Real-World Eligibility and Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Empagliflozin for Heart Failure in Korea.

BACKGROUND: The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and European Medicines Agency (EMA) approved empagliflozin for reducing cardiovascular mortality and heart failure (HF) hospitalization in patients with both HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and HF with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). However, limited data are available on the generalizability of empagliflozin to clinical practice. Therefore, we evaluated real-world eligibility and potential cost-effectiveness based on a nationwide prospective HF registry. METHODS: A total of 3,108 HFrEF and 2,070 HFpEF patients from the Korean Acute Heart Failure (KorAHF) registry were analyzed. Eligibility was estimated by inclusion and exclusion criteria of EMPagliflozin outcomE tRial in Patients With chrOnic heaRt Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction (EMPEROR-Reduced) and EMPagliflozin outcomE tRial in Patients With chrOnic heaRt Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction (EMPEROR-Preserved) trials and by FDA & EMA label criteria. The cost-utility analysis was done using a Markov model to project the lifetime medical cost and quality-adjusted life year (QALY). RESULTS: Among the KorAHF patients, 91.4% met FDA & EMA label criteria, while 44.7% met the clinical trial criteria. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of empagliflozin was calculated at US$6,764 per QALY in the overall population, which is far below a threshold of US$18,182 per QALY. The cost-effectiveness benefit was more evident in patients with HFrEF (US$5,012 per QALY) than HFpEF (US$8,971 per QALY). CONCLUSION: There is a large discrepancy in real-world eligibility for empagliflozin between FDA & EMA labels and clinical trial criteria. Empagliflozin is cost-effective in HF patients regardless of ejection fraction in South Korea health care setting. The efficacy and safety of empagliflozin in real-world HF patients should be further investigated for a broader range of clinical applications. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01389843.

Comparative efficacy of vericiguat to sacubitril/valsartan for patients with heart failure reduced ejection fraction: Systematic review and network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Despite the established efficacy of vericiguat compared to placebo, uncertainties remain regarding its comparative efficacy to sacubitril/valsartan for patients with heart failure reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). This study aimed to assess the relative efficacy of vericiguat and sacubitril/valsartan through a systematic review, network meta-analysis, and non-inferiority tests. METHODS: A systematic review was conducted to identify the randomized phase 3 clinical trials involving vericiguat and sacubitril/valsartan. The hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) for cardiovascular death (CVD) and hospitalization due to HF (hHF) were extracted from these trials and synthesized via network meta-analysis. Non-inferiority testing of vericiguat was performed using a fixed-margin method with a predefined non-inferiority margin (1.24). Sensitivity analyses explored the impact of the time from hHF to screening. RESULTS: Among the 1366 studies, two trials (VICTORIA and PARADIGM-HF) met the inclusion criteria. Network meta-analysis demonstrated that the HR for CVD or hHF with vericiguat did not significantly differ from that for sacubitril/valsartan (HR: 0.88, 95% CI:0.62-1.23). The upper limit of the 95% CI was less than the predefined margin of 1.24, confirming vericiguat's non-inferiority to sacubitril/valsartan. Sensitivity analyses affirmed the robustness of the base-case results. CONCLUSION: Vericiguat exhibited a comparable risk of CVD or hHF when contrasted with sacubitril/valsartan. Importantly, in patients with HFrEF, vericiguat's efficacy was not statistically inferior to that of sacubitril/valsartan. These findings reinforce the potential of vericiguat as a viable treatment option for this patient population.

Proteome-wide Characterization and Pathophysiology Correlation in Non-ischemic Cardiomyopathies.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Although the clinical consequences of advanced heart failure (HF) may be similar across different etiologies of cardiomyopathies, their proteomic expression may show substantial differences in relation to underlying pathophysiology. We aimed to identify myocardial tissue-based proteomic characteristics and the underlying molecular pathophysiology in non-ischemic cardiomyopathy with different etiologies. METHODS: Comparative extensive proteomic analysis of the myocardium was performed in nine patients with biopsy-proven non-ischemic cardiomyopathies (3 dilated cardiomyopathy [DCM], 2 hypertrophic cardiomyopathy [HCM], and 4 myocarditis) as well as five controls using tandem mass tags combined with liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry. Differential protein expression analysis, Gene Ontology (GO) analysis, and Ingenuity Pathway Analysis (IPA) were performed to identify proteomic differences and molecular mechanisms in each cardiomyopathy type compared to the control. Proteomic characteristics were further evaluated in accordance with clinical and pathological findings. RESULTS: The principal component analysis score plot showed that the controls, DCM, and HCM clustered well. However, myocarditis samples exhibited scattered distribution. IPA revealed the downregulation of oxidative phosphorylation and upregulation of the sirtuin signaling pathway in both DCM and HCM. Various inflammatory pathways were upregulated in myocarditis with the downregulation of Rho GDP dissociation inhibitors. The molecular pathophysiology identified by extensive proteomic analysis represented the clinical and pathological properties of each cardiomyopathy with abundant proteomes. CONCLUSIONS: Different etiologies of non-ischemic cardiomyopathies in advanced HF exhibit distinct proteomic expression despite shared pathologic findings. The benefit of tailored management strategies considering the different proteomic expressions in non-ischemic advanced HF requires further investigation.

Eligibility and Cost-Utility Analysis of Dapagliflozin in Patients with Heart Failure Across the Whole Spectrum of Ejection Fraction in South Korea.

BACKGROUND: The DAPA-HF and DELIVER trials demonstrated the clinical benefits of dapagliflozin in heart failure (HF) patients across the entire ejection fraction (EF) spectrum. However, further investigation is needed for the real-world application of dapagliflozin in HF patients. This study examines the proportion of real-world HF patients eligible for dapagliflozin and evaluates the cost-effectiveness of adding dapagliflozin to current HF therapy. METHODS: Data from the nationwide prospective registry, the Korean Acute Heart Failure (KorAHF) registry, were used to determine dapagliflozin eligibility based on the enrollment criteria of the DAPA-HF/DELIVER trials. A cost-utility analysis was conducted using a Markov model to assess the cost-effectiveness of dapagliflozin by comparing it to the standard of care. RESULTS: Out of 5178 KorAHF patients, 48.7% met the enrollment criteria of the DAPA-HF/DELIVER trials, while 89.5% met the label criteria (US Food and Drug Administration, European Medicines Agency, and Korean Ministry of Food and Drug Safety). Eligibility was highest among HF patients with preserved EF (55.3% vs. HF with mildly reduced EF and HF with reduced EF 46.4%). Dapagliflozin proved to be cost-effective, with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of 4557 US dollar (US$) per quality-adjusted life year, which falls below the US$18,182 willingness-to-pay threshold. The cost-effectiveness benefit was more pronounced in patients with a left ventricular EF (LVEF) ≤ 40% (ICER US$3279 for LVEF ≤ 40% vs. US$8383 for LVEF > 40%). CONCLUSIONS: Discrepancies in dapagliflozin eligibility were observed between real-world data and clinical trial results. The addition of dapagliflozin to HF therapy proved to be highly cost-effective across the entire EF spectrum.