Health and Economic Evaluation of Sacubitril-Valsartan for Heart Failure Management

Primary medication adherence in Medicare beneficiaries prescribed sacubitril-valsartan or renin-angiotensin system blockers for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction

BACKGROUND

Sacubitril-valsartan is an angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI) that is now preferred over angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACE-Is) and angiotensin-II-receptor blockers (ARBs) for treating heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). Primary medication adherence to a costly brand-name ARNI, compared to inexpensive generic ACE-Is or ARBs, is unknown.

METHODS

This cohort study used a linked database of electronic health records and Medicare fee-for-service claims from a large integrated health care system in Boston to compare primary medication adherence among Medicare beneficiaries with HFrEF newly prescribed sacubitril-valsartan, those newly prescribed a generic ACE-I or ARB, and those switching from an ACE-I or ARB to sacubitril-valsartan. The primary outcome was the proportion of individuals who filled their first prescription for any ARNI, ACE-I, or ARB within 90 days; a secondary outcome was the mean number of days to first fill. We used logistic regression to adjust for variations in patient characteristics, including demographics, comorbidities, medication use, and qualification for subsidized out-of-pocket prescription drug costs.

RESULTS

Among 50 new sacubitril-valsartan prescription recipients, 33 (66%) demonstrated primary adherence at 90 days, compared to 141 of 231 (61%) new ACE-I or ARB prescription recipients (adjusted odds ratio 1.32, 95% CI, 0.63-2.73, P = .51). The mean time to first fill was 18 days for those prescribed sacubitril-valsartan and 9 days for those prescribed generic ACE-Is or ARBs (P < .001). By contrast, primary adherence at 90 days was higher (329 of 364, 90%) among those who switched from a generic ACE-I or ARB to newly prescribed sacubitril-valsartan.

CONCLUSIONS

In this small, single-center cohort study of Medicare beneficiaries with HFrEF, there was no difference in primary medication adherence among individuals newly prescribed sacubitril-valsartan and those newly prescribed generic ACE-Is or ARBs, although it took sacubitril-valsartan prescription recipients longer to fill their medication. Adherence was high among patients switching from an ACE-I or ARB to sacubitril-valsartan, suggesting that this switch was not associated with interruptions in renin-angiotensin blockade.

Health Care Spending After Initiating Sacubitril-Valsartan vs Renin-Angiotensin System Blockers for Heart Failure Treatment

Importance

For patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), treatment with sacubitril-valsartan, an angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor, has become increasingly preferred over angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACE-Is) and angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs). However, sacubitril-valsartan is much more expensive than generic ACE-I/ARBs. It is unknown whether the high cost of sacubitril-valsartan is offset by lower spending on hospitalizations and other treatments.

Objective

To compare total and out-of-pocket health care spending among Medicare beneficiaries initiating sacubitril-valsartan vs ACE-I/ARBs for HFrEF.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This was a cohort study using data from Medicare fee-for-service claims with propensity score matching of Medicare beneficiaries with HFrEF. Data analysis was performed from November 2022 to December 2023.

Exposure

Initiation of sacubitril-valsartan or an ACE-I/ARB. Patients were matched by propensity score based on 104 covariates, including demographic characteristics, comorbidities, baseline annual spending, and baseline use of health care services.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Mean total and out-of-pocket health care expenditures during the 365 days after initiating sacubitril-valsartan or an ACE-I/ARB. Censoring for incomplete follow-up was addressed using Kaplan-Meier probability weighting. Cost differences, cost ratios, and 95% CIs were calculated using a nonparametric bootstrapping method with 500 samples drawn with replacement.

Results

Among 13 755 matched pairs of Medicare patients with HFrEF (mean [SD] age, 77.5 [7.5] years; 5138 [39%] 80 years or older; 9949 females [36%] and 17 561 males [64%]), mean annual total health care spending per person was similar for sacubitril-valsartan initiators and ACE-I/ARB initiators (difference, $701; 95% CI, -$132 to $1593). Sacubitril-valsartan initiators had higher prescription drug costs (difference, $1911; 95% CI, $1704 to $2113), lower inpatient costs (difference, -$790; 95% CI, -$1468 to -$72), lower outpatient costs (difference, -$330; 95% CI, -$664 to -$11), and higher annual out-of-pocket spending (difference, $109; 95% CI, $13 to $208).

Conclusions and Relevance

This cohort study found that Medicare beneficiaries initiating sacubitril-valsartan to treat HFrEF had similar total health care spending as those initiating ACE-I/ARBs; higher prescription drug spending was offset by lower inpatient and outpatient spending. However, sacubitril-valsartan use was associated with higher patient out-of-pocket costs, which may exacerbate health disparities and limit access and affordability.

Cardiometabolic effects of sacubitril/valsartan in a rat model of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction

The promising results obtained in the PARADIGM-HF trial prompted the approval of sacubitril/valsartan (SAC/VAL) as a first-in-class treatment for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) patients. The effect of SAC/VAL treatment was also studied in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) and, although improvements in New York Heart Association (NYHA) class, HF hospitalizations, and cardiovascular deaths were observed, these results were not so promising. However, the demand for HFpEF therapies led to the approval of SAC/VAL as an alternative treatment, although further studies are needed. We aimed to elucidate the effects of a 9-week SAC/VAL treatment in cardiac function and metabolism using a preclinical model of HFpEF, the Zucker Fatty and Spontaneously Hypertensive (ZSF1) rats. We found that SAC/VAL significantly improved diastolic function parameters and modulated respiratory quotient during exercise. Ex-vivo studies showed that SAC/VAL treatment significantly decreased heart, liver, spleen, and visceral fat weights; cardiac hypertrophy and percentage of fibrosis; lipid infiltration in liver and circulating levels of cholesterol and sodium. Moreover, SAC/VAL reduced glycerophospholipids, cholesterol, and cholesteryl esters while increasing triglyceride levels in cardiac tissue. In conclusion, SAC/VAL treatment improved diastolic and hepatic function, respiratory metabolism, reduced hypercholesterolemia and cardiac fibrosis and hypertrophy, and was able to modulate cardiac metabolic profile. Our findings might provide further insight into the therapeutic benefits of SAC/VAL treatment in obese patients with HFpEF.

Cost-Effectiveness of Medical Therapy for Heart Failure With Mildly Reduced and Preserved Ejection Fraction

BACKGROUND

Three medications are now guideline-recommended treatments for heart failure with mildly reduced or preserved ejection fraction (HFmrEF/HFpEF), however, the cost-effectiveness of these agents in combination has yet to be established.

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this study was to determine the cost-effectiveness of mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRA), angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitors (ARNIs), and sodium glucose co-transporter 2 inhibitors (SGLT2is) in individuals with HFmrEF/HFpEF.

METHODS

Using a 3-state Markov model, we performed a cost-effectiveness study using simulated cohorts of 1,000 patients with HFmrEF and HFpEF. Treatment with 1-, 2-, and 3-drug combinations was modeled. Based on a United States health care sector perspective, outcome data was used to calculate incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) in 2023 United States dollars based on a 30-year time horizon.

RESULTS

Treatment with MRA, MRA+SGLT2i, and MRA+SGLT2i+ARNI therapy resulted in an increase in life years of 1.04, 1.58, and 1.80 in the HFmrEF subgroup, respectively, and 0.99, 1.54, and 1.77 in the HFpEF subgroup, respectively, compared with placebo. At a yearly cost of $18, MRA therapy resulted in ICERs of $10,000 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) in both subgroups. The ICER for the addition of SGLT2i therapy ($4,962 per year) was $113,000 per QALY in the HFmrEF subgroup and $141,000 in the HFpEF subgroup. The addition of ARNI therapy ($5,504 per year) resulted in ICERs >$250,000 per QALY in both subgroups. If SGLT2i and ARNI were available at generic pricing the ICERs become <$10,000 per QALY in both EF subgroups. Outcomes were highly sensitive to assumed benefit in cardiovascular death.

CONCLUSIONS

For patients with heart failure, MRA was of high value, SGLT2i was of intermediate value, and ARNI was of low value in both HFmrEF and HFpEF subgroups. For patients with HFmrEF/HFpEF increased use of MRA and SGLT2i therapies should be encouraged and be accompanied with efforts to lower the cost of SGLT2i and ARNI therapies.

Dapagliflozin versus sacubitril-valsartan for heart failure with mildly reduced or preserved ejection fraction

Background and aim

Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) is associated with an increased risk of heart failure (HF) hospitalizations and cardiovascular death (CVD). Both dapagliflozin and sacubitril-valsartan have recently shown convincing reductions in the combined risk of CVD and HF hospitalizations in patients with HF and mildly reduced ejection fraction (HFmrEF) or HFpEF. We aimed to investigate the cost-per-outcome implications of dapagliflozin vs sacubitril-valsartan in the treatment of HFmrEF or HFpEF patients.

Methods

We compared the annualized cost needed to treat (CNT) to prevent the composite outcome of total HF hospitalizations and CVD with dapagliflozin or sacubitril-valsartan. The CNT was estimated by multiplying the annualized number needed to treat (aNNT) by the annual cost of therapy. The aNNT was calculated based on data collected from the DELIVER trial for dapagliflozin and a pooled analysis of the PARAGLIDE-HF and PARAGON-HF trials for sacubitril-valsartan. Costs were based on 2022 US prices. Scenario analyses were performed to attenuate the differences in the studies' populations.

Results

The aNNT with dapagliflozin in DELIVER was 30 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 21-62) versus 44 (95% CI: 25-311) with sacubitril-valsartan in a pooled analysis of PARAGLIDE-HF and PARAGON-HF, with an annual cost of $4,951 and $5,576, respectively. The corresponding CNTs were $148,547.13 (95% CI: $103,982.99-$306,997.39) for dapagliflozin and $245,346.77 (95% CI: $139,401.58-1,734,155.60) for sacubitril-valsartan for preventing the composite outcome of CVD and HF hospitalizations. The CNT for preventing all-cause mortality was lower for dapagliflozin than sacubitril-valsartan $1,128,958.15 [CI: $401,077.24-∞] vs $2,185,816.71 [CI: $607,790.87-∞].

Conclusion

Dapagliflozin provides a better monetary value than sacubitril-valsartan in preventing the composite outcome of total HF hospitalizations and CVD among patients with HFmrEF or HFpEF.