Cost-effectiveness of dapagliflozin for patients with heart failure across the spectrum of ejection fraction: A pooled analysis of DAPA-HF and DELIVER data.

AIM: To assess the cost-effectiveness of dapagliflozin in addition to usual care, compared with usual care alone, in a large population of patients with heart failure (HF), spanning the full range of left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). METHODS AND RESULTS: Patient-level data were pooled from HF trials (DAPA-HF, DELIVER) to generate a population including HF with reduced, mildly reduced and preserved LVEF, to increase statistical power and enable exploration of interactions among LVEF, renal function and N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide levels, as they are relevant determinants of health status in this population. Survival and HF recurrent event risk equations were derived and applied to a lifetime horizon Markov model with health states defined by Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire total symptom score quartiles; costs and utilities were in the UK setting. The base case incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was £6470 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained, well below the UK willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of £20 000/QALY gained. In interaction sensitivity analyses, the highest ICER was observed for elderly patients with preserved LVEF (£16 624/QALY gained), and ranged to a region of dominance (increased QALYs, decreased costs) for patients with poorer renal function and reduced/mildly reduced LVEF. Results across the patient characteristic interaction plane were mostly between £5000 and £10 000/QALY gained. CONCLUSIONS: Dapagliflozin plus usual care, versus usual care alone, yielded results well below the WTP threshold for the UK across a heterogeneous population of patients with HF including the full spectrum of LVEF, and is likely a cost-effective intervention.

Cost Effectiveness of Dapagliflozin for Heart Failure Across the Spectrum of Ejection Fraction: An Economic Evaluation Based on Pooled, Individual Participant Data From the DELIVER and DAPA-HF Trials.

BACKGROUND: The sodium glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors are guideline-recommended to treat heart failure across the spectrum of left ventricular ejection fraction; however, economic evaluations of adding sodium glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors to standard of care in chronic heart failure across a broad left ventricular ejection fraction range are lacking. METHODS AND RESULTS: We conducted a US-based cost-effectiveness analysis of dapagliflozin added to standard of care in a chronic heart failure population using pooled, participant data from the DAPA-HF (Dapagliflozin and Prevention of Adverse Outcomes in Heart Failure) and DELIVER (Dapagliflozin Evaluation to Improve the Lives of Patients With Preserved Ejection Fraction Heart Failure) trials. The 3-state Markov model used estimates of transitional probabilities, effectiveness of dapagliflozin, and utilities from the pooled trials. Costs estimates were obtained from published sources, including published rebates in dapagliflozin cost. Adding dapagliflozin to standard of care was estimated to produce an additional 0.53 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) compared with standard of care alone. Incremental cost effectiveness ratios were $85 554/QALY when using the publicly reported full (undiscounted) Medicare cost ($515/month) and $40 081/QALY, at a published nearly 50% rebate ($263/month). The addition of dapagliflozin to standard of care would be of at least intermediate value (<$150 000/QALY) at a cost of <$872.58/month, of high value (<$50 000/QALY) at <$317.66/month, and cost saving at <$40.25/month. Dapagliflozin was of at least intermediate value in 92% of simulations when using the full (undiscounted) Medicare list cost in probabilistic sensitivity analyses. Cost effectiveness was most sensitive to the dapagliflozin cost and the effect on cardiovascular death. CONCLUSIONS: The addition of dapagliflozin to standard of care in patients with heart failure across the spectrum of ejection fraction was at least of intermediate value at the undiscounted Medicare cost and may be potentially of higher value on the basis of the level of discount, rebates, and price negotiations offered. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifiers: NCT01035255 & NCT01920711.

Medical Therapy Before, During and After Hospitalization in Medicare Beneficiaries With Heart Failure and Diabetes: Get With The Guidelines - Heart Failure Registry.

BACKGROUND: Patients hospitalized with heart failure (HF) and diabetes mellitus (DM) are at risk for worsening clinical status. Little is known about the frequency of therapeutic changes during hospitalization. We characterized the use of medical therapies before, during and after hospitalization in patients with HF and DM. METHODS: We identified Medicare beneficiaries in Get With The Guidelines-Heart Failure (GWTG-HF) hospitalized between July 2014 and September 2019 with Part D prescription coverage. We evaluated trends in the use of 7 classes of antihyperglycemic therapies (metformin, sulfonylureas, GLP-1RA, SGLT2-inhibitors, DPP-4 inhibitors, thiazolidinediones, and insulins) and 4 classes of HF therapies (evidence-based ß-blockers, ACEi or ARB, MRA, and ARNI). Medication fills were assessed at 6 and 3 months before hospitalization, at hospital discharge and at 3 months post-discharge. RESULTS: Among 35,165 Medicare beneficiaries, the median age was 77 years, 54% were women, and 76% were white; 11,660 (33%) had HFrEF (LVEF ≤ 40%), 3700 (11%) had HFmrEF (LVEF 41%-49%), and 19,805 (56%) had HFpEF (LVEF ≥ 50%). Overall, insulin was the most commonly prescribed antihyperglycemic after HF hospitalization (n = 12,919, 37%), followed by metformin (n = 7460, 21%) and sulfonylureas (n = 7030, 20%). GLP-1RA (n = 700, 2.0%) and SGLT2i (n = 287, 1.0%) use was low and did not improve over time. In patients with HFrEF, evidence-based beta-blocker, RASi, MRA, and ARNI fills during the 6 months preceding HF hospitalization were 63%, 62%, 19%, and 4%, respectively. Fills initially declined prior to hospitalization, but then rose from 3 months before hospitalization to discharge (beta-blocker: 56%-82%; RASi: 51%-57%, MRA: 15%-28%, ARNI: 3%-6%, triple therapy: 8%-20%; P < 0.01 for all). Prescription rates 3 months after hospitalization were similar to those at hospital discharge. CONCLUSIONS: In-hospital optimization of medical therapy in patients with HF and DM is common in participating hospitals of a large US quality improvement registry.

High-Dose vs. Standard-Dose Influenza Vaccine and Cardiopulmonary Hospitalization or Mortality: Emulating the INVESTED Trial Using Insurance Claims Data.

The INVESTED trial did not show benefits of high-dose (HD) vaccine vs. standard-dose (SD) for a primary composite outcome of cardiopulmonary hospitalization or all-cause mortality (hazard ratio (HR) = 1.05, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.96-1.15) and its components (all-cause mortality HR = 1.01, 95% CI = 0.84-1.21, cardiopulmonary hospitalization HR = 1.05, 95% CI = 0.96-1.16) during three influenza seasons (2016-2019) among participants with recent myocardial infarction or hospitalization for heart failure (HHF). We emulated INVESTED using Medicare claims data to assess whether the real-world evidence (RWE) study reached similar conclusions. We identified 1:1 propensity score (PS)-matched trial-eligible Medicare beneficiaries aged > 65 years and with prior HHF who received an HD or SD vaccine for the 2016-2019 seasons. We also re-analyzed the INVESTED trial data restricting to participants > 65 years with prior HHF to align eligibility criteria more closely with the RWE study. We compared HRs from the trial and RWE study for the main outcomes. Among 53,393 pairs of PS-matched Medicare beneficiaries, the HD vaccine group showed lower risk of the primary composite outcome (HR = 0.96, 95% CI = 0.95-0.98) and all-cause mortality (HR = 0.93, 95% CI = 0.91-0.95), and similar risk of cardiopulmonary hospitalization (HR = 0.98, 95% CI = 0.96-1.00), compared with SD. The RWE and trial results were closely concordant after the trial population was limited to participants > 65 years with prior HHF: trial-based results for the primary composite outcome (HR = 1.02, 95% CI = 0.89-1.17), all-cause mortality (HR = 0.92, 95% CI = 0.72-1.16), and cardiopulmonary hospitalization (HR = 1.02, 95% CI = 0.88-1.18). Although similar to the main trial results, the RWE was closer to the results from trial participants with aligned eligibility criteria. This study affirms the importance of considering different distributions of baseline patient characteristics when comparing trial findings to RWE.

Health and Economic Evaluation of Sacubitril-Valsartan for Heart Failure Management.

Importance: The US Food and Drug Administration expanded labeling of sacubitril-valsartan from the treatment of patients with chronic heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction (EF) to all patients with HF, noting the greatest benefits in those with below-normal EF. However, the upper bound of below normal is not clearly defined, and value determinations across a broader EF range are unknown. Objective: To estimate the cost-effectiveness of sacubitril-valsartan vs renin-angiotensin system inhibitors (RASis) across various upper-level cutoffs of EF. Design, Setting, and Participants: This economic evaluation included participant-level data from the PARADIGM-HF (Prospective Comparison of ARNI With ACEI to Determine Impact on Global Mortality and Morbidity in Heart Failure) and the PARAGON-HF (Prospective Comparison of ARNi with ARB Global Outcomes in HF With Preserved Ejection Fraction) trials. PARADIGM-HF was conducted between 2009 and 2014, PARAGON-HF was conducted between 2014 and 2019, and this analysis was conducted between 2021 and 2023. Main Outcomes and Measures: A 5-state Markov model used risk reductions for all-cause mortality and HF hospitalization from PARADIGM-HF and PARAGON-HF. Quality-of-life differences were estimated from EuroQol-5D scores. Hospitalization and medication costs were obtained from published national sources; the wholesale acquisition cost of sacubitril-valsartan was $7092 per year. Risk estimates and treatment effects were generated in consecutive 5% EF increments up to 60% and applied to an EF distribution of US patients with HF from the Get With the Guidelines-Heart Failure registry. The base case included a lifetime horizon from a health care sector perspective. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were estimated at EFs of 60% or less (base case) and at various upper-level EF cutoffs. Results: Among 13 264 total patients whose data were analyzed, for those with EFs of 60% or less, sacubitril-valsartan was projected to add 0.53 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) at an incremental lifetime cost of $40 892 compared with RASi, yielding an ICER of $76 852 per QALY. In a probabilistic sensitivity analysis, 95% of the values of the ICER occurred between $71 516 and $82 970 per QALY. Among patients with chronic HF and an EF of 60% or less, treatment with sacubitril-valsartan vs RASis would be at least of economic intermediate value (ICER <$180 000 per QALY) at a sacubitril-valsartan cost of $10 242 or less per year, of high economic value (ICER <$60 000 per QALY) at a cost of $3673 or less per year, and cost-saving at a cost of $338 or less per year. The ICERs were $67 331 per QALY, $59 614 per QALY, and $56 786 per QALY at EFs of 55% or less, 50% or less, and 45% or less, respectively. Treatment with sacubitril-valsartan in only those with EFs of 45% or greater (up to ≤60%) yielded an ICER of $127 172 per QALY gained; treatment was more cost-effective in those at the lower end of this range (ICER of $100 388 per QALY gained for those with EFs of 45%-55%; ICER of $84 291 per QALY gained for those with EFs of 45%-50%). Conclusions and Relevance: Cost-effectiveness modeling provided an ICER for treatment with sacubitril-valsartan vs RASis consistent with high economic value for patients with reduced and mildly reduced EFs (≤50%) and at least intermediate value at the current undiscounted wholesale acquisition cost price at an EF of 60% or less. Treatment was more cost-effective at lower EF ranges. These findings may have implications for coverage decisions and value assessments in contemporary clinical practice guidelines.

Sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors vs. sitagliptin in heart failure and type 2 diabetes: an observational cohort study.

AIMS: The effectiveness of sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors (SGLT2i) in patients with heart failure (HF) in routine clinical practice is not extensively studied. This study aimed to evaluate the comparative effectiveness of SGLT2i vs. sitagliptin in older adults with HF and type 2 diabetes and to investigate whether there were any differences between agents within the SGLT2i class or for reduced and preserved ejection fraction. METHODS AND RESULTS: Using Medicare claims data (April 2013 to December 2019), 16 253 SGLT2i initiators vs. 43 352 initiators of sitagliptin aged ≥65 years with type 2 diabetes and HF were included. The primary outcome was a composite of all-cause mortality, hospitalization for HF or urgent visit requiring intravenous diuretics; secondary outcomes included its individual components. Propensity score fine stratification weighted Cox regression was used to adjust for 100 pre-exposure characteristics. Mean age was 74 years; 49.8% were women. Initiation of SGLT2i vs. sitagliptin was associated with a lower risk of the primary composite outcome [adjusted hazard ratio (HR) 0.72; 95% confidence interval 0.67-0.77]. The adjusted HRs were 0.70 (0.63-0.78) for all-cause mortality, 0.64 (0.58-0.70) for hospitalization for HF, and 0.77 (0.69-0.86) for urgent visit requiring intravenous diuretics. Similar associations with the primary composite outcome were observed for all three agents within the SGLT2i class, for reduced and preserved ejection fraction, and subgroups based on demographics, comorbidities, and other HF treatments. Bias-calibrated HRs for the primary endpoint using negative and positive control outcomes ranged between 0.81 and 0.89, suggesting that the observed benefit could not be fully explained by residual confounding. CONCLUSION: In routine US clinical practice, SGLT2i demonstrated robust clinical effectiveness in older adults with HF and type 2 diabetes compared with sitagliptin, with no evidence of heterogeneity across the SGLT2i class or across ejection fraction.

The cost-effectiveness of dapagliflozin in heart failure with preserved or mildly reduced ejection fraction: A European health-economic analysis of the DELIVER trial.

AIMS: To determine the cost-effectiveness of dapagliflozin, added to usual care, in patients with heart failure (HF) with mildly reduced or preserved ejection fraction for the UK, German and Spanish payers using detailed patient-level data from the Dapagliflozin Evaluation to Improve the LIVEs of Patients with Preserved Ejection Fraction Heart Failure (DELIVER) trial. METHODS AND RESULTS: A lifetime Markov state-transition cohort model was developed. Quartiles of the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire total symptom score (KCCQ-TSS) defined health states and monthly transition count data informed transition probabilities. Multivariable generalized estimating equations captured the incidence of HF hospitalizations and urgent HF visits, while cardiovascular deaths and all-cause mortality were estimated using adjusted parametric survival models. Health state costs were assigned to KCCQ-TSS quartiles (2021 British pound [GBP]/Euro) and patient-reported outcomes were sourced from DELIVER. Future values of costs and effects were discounted according to country-specific rates. In the UK, dapagliflozin treatment was predicted to increase quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and life-years by 0.231 and 0.354, respectively, and extend the time spent in the best quartile of KCCQ-TSS by 4.2 months. Comparable outcomes were projected for Germany and Spain. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were £7761, €9540 and €5343/QALY in the UK, Germany and Spain, respectively. According to regional willingness-to-pay thresholds, 91%, 89% and 92% of simulations in the UK, Germany and Spain, respectively, were cost-effective following probabilistic sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSION: Dapagliflozin, added to usual care, is very likely cost-effective for HF with mildly reduced or preserved ejection fraction in several European countries.

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.

Risk of Acute Kidney Injury Among Older Adults With Heart Failure and With Reduced Ejection Fraction Treated With Angiotensin-Neprilysin Inhibitor vs Renin-Angiotensin System Inhibitor in Routine Clinical Care.

BACKGROUND: The acute hemodynamic effects of sacubitril/valsartan, an angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI), may result in early changes in kidney function, raising concerns about acute kidney injury (AKI), particularly in those who are naïve to renin-angiotensin system inhibitors (RASis). METHODS: We conducted a cohort study using U.S. Medicare fee-for-service claims data (2014-2017). Patients with HFrEF ≥ 65 years newly initiating ARNI or RASi, with no prior use of either drug class, were included. The primary outcome was hospitalization due to AKI as the primary discharge diagnosis, and the secondary outcome included AKI as a primary or secondary discharge diagnosis. AKI risks were described under an as-treated follow-up approach, with censoring on treatment discontinuation, switch, insurance disenrollment, death, or administrative censoring as well as an intent-to-treat approach. Propensity-score-based fine-stratification weighting was used to account for potential confounding by 81 pre-exposure characteristics. Cumulative incidence functions were used to report absolute risks, and Cox proportional hazards models were used to provide hazard ratios (HR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI). RESULTS: We included 27,166 patients with a mean (SD) age of 73 (7.3) years, and 4155 (15.3%) were initiating ARNI. After propensity score weighting, the 180-day cumulative incidence was 2.7% (2.4%-3.1%) among RASi initiators and 2.7% (2.2%-3.5%) among ARNI initiators for the primary outcome, and it was 6.5% (6.0%-7.1%) and 6.1% (5.2%-7.1%), respectively, for the secondary outcome under as-treated follow-up. HR (95% CI) comparing ARNI with RASi were 0.91 (95% CI: 0.72-1.16) for the primary outcome and 0.92 (95% CI: 0.79-1.08) for the secondary outcome. Similar results were observed in the intent-to-treat analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Among a large cohort of U.S. Medicare beneficiaries with HFrEF, ARNI treatment was not associated with higher rates of AKI than RASi treatment. These results provide reassurance for providers considering ARNI initiation in older patients who are RASi-naïve.

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.

Rates of Spironolactone Initiation and Subsequent Hyperkalemia Hospitalizations in Patients with Heart Failure with Preserved Ejection Fraction Following the TOPCAT trial: A Cohort Study of Medicare Beneficiaries.

BACKGROUND: The impact of the TOPCAT trial publication on spironolactone initiation and subsequent hospitalizations for hyperkalemia among patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) has not been evaluated empirically. METHODS AND RESULTS: We designed a cohort study using US Medicare fee-for-service data. Annual cohorts of patients with HFpEF from 2013 to 2018 were identified based on a validated claims-based phenotyping model. We determined spironolactone initiation in each annual cohort overall and within subgroups with hyperkalemia risk factors of baseline renin-angiotensin system inhibitors use, chronic kidney disease, and diabetes. We reported incidence rates of hospitalization for hyperkalemia within 6 months of treatment initiation. A total of 621,171 patients with HFpEF (mean age 80 ± 8 years, 62.9% female) were included. We identified 40,241 initiations of spironolactone with initiation rate/100 person-years of 16.8 (95% confidence interval [CI] 16.4-17.1) in 2013 and increasing to 19.9 (95% CI 19.4-20.5) in 2018. Among initiators, we identified a total of 164 hyperkalemia hospitalization with stable incidence rates per 1000 person-years between 2013 (12.0, 95% CI 8.8-16.1) and 2018 (10.6, 95% CI 6.2-17.0). These results were consistent for all subgroups. CONCLUSIONS: After the dissemination of TOPCAT findings, we noted a steady increase in the initiation of spironolactone, but not in hyperkalemia hospitalizations.

Pharmacodynamic evaluation and safety assessment of treatment with antibodies to serum amyloid P component in patients with cardiac amyloidosis: an open-label Phase 2 study and an adjunctive immuno-PET imaging study.

BACKGROUND: In a Phase I study treatment with the serum amyloid P component (SAP) depleter miridesap followed by monoclonal antibody to SAP (dezamizumab) showed removal of amyloid from liver, spleen and kidney in patients with systemic amyloidosis. We report results from a Phase 2 study and concurrent immuno-positron emission tomography (PET) study assessing efficacy, pharmacodynamics, pharmacokinetics, safety and cardiac uptake (of dezamizumab) following the same intervention in patients with cardiac amyloidosis. METHODS: Both were uncontrolled open-label studies. After SAP depletion with miridesap, patients received ≤ 6 monthly doses of dezamizumab in the Phase 2 trial (n = 7), ≤ 2 doses of non-radiolabelled dezamizumab plus [89Zr]Zr-dezamizumab (total mass dose of 80 mg at session 1 and 500 mg at session 2) in the immuno-PET study (n = 2). Primary endpoints of the Phase 2 study were changed from baseline to follow-up (at 8 weeks) in left ventricular mass (LVM) by cardiac magnetic resonance imaging and safety. Primary endpoint of the immuno-PET study was [89Zr]Zr-dezamizumab cardiac uptake assessed via PET. RESULTS: Dezamizumab produced no appreciable or consistent reduction in LVM nor improvement in cardiac function in the Phase 2 study. In the immuno-PET study, measurable cardiac uptake of [89Zr]Zr-dezamizumab, although seen in both patients, was moderate to low. Uptake was notably lower in the patient with higher LVM. Treatment-associated rash with cutaneous small-vessel vasculitis was observed in both studies. Abdominal large-vessel vasculitis after initial dezamizumab dosing (300 mg) occurred in the first patient with immunoglobulin light chain amyloidosis enrolled in the Phase 2 study. Symptom resolution was nearly complete within 24 h of intravenous methylprednisolone and dezamizumab discontinuation; abdominal computed tomography imaging showed vasculitis resolution by 8 weeks. CONCLUSIONS: Unlike previous observations of visceral amyloid reduction, there was no appreciable evidence of amyloid removal in patients with cardiac amyloidosis in this Phase 2 trial, potentially related to limited cardiac uptake of dezamizumab as demonstrated in the immuno-PET study. The benefit-risk assessment for dezamizumab in cardiac amyloidosis was considered unfavourable after the incidence of large-vessel vasculitis and development for this indication was terminated. Trial registration NCT03044353 (2 February 2017) and NCT03417830 (25 January 2018).

Projected Clinical Benefits of Implementation of SGLT-2 Inhibitors Among Medicare Beneficiaries Hospitalized for Heart Failure.

BACKGROUND: The sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT-2) inhibitors form the latest pillar in the management of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and appear to be effective across a range of patient profiles. There is increasing interest in initiating SGLT-2 inhibitors during hospitalization, yet little is known about the putative benefits of this implementation strategy. METHODS: We evaluated Medicare beneficiaries with HFrEF (≤ 40%) hospitalized at 228 sites in the Get With The Guidelines-Heart Failure (GWTG-HF) registry in 2016 who had linked claims data for ≥ 1 year postdischarge. We identified those eligible for dapagliflozin under the latest U.S. Food and Drug Administration label (excluding estimated glomerular filtration rates < 25 mL/min per 1.73 m2, dialysis and type 1 diabetes). We evaluated 1-year outcomes overall and among key subgroups (age ≥ 75 years, gender, race, hospital region, kidney function, diabetes status, triple therapy). We then projected the potential benefits of implementation of dapagliflozin based on the risk reductions observed in the Dapagliflozin and Prevention of Adverse Outcomes in Heart Failure (DAPA-HF) trial. RESULTS: Among 7523 patients hospitalized for HFrEF, 6576 (87%) would be candidates for dapagliflozin (mean age 79 ± 8 years, 39% women, 11% Black). Among eligible candidates, discharge use of ß-blockers, ACEi/ARB, MRA, ARNI, and triple therapy (ACEi/ARB/ARNI+ß-blocker+MRA) was recorded in 88%, 64%, 29%, 3%, and 20%, respectively. Among treatment-eligible patients, the 1-year incidence (95% CI) of mortality was 37% (36-38%) and of HF readmission was 33% (32-34%), and each exceeded 25% across all key subgroups. Among 1333 beneficiaries eligible for dapagliflozin who were already on triple therapy, the 1-year incidence of mortality was 26% (24%-29%) and the 1-year readmission due to HF was 30% (27%-32%). Applying the relative risk reductions observed in DAPA-HF, absolute risk reductions with complete implementation of dapagliflozin among treatment-eligible Medicare beneficiaries are projected to be 5% (1%-9%) for mortality and 9% (5%-12%) for HF readmission by 1 year. The projected number of Medicare beneficiaries who would need to be treated for 1 year to prevent 1 death is 19 (11-114), and 12 (8-21) would need to be treated to prevent 1 readmission due to HF. CONCLUSIONS: Medicare beneficiaries with HFrEF who are eligible for dapagliflozin after hospitalization due to HF, including those well-treated with other disease-modifying therapies, face high risks of mortality and HF readmission by 1 year. If the benefits of reductions in death and hospitalizations due to HF observed in clinical trials can be fully realized, the absolute benefits of implementation of SGLT-2 inhibitors among treatment-eligible candidates are anticipated to be substantial in this high-risk postdischarge setting.

Assessment of Omecamtiv Mecarbil for the Treatment of Patients With Severe Heart Failure: A Post Hoc Analysis of Data From the GALACTIC-HF Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Heart failure with reduced ejection fraction is a progressive clinical syndrome, and many patients' condition worsen over time despite treatment. Patients with more severe disease are often intolerant of available medical therapies. Objective: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of omecamtiv mecarbil for the treatment of patients with severe heart failure (HF) enrolled in the Global Approach to Lowering Adverse Cardiac Outcomes Through Improving Contractility in Heart Failure (GALACTIC-HF) randomized clinical trial. Design, Setting, and Participants: The GALACTIC-HF study was a global double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3 randomized clinical trial that was conducted at multiple centers between January 2017 and August 2020. A total of 8232 patients with symptomatic HF (defined as New York Heart Association symptom class II-IV) and left ventricular ejection fraction of 35% or less were randomized to receive omecamtiv mecarbil or placebo and followed up for a median of 21.8 months (range, 15.4-28.6 months). The current post hoc analysis evaluated the efficacy and safety of omecamtiv mecarbil therapy among patients classified as having severe HF compared with patients without severe HF. Severe HF was defined as the presence of all of the following criteria: New York Heart Association symptom class III to IV, left ventricular ejection fraction of 30% or less, and hospitalization for HF within the previous 6 months. Interventions: Participants were randomized at a 1:1 ratio to receive either omecamtiv mecarbil or placebo. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was time to first HF event or cardiovascular (CV) death. Secondary end points included time to CV death and safety and tolerability. Results: Among 8232 patients enrolled in the GALACTIC-HF clinical trial, 2258 patients (27.4%; mean [SD] age, 64.5 [11.6] years; 1781 men [78.9%]) met the specified criteria for severe HF. Of those, 1106 patients were randomized to the omecamtiv mecarbil group and 1152 to the placebo group. Patients with severe HF who received omecamtiv mecarbil experienced a significant treatment benefit for the primary end point (hazard ratio [HR], 0.80; 95% CI, 0.71-0.90), whereas patients without severe HF had no significant treatment benefit (HR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.91-1.08; P = .005 for interaction). For CV death, the results were similar (HR for patients with vs without severe HF: 0.88 [95% CI, 0.75-1.03] vs 1.10 [95% CI, 0.97-1.25]; P = .03 for interaction). Omecamtiv mecarbil therapy was well tolerated in patients with severe HF, with no significant changes in blood pressure, kidney function, or potassium level compared with placebo. Conclusions and Relevance: In this post hoc analysis of data from the GALACTIC-HF clinical trial, omecamtiv mecarbil therapy may have provided a clinically meaningful reduction in the composite end point of time to first HF event or CV death among patients with severe HF. These data support a potential role of omecamtiv mecarbil therapy among patients for whom current treatment options are limited. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02929329.

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.

Racial and Ethnic Differences in Biomarkers, Health Status, and Cardiac Remodeling in Patients With Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction Treated With Sacubitril/Valsartan.

BACKGROUND: Among patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction (left ventricular (LV) ejection fraction ≤40%), sacubitril/valsartan (S/V) treatment is associated with improved health status and reverse cardiac remodeling. Data regarding racial and ethnic differences in response to S/V are lacking. METHODS: This was an analysis from the PROVE-HF study (Prospective Study of Biomarkers, Symptom Improvement and Ventricular Remodeling During Entresto Therapy for Heart Failure). Longitudinal changes in NT-proBNP (N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide), cardiac reverse remodeling, and health status scores were compared between groups using multivariate latent growth curve modeling. RESULTS: Among the 782 patients included in this study, 22.7% were non-Hispanic Black (from here referred to as Black), 14.9% were Hispanic, and 62.4% were non-Hispanic White (from here referred to as White). At baseline, compared with White patients, Black and Hispanic patients had lower NT-proBNP (g=0.34) and differences between groups in baseline values for LV end-diastolic volume index and LV end-systolic volume index were negligible (g<0.10). Following S/V initiation, NT-proBNP decreased in all 3 groups (P<0.0001) associated with improvements in LV ejection fraction, LV end-diastolic volume index, and LV end-systolic volume index. Although total improvement in LV measures was similar between groups, Black patients averaged larger gains in the first half of the trial while White patients averaged larger gains in the second half. Improvements in Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire-23 Total Symptom scores were seen in all 3 groups. Treatment with S/V was well-tolerated. CONCLUSIONS: Among Black, Hispanic, and White patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction, treatment with S/V was associated with similar reduction in NT-proBNP, improvement in health status, and reverse remodeling. More data regarding racial and ethnic responses to heart failure and reduced ejection fraction treatment are needed. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT02887183.

Cost-effectiveness of Sacubitril-Valsartan in Hospitalized Patients Who Have Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction.

Importance: Sacubitril-valsartan use reduces mortality and hospitalizations compared with enalapril among patients with chronic heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF); however, the cost-effectiveness of these treatments when initiated during hospitalization for HF is unknown. Objective: To estimate the cost-effectiveness of inpatient initiation of sacubitril-valsartan vs enalapril compared with no initiation or posthospitalization initiation of sacubitril-valsartan among stabilized patients with HFrEF. Design, Setting, and Participants: This economic evaluation included data on US patients with HFrEF who were eligible for sacubitril-valsartan treatment from December 8, 2009, to May 15, 2018. Main Outcomes and Measures: A 5-state Markov model with all-cause mortality, HF, and non-HF hospitalization probabilities was used. Quality of life was estimated using Euro-QoL EQ-5D scores. Hospitalization, long-term care, and medication costs for sacubitril-valsartan and enalapril were modeled with a discount rate of 3%. The base-case analysis included a lifetime horizon from a health care and societal perspective. Results: Modeled patients were a mean (SD) age of 63.8 (11.5) years. Inpatient treatment with sacubitril-valsartan ($5628 per year) was associated with 62 fewer HF-related admissions per 1000 patients compared with outpatient initiation or 116 fewer HF-related admissions compared with continuation of enalapril treatment. From a health care system perspective, initiation of sacubitril-valsartan during hospitalization saved $452 per year compared with continuing enalapril and $811 per year compared with initiation at 2 months after hospitalization and was associated with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $21 532 per quality-adjusted life-year compared with continued enalapril treatment over a lifetime. From a societal perspective, inpatient initiation was estimated to save $460 per year per patient compared with no initiation of sacubitril-valsartan and $813 per year per patient compared with initiation after hospitalization. In a budget analysis, inpatient initiation of sacubitril-valsartan was estimated to save up to $449 per person for 1 year or $2550 per person over 5 years compared with continuation of enalapril. Conclusions and Relevance: The findings suggest that, for patients with HFrEF, initiation of sacubitril-valsartan during hospitalization may be associated with reduced hospitalizations, increased quality-adjusted life expectancy, and cost savings compared with no initiation or initiation after hospitalization.

Challenges and Potential Improvements to Patient Access to Pharmaceuticals: Examples From Cardiology.

Patient access to a drug after US regulatory approval is controlled by complex interactions between governmental and third-party payers, pharmacy benefit managers, distributers, manufacturers, health systems, and pharmacies that together mediate the receipt of goods by patients after prescription by clinicians. Recent medication approvals highlight why and how the distribution of clinically beneficial novel therapies is controlled. Although imposed limitations on availability may be rational considering the fiduciary responsibilities of payers and escalating spending on health care and pharmaceuticals, transparency and communication are lacking, and some utilization management may disproportionately affect vulnerable populations. Analysis of the current health insurance landscape suggests mechanisms by which patient access to appropriate medications can be improved and patient and clinician frustration reduced while acknowledging the financial realities of the pharmaceutical marketplace. We propose creation of a shared, standardized, and transparent process for coverage decisions that minimizes administrative barriers and is defensible on the basis of clinical and cost-effectiveness evidence. These reforms would benefit patients and improve the efficiency of the pharmaceutical system.

Assessment of Long-term Benefit of Intensive Blood Pressure Control on Residual Life Span: Secondary Analysis of the Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial (SPRINT).

Importance: High blood pressure (BP) is a leading contributor to premature mortality worldwide. The Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial (SPRINT) demonstrated a 27% reduction in all-cause death with intensive (vs standard) BP control. However, traditional reporting of survival benefits is not readily interpretable outside medical communities. Objective: To estimate residual life span and potential survival gains with intensive compared with standard BP control in the SPRINT trial using validated nonparametric age-based methods. Design, Setting, and Participants: This secondary analysis of data from an open-label randomized clinical trial included data from 102 enrolling clinical sites in the United States. Adults who were 50 years or older, were at high cardiovascular risk but without diabetes, and had a screening systolic BP between 130 and 180 mm Hg were enrolled between November 2010 and March 2013. Data analysis occurred from May 2019 to December 2019. Interventions: A 1:1 randomization to intensive (target, <120 mm Hg) or standard (target, <140 mm Hg) systolic BP targets. Main Outcomes and Measures: We calculated age-based estimates of projected survival (at a given age) using baseline age rather than time from randomization as the time axis. In each treatment arm at every year of age, residual life span was estimated using the area under the survival curve, up to a maximum of 95 years. Differences in areas under the survival curves reflect the estimated treatment benefits on projected survival. Results: A total of 9361 adults were enrolled (mean [SD] age at randomization, 68 [9] years; 6029 [64.4%] were men; 5399 [57.7%] were non-Hispanic white individuals). Mean survival benefits with intensive vs standard BP control ranged from 6 months to up to 3 years. At age 50 years, the estimated residual survival was 37.3 years with intensive treatment and 34.4 years with standard treatment (difference, 2.9 years [95% CI, 0.9-5.0 years]; P = .008). At age 65 years, residual survival was 24.5 years with intensive treatment and 23.3 years with standard treatment (difference, 1.1 years [95% CI, 0.1-2.1 years]; P = .03). Absolute survival gains with intensive vs standard BP control decreased with age, but the relative benefits were consistent (4% to 9%). Conclusions and Relevance: Intensive BP control improves projected survival by 6 months to 3 years among middle-aged and older adults at high cardiovascular risk but without diabetes mellitus. These post hoc actuarial analyses from SPRINT support the survival benefits of intensive BP control, especially among middle-aged adults at risk. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01206062.