Patient, Provider, and Practice Characteristics Associated With Sacubitril/Valsartan Use in the United States

Novel Initiative Increasing GDMT Use Among Patients With Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction

Guideline-directed medical therapy utilization in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) remains low despite benefits in morbidity and mortality. The authors describe a unique quality improvement initiative designed to increase angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI) and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist (MRA) utilization in outpatients with HFrEF in a large cardiology practice, whereby eligible patients were identified in a standardized review process and medication utilization rates were linked to group quality metrics. Eligible HFrEF patients were defined as having a left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) ≤40% and NYHA functional class II to IV level of symptoms. Those with an LVEF >40%, no documented LVEF, or with NYHA functional class I symptoms were excluded. ARNI utilization was defined as any dose of sacubitril/valsartan prescribed, and MRA utilization was defined as any dose of either spironolactone or eplerenone prescribed. Group quality metric targets were set at >25% ARNI prescription and >60% MRA prescription in eligible patients. Following project implementation, ARNI utilization rose from 31% to 67% and MRA increased from 28% to 66%. Establishing clear quality metrics and formulating a proactive evaluation process was associated with a significant increase in prescription rates.

Real-world analysis of integration of sacubitril/valsartan into clinical practice in Saudi Arabia

Despite the demonstrated advantages of angiotensin receptor/neprilysin inhibitors in the management of heart failure, the pivotal Angiotensin-Neprilysin Inhibition versus Enalapril in Heart Failure (PARADIGM-HF) trial, which explored this class of medications, did not include individuals from Saudi Arabia. Recognizing that different nations and ethnic groups may exhibit unique characteristics, this study aimed to compare the demographics and outcomes of patients in Saudi Arabia who received sacubitril/valsartan (Sac/Val) with those enrolled in the PARADIGM-HF trial. In this retrospective, multicenter cohort study, we included all adult patients diagnosed with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) within a tertiary healthcare system in Saudi Arabia between January 2018 and December 2021 and were initiated on Sac/Val. The primary objective was to compare the patient characteristics of those initiating Sac/Val treatment with the participants in the PARADIGM-HF trial. The secondary endpoints included the initiation setting, dose initiation, and titration, as well as alterations in B-type natriuretic peptide and ejection fraction at the 6-month mark. Furthermore, we reported the hospitalization and mortality event rates at the 12-month time point. The study included 400 patients with HFrEF receiving Sac/Val. Compared with the PARADIGM-HF trial, the cohort had a younger mean age and a higher prevalence of diabetes mellitus. SAC/VAL was prescribed as the initial therapy for 34% of the patients, while the remaining participants were initially treated with either an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor or an angiotensin receptor blocker before transitioning to Sac/Val. Approximately 75% of patients were initiated on 100 mg Sac/Val twice daily, and 90% initiated therapy in the inpatient setting. The mean ejection fraction significantly improved from 26.5 ± 8.4% to 30.5 ± 6.4% at 6 months (P < .001), while the median B-type natriuretic peptide level change was not significant (P = .39). Our study revealed notable disparities in the baseline characteristics of patients with HFrEF compared with those in the PARADIGM-HF trial. These findings offer valuable real-world insights into the prescription patterns and outcomes of Sac/Val in patients with HFrEF in Saudi Arabia, an aspect not previously represented in the PARADIGM-HF study.

Clinician challenges to evidence-based prescribing for heart failure and reduced ejection fraction: A qualitative evaluation

BACKGROUND

Reasons for suboptimal prescribing for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) have been identified, but it is unclear if they remain relevant with recent advances in healthcare delivery and technologies. This study aimed to identify and understand current clinician-perceived challenges to prescribing guideline-directed HFrEF medications.

METHODS

We conducted content analysis methodology, including interviews and member-checking focus groups with primary care and cardiology clinicians. Interview guides were informed by the Cabana Framework.

RESULTS

We conducted interviews with 33 clinicians (13 cardiology specialists, 22 physicians) and member checking with 10 of these. We identified four levels of challenges from the clinician perspective. Clinician level challenges included misconceptions about guideline recommendations, clinician assumptions (e.g., drug cost or affordability), and clinical inertia. Patient-clinician level challenges included misalignment of priorities and insufficient communication. Clinician-clinician level challenges were primarily between generalists and specialists, including lack of role clarity, competing priorities of providing focused versus holistic care, and contrasting confidence regarding safety of newer drugs. Policy and system/organisation level challenges included insufficient access to timely/reliable patient data, and unintended care gaps for medications without financially incentivized metrics.

CONCLUSION

This study presents current challenges faced by cardiology and primary care which can be used to strategically design interventions to improve guideline-directed care for HFrEF. The findings support the persistence of many challenges and also sheds light on new challenges. New challenges identified include conflicting perspectives between generalists and specialists, hesitancy to prescribe newer medications due to safety concerns, and unintended consequences related to value-based reimbursement metrics for select medications.

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.

Defining the gap in heart failure treatment in patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices

BACKGROUND

The use of guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) is poorly described in patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) with cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) and/or implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs).

OBJECTIVE

To define the eligibility, uptake, dose, contraindications, and barriers to uptake of contemporary medical therapy in this population.

METHODS

Retrospective analysis of consecutive adults with ICD and/or CRT attending two Canadian tertiary centre device clinics between 1 March and 31 May 2021.

RESULTS

From 1005 device clinic consultations, 227 (22.6%) patients with HFrEF and CRT and/or ICD were included. GDMT eligibility was high: beta-blockers (99.6%), mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRA) (89.0%), angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitors (ARNI) (84.6%), and sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors (SGLT2I) (87.7%). Contraindications were rare: beta-blockers (0.4%), MRA (11.0%), ARNI (15.4%), and SGLT2I (12.3%). Uptake of GDMT was high for beta-blockers (97.4%) but low for other medications: MRA (63.0%), ARNI (46.7%), SGLT2I (22.9%). Except for SGLT2I (84.6%) and beta-blockers (57.9%), less than one-half of patients were prescribed target-doses of MRA (10.5%), and ARNI (47.7%). Of the visits, GDMT was already optimal in 16%, electrophysiologists acted in 33% (21% prescribed, 7% ordered investigations, 5% referred to heart function services), and in the remaining visits, optimization was either deferred to another cardiologist (20%) or no plan was mentioned (25%), besides other reasons (4%).

CONCLUSION

Despite broad eligibility for GDMT in patients with HFrEF and ICD/CRT, significant gaps in prescription and titration exist. Our results highlight the need to embed quality assurance initiatives in cardiac device clinics to improve HFrEF care.

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.

The Association of Improvement in Left Ventricular Ejection Fraction with Outcomes in Patients with Heart Failure with Reduced Ejection Fraction: Data from CHAMP-HF

AIMS

We assessed for an association between improvements in left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and future outcomes, including health status, in routine clinical practice.

METHODS AND RESULTS

CHAMP-HF was a registry of outpatients with heart failure (HF) and LVEF <40%. Enrolled participants completed the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire-12 (KCCQ-12) at regular intervals and were followed as part of routine care. We assessed for associations between improvements in LVEF (>10%) over time and concurrent changes in KCCQ-12, as well as the subsequent risk of poor outcomes. We included 2092 participants in the study. They had the following characteristics: median age 67 years (25^th , 75^th percentile 58, 75), 29% female, median duration of HF 2.7 years (0.6, 6.8), and median baseline LVEF 30% (23, 35). Of the study participants, 689 (34%) had a >10% absolute improvement in LVEF. Participants with an LVEF improvement also had an improvement in KCCQ-12 overall summary score compared with participants without an LVEF improvement (+7.6 vs +3.5, adjusted effect estimate +4.1 [95% CI 2.3 to 5.7]). Similarly, subsequent all-cause death or HF hospitalization occurred in 12% in the LVEF improvement group vs 25% in the group without an LVEF improvement (adjusted HR 0.50, 95% CI 0.41 to 0.61).

CONCLUSION

In a large cohort of outpatients with chronic HF, improvements in LVEF were associated with improved health status and a reduced risk for future clinical events. These data underscore the importance of improvement in LVEF as a treatment target for medical interventions for patients with chronic HF.

Heart failure treatment in patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices: Opportunity for improvement

BACKGROUND

Heart failure and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) is the predominant indication for cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) and implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) implantation. The care gap and opportunity to optimize guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) is unclear.

OBJECTIVE

We sought to define uptake, eligibility, dose, and adherence to GDMT in patients with CRT/ICD and HFrEF.

METHODS

MEDLINE was searched from 2000 to July 2021 for major randomized trials, registries, and cohort studies evaluating GDMT in this population. Thirty-eight studies focused on medical therapy in patients with CRT/ICD devices (CRT = 23, ICD = 11, and both = 4).

RESULTS

In the pivotal device trials, ACEI/ARB and beta-blocker use was high (mean 94%, range 41%-99%; and 83%, range 27%-97%, respectively), but mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists were modest (mean 45%, range 32%-61%), in keeping with guidelines of that era. Similar results were found in observational registries. CRT was associated with beta-blocker uptitration, while the effects on ACEI/ARB were less consistent. For beta blockers, 57%-68% of patients were uptitrated, increasing the mean percent of target dose achieved by 24% from baseline to follow-up. In one study, adherence increased, for ACEI/ARB from 37% to 55% and beta blockers 34% to 58%. Only 1 study assessed potential eligibility at implant for sacubitril-valsartan (72%) or ivabradine (28%), and no study examined sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors. Increased uptake, titration, and dose was associated with reduced mortality, hospitalization, and device therapies.

CONCLUSION

Patients with HFrEF and ICD/CRT are undertreated with respect to GDMT, and there is opportunity to optimize therapy to improve morbidity and mortality.

Identifying patients at increased risk for poor outcomes from heart failure with reduced ejection fraction: the PROMPT-HF risk model

Aims

We aimed to develop a risk prediction tool that incorporated both clinical events and worsening health status for patients with heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). Identifying patients with HFrEF at increased risk of a poor outcome may enable proactive interventions that improve outcomes.

Methods and results

We used data from a longitudinal HF registry, CHAMP‐HF, to develop a risk prediction tool for poor outcomes over the next 6 months. A poor outcome was defined as death, an HF hospitalization, or a ≥20‐point decrease (or decrease below 25) in 12‐item Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ‐12) overall summary score. Among 4546 patients in CHAMP‐HF, 1066 (23%) experienced a poor outcome within 6 months (1.3% death, 11% HF hospitalization, and 11% change in KCCQ‐12). The model demonstrated moderate discrimination (c‐index = 0.65) and excellent calibration with observed data. The following variables were associated with a poor outcome: age, race, education, New York Heart Association class, baseline KCCQ‐12, atrial fibrillation, coronary disease, diabetes, chronic kidney disease, smoking, prior HF hospitalization, and systolic blood pressure. We also created a simplified model with a 0–10 score using six variables (New York Heart Association class, KCCQ‐12, coronary disease, chronic kidney disease, prior HF hospitalization, and systolic blood pressure) with similar discrimination (c‐index = 0.63). Patients scoring 0–3 were considered low risk (event rate <20%), 4–6 were considered intermediate risk (event rate 20–40%), and 7–10 were considered high risk (event rate >40%).

Conclusions

The PROMPT‐HF risk model can identify outpatients with HFrEF at increased risk of poor outcomes, including clinical events and health status deterioration. With further validation, this model may help inform therapeutic decision making.

Barriers and facilitators to the uptake of new medicines into clinical practice: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Implementation and uptake of novel and cost-effective medicines can improve patient health outcomes and healthcare efficiency. However, the uptake of new medicines into practice faces a wide range of obstacles. Earlier reviews provided insights into determinants for new medicine uptake (such as medicine, prescriber, patient, organization, and external environment factors). However, the methodological approaches used had limitations (e.g., single author, narrative review, narrow search, no quality assessment of reviewed evidence). This systematic review aims to identify barriers and facilitators affecting the uptake of new medicines into clinical practice and identify areas for future research.

METHOD

A systematic search of literature was undertaken within seven databases: Medline, EMBASE, Web of Science, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, SCOPUS, and PsychINFO. Included in the review were qualitative, quantitative, and mixed-methods studies focused on adult participants (18 years and older) requiring or taking new medicine(s) for any condition, in the context of healthcare organizations and which identified factors affecting the uptake of new medicines. The methodological quality was assessed using QATSDD tool. A narrative synthesis of reported factors was conducted using framework analysis and a conceptual framework was utilised to group them.

RESULTS

A total of 66 studies were included. Most studies (n = 62) were quantitative and used secondary data (n = 46) from various databases, e.g., insurance databases. The identified factors had a varied impact on the uptake of the different studied new medicines. Differently from earlier reviews, patient factors (patient education, engagement with treatment, therapy preferences), cost of new medicine, reimbursement and formulary conditions, and guidelines were suggested to influence the uptake. Also, the review highlighted that health economics, wider organizational factors, and underlying behaviours of adopters were not or under explored.

CONCLUSION

This systematic review has identified a broad range of factors affecting the uptake of new medicines within healthcare organizations, which were grouped into patient, prescriber, medicine, organizational, and external environment factors. This systematic review also identifies additional factors affecting new medicine use not reported in earlier reviews, which included patient influence and education level, cost of new medicines, formulary and reimbursement restrictions, and guidelines.

REGISTRATION

PROSPERO database (CRD42018108536).

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.

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.

Clinical evidence of initiating a very low dose of sacubitril/valsartan: a prospective observational analysis

Sacubitril/valsartan is superior to enalapril in reducing the risks of cardiovascular death and preventing hospitalization in patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). However, patients often do not receive sacubitril/valsartan because of concerns about hypotension. We examined the feasibility of initiating sacubitril/valsartan at a very low dose (VLD) in potentially intolerant patients with HFrEF and subsequent dose up-titration, treatment persistence and outcomes. We analyzed 206 patients with HFrEF grouped according to starting sacubitril/valsartan dose. The VLD group (n = 106) commenced 25 mg twice daily, and the standard-dose (SD) group (n = 100) started on ≥ 50 mg twice daily. Baseline systolic blood pressure was 103 ± 12 mmHg vs. 119 ± 14 mmHg in the SD group (P < 0.001). The maximal target dose achievement rate was higher in the SD group (27.0% vs 9.4%, p = 0.001) and the VLD group experienced more dose up-titrations and fewer down-titrations than the SD group. The VLD group had a decrease in N-terminal prohormone of brain natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) similar to the SD group and a similar increase in left ventricular ejection fraction. There were no significant differences in symptomatic hypotension, worsening renal function, hyperkalemia, cardiovascular mortality, and rehospitalization due to HF between the two groups during follow-up period. In patients considered by the treating physician likely to be intolerant of sacubitril/valsartan, initiation with 25 mg twice daily was generally possible and patients remained in therapy, with similar decreases in NT-proBNP and increases in left ventricular ejection fraction to those observed in patients receiving SD sacubitril/valsartan.

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.

Sacubitril/Valsartan in the Management of Heart Failure Patients with Cardiac Implantable Electronic Devices

For heart failure patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs), especially those who remain symptomatic after implantation, the best management strategy is still unclear. Although there are several concerns regarding the clinical utilization of sacubitril/valsartan, it has improved the prognosis of patients with heart failure compared with the use of renin-angiotensin system inhibitors in recent years. Recent real-world observational studies and post hoc analyses demonstrated that sacubitril/valsartan might have effects in patients with CIEDs. Given its potential underlying mechanisms, sacubitril/valsartan could improve outcomes of mortality and sudden cardiac death incidence, as well as clinical and echocardiographic evaluations. The possible antiarrhythmic effect of sacubitril/valsartan is still debated. Moreover, given that hypotension is the critical limitation of uptitration, the rise in systolic blood pressure attributed to cardiac resynchronization therapy might support the use of sacubitril/valsartan, with improved tolerance. The clinical utility of sacubitril/valsartan in heart failure patients with CIEDs requires further investigation to determine the actual effects, optimal target populations, and underlying mechanisms.

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.

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.

Determinants of maximal dose titration of sacubitril/valsartan in clinical practice

BACKGROUND

Little information is available about the tolerability of uptitration to the maximal dose of sacubitril/valsartan and the predictors and clinical correlates of achieving such a dose.

METHODS

All consecutive heart failure patients with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) who received sacubitril/valsartan for a class-IB indication in a tertiary heart failure clinic were retrospectively analysed. Predictors of maximal uptitration including associated changes in clinical parameters were assessed in patients with at least 1 follow-up.

RESULTS

A total of 401 HFrEF-patients received sacubitril/valsartan. Uptitration was possible in 41% and up to 32% of patients tolerated the maximal dose of sacubitril/valsartan. Younger age (HR = 0.862; CI = 0.751-0.989), higher systolic-blood-pressure (HR = 1.077; CI = 1.014-1.137), lower serum creatinine (HR = 0.064; CI = 0.005-0.822), and higher previous dose of renin-angiotensin-system-inhibitors (RASi [HR = 1.065; CI = 1.016-1.115]) independently predicted a higher odds of tolerating a maximal dose of sacubitril/valsartan. Patients who were seen more frequently in a structured heart failure clinic were also more likely to receive a maximal dose (p = .038). Patient assigned to the maximal dose, were more often able to reduce their loop diuretic dose (p = .001) and more often had an increase in serum creatinine (p = .011), without a higher risk for hyperkalemia (p = .524). An improvement in New York Heart Association class and the rate of heart failure hospitalisations was observed in all patients, independent of the sacubitril/valsartan dose.

CONCLUSION

Uptitration to the maximal dose of sacubitril/valsartan is possible in up to 32% of real-world HFrEF-patients in our cohort, which relates to both patient characteristics' as well as heart failure care-related factors.

Hospitalization and Mortality in Patients With Heart Failure Treated With Sacubitril/Valsartan vs. Enalapril: A Real-World, Population-Based Study

Background: The effect of sacubitril/valsartan on survival and hospitalization risk in older patients with heart failure has not been explored. We aimed to investigate the risk of hospitalization and mortality with the use of sacubitril/valsartan vs. enalapril in patients with heart failure.

Methods: This was a population-based cohort study using the Hong Kong-wide electronic healthcare database. Patients diagnosed with heart failure and newly prescribed sacubitril/valsartan or enalapril between July 2016 and June 2019 were included. The risk of primary composite outcome of cardiovascular mortality or heart failure-related hospitalization, all-cause hospitalization, heart failure-related hospitalization, cardiovascular mortality and all-cause mortality were compared using Cox regression with inverse probability treatment weighting. Additional analysis was conducted by age stratification.

Results: Of the 44,503 patients who received sacubitril/valsartan or enalapril, 3,237 new users (sacubitril/valsartan, n = 1,056; enalapril, n = 2,181) with a diagnosis of heart failure were identified. Compared with enalapril, sacubitril/valsartan users were associated with a lower risk of primary composite outcome [hazard ratio (HR) 0.58; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.45–0.75], heart failure-related hospitalization (HR 0.59; 95% CI, 0.45–0.77), all-cause mortality (HR 0.51; 95% CI, 0.36–0.74) and borderline non-significant reductions in all-cause hospitalization (HR 0.85; 95% CI, 0.70–1.04) and cardiovascular mortality (HR 0.63; 95% CI, 0.39–1.02). The treatment effect of sacubitril/valsartan remains unaltered in the patient subgroup age ≥ 65 years (73%).

Conclusions: In real-world settings, sacubitril/valsartan was associated with improved survival and reduced heart failure-related hospitalization compared to enalapril in Asian patients with heart failure. The effectiveness remains consistent in the older population.

Contemporary Patterns of Medicare and Medicaid Utilization and Associated Spending on Sacubitril/Valsartan and Ivabradine in Heart Failure

Importance

In 2015, the US Food and Drug Administration approved 2 new medications for treatment of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, sacubitril/valsartan and ivabradine. However, few national data are available examining their contemporary use and associated costs.

Objective

To evaluate national patterns of use of sacubitril/valsartan and ivabradine and associated therapeutic spending in Medicare Part D and Medicaid.

Design, Setting, and Participants

In this US nationwide claims-based study, we analyzed data from the Medicare Part D Prescription Drug Event and Medicaid Utilization and Spending data sets to compare national patterns of use of sacubitril/valsartan and ivabradine between 2016 and 2017.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Changes in total spending, per-beneficiary/claim spending, number of beneficiaries, and number of claims between 2016 and 2017 for sacubitril/valsartan and ivabradine.

Results

The number of Medicare beneficiaries prescribed sacubitril/valsartan increased from 35 423 to 90 606 (156% increase from 2016 to 2017). Medicare beneficiaries prescribed ivabradine increased from 15 856 to 23 213 (46% increase). In 2017, Medicare Part D spent $227 million and $7.3 million on sacubitril/valsartan and ivabradine, respectively. This represented increases of 241% and 59% compared with 2016 spending, respectively. The annual Medicare per-beneficiary spending on sacubitril/valsartan and ivabradine was $2512 and $2400. Parallel trends in use patterns and spending were observed among Medicaid beneficiaries.

Conclusions and Relevance

Although initial experiences suggested slow uptake after regulatory approval, these national data demonstrate an increase in use of sacubitril/valsartan and, to a lesser degree, ivabradine in the United States. Current annual per-beneficiary expenditures remain less than spending thresholds that have been reported to be cost-effective. Ongoing efforts are needed to promote high-value care while improving affordability and access to established and emerging heart failure therapies.

Treatment of HF in an Era of Multiple Therapies: Statement From the HF Collaboratory

The treatment of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) has changed considerably over time, particularly with the sequential development of therapies aimed at antagonism of maladaptive biologic pathways, including inhibition of the sympathetic nervous system and the renin-angiotensin aldosterone system. The sequential nature of earlier HFrEF trials allowed the integration of new therapies tested against the background therapy of the time. More recently, multiple heart failure therapies are being evaluated simultaneously, and the number of therapeutic choices for treating HFrEF has grown considerably. In addition, implementation science has lagged behind discovery science in heart failure. Furthermore, given there are currently >200 ongoing clinical trials in heart failure, further complexities are anticipated. In an effort to provide a decision-making framework in the current era of expanding therapeutic options in HFrEF, the Heart Failure Collaboratory convened a multi-stakeholder group, including patients, clinicians, clinical investigators, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, industry, and payers who met at the U.S. Food and Drug Administration campus on March 6, 2020. This paper summarizes the discussions and expert consensus recommendations.

Implementation of sacubitril/valsartan in Sweden: clinical characteristics, titration patterns, and determinants

AIMS

The aim of this study is to study the introduction of sacubitril/valsartan (sac/val) in Sweden with regards to regional differences, clinical characteristics, titration patterns, and determinants of use and discontinuation.

METHODS AND RESULTS

A national cohort of heart failure was defined from the Swedish Prescribed Drug Register and National Patient Register. A subcohort with additional data from the Swedish Heart Failure Registry (SwedeHF) was also studied. Cohorts were subdivided as per sac/val prescription and registration in SwedeHF. Median sac/val prescription rate was 20 per 100 000 inhabitants. Between April 2016 and December 2017, we identified 2037 patients with ≥1 sac/val prescription, of which 1144 (56%) were registered in SwedeHF. Overall, patients prescribed with sac/val were younger, more frequently male, and had less prior cardiovascular disease than non-sac/val patients. In SwedeHF subcohort, patients prescribed with sac/val had lower ejection fraction. Overall, younger age [hazard ratio 2.81 (95% confidence interval 2.45-3.22)], registration in SwedeHF [1.97 (1.83-2.12)], male gender [1.50 (1.37-1.64)], ischaemic heart disease [1.50 (1.39-1.62)], lower left ventricular ejection fraction [3.06 (2.18-4.31)], and New York Heart Association IV [1.50 (1.22-1.84)] were predictors for sac/val use. As initiation dose in the sac/val cohort, 38% received 24/26 mg, 54% 49/51 mg, and 9% 97/103 mg. Up-titration to the target dose was achieved in 57% of the overall cohort over a median follow-up of 6 months. The estimated treatment persistence for any dose at 360 days was 82%.

CONCLUSIONS

Implementation of sac/val in Sweden was slow and varied five-fold across different regions; younger age, male, SwedeHF registration, and ischaemic heart disease were among the independent predictors of receiving sac/val. Overall, treatment persistence and tolerability was high.

Heart failure epidemiology and treatment in primary care: a retrospective cross-sectional study

Aims

Heart failure is one of the leading causes of morbidity and mortality worldwide, but little is known on heart failure epidemiology and treatment in primary care. This study described patients with heart failure treated by general practitioners, with focus on drug prescriptions and especially on the only specific treatment for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, namely sacubitril/valsartan.

Methods and results

This was a retrospective cross‐sectional study using data from an electronic medical record database of Swiss general practitioners from 2016 to 2019. Multilevel logistic regression was used to find determinants of sacubitril/valsartan prescription; odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were reported. We identified 1288 heart failure patients (48.5% women; age: median 85 years, interquartile range 77–90 years) by means of diagnosis code, representing 0.5% of patients consulting a general practitioner during the observation period. About 73.6% received a renin–angiotensin–aldosterone system inhibitor, 67.8% a beta‐blocker, 34.6% a calcium channel blocker, 86.1% a diuretic, and 40.1% another cardiac drug. Sacubitril/valsartan was prescribed in 6% predominantly male patients (OR 2.10, CI 1.25–3.84), of younger age (OR 0.59 per increase in 10 years, CI 0.49–0.71), with diabetes mellitus (OR 1.76, CI 1.07–2.90). The recommended starting dose for sacubitril/valsartan was achieved in 67.1% and the target dose in 28.6% of patients.

Conclusions

Prevalence of heart failure among patients treated by general practitioners was low. Considering the disease burden and association with multimorbidity, awareness of heart failure in primary care should be increased, with the aim to optimize heart failure therapy.

Improvement in Left Ventricular Ejection Fraction in Outpatients With Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction: Data From CHAMP-HF

BACKGROUND

Among patients with heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction (EF), improvements in left ventricular EF (LVEF) are associated with better outcomes and remain an important treatment goal. Patient factors associated with LVEF improvement in routine clinical practice have not been clearly defined.

METHODS

CHAMP-HF (Change the Management of Patients with Heart Failure) is a prospective registry of outpatients with HF with reduced EF. Assessments of LVEF are recorded when performed for routine care. We analyzed patients with both baseline and ≥1 follow-up LVEF assessments to describe factors associated with LVEF improvement.

RESULTS

In CHAMP-HF, 2623 patients had a baseline and follow-up LVEF assessment. The median age was 67 (interquartile range, 58-75) years, 40% had an ischemic cardiomyopathy, and median HF duration was 2.8 years (0.7-6.8). Median LVEF was 30% (23-35), and median change on follow-up was 4% (-2 to -13); 19% of patients had a decrease in LVEF, 31% had no change, 49% had a ≥5% increase, and 34% had a ≥10% increase. In a multivariable model, the following factors were associated with ≥5% LVEF increase: shorter HF duration (odds ratio [OR], 1.21 [95% CI, 1.17-1.25]), no implantable cardioverter defibrillator (OR, 1.46 [95% CI, 1.34-1.55]), lower LVEF (OR, 1.15 [95% CI, 1.10-1.19]), nonischemic cardiomyopathy (OR, 1.24 [95% CI, 1.09-1.36]), and no coronary disease (OR, 1.20 [95% CI, 1.03-1.35]).

CONCLUSIONS

In a large cohort of outpatients with chronic HF with reduced EF, improvements in LVEF were common. Common baseline cardiac characteristics identified a population that was more likely to respond over time. These data may inform clinical decision making and should be the basis for future research on myocardial recovery.

Sacubitril/valsartan (Entresto) utilisation and prescribing patterns in the context of a reimbursement application system

AIMS

Entresto (sacubitril/valsartan) is used to treat symptomatic chronic heart failure with reduced ejection fraction. Given its high potential budget impact, the Health Services Executive introduced a reimbursement application system (RAS) to ensure its appropriate use. The aim of this study was to evaluate the utilisation of Entresto in Ireland and compare patient characteristics to those of the pivotal PARADIGM-HF trial.

METHODS

We used dispensed claims data from the Primary Care Reimbursement Services, clinical data obtained from the RAS, and data from published studies of Entresto utilisation. Differences in the baseline characteristics in the study populations vs the Entresto arm of the PARADIGM-HF trial were analysed. We also investigated cardiovascular medication use in the 6 months pre- and post-Entresto initiation.

RESULTS

In 2018, there were 1043 individuals receiving Entresto, corresponding to an expenditure of €1.2 million. Patients prescribed Entresto in Ireland were older, had lower left ventricular ejection fraction and were more symptomatic than those in the PARADIGM-HF trial. Irish patient characteristics were reflective of Entresto-treated populations in other real-world studies. More than 63% of patients were commenced on the lowest Entresto dose. Entresto initiation was associated with a reduction in the use of other medications for heart failure.

CONCLUSION

The utilisation of Entresto has been steadily increasing in Ireland since its reimbursement approval. The expenditure in the first year was substantially lower than predicted, and the RAS is an example of how health technology management can facilitate appropriate and cost-effective use of medicines.

PredischaRge initiation of Ivabradine in the ManagEment of Heart Failure: Results of the PRIME-HF Trial

BACKGROUND

Ivabradine is guideline-recommended to reduce heart failure (HF) hospitalization in patients with stable chronic HF with reduced ejection fraction (EF). Ivabradine initiation following acute HF has had limited evaluation, and there are few randomized data in US patients. The PredischaRge initiation of Ivabradine in the ManagEment of Heart Failure (PRIME-HF) study was conducted to address predischarge ivabradine initiation in stabilized acute HF patients.

METHODS

PRIME-HF was an investigator-initiated, randomized, open-label study of predischarge initiation of ivabradine versus usual care. Eligible patients were hospitalized for acute HF but stabilized, with EF ≤35%, on maximally tolerated β-blocker and in sinus rhythm with heart rate ≥70 beats/min. Ivabradine was acquired per routine care. The primary end point was the proportion of patients on ivabradine at 180 days. Additional end points included heart rate change, patient-reported outcomes, β-blocker use/dose, and safety events (symptomatic bradycardia and hypotension).

RESULTS

Overall, 104 patients (36% women, 64% African American) were randomized, and the study was terminated early because of funding limitations. At 180 days, 21 of 52 (40.4%) of patients randomized to predischarge initiation were treated with ivabradine compared with 6 of 52 (11.5%) randomized to usual care (odds ratio 5.19, 95% CI 1.88-14.33, P = .002). The predischarge initiation group experienced greater reduction in heart rate through 180 days (mean -10.0 beats/min, 95% CI -15.7 to -4.3 vs 0.7 beats/min, 95% CI -5.4 to 6.7, P = .011). Patient-reported outcomes, β-blocker use/dose, and safety events were similar (all P > .05).

CONCLUSIONS

Ivabradine initiation prior to discharge among stabilized HF patients increased ivabradine use at 180 days and lowered heart rates without reducing β-blockers or increasing adverse events. As the trial did not achieve the planned enrollment, additional studies are needed.

Representativeness of the PIONEER-HF Clinical Trial Population in Patients Hospitalized With Heart Failure and Reduced Ejection Fraction

Background:

In PIONEER-HF (Comparison of Sacubitril/Valsartan Versus Enalapril on Effect on NT-pro BNP in Patients Stabilized From an Acute Heart Failure Episode), the in-hospital initiation of sacubitril/valsartan in patients hospitalized for acute decompensated heart failure (ADHF) was well-tolerated and led to improved outcomes. We aim to determine the representativeness of the PIONEER-HF trial among patients hospitalized for ADHF using real-world data.

Methods:

The study population was derived from all patients discharged alive for ADHF in the Get With The Guidelines—HF registry from 2006 to 2018 with HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF; all HFrEF with ADHF). We then determined the proportion of patients meeting PIONEER-HF eligibility criteria (PIONEER-HF eligible) and those meeting a set of limited eligibility criteria (actionable cohort). Rates of HF readmissions and all-cause mortality were then compared between the all HFrEF with ADHF, PIONEER-HF eligible, and actionable cohorts using linked Medicare claims data.

Results:

A total of 99 767 patients with HFrEF in Get With The Guidelines—HF were hospitalized for ADHF. PIONEER-HF inclusion criteria were met by 71 633 (71.8%) patients, and both inclusion and exclusion criteria were met by 20 704 (20.8%) patients. Further, 68 739 (68.9%) patients met the criteria for the actionable cohort. Among the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid—linked patients, the HF rehospitalization rate at 1 year was 35.1% (95% CI, 34.5–35.8) for all HFrEF with ADHF patients, 32.6% (95% CI, 31.3–33.9) for the PIONEER-HF eligible cohort, and 33.1% (95% CI, 32.3–33.9) for the actionable cohort. The 1-year all-cause mortality was 36.7% (95% CI, 36.1–7.4) for all HFrEF with ADHF patients, 31.6% (95% CI, 30.3–32.9) for the PIONEER-HF eligible cohort, and 32.2% (95% CI, 31.4–33.0) for the actionable cohort.

Conclusions:

Patient characteristics and clinical outcomes for patients eligible for PIONEER-HF only modestly differ when compared with those encountered in routine practice, suggesting that the in-hospital initiation of sacubitril/valsartan should be routinely considered for patients with HFrEF hospitalized for ADHF.

Characteristics and Healthcare Utilization Among Veterans Treated for Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction Who Switched to Sacubitril/Valsartan

Background:

US guidelines recommend that patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), who tolerate an ACEI (angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor) or ARB (angiotensin II receptor blocker), be switched to sacubitril/valsartan to reduce morbidity and mortality. We compared characteristics and healthcare utilization between Veterans with HFrEF who were switched to sacubitril/valsartan versus maintained on an ACEI or ARB.

Methods:

retrospective cohort study of treated HFrEF (July 2015–June 2017) using Veterans Affairs data. The index date was the first fill for sacubitril/valsartan and if none, for an ACEI or ARB. Treated HFrEF was defined by (1) left ventricular ejection fraction ≤40%, (2) ≥1 in/outpatient HF encounter, and (3) ≥1 ACEI or ARB fill, all within 1-year preindex. Poisson regression models were used to compare baseline characteristics and 1:1 propensity score-matched adjusted 4-month follow-up healthcare utilization between sacubitril/valsartan switchers and ACEI or ARB maintainers.

Results:

Switchers (1612; 4.2%) were less likely than maintainers (37 065; 95.8%) to have a history of myocardial infarction or hypertension, and more likely to be black, have a lower left ventricular ejection fraction, and higher preindex healthcare utilization. Switchers were less likely to experience follow-up all-cause hospitalizations (11.2% versus 14.0%; risk ratio 0.80 [95% CI, 0.65–0.98], P value 0.035).

Conclusions:

Few Veterans with treated HFrEF were switched to sacubitril/valsartan within the first 2 years of Food and Drug Administration approval. Sacubitril/valsartan use was associated with a lower risk for all-cause hospitalizations at 4 months follow-up. Reasons for lack of guideline-recommended sacubitril/valsartan initiation warrant investigation and may reveal opportunities for HFrEF care optimization.

Real-World Eligibility for Sacubitril/Valsartan in Heart Failure with Reduced Ejection Fraction Patients in Korea: Data from the Korean Acute Heart Failure (KorAHF) Registry

Background and Objectives

Sacubitril/valsartan (SV, LCZ696), the first in class drug, called as angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI) can reduce heart failure (HF) hospitalization and cardiovascular mortality. However, SV prescription rate remains still low despite current HF guideline recommendations. Considering the complex inclusion criteria of Prospective Comparison of ARNI with ACEI to Determine Impact on Global Mortality and Morbidity in Heart Failure (PARADIGM-HF) trial, the real-world eligibility for SV remains uncertain in Asian heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) patients. Therefore, we aimed to assess real-world HF population eligibility for SV in a large Korean acute HF registry.

Methods

From March 2011 to February 2014, a total of 5,625 patients who were admitted for HF were enrolled in Korea. After excluding HF patients with left ventricular ejection fraction > 40% and in-hospital death, 2,941 patients were analyzed. Criteria for SV based on Korean Food and Drug Administration (KFDA) label and PARADIGM-HF were applied.

Results

Of 2,941 patients, KFDA label criteria excludes the absence of symptoms (New York Heart Association class I, 20%); PARADIGM-HF criteria excludes chronic kidney disease stage IV (9%), hyperkalemia (1%), hypotension (6%), and sub-optimal pharmacotherapy (52%, e.g. lower dose use of angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor/angiotensin receptor blocker [ACEI/ARB], beta blocker use). When a daily requirement of ACEI/ARB ≥5 mg enalapril (instead of ≥10 mg) was used, the percent of eligibility for SV rose from 12% to 30% based on the PARADIGM-HF criteria.

Conclusions

Among the Korean hospitalized HFrEF patients, 80% met KFDA label criteria, while only 12% met the inclusion criteria of PARADIGM-HF trial for SV if requiring ≥10 mg enalapril. Sub-optimal pharmacotherapy could be the main reason for ineligible SV use based on the PARADIGM-HF criteria.