Key result
Among 152 eligible heart failure patients, 49% were prescribed sacubitril/valsartan; treatment was associated with a 6.6% absolute LVEF increase per year, though limited by financial barriers.
Why the study?
Sacubitril/valsartan is recommended in symptomatic HFrEF replacing ACEis/ARBs, but the challenges of its use in everyday clinical practice required characterization.
What are the real-world prescription rates, tolerability, and effects on LVEF and NYHA class of sacubitril/valsartan in patients with HFrEF?
Observational (n=152)
No
What are the real-world prescription rates, tolerability, and effects on LVEF and NYHA class of sacubitril/valsartan in patients with HFrEF?
Real-world implementation of sacubitril/valsartan in HFrEF faces significant financial and clinical barriers (hypotension), though treatment is associated with marked improvements in LVEF and NYHA class.
Implementation barriers limit sacubitril/valsartan uptake and dosing in HFrEF; hypothesis-generating for LVEF gains, needing prospective trials.
BACKGROUND: Heart failure (HF) is a growing public health problem. Sacubitril/valsartan is now recommended to be used in persistently symptomatic patients with left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) <40%, replacing angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEis)/angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs). In the present study, we aimed to characterise the challenges of sacubitril/valsartan use in everyday clinical practice. METHODS: We assessed the medical records of patients with HF and reduced ejection fraction eligible for sacubitril/valsartan attending a HF clinic at a Portuguese University Hospital during 2018 (n=152). The number of eligible patients receiving the drug and the reasons for not prescribing sacubitril/valsartan were evaluated. Additionally, we assessed the tolerability of maximal doses of sacubitril/valsartan. New York Heart Association functional class (NYHA class) and LVEF before and after up-titration to maximal tolerated sacubitril/valsartan dose were compared. Median follow-up was 41 months. RESULTS: Of the 152 included patients, 75 (49%) were prescribed the drug. The two main reasons for non-prescription were patient financial barriers (31%) and hypotension (27%). Only 33% of patients on sacubitril/valsartan did reach maximal dose. Hypotension was the main limiting factor for dose optimisation. Duration of sacubitril/valsartan treatment showed a positive association with LVEF improvement during follow-up (6.6% absolute LVEF increase/year). NYHA functional class improved significantly from baseline through the end of follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: In every-day clinical practice, although sacubitril/valsartan was associated with a marked improvement in NYHA class and in LVEF, important financial and clinical barriers to the implementation of this therapy were identified.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Cabral et al. (2021) conducted an observational in Heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (n=152). Sacubitril/valsartan vs. Eligible patients not prescribed sacubitril/valsartan was evaluated on Prescription rate of sacubitril/valsartan. Among 152 eligible heart failure patients, 49% were prescribed sacubitril/valsartan; treatment was associated with a 6.6% absolute LVEF increase per year, though limited by financial barriers.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: