Background: PARADIGM-HF demonstrated superiority of sacubitril/valsartan (sac/val) over enalapril in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). However, patients in clinical practice may differ in their characteristics and overall risk compared with patients in clinical trials, and additional outcomes can be observed in real world (RW). Hence, a systematic review was conducted to identify and describe RW data on sac/val. Methods: RW studies evaluating the effects of sac/val in adult patients with HFrEF with a sample size ≥100 were identified via MEDLINE® and Embase® from 2015 to January 2020. Citations were screened, critically appraised and relevant data were extracted. Results: A total of 68 unique studies were identified. Nearly half of the studies were conducted in Europe (n = 34), followed by the US (n = 15) and Asia (n = 11). Median follow-up period varied from 1 to 19 months. Mean age ranged between 48.7 and 79.0 years; patients were mostly male and in New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional class II/III, and mean left ventricular ejection fraction varied between 23%and 38%. Of studies performing comparisons, most reported superior efficacy of sac/val in reducing the risk of HF hospitalisations, allcause hospitalisations, and all-cause mortality as compared to standard-of-care. Many studies reported significant improvements in NYHA functional class and reduction in biomarker levels post sac/val. Hypotension and hyperkalaemia were the most frequently reported adverse events. Conclusions: This comprehensive overview of currently available RW evidence on sac/val complements the evidence from randomised controlled trials, substantiating its effectiveness in heterogeneous real-world HF populations.

Several models have been developed that provide useful insight into T1DM modelling. Based on a review of the models identified in this study, we identified a set of 'best in class' methods for the different technical aspects of T1DM modelling.

No abstract

A607changes in treatments' effect on weight and HbA1c, and in utility values related to weight changes. Dapagliflozin's higher health benefits and cost savings are mainly explained by its greater beneficial effect on weight, leading to higher QALYs and less drug costs for dapagliflozin patients. The lower treatment costs are related to the insulin treatment costs (i.e. subsequent line regimens) due to the lower weight of dapagliflozin patients observed over time, which eventually leads to lesser insulin dosage. ConClusions: Dapagliflozin is a cost-saving strategy with higher health benefits compared to DPP4, added to metformin, for Turkish T2DM patients inadequately controlled on metformin mono-therapy.

OBJECTIVES: Kaplan-Meier (KM) curves are commonly used to report time-toevent outcomes like overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival. For studies not explicitly reporting hazard ratio (HR) and confidence intervals (CI), KM curves can be utilised to estimate these summary statistics for conducting a meta-analysis. Here, we validate the method proposed by Parmar and colleagues for estimating HR (95%CI) by reading the KM curves. METHODS: Ten randomised controlled trials reporting HR (95%CI) and the associated KM curve for OS were randomly A459