The aim of the Houchen et al. study was to compare real-world outcomes of Entresto® (sacubitril/valsartan) vs. angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor (ACEi) or angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) therapy, in RAASi-naïve patients with HF and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF).1 The outcomes showed that fewer patients with HFrEF initiating treatment with sacubitril/valsartan were re-hospitalised compared with patients treated with ACEi/ARB.1
Methods
This retrospective cohort study included de-identified data on RAASi-naïve patients in US with HFrEF (left ventricular ejection fraction ≤ 40%), who had newly initiated Entresto® or ACEi/ARB.1 New sacubitril/valsartan users were propensity score matched 1:2 with new ACEi/ARB users, by pre-selected characteristics using a greedy many-to-one algorithm to account for potential bias and confounding.1
- The primary endpoint was the rate of HF hospitalisations for both new sacubitril/valsartan users and new ACEi/ARB users during the post-index period.1
- Secondary endpoints included the rate of the composite of HF hospitalisation or emergency room (ER) visits, rate of all-cause hospitalisations, rate of cardiovascular hospitalisations, time to first HF hospitalisation, time to first HF hospitalisation or ER visit, and time to first all-cause hospitalisation for new sacubitril/valsartan users and new ACEi/ARB users during the post-index period.1
Results
After propensity score matching, there were 3059 patients in the sacubitril/valsartan cohort and 6118 patients in the ACEi/ARB cohort, with no significant differences between the two cohorts for any of the baseline characteristics, except the proportion of patients with sleep apnea, which was higher in the sacubitril/valsartan cohort (18.2 vs. 16.4%; P = 0.03).1
All-cause hospitalisation:
13% lower rate for new sacubitril/valsartan users compared with new ACEi/ARB users (68.11 per 100 PYs vs. 80.17 per 100 PYs; IRR 0.87; 95% CI 0.81–0.93; P < 0.0001).1
Composite of HF hospitalisation or ER visits:
13% lower rate for new sacubitril/valsartan users compared with new ACEi/ARB users (73.38 per 100 PYs vs. 88.34 per 100 PYs; IRR 0.87; 95% CI 0.81–0.94; P = 0.00023).
Cardiovascular hospitalisations:
Similar rates between the two cohorts (46.29 per 100 PYs vs. 50.40 per 100 PYs; IRR 0.94; 95% CI 0.87–1.02; P = 0.14).1
Time-to-event analysis:
New sacubitril/valsartan users had a significantly lower risk of first HF hospitalisation or ER visit (HR 0.92; 95% CI 0.86–0.98; P = 0.01) and first all-cause hospitalisation (HR 0.85; 95% CI 0.80–0.91; P=0.0001), compared with new ACEi/ARB users.1
Conclusion
The study showed that the use of sacubitril/valsartan in RAASi-naïve patients with HFrEF resulted in significantly lower rates of all-cause hospitalisation and the composite of HF hospitalisation or ER visits compared with ACEi/ARB treatment.1 The rates of HF and cardiovascular hospitalisations were similar between the two cohorts. Real-world clinical practice suggests when initiating sacubitril/valsartan directly in RAASi-naïve patients with HFrEF it can reduce total hospitalisations.1
Referenser
-
Houchen E et al. Hospitalization Rates in Patients with Heart Failure and Reduced Ejection Fraction Initiating Sacubitril/Valsartan or Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitors/Angiotensin Receptor Blockers: A Retrospective Cohort Study. Cardiol Ther. 2022;11(1):113-127