One workspace, two altitudes.

Heart Failure patient journey: how patients arrive at diagnosis (46% at an acute admission, 34% through a specialist, 20% in primary care), then diagnosis, four foundational classes in line 1, an add-on line, device and advanced therapy, then progression or switch — with three roadblocks: one patient in five undiagnosed, 78% short of the full regimen, add-ons started after an event.

Heart Failure treatment algorithm in three lines: 900,000 treated patients in line 1 on up to four foundational classes, 22% on all four at target dose; 14% reach a line-2 add-on; 8% reach device and advanced therapy.

The seven marketed Heart Failure classes compared by line of therapy on generic status, efficacy, tolerability, annual net cost and share of treated patients.

Each dimension carries what the current standard of care delivers, what it leaves unresolved, and how large the residual gap is.

• EfficacyDelivered by the standard of careEvent rates fall substantially on four foundational classesResidual unmet needResidual risk of CV death and HF hospitalisation persists on optimised therapyHigh›
• Symptoms and quality of lifeDelivered by the standard of careSymptoms and functional capacity improve once therapy is titratedResidual unmet need34% of treated patients stay NYHA III, with breathlessness and fatigue on exertionHigh›
• Disease coverageDelivered by the standard of careEvery foundational class is indicated across HFrEFResidual unmet needHFpEF and advanced heart failure are reached by fewer classesHigh›
• DurabilityDelivered by the standard of careBenefit is maintained for as long as treatment continuesResidual unmet needNo option holds the benefit once treatment stopsMedium›
• Safety and tolerabilityDelivered by the standard of careManageable with monitoring and stepwise titrationResidual unmet needHyperkalaemia and hypotension cap titration to target doseMedium›
• Administration burdenDelivered by the standard of careOral, in ambulatory care, once or twice dailyResidual unmet needFour classes, titration visits and polypharmacyMedium›

Minimum to be relevant → Target to winStandard of care todayBenefit you deliverBest Phase III competitor – Asset B, expected

• Mortality benefitRelative reduction in CV death, on top of quadruple therapy›

  Standard of care today 0%Minimum to be relevant 8%Target to win 15%Asset B 8%

  The residual event risk on optimised therapy – the largest unmet need in the indication.

  0%Standard of care8%Minimum15%Target
• Hospitalisation reductionRelative reduction in HF hospitalisation›

  Standard of care today 0%Minimum to be relevant 12%Target to win 25%Asset B 14%

  The endpoint the payer tied to the top of the corridor.

  0%Standard of care12%Minimum25%Target
• Functional improvementSymptom-score points gained at 12 months›

  Standard of care today 3 ptsMinimum to be relevant 5 ptsTarget to win 10 ptsAsset B 4 pts

  34% of treated patients stay NYHA III on optimised therapy.

  3 ptsStandard of care5 ptsMinimum10 ptsTarget
• Durability of effectPatients maintaining benefit at 24 months›

  Standard of care today 62%Minimum to be relevant 65%Target to win 80%Asset B 70%

  Benefit holds while treatment continues; durability pays only where it shortens the regimen.

  62%Standard of care65%Minimum80%Target
• Safety and tolerabilityPatients still on therapy at 12 months›

  Standard of care today 88%Minimum to be relevant 88%Target to win 94%Asset B 86%

  Potassium and blood pressure cap titration today; removing one of them would be paid for.

  88%Minimum94%Target
• Administration burdenPatients on an all-once-daily regimen›

  Standard of care today 59%Minimum to be relevant 59%Target to win 90%Asset B 59%

  The strongest patient theme, and the one payers pay least for.

  59%Minimum90%Target
• Population coverageShare of the prevalent HF population in the label›

  Standard of care today 43%Minimum to be relevant 43%Target to win 75%Asset B 25%

  HFpEF is reached by one class; the segment is where a label could grow.

  43%Minimum75%Target