4.5 Article

Eligibility for Dapagliflozin and Empagliflozin in a Real-world Heart Failure Population

Journal

JOURNAL OF CARDIAC FAILURE
Volume 28, Issue 7, Pages 1050-1062

Publisher

CHURCHILL LIVINGSTONE INC MEDICAL PUBLISHERS
DOI: 10.1016/j.cardfail.2022.04.011

Keywords

Heart failure; Eligibility; SGLT2 inhibitors; SwedeHF

Funding

  1. AstraZeneca
  2. Boehringer Ingelheim

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study investigated eligibility for dapagliflozin and empagliflozin in a real-world heart failure cohort. The results showed that adopting more practical and label-based selection criteria significantly broadened eligibility. These findings are important for future trial design and clinical application.
Background: We investigated eligibility for dapagliflozin and empagliflozin in a real-world heart failure (HF) cohort based on selection criteria of DAPA-HF (Dapagliflozin and Prevention of Adverse Outcomes in Heart Failure), DELIVER (Dapagliflozin Evaluation to Improve the Lives of Patients with Preserved Ejection Fraction Heart Failure), and EMPEROR (Empagliflozin Outcome Trial in Patients with Chronic Heart Failure with Reduced Ejection Fraction and Empagliflozin Outcome Trial in Patients with Chronic Heart Failure with APreserved Ejection Methods and Results: Selection criteria were applied to the Swedish HF registry outpatient population according to 3 scenarios: (i) a trial scenario applying all selection criteria; (ii) a pragmatic scenario applying the most clinically relevant criteria; and (iii) a label scenario following the regulatory agencies labels. Of the 49,317 patients, 55% had an ejection fraction of less than 40% and were assessed for eligibility based on DAPA-HF and EMPEROR-Reduced, 45% had ejection fraction of 40% or greater and were assessed based on EMPEROR-Preserved and DELIVER. Eligibility using trial, pragmatic, and label scenarios was 35%, 61%, and 80% for DAPA-HF; 31%, 55%, and 81% for EMPEROR-Reduced; 30%, 61%, and 74% for DELIVER; and 32%, 59%, and 75% for EMPEROR-Preserved, respectively. The main selection criteria limiting eligibility were HF duration and N-terminal pro-B type natriuretic peptide levels. Eligible patients had more severe HF, more comorbidities, higher use of HF treatments and higher mortality and morbidity. Clinical Highlights: Large clinical trials for the approval of new drugs in heart failure often apply numerous selection criteria, limiting the generalizability of trial findings to real-world populations. We assessed eligibility for dapagliflozin and empagliflozin according to trial criteria, the more practical criteria usually applied in daily practice for treatment selection, and the criteria mandated by regulatory agencies, in a real-word heart failure population. Our results from the Swedish Heart Failure Registry show that a great number of patients with heart failure might be candidates for these therapies, which have been shown to significantly decrease morbidity and mortality; therefore, their use should be implemented in clinical practice. Lay summary: When strictly applying selection criteria used in clinical trials, only one-third of a real-world heart failure population is eligible for treatment with empagliflozin and dapagliflozin. Adopting approaches that consider the most meaningful criteria, that is, those most clinically relevant or those mandated by regulatory agencies, significantly broadened eligibility. These results might contribute to future trial design taking into consideration the characteristics of real-world populations, feasibility, and potential cost benefits. Conclusions: In a real-world HF setting, eligibility for sodium glucose co-transporter-2 inhibi-tors was similar whether selection criteria from DAPA-HF or EMPEROR-Reduced were applied in HFrEF, or EMPEROR-Preserved or DELIVER in HFpEF. These data might help stakeholders assessing the consequences of future trial eligibility. (J Cardiac Fail 2022;28:1050-1062)

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available