Applicability of Vericiguat to Patients Hospitalized for Heart Failure in the United States.

BACKGROUND: In January 2021, vericiguat, a soluble guanylate cyclase stimulator, was approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to reduce the risk of cardiovascular death and heart failure (HF) hospitalization among patients with a recent worsening HF event based on the VICTORIA (VerICiguaT Global Study in Subjects with Heart Failure with Reduced Ejection Fraction) trial. OBJECTIVES: This study sought to leverage a contemporary U.S. registry of patients hospitalized for heart failure (HF) to characterize patients who may be candidates for vericiguat based on FDA label and the VICTORIA trial eligibility criteria. METHODS: The authors studied patients hospitalized for HF with ejection fraction (EF) <45% across 525 sites in the GWTG-HF (Get With The Guidelines-Heart Failure) registry between January 2014 and December 2020. Approximate FDA label criteria (excluding estimated glomerular filtration rate [eGFR] <15 mL/min/1.73 m2, dialysis, or patients with heart transplantation or durable mechanical circulatory support) and eligibility criteria for the VICTORIA trial were applied to the GWTG-HF cohort. RESULTS: Among 241,057 patients with EF <45% in the GWTG-HF registry, 221,730 (92%) could be candidates for vericiguat under the FDA label and 92,249 (38%) would have been eligible for the VICTORIA trial. The most frequent reasons for ineligibility for the FDA label were eGFR <15 mL/min/1.73 m2 (5.7%) and dialysis (1.6%). Although there were greater proportions of women and Black patients in the GWTG-HF registry, most clinical characteristics were qualitatively similar with patients enrolled in the VICTORIA trial. Among Medicare beneficiaries in the GWTG-HF registry eligible for vericiguat by either FDA label or VICTORIA trial criteria, 12-month postdischarge rates of mortality (36%-37%), HF hospitalization (33%-35%), all-cause hospitalization (64%-66%), and mean health care expenditure (U.S. $25,106-$25,428) were high. CONCLUSIONS: Data from a large, contemporary U.S. registry of patients actively hospitalized for HF with EF <45% suggest that approximately 4 in 10 patients meet the criteria of the VICTORIA trial and that more than 9 in 10 patients are potential candidates for vericiguat based on the FDA label. Contemporary Medicare beneficiaries hospitalized for HF with EF <45% and eligible for vericiguat face high rates of postdischarge mortality and readmission and accrue substantial health care costs.

Medication Trajectory and Treatment Patterns in Medicare Patients With Heart Failure and Reduced Ejection Fraction.

BACKGROUND: Although a worsening heart failure event (WHFE) is associated with poor outcomes in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), it is unclear how guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) is used in this population compared to those without WHFEs. This study evaluated treatment patterns in patients with HFrEF, both with and without WHFEs. METHODS: A retrospective study using 100% Medicare Fee-For-Service claims identified beneficiaries with HFrEF, stratified by those with and without WHFEs (defined as hospitalization due to HF or outpatient intravenous diuretic use). The use of GDMT for HFrEF before and after WHFEs and adherence were assessed in patients who were prescribed and initiated GDMT. Logistic regression identified patients' characteristics associated with medication nonadherence. RESULTS: Of 353,642 patients with HFrEF, 31.4% had a WHFE. Although there was no overall change in the treatment trajectory of patients without WHFEs, GDMT use in patients with WHFEs intensified within the first 3 months of a WHFE, but the intensification was not sustained in subsequent months. From 0-3 months pre-WHFE to 0-3 months post-WHFE, the proportion of patients receiving dual (41%-48%) and triple-therapy (4%-12%) increased, followed by a decline to pre-WHFE rates. The 1-year adherence rates for those with and without WHFEs were 67.9% vs 73.3% for beta-blockers; 59.1% vs 70.9% for angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, angiotensin receptor blockers, angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitors, beta-blockers, and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists; 53.9% vs 61.3% for angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitors; and 49.2% vs 59.3% for mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists. WHFE, age < 65 years, Black race, asthma, chronic kidney disease, and depression were associated with nonadherence to medications. Asians and Hispanics were less adherent to some medication classes. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrated underuse of GDMT for patients with HFrEF with or without WHFEs. Although there was a treatment escalation within 3 months following WHFE, it was not sustained thereafter.

Budget Impact of Oral Semaglutide Intensification versus Sitagliptin among US Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus Uncontrolled with Metformin.

BACKGROUND: Oral semaglutide was approved in 2019 for blood glucose control in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and was the first oral glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonist (GLP-1 RA). T2DM is associated with substantial healthcare expenditures in the US, so the cost of a new intervention should be weighed against clinical benefits. OBJECTIVE: This study evaluated the budget impact of a treatment pathway with oral semaglutide 14 mg daily versus oral sitagliptin 100 mg daily among patients not achieving target glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) level despite treatment with metformin. METHODS: This study used the validated IQVIA™ CORE Diabetes Model to simulate the treatment impact of oral semaglutide 14 mg and sitagliptin 100 mg over a 5-year time horizon from a US healthcare sector (payer) perspective. Trial data (PIONEER 3) informed cohort characteristics and treatment effects, and literature sources informed event costs. Population and market share data were from the literature and data on file. The analysis evaluated the estimated budget impact of oral semaglutide 14 mg use for patients currently using sitagliptin 100 mg considering both direct medical and treatment costs to understand the impact on total cost of care, given underlying treatment performance and impact on avoidable events. RESULTS: In a hypothetical plan of 1 million lives, an estimated 1993 patients were treated with sitagliptin 100 mg in the target population. Following these patients over 5 years, the incremental direct medical and treatment costs of a patient using oral semaglutide 14 mg versus sitagliptin 100 mg was $US16,562, a 70.7% increase (year 2019 values). A hypothetical payer would spend an additional $US3,300,143 (7.1%) over 5 years for every 10% of market share that oral semaglutide 14 mg takes away from sitagliptin 100 mg. Univariate and scenario analyses with alternate inputs and assumptions demonstrated consistent results. CONCLUSIONS: Use of oral semaglutide 14 mg in patients currently receiving sitagliptin 100 mg substantially increases the budget impact for patients with T2DM whose blood glucose level is not controlled with metformin over a 5-year time horizon for US healthcare payers.

Patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) have many treatment options. Choices depend on factors such as cost, preference, and patient characteristics. Oral semaglutide was recently approved for the treatment of T2DM as the first oral therapy of its class. This study estimated the cost for patients treated with sitagliptin 100 mg, a commonly used T2DM treatment, versus oral semaglutide 14 mg for patients whose disease is not well controlled with metformin. Costs and effects were estimated over 5 years for each treatment strategy using predictive model equations and clinical trial data for the two treatments. These costs were considered for both a hypothetical healthcare plan of 1 million lives and the full US population. A patient treated with oral semaglutide 14 mg would expect to see 70.7% higher costs than a patient treated with sitagliptin 100 mg over 5 years. For every 10% of patients who would switch from sitagliptin 100 mg to oral semaglutide 14 mg, costs would increase by 7.1%. Changing the cost of oral semaglutide 14 mg had the greatest impact on model results. The findings from the analysis were consistent across a range of alternate model inputs. Oral semaglutide 14 mg is more costly than sitagliptin 100 mg over 5 years.

Do acute coronary events affect lipid management and cholesterol goal attainment in Germany? : Results from the Dyslipidemia International study II.

OBJECTIVE: To document utilization of lipid-lowering therapy, attainment of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol target values, and cardiovascular outcomes in patients hospitalized for acute coronary syndrome in Germany. METHODS: The Dyslipidemia International Study II was a multicenter, observational study of the prevalence of dyslipidemia and lipid target value attainment in patients surviving any acute coronary syndrome event. Among patients on lipid-lowering therapy for ≥3 months, use of lipid-lowering therapy and lipid profiles were assessed at admission and again at 120 ± 15 days after admission (the follow-up time point). Multivariate logistic regression was used to identify variables predictive of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol target value attainment in patients using lipid-lowering therapy. RESULTS: A total of 461 patients hospitalized for acute coronary syndrome were identified, 270 (58.6%) of whom were on lipid-lowering therapy at admission. Among patients on lipid-lowering therapy, 90.7% and 85.9% were receiving statin monotherapy at admission and follow-up, respectively. Mean (SD) low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels in patients on lipid-lowering therapy were 101 (40) mg/dl and 95 (30) mg/dl at admission and follow-up, respectively. In patients with data at both admission and follow-up (n = 61), low-density lipoprotein cholesterol target value attainment rates were the same (19.7%) at both time points. Smoking was associated with a 77% lower likelihood of attaining the low-density lipoprotein cholesterol target value. CONCLUSION: Hospitalization for an acute event does not greatly alter lipid management in acute coronary syndrome patients in Germany. Both lipid-lowering therapy doses and rates of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol target value attainment remained essentially the same several months after the event.

New strategies for the development of lipid-lowering therapies to reduce cardiovascular risk.

The very high occurrence of cardiovascular events presents a major public health issue, because treatment remains suboptimal. Lowering LDL cholesterol (LDL-C) with statins or ezetimibe in combination with a statin reduces major adverse cardiovascular events. The cardiovascular risk reduction in relation to the absolute LDL-C reduction is linear for most interventions without evidence of attenuation or increase in risk at low LDL-C levels. Opportunities for innovation in dyslipidaemia treatment should address the substantial risk of lipid-associated cardiovascular events among patients optimally treated per guidelines but who cannot achieve LDL-C goals and who could benefit from additional LDL-C-lowering therapy or experience side effects of statins. Fresh approaches are needed to identify promising drug targets early and develop them efficiently. The Cardiovascular Round Table of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) convened a workshop to discuss new lipid-lowering strategies for cardiovascular risk reduction. Opportunities to improve treatment approaches and the efficient study of new therapies were explored. Circulating biomarkers may not be fully reliable proxy indicators of the relationship between treatment effect and clinical outcome. Mendelian randomization studies may better inform development strategies and refine treatment targets before Phase 3. Trials should match the drug to appropriate lipid and patient profile, and guidelines may move towards a precision-based approach to individual patient management. Stakeholder collaboration is needed to ensure continued innovation and better international coordination of both regulatory aspects and guidelines. It should be noted that risk may also be addressed through increased attention to other risk factors such as smoking, hypertension, overweight, and inactivity.

Prevalence of potential familial hypercholesteremia (FH) in 54,811 statin-treated patients in clinical practice.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Familial hypercholesterolemia (FH) is a life-threatening disease, characterized by elevated LDL-C levels and a premature, increased risk of coronary heart disease (CHD) that is globally underdiagnosed. The percentage of patients with possible or probable FH in various countries was examined in the Dyslipidemia International Study (DYSIS). METHODS: DYSIS is a multinational, cross-sectional observational study of 54,811 adult outpatients treated with statin therapy. The percentages of patients with high levels of LDL-C, and with possible or probable FH, were assessed using the Dutch scoring method for FH across 29 countries, in age subgroups for the analysis population and among diabetes patients. RESULTS: Despite statin therapy, 16.1% (range 4.4-27.6%) of patients had LDL-C >3.6 mmol/L (140 mg/dL) across countries and the prevalence of possible FH was 15.0% (range 5.5-27.8%) and 1.1% (range 0.0-5.4%) for probable FH. The highest percentages of probable FH occurred in Egypt (5.4%), the Baltic states (4.2%), Russia (3.2%), and Slovenia (3.1%), with the lowest rates in Israel (0.0%), Canada (0.2%), and Sweden (0.3%). Rates of FH were the highest in younger patients (45-54 years) for secondary prevention, regardless of the presence/absence of diabetes. CONCLUSIONS: Despite statin therapy, high LDL-C levels and rates of possible and probable FH were observed in some countries. The prevalence of FH was the highest in younger age patients, and >60% of patients with probable FH displayed CHD. Earlier diagnosis and treatment of patients with FH are needed to reduce CHD risk in these patients.