Back

Use of SGLT2i and ARNi in patients with atrial fibrillation and heart failure in 2021-2022: an analysis of real-world data

Alonso, A.; Morris, A. A.; Naimi, A. I.; Alam, A. B.; Li, L.; Subramanya, V.; Chen, L. Y.; Lutsey, P. L.

2023-09-10 cardiovascular medicine
10.1101/2023.09.08.23295280 medRxiv
Show abstract

ObjectiveTo evaluate utilization of sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors (SGLT2i) and angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitors (ARNi) in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) and heart failure (HF). MethodsWe analyzed the MarketScan databases for the period 1/1/2021 to 6/30/2022. Validated algorithms were used to identify patients with AF and HF, and to classify patients into HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) or preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). We assessed the prevalence of SGLT2i and ARNi use overall and by HF type. Additionally, we explored correlates of lower utilization, including demographics and comorbidities. ResultsThe study population included 60,927 patients (mean age 75, 43% female) diagnosed with AF and HF (85% with HFpEF, 15% with HFrEF). Prevalence of ARNi use was 11% overall (30% in HFrEF, 8% in HFpEF), while the corresponding figure was 6% for SGLT2i (13% in HFrEF, 5% in HFpEF). Use of both medications increased over the study period: ARNi from 9% to 12% (from 22% to 29% in HFrEF, from 6% to 8% in HFpEF), and SGLT2i from 3% to 9% (from 6% to 16% in HFrEF, from 2% to 7% in HFpEF). Female sex, older age, and specific comorbidities were associated with lower utilization of these two medication types overall and by HF type. ConclusionUse of ARNi and SGLT2i in patients with AF and HF is suboptimal, particularly among females and older individuals, though utilization is increasing. These results underscore the need for understanding reasons for these disparities and developing interventions to improve adoption of evidence-based therapies among patients with comorbid AF and HF.

Matching journals

The top 6 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.