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.

Estimating the clinical and budgetary impact of using angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor as first line therapy in patients with HFrEF.

AIMS: Recent updates of international treatment guidelines for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) differ regarding the use of angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI) as first-line treatment. The American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology/Heart Failure Society of America (AHA/ACC/HFSA) 2022 guidelines gives ARNI a Class IA recommendation for HFrEF patients while the European Society of Cardiology's guidelines are less clear when ARNI could be considered as first line treatment option in de novo patients. This study aimed to model the clinical and budgetary outcomes of implementing these guidelines, comparing conservative ARNI prescription patterns with less conservative in Sweden and in the United Kingdom. METHODS AND RESULTS: A health economic model was developed to compare different treatment patterns for HFrEF. Incident cohorts were included on an annual basis and followed over 10 years. The model included treatment specific all-cause mortality and hospitalization rates, as well as drug acquisition, monitoring, and hospitalization costs. Increasing the use of ARNI could lead to about 7000-12 300 life years gained and 2600-4600 hospitalizations prevented in Sweden. These health benefits come with an additional cost of 112-195 million euros. Similar results were estimated for the United Kingdom, albeit on a larger population. CONCLUSIONS: Increasing the proportion of patients receiving ARNI instead of angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors as first-line treatment of HFrEF will lead to a considerable number of additional life years gained and prevented hospitalizations but with additional cost in terms of health care expenditure in Sweden and in the United Kingdom.

Healthcare resource utilisation and costs associated with a heart failure diagnosis: a retrospective, population-based cohort study in Sweden.

OBJECTIVES: To examine healthcare resource use (HRU) and costs among heart failure (HF) patients using population data from Sweden. DESIGN: Retrospective, non-interventional cohort study. SETTING: Two cohorts were identified from linked national health registers (cohort 1, 2005-2014) and electronic medical records (cohort 2, 2010-2012; primary/secondary care patients from Uppsala and Västerbotten). PARTICIPANTS: Patients (aged ≥18 years) with primary or secondary diagnoses of HF (≥2 International Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems, 10th revision classification) during the identification period of January 2005 to March 2015 were included. OUTCOME MEASURES: HRU across the HF phenotypes was assessed with logistic regression. Costs were estimated based on diagnosis-related group codes and general price lists. RESULTS: Total annual costs of secondary care of prevalent HF increased from SEK 6.23 (€0.60) to 8.86 (€0.85) billion between 2005 and 2014. Of 4648 incident patients, HF phenotype was known for 1715: reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF): 64.5%, preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF): 35.5%. Within 1 year of HF diagnosis, the proportion of patients hospitalised was only marginally higher for HFrEF versus HFpEF (all-cause (95% CI): 64.7% (60.8 to 68.4) vs 63.7% (60.8 to 66.5), HR 0.91, p=0.14; cardiovascular disease related (95% CI): 61.1% (57.1 to 64.8) vs 60.9% (58.0 to 63.7), HR 0.93, p=0.28). Frequency of hospitalisations and outpatient visits per patient declined after the first year. All-cause secondary care costs in the first year were SEK 122 758 (€12 890)/patient/year, with HF-specific care accounting for 69% of the costs. Overall, 10% of the most expensive population (younger; predominantly male; more likely to have comorbidities) incurred ~40% of total secondary care costs. CONCLUSIONS: HF-associated costs and HRU are high, especially during the first year of diagnosis. This is driven by high hospitalisations rates. Understanding the profile of resource-intensive patients being at younger age, male sex and high Charlson comorbidity index scores at the time of the HF diagnosis is most likely a sign of more severe disease.

A systematic approach for introduction of novel treatments to a chronic patient group: sacubitril-valsartan as a case study.

PURPOSE: To develop a model for systematic introduction and to test the feasibility in a chronic disease population. We also investigated how the approach was received by the patients. METHODS AND RESULTS: The systematic introduction approach is a seven-step procedure: step 1, define a few main criteria; step 2, primary scan patients with the one or two main criteria using computerized medical records/databases/clinical registries; step 3, identify patients applying the other predefined criteria; step 4, evaluate if any examinations/laboratory test updates are required; step 5, summon identified patients to the clinic with an information letter; step 6, discuss treatment with the patient and prescribe if appropriate; and step 7, follow up on initiated therapy and evaluate the applied process. The model was tested in a case study during introduction of the new drug sacubitril-valsartan in a heart failure population. In total, 76 out of 1924 patients were identified to be eligible for sacubitril-valsartan and summoned to the clinic to discuss treatment. Patient experiences with the approach were investigated in an interview study with general inductive approach using qualitative content analysis. This resulted in three final categories: a good approach, role of the information letter, and trust in care. CONCLUSIONS: The systematic introduction approach ensures that strict criteria are used in the selection process and that a treatment can be implemented in eligible patients within a specified population with limited resources and time. The model was effective in our case study and maintained the patient's confidence in healthcare.