in the analysis of the patient-sharing networks of physicians in 2017. Binary logistic regression analysis with the outcome ‘prescribes ARNI in 2018’ (present or absent) was carried out, using network characteristics as predictors, adjusted for specialty and sociodemographic characteristics of physicians.

Results

The network analysis included 8370 physicians, who had 144,636 connections. Prescribers had more connections to other physicians compared to non-prescribers (median 31 vs. 23). Regression analysis showed that the numbers of linkages to prescribers of ARNI were positively associated with prescribing ARNI. For 6–10 connections, the average marginal effect (AME) was 0.04 (confidence interval [CI] 95% 0.01–0.06) and for > 10 links the AME 0.07 (CI 95% 0.05–0.10) compared to 0–5 connections to prescriber.

Conclusion

Physicians who shared patients with many other physicians were more likely to prescribe ARNI, independent of physicians’ specialty. This suggested that collaboration and exchange on the basis of patient-sharing with other physicians influenced their medication prescribing decisions.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13012-021-01150-y.

Sacubitril/valsartan in real-life European patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction: a systematic review and meta-analysis

AIMS

We systematically reviewed the European real-world evidence (RWE) about sacubitril-valsartan for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Twenty-one articles, including 16 952 subjects, were identified until 31 October 2020. Taking as reference the PARADIGM-HF cohort, few baseline characteristics were presented in >80% of these studies, most often with high heterogeneity. In random-effects model meta-analysis, age was higher (mean difference +3.84, 95% CI 1.92-5.76), ischaemic aetiology (OR 0.76, 95% CI 0.64-0.91), hypertension (OR 0.55, 95% CI 0.37-0.82), and diabetes (OR 0.77, 95% CI 0.64-0.92) were less common, and the use of mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists was more frequent (OR 3.54, 95% CI 2.27-5.53) in real-life than in PARADIGM-HF. Other clinical and medical features were presented in 19-76% of the selected publications and suggested more severe heart failure with reduced ejection fraction. Sacubitril-valsartan was titrated to 97/103 mg b.i.d. in 35% (95% CI 23-47) and discontinued in 12.8% (95% CI 7.4-18.3) patients. When reported, the incidence of hyperkalaemia (six studies, no. 1076), all-cause mortality (five studies, no. 684), and any hospitalization (three studies, no. 390) was 12 (95% CI 5-19)/100 person-year, 8 (95% CI 4-12)/100 person-year, and 24 (95% CI 5-42)/100 person-year, respectively. Knowledge contribution, a metric measuring the proportion of RWE provided by each article based on the number of reported variables and the sample size, was 58.8% and 13.6% for the two biggest investigations (12 082 and 2037 patients), and <5% for all others (most with <100 subjects).

CONCLUSIONS

Limited-quality RWE indicates that there are important differences between European patients prescribed sacubitril-valsartan and the PARADIGM-HF population, including the frequency of target dose achievement.

National Trends in the Use of Sacubitril/Valsartan

BACKGROUND

Better understanding of recent sacubitril/valsartan prescription patterns may help identify factors that influence its use. The aim of the study was to characterize sacubitril/valsartan use and dosage patterns nationally.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We conducted a population-level cohort study using IQVIA Inc. National Prescription Audit™ data in the United States from August 2016 to July 2019. Over 3 years, there was a 5.6-fold increase in the number of sacubitril/valsartan prescriptions dispensed per month, totaling 3.3 million prescriptions. For the most recent year, this extrapolates to a best-case scenario of 13.8% of patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction using sacubitril/valsartan, representing at most one-half of those eligible for sacubitril/valsartan use. During the most recent year, 48.7% of dispensed prescriptions were for the lowest strength (24/26 mg) and only 20.6% for the target strength (97/103 mg). A greater proportion of the target strength was used in younger patients (< 65years: 24.6%; ≥ 85: 11.1%; P<0.0001). Cardiologists prescribed 59.0% of all dispensed prescriptions, and noncardiologists showed a greater increase (7.5-fold vs 4.9-fold; P<0.0001) over time.

CONCLUSIONS

Recent use of sacubitril/valsartan has increased greatly in the United States; however, a substantial proportion of eligible patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction did not receive treatment, and only 1 in 5 prescriptions dispensed were for the target strength. Further exploration of barriers to the use of sacubitril/valsartan and dosing uptitration and their clinical implications warrant further evaluation.

Clinical characteristics, prescription patterns, and persistence associated with sacubitril/valsartan adoption: A STROBE-compliant study

Sacubitril/valsartan (sac/val) was launched in China in 2018; however, the adoption of sac/val in real-world clinical practice has yet to be described.This study aimed to analyze real-world treatment patterns of sac/val using data from 3 tertiary hospitals in China.A non-interventional, retrospective cohort study of patients with Heart failure (HF) prescribed sac/val from 3 tertiary hospitals in China between January 1, 2018 and June 30, 2020 was conducted. The analysis included sac/val dose titration patterns and persistence during 6 months post-index.A total of 267 patients were included, with a mean age of 63.9 ± 13.1 years. At index, 27% of patients were prescribed sac/val 12/13 mg b.i.d., 63.7% were prescribed 24/26 mg b.i.d., 4.5% were prescribed the target dose of 49/51 mg b.i.d., and 4.8% were not prescribed according to the recommended dose. During the 6 months post-index, 8.3% of patients had only 1 dose titration record. Good therapeutic persistence was observed across sac/val doses, and only 15.7% of patients discontinued sac/val during the 6 months post-index.In China, the majority of patients prescribed sac/val are not initiated on the recommended dose nor up-titrated according to drug instruction. Notably, good persistence with sac/val is observed in the real-world cohort study.

Beneficial Effects of Sacubitril/Valsartan at Low Doses in an Asian Real-World Heart Failure Population

This study aimed at analyzing the clinical profile of real-world patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and evaluating the safety and efficacy of sacubitril/valsartan among Asian patients in daily practice. We conducted a single-center prospective observational cohort study of HFrEF patients treated with sacubitril/valsartan from September 2017 to September 2018 with a follow-up of 6 months. The mean (SD) age of the 110 patients enrolled was 59.7 ± 13.3, 85 (77.3%) were men and 41 (37.3%) had ischemic cardiomyopathy. Thirty-one (27.2%) patients with low systolic blood pressure initiated sacubitril/valsartan on a tiny dose of 12/13 mg. Despite the low mean daily dose achieved in real world mainly because of hypotension, left ventricular ejection fraction increased significantly from 35.4 ± 8.9% at baseline to 43.0 ± 12.2% after 6-month follow-up (P < 0.001). We also observed a significant improvement in a 6-minute walk test (6-MWT) distance and N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) concentration reduction. No severe adverse event was recorded. Low dose sacubitril/valsartan induces beneficial cardiac reverse remodeling and improves clinical functional performance in real-world HFrEF patients without severe adverse effect. A tiny initial dose may enhance tolerability and reduce discontinuation rate by minimizing hypotension events in patients with low systolic blood pressure. These data further support using low-dose sacubitril/valsartan among eligible patients with HFrEF in Asia.

Effectiveness of sacubitril/valsartan versus aldosterone antagonists in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction: A retrospective cohort study

STUDY OBJECTIVE

To assess the effectiveness of sacubitril/valsartan versus angiotensin receptor antagonist therapy for prevention of heart failure (HF)-related hospitalization and all-cause hospitalization in a large cohort of patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF).

DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study.

DATA SOURCE

IBM^® MarketScan^® research databases (2014-2018).

PATIENTS

Patients aged 18 years or older with their first HFrEF hospitalization on or after January 1, 2015, who initiated sacubitril/valsartan or angiotensin receptor antagonist after hospital discharge.

INTERVENTION

Sacubitril/Valsartan versus Angiotensin receptor antagonist.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

The index date was the first sacubitril/valsartan or angiotensin receptor antagonist fill date. After 1 up to 3 propensity score matching, Cox proportional hazards regression was used with robust variance estimators to compare HF-related and all-cause hospitalizations between treatments. Subgroup and sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess the robustness of the main analysis. After propensity score matching, 1,088 sacubitril/valsartan and 2,839 angiotensin receptor antagonist new users were included. The crude incidence of HF-related hospitalization was 13 per 100 person-years for sacubitril/valsartan users and 18 per 100 person-years for angiotensin receptor antagonist users. Compared with angiotensin receptor antagonist use, sacubitril/valsartan use was associated with 27% lower risk of HF-related hospitalization (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.73; 95% confidence interval, 0.58-0.91; p = 0.006) and 31% lower risk of all-cause hospitalization (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.69; 95% confidence interval, 0.61-0.79; p < 0.001). Subgroup analyses revealed no significant heterogeneity, including subpopulations with chronic kidney disease or coronary artery disease.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with angiotensin receptor antagonists, sacubitril/valsartan was associated with lower risk of HF-related and all-cause hospitalizations. Our data suggest that, when added sequentially, sacubitril/valsartan should be the preferred initial agent over angiotensin receptor antagonists.

Treatment patterns and clinical outcomes among patients <65 years with a worsening heart failure event

AIMS

Data regarding patients with chronic heart failure (HF) and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) following a worsening HF event (WHFE) are largely driven by findings from elderly patients. Younger patients are not well studied. The aim of this study was to evaluate treatment patterns and clinical outcomes in commercially insured chronic HFrEF patients <65 years old during 1-year periods before and after a WHFE.

METHODS AND RESULTS

A retrospective claims analysis was performed using the IBM® MarketScan® Commercial Database on HFrEF patients aged <65 years during the year before and after a WHFE, defined as HF hospitalization or outpatient intravenous diuretic use. Treatment patterns, rehospitalizations, health care resource utilization, and costs were assessed. A total of 4460 HFrEF patients with WHFE were included. Guideline-recommended HF therapy was initially underutilized, increased pre-WHFE, and peaked 0-3 months post-WHFE. The proportions of patients using dual and triple therapy were 31.5% and 9.8% pre-WHFE, 41.5% and 17.4% 0-3 months post-WHFE, and 34.6% and 13.9% 10-12 months post-WHFE, respectively. Within 30 and 90 days after a WHFE, 12% and 23% of patients had HF-related and 16% and 30% had all-cause rehospitalizations, respectively. HF-related and all-cause hospitalizations and outpatient visits peaked 0-3 months post-WHFE, whereas emergency department visits peaked 0-3 months pre-WHFE.

CONCLUSIONS

Use of HF medications increased pre-WHFE but decreased post-WHFE, despite recurrent hospitalizations. These findings suggest that age and insurance status may not totally explain the suboptimal treatment of HFrEF patients before and after a WHFE. Reasons for these trends need further study.

Five Years of Sacubitril/Valsartan-a Safety Analysis of Randomized Clinical Trials and Real-World Pharmacovigilance

PURPOSE

In PARADIGM-HF, sacubitril/valsartan showed a significant reduction in mortality and hospitalization for patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction. Despite proven efficacy, sacubitril/valsartan has moderate uptake in clinical practice. This study explores the safety profile of sacubitril/valsartan by comparing adverse events in RCT and real-world use.

METHODS

We studied hypotension, renal dysfunction, hyperkalemia, and angioedema associated with sacubitril/valsartan in RCTs and pharmacovigilance databases. A random-effects meta-analysis was performed with six RCTs investigating sacubitril/valsartan vs. control/comparators in heart failure patients. WHO's VigiBase, FAERS, and EMA's EudraVigilance were mined to obtain spontaneously reported real-world adverse events. Disproportionality analysis was performed with the FDA's OpenVigil 2.0.

RESULTS

Six RCTs enrolled 15,538 patients with heart failure with reduced and preserved ejection fractions. There was no statistical difference for the composite of hypotension, renal dysfunction, hyperkalemia, and angioedema between sacubitril/valsartan and its comparators viz. ACEi or ARBs (OR 1.23, CI 0.98-1.56; p = 0.08). A total of 103,038 adverse events were registered in the spontaneous reporting systems. Hypotension was the most reported adverse event. Proportions of composite adverse events were 20% in VigiBase, 17% in FAERS, and 39% with EudraVigilance. Disproportionality analysis showed a lower risk of adverse events with sacubitril/valsartan than other guideline-directed heart failure medications used in clinical practice.

CONCLUSION

With increased uptake of sacubitril/valsartan, risks of hypotension, renal dysfunction, hyperkalemia, and angioedema appear low and acceptable in RCTs and global clinical practice.

Effectiveness of angiotensin-neprilysin inhibitor treatment versus renin-angiotensin system blockade in older adults with heart failure in clinical care

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the effectiveness of angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI) versus renin-angiotensin system (RAS) blockade alone in older adults with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF).

METHODS

We conducted a cohort study using US Medicare fee-for-service claims data (2014-2017). Patients with HFrEF ≥65 years were identified in two cohorts: (1) initiators of ARNI or RAS blockade alone (ACE inhibitor, ACEI; or angiotensin receptor blocker, ARB) and (2) switchers from an ACEI to either ARNI or ARB. HR with 95% CI from Cox proportional hazard regression and 1-year restricted mean survival time (RMST) difference with 95% CI were calculated for a composite outcome of time to first worsening heart failure event or all-cause mortality after adjustment for 71 pre-exposure characteristics through propensity score fine-stratification weighting. All analyses of initiator and switcher cohorts were conducted separately and then combined using fixed effects.

RESULTS

51 208 patients with a mean age of 76 years were included, with 16 193 in the ARNI group. Adjusted HRs comparing ARNI with RAS blockade alone were 0.92 (95% CI 0.84 to 1.00) among initiators and 0.79 (95% CI 0.74 to 0.85) among switchers, with a combined estimate of 0.84 (95% CI 0.80 to 0.89). Adjusted 1-year RMST difference (95% CI) was 4 days in the initiator cohort (-1 to 9) and 12 days (8 to 17) in the switcher cohort, resulting in a pooled estimate of 9 days (6 to 12) favouring ARNI.

CONCLUSION

ARNI treatment was associated with lower risk of a composite effectiveness endpoint compared with RAS blockade alone in older adults with HFrEF.

Use of Post-Acute Care Services and Readmissions After Acute Myocardial Infarction Complicated by Cardiac Arrest and Cardiogenic Shock

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate post-acute care utilization and readmissions after cardiac arrest (CA) and cardiogenic shock (CS) complicating acute myocardial infarction (AMI).

METHODS

With use of an administrative claims database, AMI patients from January 1, 2010, to May 31, 2018, were stratified into CA+CS, CA only, CS only, and AMI alone. Outcomes included 90-day post-acute care (inpatient rehabilitation or skilled nursing facility) utilization and 1-year emergency department visits and readmissions.

RESULTS

Of 163,071 AMI patients, CA+CS, CA only, and CS only were noted in 3965 (2.4%), 8221 (5.0%), and 6559 (4.0%), respectively. In-hospital mortality was noted in 10,686 (6.6%) patients: CA+CS, 1935 (48.8%); CA only, 2948 (35.9%); CS only, 1578 (24.1%); and AMI alone, 4225 (2.9%) (P<.001). Among survivors, post-acute care services were used in 67,799 (44.5%), with higher use in the CS+CA cohort (1310 [64.6%]; hazard ratio [HR], 1.19; 95% CI, 1.06 to 1.33; P=.003) and CA cohort (2738 [51.9%]; HR, 1.27; 95% CI, 1.20 to 1.35; P<.001) but not in the CS cohort (3048 [61.2%]; HR, 1.03; 95% CI, 0.97 to 1.11; P=.35) compared with the AMI cohort (60,703 [43.3%]). Compared with the AMI cohort (48,990 [35.0%]), patients with CS only (2,085 [41.9%]; HR, 1.16; 95% CI, 1.10 to 1.22; P<.001) but not those with CA+CS (724 [35.7%]; HR, 1.07; 95% CI, 0.98 to 1.17; P=.14) had higher rates of readmissions (P=.03). Readmissions were lower in those with CA (1,590 [30.2%]; HR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.89 to 0.99). Repeated AMI, coronary artery disease, and heart failure were the most common readmission reasons. There were no differences for emergency department visits.

CONCLUSION

CA is associated with increased post-acute care use, whereas CS is associated with increased readmission risk in AMI survivors.

A Simple Score to Identify Super-Responders to Sacubitril/Valsartan in Ambulatory Patients With Heart Failure

INTRODUCTION

Sacubitril/valsartan (SV) promotes cardiac remodeling and improves prognosis in patients with heart failure (HF). However, the response to the drug may vary between patients and its implementation in daily clinical practice has been slower than expected. Our objective was to develop a score predicting the super-response to SV in HF outpatients.

METHODS

This is a retrospective analysis of 185 consecutive patients prescribed SV from two tertiary hospitals between September 2016 and February 2018. Super-responder was defined as a patient taking the drug and (i) without HF admissions, death, or heart transplant, and (ii) with a ≥50% reduction in NT-proBNP levels and/or an increase of ≥10 points in LVEF in a 12-month follow-up period after starting SV. Clinical, echocardiographic, ECG, and biochemical variables were used in a logistic regression analysis to construct a score for super-response to SV which was internally validated using bootstrap method.

RESULTS

Out of 185 patients, 65 (35%) fulfilled the super-responder criteria. Predictors for super-response to SV were absence of both previous aldosterone antagonist and diuretic treatment, NYHA I-II class, female gender, previous 1-year HF admission, and sinus rhythm. An integrating score distinguished a low- (<25%), intermediate- (∼46%), and high-probability (>80%) for 1-year super-response to SV. The AUC for the model was 0.72 (95%CI: 0.64-0.80), remaining consistent after internal validation.

CONCLUSION

One-third of our patients presented a super-response to SV. We propose an easy-to-calculate score to predict super-response to SV after 1-year initiation based on variables that are currently assessed in clinical practice.

Renal Outcomes in Patients with Systolic Heart Failure Treated With Sacubitril-Valsartan or Angiotensin Converting Enzyme Inhibitor/Angiotensin Receptor Blocker

Objective

To assess 4 adverse renal outcomes in a heterogeneous cohort of patients with systolic heart failure (HF) who were prescribed sacubitril-valsartan vs angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor/angiotensin receptor blocker (ACEi/ARB).

Patients and Methods

The OptumLabs Database Warehouse, which contains linked administrative claims and laboratory results, was used to identify patients with systolic HF who were prescribed sacubitril-valsartan or ACEi/ARB between July 1, 2015, and September 30, 2019. One-to-one propensity score matching and inverse probability of treatment weighting was used to balance baseline variables. Cox proportional hazards modeling was performed to compare renal outcomes in both medication groups, including 30% or more decline in estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), doubling of serum creatinine, acute kidney injury (AKI), and kidney failure (eGFR < 15 mL/min per 1.73 m², kidney transplant, or dialysis initiation).

Results

A total of 4667 matched pairs receiving sacubitril-valsartan or ACEi/ARB were included; the mean follow-up period was 7.8±7.8 months. The mean age was 69.4±11 years; 35% were female, 19% black, and 15% Hispanic. The cumulative risk at 1 year was 6% for 30% or more decline in eGFR, 2% for doubling of serum creatinine, 3% for AKI, and 2% to 3% for kidney failure. Furthermore, no significant differences in risk were observed with sacubitril-valsartan compared with ACEi/ARB for a 30% or more decline in eGFR (hazard ratio [HR], 0.96; 95% CI, 0.79 to 1.10), doubling of serum creatinine (HR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.69 to 1.27); AKI (HR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.63 to 1.03), and kidney failure (HR 0.80; 95% CI, 0.59 to 1.08).

Conclusion

Among patients with systolic HF, the risk of adverse renal outcomes was similar between patients prescribed sacubitril-valsartan and those prescribed ACEi/ARB.

Real-world effectiveness and safety of sacubitril/valsartan in heart failure: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

PARADIGM-HF demonstrated superiority of sacubitril/valsartan (sac/val) over enalapril in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). However, patients in clinical practice may differ in their characteristics and overall risk compared with patients in clinical trials, and additional outcomes can be observed in real world (RW). Hence, a systematic review was conducted to identify and describe RW data on sac/val.

METHODS

RW studies evaluating the effects of sac/val in adult patients with HFrEF with a sample size ≥100 were identified via MEDLINE® and Embase® from 2015 to January 2020. Citations were screened, critically appraised and relevant data were extracted.

RESULTS

A total of 68 unique studies were identified. Nearly half of the studies were conducted in Europe (n = 34), followed by the US (n = 15) and Asia (n = 11). Median follow-up period varied from 1 to 19 months. Mean age ranged between 48.7 and 79.0 years; patients were mostly male and in New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional class II/III, and mean left ventricular ejection fraction varied between 23%and 38%. Of studies performing comparisons, most reported superior efficacy of sac/val in reducing the risk of HF hospitalisations, all-cause hospitalisations, and all-cause mortality as compared to standard-of-care. Many studies reported significant improvements in NYHA functional class and reduction in biomarker levels post sac/val. Hypotension and hyperkalaemia were the most frequently reported adverse events.

CONCLUSIONS

This comprehensive overview of currently available RW evidence on sac/val complements the evidence from randomised controlled trials, substantiating its effectiveness in heterogeneous real-world HF populations.

Dapagliflozin vs. sacubitril-valsartan for prevention of heart failure events in non-diabetic patients with reduced ejection fraction: a cost per outcome analysis

AIMS

The Angiotensin Receptor-Neprilysin Inhibitor sacubitril-valsartan (ARNI) and dapagliflozin, a sodium-glucose transport protein 2 inhibitor, reduce the risk of heart failure hospitalization (hHF) and cardiovascular (CV) mortality in patients with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). Their comparative value for money is undetermined. Therefore, our aim was to compare the cost per outcome implications of utilizing dapagliflozin vs. ARNI for preventing heart failure (HF) events of non-diabetic patients with HFrEF.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We calculated the cost needed to treat (CNT) to prevent one HF event. The cost needed to treat was estimated by multiplying the annualized number needed to treat (NNT) to prevent one event by each therapy's annual cost. Efficacy estimates were extracted from published secondary analyses of non-diabetic patients in DAPA-HF and PARADIGM-HF trials. Drug costs were estimated as 75% of the 2020 US National Average Drug Acquisition Cost listing. Sensitivity analysis was performed to mitigate differences between the trial's populations and drug costs in various countries.The annualized NNT to prevent one HF event for dapagliflozin was 31 (95% CI 21-71) vs. 33 (95% CI 24-62) for ARNI. The CNT of dapagliflozin in the US is $141 112 (95% CI $95 592-$323 192) compared to $158 169 (95% CI $115 032-$297 166) for sacubitril-valsartan. The CNT results were sensitive to drug costs in various countries.

CONCLUSION

Dapagliflozin and ARNI provide comparable value for money for preventing HF events in non-diabetic patients with HFrEF. In healthcare settings where dapagliflozin's price is significantly lower than ARNI, it provides superior value for money.

Heart Failure and Shared Decision-Making: Patients Open to Medication-Related Cost Discussions

BACKGROUND

Discussions of medication costs between patients and clinicians are infrequent and often suboptimal. In the context of recently introduced drugs that are effective but expensive, patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction provide an ideal population to understand the perspectives of patients with chronic illness on medication cost and cost discussions.

METHODS

To explore patients' perspectives on discussing out-of-pocket medication costs with clinicians, 49 adults, aged 44 to 70 years, with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction were recruited from outpatient heart failure clinics. Descriptive qualitative analysis was performed on open-ended text data.

RESULTS

Participants who had prior medication-related cost discussions described their experience as generally positive, but about half of the participants had never had a cost discussion with their clinician. Most participants were open to cost discussions with clinicians and preferred that the clinician initiate discussions regarding medication cost. Importantly, these preferences held constant across reported levels of financial burden.

CONCLUSIONS

These data suggest a substantial willingness on the part of patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction to incorporate cost discussions into their care and identify important aspects of these discussions for clinicians to consider when engaging in conversations where cost is relevant. Improving understanding about how to integrate patient preferences regarding cost discussions into clinical encounters is an important priority for advancing patient-centered care.

Long-Term Outcomes of Acute Myocardial Infarction With Concomitant Cardiogenic Shock and Cardiac Arrest

This study sought to evaluate long-term mortality and major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE) in patients with cardiac arrest (CA) and cardiogenic shock (CS) complicating acute myocardial infarction (AMI). This was a retrospective cohort study using an administrative claims database. AMI patients from January 1, 2010 to May 31, 2018 were stratified into CA + CS, CA only, CS only, and AMI alone cohorts. Outcomes of interest were long-term mortality and MACCE (death, AMI, cerebrovascular accident, unplanned revascularization) in AMI survivors. A total 163,071 AMI patients were included with CA + CS, CA only, and CS only in 2.4%, 5.0%, and 4.0%, respectively. The CA + CS cohort had higher rates of multiorgan failure, mechanical circulatory support use and less frequent coronary angiography use. In-hospital mortality was noted in 10,686 (6.6%) patients - CA + CS (48.8%), CA only (35.9%), CS only (24.1%), and AMI alone (2.9%; p < 0.001). Over 23.5 ± 21.7 months follow-up after hospital discharge, patients with CA + CS (hazard ratio [HR] 1.36 [95% confidence interval {CI} 1.19 to 1.55]), CA only (HR 1.16 [95% CI 1.08 to 1.25]), CS only (HR 1.39 [95% CI 1.29 to 1.50]) had higher all-cause mortality compared with AMI alone (all p < 0.001). Presence of CS, either alone (HR 1.22 [95% CI 1.16 to 1.29]; p < 0.001) or with CA (HR 1.18 [95% CI 1.07 to 1.29]; p < 0.001), was associated with higher MACCE compared with AMI alone. In conclusion, CA + CS, CA, and CS were associated with worse long-term survival. CA and CS continue to influence outcomes beyond the index hospitalization in AMI survivors.

Guideline-directed medical therapy for heart failure does not exist: a non-judgmental framework for describing the level of adherence to evidence-based drug treatments for patients with a reduced ejection fraction

Numerous guideline documents have issued recommendations to clinicians concerning the treatment of chronic heart failure and a reduced ejection fraction. However, guidelines do not describe what constitutes an acceptable standard of care, and thus, practitioners who adhere to only a small fraction of the recommendations might claim that they are treating patients 'in accordance with the guidelines'. As a result, <1% of patients with heart failure are receiving all life-prolonging treatments at trial-proven doses. A major impediment to the widespread adoption of trial-based treatments is a lack of any existing framework that would allow physicians to describe the adequacy of care. To address this deficiency, we propose a novel simple approach that would ask practitioners if a patient had been treated using the dosing algorithm that had been shown to be effective for each drug class. The proposed framework recognizes that all landmark survival trials in heart failure were 'strategy trials', i.e. the studies mandated a standardized forced-titration treatment plan that required timely uptitration to specified target dose unless patients experienced clinically meaningful, intolerable or serious adverse events, which persisted or recurred despite adjustment of other medications. Adherence to trial-proven regimens might be improved if physicians were asked to describe the degree to which a patient's treatment adhered to or deviated from the strategies that had been used to demonstrate the survival benefits of neurohormonal antagonists. The proposed framework should also promote practitioner self-awareness about the lack of evidence supporting the current widespread use of subtarget doses that are non-adherent with trial-proven forced-titration strategies.