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.</p

Angiotensin-neprilysin inhibition versus enalapril in heart failure

Background: we compared the angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor LCZ696 with enalapril in patients who had heart failure with a reduced ejection fraction. In previous studies, enalapril improved survival in such patients. Methods: in this double-blind trial, we randomly assigned 8442 patients with class II, III, or IV heart failure and an ejection fraction of 40% or less to receive either LCZ696 (at a dose of 200 mg twice daily) or enalapril (at a dose of 10 mg twice daily), in addition to recommended therapy. The primary outcome was a composite of death from cardiovascular causes or hospitalization for heart failure, but the trial was designed to detect a difference in the rates of death from cardiovascular causes. Results: the trial was stopped early, according to prespecified rules, after a median follow-up of 27 months, because the boundary for an overwhelming benefit with LCZ696 had been crossed. At the time of study closure, the primary outcome had occurred in 914 patients (21.8%) in the LCZ696 group and 1117 patients (26.5%) in the enalapril group (hazard ratio in the LCZ696 group, 0.80; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.73 to 0.87; P<0.001). A total of 711 patients (17.0%) receiving LCZ696 and 835 patients (19.8%) receiving enalapril died (hazard ratio for death from any cause, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.76 to 0.93; P<0.001); of these patients, 558 (13.3%) and 693 (16.5%), respectively, died from cardiovascular causes (hazard ratio, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.71 to 0.89; P<0.001). As compared with enalapril, LCZ696 also reduced the risk of hospitalization for heart failure by 21% (P<0.001) and decreased the symptoms and physical limitations of heart failure (P=0.001). The LCZ696 group had higher proportions of patients with hypotension and nonserious angioedema but lower proportions with renal impairment, hyperkalemia, and cough than the enalapril group. Conclusions: LCZ696 was superior to enalapril in reducing the risks of death and of hospitalization for heart failure. (Funded by Novartis; PARADIGM-HF ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01035255)

High soluble transferrin receptor in patients with heart failure:a measure of iron deficiency and a strong predictor of mortality

Background: Iron deficiency (ID) is frequent in heart failure (HF), linked with exercise intolerance and poor prognosis. Intravenous iron repletion improves clinical status in HF patients with LVEF≤45%. However, uncertainty exists about the accuracy of serum biomarkers in diagnosing ID. Study Aims: 1) to identify the iron biomarker with the greatest accuracy for the diagnosis of ID in bone marrow in patients with ischaemic HF; 2) to establish the prevalence of ID using this biomarker and its prognostic value in HF patients. Methods and Results: Bone marrow was stained for iron in 30 patients with ischaemic HF with LVEF≤45% and 10 healthy controls, and ID was diagnosed for 0‐1 grades (Gale scale). 791 patients with HF with LVEF≤45% were prospectively followed‐up for 3 years. Serum ferritin, transferrin saturation, soluble transferrin receptor (sTfR) were assessed as iron biomarkers. Most patients with HF (25, 83%) had ID in bone marrow, but none of the controls (p&lt;0.001). Serum sTfR had the best accuracy in predicting ID in bone marrow (AUC: 0.920, 95%CI: 0.761‐0.987, for cut‐off 1.25 mg/L sensitivity 84%, specificity 100%). Serum sTfR was ≥1.25 mg/L in 47% of HF patients, in 56% and 46% of anaemics and non‐anaemics, respectively (p&lt;0.05). The reclassification methods revealed that serum sTfR significantly added the prognostic value to the baseline prognostic model, and to the greater extent than plasma NT‐proBNP. Based on internal derivation and validation procedures, serum sTfR ≥1.41 mg/L was the optimal threshold for predicting 3‐year mortality, independent of other established variables. Conclusions: High serum sTfR accurately reflects depleted iron stores in bone marrow in patients with HF, and identifies those with a high 3‐year mortality

Short-Term Therapies for Treatment of Acute and Advanced Heart Failure—Why so Few Drugs Available in Clinical Use, Why Even Fewer in the Pipeline?

Both acute and advanced heart failure are an increasing threat in term of survival, quality of life and socio-economical burdens. Paradoxically, the use of successful treatments for chronic heart failure can prolong life but—per definition—causes the rise in age of patients experiencing acute decompensations, since nothing at the moment helps avoiding an acute or final stage in the elderly population. To complicate the picture, acute heart failure syndromes are a collection of symptoms, signs and markers, with different aetiologies and different courses, also due to overlapping morbidities and to the plethora of chronic medications. The palette of cardio- and vasoactive drugs used in the hospitalization phase to stabilize the patient’s hemodynamic is scarce and even scarcer is the evidence for the agents commonly used in the practice (e.g., catecholamines). The pipeline in this field is poor and the clinical development chronically unsuccessful. Recent set backs in expected clinical trials for new agents in acute heart failure (AHF) (omecamtiv, serelaxine, ularitide) left a field desolately empty, where only few drugs have been approved for clinical use, for example, levosimendan and nesiritide. In this consensus opinion paper, experts from 26 European countries (Austria, Belgium, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Israel, Italy, The Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Russia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, U.K. and Ukraine) analyse the situation in details also by help of artificial intelligence applied to bibliographic searches, try to distil some lesson-learned to avoid that future projects would make the same mistakes as in the past and recommend how to lead a successful development project in this field in dire need of new agents

Short-Term Therapies for Treatment of Acute and Advanced Heart Failure—Why so Few Drugs Available in Clinical Use, Why Even Fewer in the Pipeline?

Both acute and advanced heart failure are an increasing threat in term of survival, quality of life and socio-economical burdens. Paradoxically, the use of successful treatments for chronic heart failure can prolong life but—per definition—causes the rise in age of patients experiencing acute decompensations, since nothing at the moment helps avoiding an acute or final stage in the elderly population. To complicate the picture, acute heart failure syndromes are a collection of symptoms, signs and markers, with different aetiologies and different courses, also due to overlapping morbidities and to the plethora of chronic medications. The palette of cardio- and vasoactive drugs used in the hospitalization phase to stabilize the patient’s hemodynamic is scarce and even scarcer is the evidence for the agents commonly used in the practice (e.g., catecholamines). The pipeline in this field is poor and the clinical development chronically unsuccessful. Recent set backs in expected clinical trials for new agents in acute heart failure (AHF) (omecamtiv, serelaxine, ularitide) left a field desolately empty, where only few drugs have been approved for clinical use, for example, levosimendan and nesiritide. In this consensus opinion paper, experts from 26 European countries (Austria, Belgium, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Israel, Italy, The Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Russia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, U.K. and Ukraine) analyse the situation in details also by help of artificial intelligence applied to bibliographic searches, try to distil some lesson-learned to avoid that future projects would make the same mistakes as in the past and recommend how to lead a successful development project in this field in dire need of new agents

Angiotensin-Neprilysin inhibition in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction

Background: the angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor sacubitril-valsartan led to a reduced risk of hospitalization for heart failure or death from cardiovascular causes among patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction. The effect of angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibition in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction is unclear. Methods: we randomly assigned 4822 patients with New York Heart Association (NYHA) class II to IV heart failure, ejection fraction of 45% or higher, elevated level of natriuretic peptides, and structural heart disease to receive sacubitril-valsartan (target dose, 97 mg of sacubitril with 103 mg of valsartan twice daily) or valsartan (target dose, 160 mg twice daily). The primary outcome was a composite of total hospitalizations for heart failure and death from cardiovascular causes. Primary outcome components, secondary outcomes (including NYHA class change, worsening renal function, and change in Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire [KCCQ] clinical summary score [scale, 0 to 100, with higher scores indicating fewer symptoms and physical limitations]), and safety were also assessed. Results: there were 894 primary events in 526 patients in the sacubitril-valsartan group and 1009 primary events in 557 patients in the valsartan group (rate ratio, 0.87; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.75 to 1.01; P = 0.06). The incidence of death from cardiovascular causes was 8.5% in the sacubitril-valsartan group and 8.9% in the valsartan group (hazard ratio, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.79 to 1.16); there were 690 and 797 total hospitalizations for heart failure, respectively (rate ratio, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.72 to 1.00). NYHA class improved in 15.0% of the patients in the sacubitril-valsartan group and in 12.6% of those in the valsartan group (odds ratio, 1.45; 95% CI, 1.13 to 1.86); renal function worsened in 1.4% and 2.7%, respectively (hazard ratio, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.33 to 0.77). The mean change in the KCCQ clinical summary score at 8 months was 1.0 point (95% CI, 0.0 to 2.1) higher in the sacubitril-valsartan group. Patients in the sacubitril-valsartan group had a higher incidence of hypotension and angioedema and a lower incidence of hyperkalemia. Among 12 prespecified subgroups, there was suggestion of heterogeneity with possible benefit with sacubitril-valsartan in patients with lower ejection fraction and in women. Conclusions: sacubitril-valsartan did not result in a significantly lower rate of total hospitalizations for heart failure and death from cardiovascular causes among patients with heart failure and an ejection fraction of 45% or higher. (Funded by Novartis; PARAGON-HF ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01920711.)

A pragmatic approach to the use of inotropes for the management of acute and advanced heart failure: An expert panel consensus

Inotropes aim at increasing cardiac output by enhancing cardiac contractility. They constitute the third pharmacological pillar in the treatment of patients with decompensated heart failure, the other two being diuretics and vasodilators. Three classes of parenterally administered inotropes are currently indicated for decompensated heart failure, (i) the beta adrenergic agonists, including dopamine and dobutamine and also the catecholamines epinephrine and norepinephrine, (ii) the phosphodiesterase III inhibitor milrinone and (iii) the calcium sensitizer levosimendan. These three families of drugs share some pharmacologic traits, but differ profoundly in many of their pleiotropic effects. Identifying the patients in need of inotropic support and selecting the proper inotrope in each case remain challenging. The present consensus, derived by a panel meeting of experts from 21 countries, aims at addressing this very issue in the setting of both acute and advanced heart failure. (C) 2019 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V.Peer reviewe

Angiotensin-neprilysin inhibition and renal outcomes in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction

Background: In patients with heart failure, chronic kidney disease (CKD) is common and associated with a higher risk of renal events than in patients without CKD. We assessed the renal effects of angiotensin/neprilysin inhibition in patients with heart failure and preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) enrolled in PARAGON-HF. Methods: In this randomized, double-blind, event-driven trial, we assigned 4,822 patients with HFpEF to receive sacubitril/valsartan (n=2419) or valsartan (n=2403). Herein we present the results of the pre-specified renal composite outcome (time to first occurrence of either: ≥50% reduction in eGFR, end-stage renal disease, or death from renal causes), the individual components of this composite, and the influence of therapy on eGFR slope. Results: At randomization, eGFR was 63±19 ml/min/1.73m2. At study closure, the composite renal outcome occurred in 33 patients (1.4%) assigned to sacubitril/valsartan and 64 patients (2.7%) assigned to valsartan (hazard ratio [HR], 0.50; 95%CI, 0.33 to 0.77; P=0.001). The treatment effect on the composite renal endpoint did not differ according to the baseline eGFR (&lt;60 vs ≥ 60 ml/min/1.73 m2 (P-interaction=0.92). The decline in eGFR was less for sacubitril/valsartan compared with valsartan (-1.8 [95%CI, -2.0 to -1.6] vs. -2.4 [95%CI, -2.6 to - 2.2] ml/min/1.73m2/year). Conclusions: In patients with HFpEF, sacubitril/valsartan reduced the risk of renal events, and slowed decline in eGFR, compared with valsartan

Baseline characteristics of patients with heart failure and preserved ejection fraction in the PARAGON-HF trial

Background: To describe the baseline characteristics of patients with heart failure and preserved left ventricular ejection fraction enrolled in the PARAGON-HF trial (Prospective Comparison of Angiotensin Receptor Neprilysin Inhibitor With Angiotensin Receptor Blocker Global Outcomes in HFpEF) comparing sacubitril/valsartan to valsartan in reducing morbidity and mortality. Methods and Results: We report key demographic, clinical, and laboratory findings, and baseline therapies, of 4822 patients randomized in PARAGON-HF, grouped by factors that influence criteria for study inclusion. We further compared baseline characteristics of patients enrolled in PARAGON-HF with those patients enrolled in other recent trials of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). Among patients enrolled from various regions (16% Asia-Pacific, 37% Central Europe, 7% Latin America, 12% North America, 28% Western Europe), the mean age of patients enrolled in PARAGON-HF was 72.7±8.4 years, 52% of patients were female, and mean left ventricular ejection fraction was 57.5%, similar to other trials of HFpEF. Most patients were in New York Heart Association class II, and 38% had ≥1 hospitalizations for heart failure within the previous 9 months. Diabetes mellitus (43%) and chronic kidney disease (47%) were more prevalent than in previous trials of HFpEF. Many patients were prescribed angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers (85%), β-blockers (80%), calcium channel blockers (36%), and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (24%). As specified in the protocol, virtually all patients were on diuretics, had elevated plasma concentrations of N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (median, 911 pg/mL; interquartile range, 464–1610), and structural heart disease. Conclusions: PARAGON-HF represents a contemporary group of patients with HFpEF with similar age and sex distribution compared with prior HFpEF trials but higher prevalence of comorbidities. These findings provide insights into the impact of inclusion criteria on, and regional variation in, HFpEF patient characteristics. Clinical Trial Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01920711