Aims: To determine the projected benefits of dapagliflozin after an acute heart failure (HF) event in Spain. Methods: A multicenter and prospective study that included subjects aged 50 years or older consecutively admitted with HF to internal medicine departments in Spain. The projected clinical benefits of dapagliflozin were calculated via pooled analysis of the DAPA-HF and DELIVER trials. Results: A total of 5644 subjects were analyzed, of whom 79.2% were eligible for dapagliflozin, according to criteria of the DAPA-HF and DELIVER trials. Full implementation of dapagliflozin would imply a 1-year absolute risk reduction of 2.3% for death (number needed to treat = 43) and 5.7% (number needed to treat = 17) for HF rehospitalization. Conclusion: Treatment with dapagliflozin could significantly reduce HF burden in clinical practice.

Plain language summary

Heart failure is a severe condition that is associated with a high risk of complications. This means that it is important to start using new therapies that have demonstrated a clinical benefit. Clinical trials have shown that dapagliflozin reduces the risk of developing these complications in patients with heart failure. However, it is important to find out whether the results of clinical trials are also seen in real-life populations. We estimated the potential benefits of dapagliflozin in people admitted to hospital more than once with heart failure. The study took place in Spain. Our data suggest that treatment with dapagliflozin could reduce the complications associated with heart failure in real-life patients.

Tweetable abstract

Implementing dapagliflozin in clinical practice could substantially reduce heart failure burden

Keywords:

Papers of special note have been highlighted as: • of interest

References

1. Palandurkar G, Kumar S. Current status of dapagliflozin in congestive heart failure. Cureus 14(9), e29413 (2022).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
2. Roger VL. Epidemiology of heart failure. a contemporary perspective. Circ. Res. 128(10), 1421–1434 (2021).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
3. Gerber Y, Weston SA, Redfield MM et al. A contemporary appraisal of the heart failure epidemic in Olmsted County, Minnesota, 2000 to 2010. JAMA Int. Med. 175(6), 996–1004 (2015).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
4. O'Connor CM, Miller AB, Blair JE et al. Causes of death and rehospitalization in patients hospitalized with worsening heart failure and reduced left ventricular ejection fraction: results from efficacy of vasopressin antagonism in heart failure outcome study with Tolvaptam (EVEREST) program. Am. Heart J. 159(5), 841–849 (2010).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
5. Gracia E, Singh P, Collins S, Chioncel O, Pang P, Butler J. The vulnerable phase of heart failure. Am. J. Ther. 25(4), e456–e464 (2018).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
6. McDonagh T, Metra M, Adamo M et al. 2021 ESC Guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of acute and chronic heart failure. Eur. Heart J. 42(36), 3599–3726 (2021).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
7. Hamada T, Kubo T, Kawai K et al. Clinical characteristics and frailty status in heart failure with preserved vs. reduced ejection fraction. ESC. Heart Fail. 9(3), 1853–1863 (2022).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
8. Rywik TM, Doryńska A, Wiśniewska A et al. Epidemiology and clinical characteristics of hospitalized patients with heart failure with reduced, mildly reduced, and preserved ejection fraction. Pol. Arch. Int. Med. 132(5), 16227 (2022). • Patients with heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and HF with preserved EF (HFpEF) differed in their clinical profile, whereas patients with HF with mildly rEF (HFmrEF) had intermediate characteristics.
MedlineGoogle Scholar
9. de Boer AR, Vaartjes I, Gohar A et al. Heart failure with preserved, mid-range, and reduced ejection fraction across health care settings: an observational study. ESC. Heart Fail. 9(1), 363–372 (2022).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
10. Escobar C, Palacios B, Varela L et al. Prevalence, characteristics, management and outcomes of patients with heart failure with preserved, mildly reduced, and reduced ejection fraction in Spain. J. Clin. Med. 11(17), 5199 (2022). • The risk of outcomes, particularly HF hospitalization, remains high in patients with HF, likely related to an insufficient use of disease-modifying HF therapy.
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
11. McMurray JJV, Solomon SD, Inzucchi SE et al. Dapagliflozin in patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction. N. Engl. J. Med. 381(21), 1995–2008 (2019).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
12. Packer M, Anker SD, Butler J et al. Cardiovascular and renal outcomes with empagliflozin in heart failure. N. Engl. J. Med. 383(15), 1413–1424 (2020).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
13. Bhatt DL, Szarek M, Steg PG et al. Sotagliflozin in patients with diabetes and recent worsening heart failure. N. Engl. J. Med. 384(2), 117–128 (2021).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
14. Anker SD, Butler J, Filippatos G et al. Empagliflozin in heart failure with a preserved ejection fraction. N. Engl. J. Med. 385(16), 1451–1461 (2021).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
15. Solomon SD, McMurray JJV, Claggett B et al. Dapagliflozin in heart failure with mildly reduced or preserved ejection fraction. N. Engl. J. Med. 387(12), 1089–1098 (2022).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
16. Muscoli S, Barillà F, Tajmir R et al. The new role of SGLT2 inhibitors in the management of heart failure: current evidence and future perspective. Pharmaceutics 14(8), 1730 (2022).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
17. Jhund PS, Kondo T, Butt JH et al. Dapagliflozin across the range of ejection fraction in patients with heart failure: a patient-level, pooled meta-analysis of DAPA-HF and DELIVER. Nat. Med. 28(9), 1956–1964 (2022). • Dapagliflozin reduced the risk of cardiovascular mortality or HF hospitalization in the whole spectrum of ejection fraction, regardless of EF.
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
18. Vaduganathan M, Greene SJ, Zhang S et al. Projected clinical benefits of implementation of SGLT-2 inhibitors among medicare beneficiaries hospitalized for heart failure. J. Card. Fail. 28(4), 554–563 (2022).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
19. Montero-Pérez-Barquero M, Escobar Cervantes C, Llacer P et al. Projected clinical benefits of dapagliflozin in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction. Future Cardiol. 19(6), 333–342 (2023).
CASGoogle Scholar
20. Montero-Pérez-Barquero M, Escobar Cervantes C, Arevalo Lorido JC et al. Projected effectiveness of dapagliflozin in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction in clinical practice. Future Cardiol. 19(6), 343–351 (2023).
Google Scholar
21. Méndez-Bailon M, Lorenzo-Villalba N, Rubio-Garcia J et al. Clinical characteristics and prognostic relevance of different types of caregivers for elderly patients with acute heart failure-analysis from the RICA registry. J. Clin. Med. 11(12), 3516 (2022).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
22. Guisado-Espartero ME, Salamanca-Bautista P, Aramburu-Bodas Ó et al. Causes of death in hospitalized patients in internal medicine departments with heart failure according to ejection fraction. RICA registry. Med. Clin. (Barc.) 158(1), 13–19 (2022).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
23. Ponikowski P, Voors AA, Anker SD et al. 2016 ESC guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of acute and chronic heart failure. Eur. Heart. J. 37(27), 2129–2200 (2016).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
24. Dapagliflozin. Summary of product characteristics. www.ema.europa.eu/en/documents/product-information/forxiga-epar-product-information_en.pdf
Google Scholar
25. Wei Y, Royston P. Reconstructing time-to-event data from published Kaplan–Meier curves. Stata. J. 17(4), 786–802 (2017).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
26. Collett D. Modelling Survival Data. In: Medical Research, Chapman & Hall/CRC Texts in Statistical Science, Hardcover. (2014).
Google Scholar
27. Dewan P, Solomon SD, Jhund PS et al. Efficacy and safety of sodium-glucose co-transporter 2 inhibition according to left ventricular ejection fraction in DAPA-HF. Eur. J. Heart. Fail. 22(7), 1247–1258 (2020).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
28. Álvarez-García J, Salamanca-Bautista P, Ferrero-Gregori A et al. Prognostic impact of physician specialty on the prognosis of outpatients with heart failure: propensity matched analysis of the REDINSCOR and RICA Registries. Rev. Esp. Cardiol. (Engl. Ed.) 70(5), 347–354 (2017).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
29. Gevaert AB, Kataria R, Zannad F. Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: recent concepts in diagnosis, mechanisms and management. Heart 108(17), 1342–1350 (2022).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
30. Trullàs JC, Miró Ò, Formiga F et al. The utility of heart failure registries: a descriptive and comparative study of two heart failure registries. Postgrad. Med. J. 92(2087), 260–266 (2016).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
31. Afzal A, van Zyl J, Nisar T et al. Trends in hospital admissions for systolic and diastolic heart failure in the United States between 2004 and 2017. Am. J. Cardiol. 171, 99–104 (2022). • The proportion of patients with HF rehospitalization is increasing over time.
MedlineGoogle Scholar
32. Salamanca-Bautista P, Álvarez-García J, Aramburu-Bodas Ó et al. Modes of death in heart failure according to age, sex and left ventricular ejection fraction. Int. Emerg. Med. 16(3), 643–652 (2021).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
33. Karabulut U, Keskin K, Karabulut D, Yiğit E, Yiğit Z. Effect of sacubitril/valsartan combined with dapagliflozin on long-term cardiac mortality in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction. Angiology 73(4), 350–356 (2022).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
34. Docherty KF, Jhund PS, Anand I et al. Effect of dapagliflozin on outpatient worsening of patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction: a prespecified analysis of DAPA-HF. Circulation 142(17), 1623–1632 (2020).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
35. Vaduganathan M, Claggett BL, Jhund P et al. Time to clinical benefit of dapagliflozin in patients with heart failure with mildly reduced or preserved ejection fraction: a prespecified secondary analysis of the deliver randomized clinical trial. JAMA Cardiol. 7(12), 1259–1263 (2022).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
36. Cunningham JW, Vaduganathan M, Claggett BL et al. Dapagliflozin in patients recently hospitalized with heart failure and mildly reduced or preserved ejection fraction. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 80(14), 1302–1310 (2022).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
37. Vaduganathan M, Claggett BL, Jhund P et al. Estimated long-term benefit of dapagliflozin in patients with heart failure. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 80(19), 1775–1784 (2022). • Long-term treatment with dapagliflozin is associated with a reduction of adverse outcomes during follow-up.
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
38. Thorvaldsen T, Ferrannini G, Mellbin L et al. Eligibility for dapagliflozin and empagliflozin in a real-world heart failure population. J. Card. Fail. 28(7), 1050–1062 (2022).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
39. Heerspink HJL, Stefánsson BV, Correa-Rotter R et al. Dapagliflozin in patients with chronic kidney disease. N. Engl. J. Med. 383(15), 1436–1446 (2020).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
40. Wu M, Qin S, Wang L et al. Economic evaluation of dapagliflozin in the treatment of patients with heart failure: a systematic review. Front. Pharmacol. 13, 860109 (2022).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar

Vol. 19, No. 6

Supplemental Materials

Metrics

Downloaded 62 times

History

Received 25 January 2023

Accepted 31 May 2023

Published online 29 June 2023

Published in print May 2023

Information

Keywords

Supplementary data

To view the supplementary data that accompany this paper please visit the journal website at: www.futuremedicine.com/doi/suppl/10.2217/fca-2023-0014

Acknowledgments

The authors gratefully acknowledge the contributions of all investigators who form part of the RICA registry.

Financial & competing interests disclosure

This study had an unrestricted grant from AstraZeneca Farmacéutica Spain. AstraZeneca Farmacéutica Spain did not have any influence in the collection, analysis or interpretation of the data. The authors have no other relevant affiliations or financial involvement with any organization or entity with a financial interest in or financial conflict with the subject matter or materials discussed in the manuscript apart from those disclosed.

AstraZeneca Farmacéutica Spain provided writing assistance.

Ethical disclosure statement

The registry was approved by the Ethics Committee of the University Hospital Reina Sofia Cordoba, Spain. All patients provided written informed consent before being included in the registry.

PDF download