Cost-Utility Analysis of Combination Empagliflozin and Standard Treatment Versus Standard Treatment Alone in Thai Heart Failure Patients with Reduced or Preserved Ejection Fraction

Real-World Eligibility and Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Empagliflozin for Heart Failure in Korea

BACKGROUND

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and European Medicines Agency (EMA) approved empagliflozin for reducing cardiovascular mortality and heart failure (HF) hospitalization in patients with both HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and HF with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). However, limited data are available on the generalizability of empagliflozin to clinical practice. Therefore, we evaluated real-world eligibility and potential cost-effectiveness based on a nationwide prospective HF registry.

METHODS

A total of 3,108 HFrEF and 2,070 HFpEF patients from the Korean Acute Heart Failure (KorAHF) registry were analyzed. Eligibility was estimated by inclusion and exclusion criteria of EMPagliflozin outcomE tRial in Patients With chrOnic heaRt Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction (EMPEROR-Reduced) and EMPagliflozin outcomE tRial in Patients With chrOnic heaRt Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction (EMPEROR-Preserved) trials and by FDA & EMA label criteria. The cost-utility analysis was done using a Markov model to project the lifetime medical cost and quality-adjusted life year (QALY).

RESULTS

Among the KorAHF patients, 91.4% met FDA & EMA label criteria, while 44.7% met the clinical trial criteria. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of empagliflozin was calculated at US$6,764 per QALY in the overall population, which is far below a threshold of US$18,182 per QALY. The cost-effectiveness benefit was more evident in patients with HFrEF (US$5,012 per QALY) than HFpEF (US$8,971 per QALY).

CONCLUSION

There is a large discrepancy in real-world eligibility for empagliflozin between FDA & EMA labels and clinical trial criteria. Empagliflozin is cost-effective in HF patients regardless of ejection fraction in South Korea health care setting. The efficacy and safety of empagliflozin in real-world HF patients should be further investigated for a broader range of clinical applications.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01389843.

Is Using Sodium-Glucose Cotransporter-2 Inhibitors to Treat Adults with Chronic Heart Failure Cost-Effective? A Systematic Review of Cost-Effectiveness Studies

OBJECTIVE

This systematic review aimed to summarise the outcomes of economic evaluations that evaluated sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors (SGLT2i) in combination with standard of care compared to standard of care alone for patients with chronic heart failure.

METHODS

This systematic review searched MEDLINE, CINAHL+, Econlit, Scopus, the Cochrane Library, the National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database and the Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Registry from inception to 31 December, 2022, for relevant economic evaluations, which were critically appraised using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) and Bias in Economic Evaluation (ECOBIAS) criteria. The costs, quality-adjusted life-years, incremental cost-effectiveness ratios and cost-effectiveness thresholds were qualitatively analysed. Net monetary benefits at different decision thresholds were also computed. Subgroup analyses addressing the heterogeneity of economic outcomes were conducted. All costs were adjusted to 2023 international dollar (US$) values using the CCEMG-EPPI-Centre cost converter.

RESULTS

Thirty-nine economic evaluations that evaluated dapagliflozin and empagliflozin in patients with heart failure were found: 32 for the left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) ≤ 40% and seven for LVEF > 40%. Sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors were cost-effective in all but two economic evaluations for LVEF > 40%. Economic outcomes varied widely, but favoured SGLT2i use in LVEF ≤ 40% over LVEF > 40% and upper-middle income over high-income countries. At a threshold of US$30,000/quality-adjusted life-year, ~ 90% of high to upper-middle income countries would consider SGLT2i cost-effective for heart failure treatment. The generalisability of study findings to low- and low-middle income countries is limited because of insufficient evidence.

CONCLUSIONS

Using SGLT2i to treat heart failure is cost-effective, with more certainty in LVEF ≤ 40% compared to LVEF > 40%. Policymakers in jurisdictions where economic evaluations are not available could potentially use this study's findings to make informed decisions about treatment adoption.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW PROTOCOL REGISTRATION

This study protocol was registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO; CRD42023388701).

SGLT2 inhibitors for patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction in China: a cost-effectiveness study

Background: The potential benefits of intervention with empagliflozin or dapagliflozin for patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) were first demonstrated in the EMPEROR-Preserved and DELIVER studies. However, the cost-effectiveness of this intervention (empagliflozin or dapagliflozin) is yet to be established. Methods: In the context of Chinese healthcare, a Markov model was proposed, which incorporates clinical outcomes from the EMPEROR-Preserved and DELIVER studies, to predict the utility and costs over a lifetime. The time horizon was 20 years, and a 5% discount rate was applied to the costs and utilities. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) threshold against willingness to pay (WTP) was set as the primary outcome. The robustness of the decision was evaluated using sensitivity analyses. Results: After a simulated 20-year lifetime, a 72-year-old patient with HFpEF in the intervention group (empagliflozin) showed an increase of 0.44 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and $1,623.58 with an ICER of $3,691.56 per QALY, which was lower than the WTP threshold of $12,032.10 per QALY. A 72-year-old patient with HFpEF in the intervention group (dapagliflozin) showed an increase of 0.34 QALYs and $2,002.13 with an ICER of $5,907.79 per QALY, which was lower than the WTP threshold of $12,032.10 per QALY. One-way sensitivity analyses showed that cardiovascular (CV) mortality in the intervention and comparator groups was the most sensitive to the decision. Cost-effectiveness was demonstrated in the intervention group (empagliflozin or dapagliflozin) in 67.9% or 62.2% of 1000 Monte Carlo simulations, respectively. Conclusion: In Chinese healthcare, the interventions (empagliflozin or dapagliflozin) for HFpEF were more cost-effective than the comparators. Our study has provided a quantitative evaluation of the costs and benefits of such interventions for a lifetime using the model.

Systematic Review of the Economic Evaluation of Sodium-Glucose Cotransporter-2 Inhibitors Used as Treatment in Patients with Heart Failure

BACKGROUND

Sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitors have been recently used as therapeutic agents for type 2 diabetes mellitus. Recent clinical trials have shown that they are beneficial for reducing the risk of cardiovascular mortality and hospitalization in patients with heart failure (HF). A comprehensive review regarding the cost-effectiveness of different SGLT2 inhibitors for HF treatment may be necessary to help clinicians and decision-makers select the most cost-effective HF treatment option.

OBJECTIVE

This study conducted a systematic review of economic evaluation studies of SGLT2 inhibitors for the treatment of patients with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF).

METHOD

We searched PubMed, Cochrane, Embase, and EBSCOhost to identify published economic evaluation studies on SGLT2 inhibitors for HF treatment until May 2023. Studies on the economic evaluation of SGLT2 inhibitors in the treatment of HF were included. We extracted information such as country, population, intervention, type of model, health status, and conclusion of cost-effectiveness.

RESULT

Of the 410 studies, 27 were finally selected. All economic evaluation studies used the Markov model, and commonly included health status as stable HF, hospitalization due to HF, and death. All dapagliflozin studies focused on patients with HFrEF (n = 13), and dapagliflozin was cost-effective in 14 countries, but not in the Philippines. All empagliflozin studies focused on the patients with HFrEF also showed the cost-effectiveness of empagliflozin (n = 11). However, empagliflozin use in patients with HFpEF was determined to be cost-effective in studies in Finland, China, and Australia studies but not in studies in Thailand and the USA.

CONCLUSIONS

Most of the studies reported the cost-effectiveness of dapagliflozin and empagliflozin in patients with HFrEF. However, the cost-effectiveness of empagliflozin differed from country to country regarding patients with HFpEF. We suggest that further economic evaluation of SGLT2 inhibitors should focus on patients with HFpEF in more countries.

Cost-effectiveness of empagliflozin for the treatment of heart failure: a systematic review

Objective: This study aims to synthesize evidence on the cost-effectiveness of empagliflozin for heart failure (HF). Methods: MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Library, EconLit, CNKI, Wanfang Data and Chongqing VIP were searched to identify original articles on cost-effectiveness of empagliflozin for HF, and literature surveillance ended on 20 November 2022. The reporting quality of the included articles was determined using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards statement. Results: Of 97 articles identified, 11 studies published from 2020 to 2022 met the inclusion criteria, and the overall quality was accepted. The studies were conducted in 8 countries (China, Japan, Korea, Singapore, Thailand, Australia, United States, and United Kingdom). This body of evidence suggested that add-on empagliflozin was cost effective for HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) patients compared to standard of care alone in all the related studies including China, Japan, Korea, Singapore, Thailand, and Australia. For HF with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) patients, add-on empagliflozin was cost effective in China and Australia, but not in United States and Thailand. For HF with diabetes, add-on empagliflozin was cost effective in United Kingdom. Moreover, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) were lower for patients with diabetes than without in subgroup analysis. In the uncertainty analysis of all included studies, the ICERs were most sensitive to the cost of empagliflozin and cardiovascular mortality, followed by the cost of the standard treatment, hazard ratio of HF hospitalization. Conclusion: add-on empagliflozin for HFrEF might be cost-effective or dominant compared with standard of care alone. However, for HFpEF patients, add-on empagliflozin might be cost-effective in China and Australian, but not cost-effective in United States and Thailand.

Cost-utility analysis of add-on dapagliflozin in heart failure with preserved or mildly reduced ejection fraction

AIMS

The DELIVER study demonstrates a significant improvement in cardiovascular death or hospitalization for heart failure among heart failure with mildly reduced ejection fraction (HFmrEF) or heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF).Cost-utility of the adjunct use of dapagliflozin to standard therapy among patients with HFpEF or HFmrEF remains unclear.

METHODS AND RESULTS

A five-state Markov mode was constructed to project health and clinical outcomes of the adjunct use of dapagliflozin to standard therapy among 65-year-old patients with HFpEF or HFmrEF. A cost-utility analysis was performed based on the DELIVER study and national statistical database. The cost and utility was inflated to 2022 by the usual discount rate of 5%. The primary outcomes were total cost and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) per patients as well as the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio. Sensitivity analyses were also applied. Over a 15 year lifetime horizon, the average cost per patient was $7245.77 and $5407.55 in the dapagliflozin group and the standard group, along with an incremental cost of $1838.22. The average QALYs per patient was 6.00 QALYs and 5.84 QALYs in the dapagliflozin group and the standard group, along with an incremental QALYs of 0.15 QALYs, resulting in the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $11 865.33/QALY, which was below the willingness-to-pay (WTP) of $12 652.5/QALY. The univariate sensitivity analysis indicated the cardiovascular death in both group was the most sensitive variable. Probability sensitivity analysis revealed that when the WTP thresholds were $12 652.5/QALY and $37 957.5/QALY, the probabilities of being cost-effective with dapagliflozin as an add-on were 54.6% and 71.6%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

From a public healthcare system perspective, the adjunct use of dapagliflozin to standard therapy among patients with HFpEF or HFmrEF generated advantages in cost-effectiveness in China at a WTP of $12 652.5/QALY, which promoted the rational use of dapagliflozin for heart failure.

Cost-effectiveness of adding empagliflozin to the standard of care for patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction from the perspective of healthcare system in Malaysia

Objective: The aim of this study was to determine the cost-effectiveness of adding empagliflozin to the standard of care versus SoC alone for the treatment of patients with heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) from the perspective of the Ministry of Health of Malaysia. Methods: A cohort-based transition-state model, with health states defined as Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire Clinical Summary Score (KCCQ-CSS) quartiles and death, was used to determine the lifetime direct medical costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) for both treatment groups. The risks of all-cause death, cardiovascular death, and health state utilities were estimated from the EMPEROR-Reduced trial. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was assessed against the cost-effectiveness threshold (CET) as defined by the country's gross domestic product per capita (RM 47,439 per QALY) to determine cost-effectiveness. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess the key model parameters' uncertainty in respect to the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio. A scenario analysis was performed using health states as defined by the New York Heart Association classes. Results: Compared to SoC alone, empagliflozin + SoC for the treatment of HFrEF was more expensive (RM 25,333 vs. RM 21,675) but gained more health utilities (3.64 vs. 3.46), resulting in an ICER of RM 20,400 per QALY in the KCCQ-CSS model. A NYHA-based scenario analysis generated an ICER of RM 36,682 per QALY. A deterministic sensitivity analysis confirmed the robustness of the model in identifying the empagliflozin cost as the main driver of cost-effectiveness. The ICER was reduced to RM 6,621 when the government medication purchasing prices were used. A probabilistic sensitivity analysis with a CET of 1xGDP per capita reached 72.9% probability for empagliflozin + SoC against SoC being cost-effective. Conclusion: Empagliflozin + SoC compared to SoC alone for the treatment of HFrEF patients was cost-effective from the perspective of the MoH of Malaysia.

Sacubitril/Valsartan for Heart Failure with Preserved Ejection Fraction: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis from the Perspective of the Chinese Healthcare System

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Sacubitril/valsartan has shown effectiveness in reducing hospitalization compared with valsartan in HFpEF patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). We aimed to investigate the cost effectiveness of sacubitril/valsartan as an alternative to valsartan in Chinese patients with heart failure with HFpEF.

METHODS

A Markov model was built to investigate the cost effectiveness of sacubitril/valsartan as an alternative to valsartan in Chinese patients with HFpEF, from the healthcare system perspective. The time horizon was a lifetime, with a cycle length of 1 month. Costs were obtained from local information or published papers, discounted at a rate of 0.05 for future costs. The transition probability and utility were based on other studies. The primary outcome of the study was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). Sacubitril/valsartan was considered cost effective if the ICER obtained was lower than the willingness-to-pay threshold of US dollars (US$) 12,551.5 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses, as well as scenario analysis, were performed to test robustness.

RESULTS

Over a lifetime simulation, a 73-year-old Chinese patient with HFpEF could gain 6.44 QALYs (9.15 life-years) if sacubitril/valsartan plus standard treatment was administered, and 6.37 QALYs (9.07 life-years) if valsartan plus standard treatment was prescribed. The corresponding costs in both groups were US$12,471 and US$8663, respectively. The ICER was US$49,019/QALY (US$46,610/life-year), higher than the willingness-to-pay threshold. Sensitivity analyses and scenario analysis showed that our results were robust.

CONCLUSION

Adding sacubitril/valsartan to standard treatment as an alternative to valsartan for the treatment of HFpEF resulted in more effectiveness but higher costs. Sacubitril/valsartan was likely to not be cost effective in Chinese patients with HFpEF. The cost of sacubitril/valsartan needs to reduce to 34% of its current price to be cost effective in this population. Studies based on real-world data are needed to confirm our conclusions.

Cost-Effectiveness of Adding Empagliflozin to Standard Treatment for Heart Failure with Preserved Ejection Fraction Patients in China

OBJECTIVES

Heart failure is a worldwide health problem and is the leading cause of hospitalization in older patients. Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) accounts for about 38% of heart failure cases. The latest EMPEROR-Preserved study shows that empagliflozin can reduce the risk of hospitalization in HFpEF, but whether empagliflozin is cost-effective in HFpEF in a Chinese setting remained uninvestigated.

METHODS

A simulation of lifetime horizon for a 72-year-old HFpEF patient was conducted using a Markov model. The primary outcome was incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), expressed as incremental costs per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). Three times the per capita GDP of China was set as the willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold. Empagliflozin was considered cost-effective if the ICER was below the WTP threshold, otherwise it would be regarded as not cost-effective. One-way sensitivity and probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) were used to assess uncertainty.

RESULTS

After a simulation of lifetime horizon, a 72-year-old HFpEF patient is expected to have an expected QALY of 4.80 in the empagliflozin group, and 4.67 QALY with standard treatment. The costs of empagliflozin and standard treatment are 34,987 (US$5423) and 27,027 (US$4189) Chinese Yuan (CNY), respectively, with an ICER of 63,746 (US$9881)/QALY, lower than the WTP threshold. One-way sensitivity and PSA show that our results are robust.

CONCLUSION

In Chinese HFpEF patients, adding empagliflozin to standard treatment is cost-effective, but studies based on real-world data are needed.

Cost-utility analysis of empagliflozin in heart failure patients with reduced and preserved ejection fraction in China

Objective: EMPEROR-Reduced and EMPEROR-Preserved studies showed the benefits of empagliflozin along with a reduction in cardiovascular death or hospitalisation for heart failure (HF). Our aim was to evaluate the economics and effectiveness of adding empagliflozin to the standard therapy for HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and HF preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) in China. Methods: A multistate Markov model was constructed to yield the clinical and economic outcomes of adding empagliflozin to the standard therapy for 65-year-old patients with HFrEF and HFpEF. A cost-utility analysis was conducted, mostly derived from the EMPEROR-Reduced study, EMPEROR-Preserved study, and national statistical database. All costs and outcomes were discounted at the rate of 5% per annum. The primary outcomes were total and incremental costs, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). Sensitivity analyses were also performed. Results: In the HFrEF population, the 10-year incremental cost was $827.52 and the 10-year incremental QALY was 0.15 QALYs, resulting in an ICER of $5,612.06/QALY, which was below the WTP of $12,652.5/QALY. In the HFpEF population, compared with the control group, the incremental cost was $1,271.27, and the incremental QALY was 0.11 QALYs, yielding an ICER of 11,312.65 $/QALY, which was also below the WTP of $12,652.5/QALY. In the HFrEF and HFpEF populations, the results of a one-way sensitivity analysis showed that the risk of cardiovascular death in both groups was the most influential parameter. In the HFrEF population, a probability sensitivity analysis (PSA) revealed that when the WTP thresholds were $12,652.5/QALY and $37,957.5/QALY, the probabilities of being cost-effective with empagliflozin as an add-on were 59.4% and 72.6%, respectively. In the HFpEF population, the PSA results revealed that the probabilities of being cost-effective with empagliflozin as an add-on were 53.1% and 72.2%, respectively. Conclusion: Considering that the WTP threshold was $12,652.5/QALY, adding empagliflozin to standard therapy was proven to be a slightly more cost-effective option for the treatment of HFrEF and HFpEF from a Chinese healthcare system perspective, which promoted the rational use of empagliflozin for HF.

Cost-effectiveness of adding empagliflozin to the standard therapy for Heart Failure with Preserved Ejection Fraction from the perspective of healthcare systems in China

Background

The Empagliflozin Outcome Trial in Patients with Chronic Heart Failure with Preserved Ejection Fraction (EMPEROR-Preserved) is the first randomized controlled trial to provide promising evidence on the efficacy of adding empagliflozin to the standard therapy in patients with Heart Failure with Preserved Ejection Fraction (HFpEF), but the cost-effectiveness of add-on empagliflozin treatment remains unclear.

Method

A Markov model using data from the EMPEROR-Preserved trial and national database was constructed to assess lifetime costs and utility from a China healthcare system perspective. The time horizon was 10 years and a 5% discount rate was applied. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) against willingness to pay (WTP) threshold was performed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness. A series of sensitivity analyses was applied to ensure the robustness of the results.

Results

Compared to standard therapy, the increased cost of adding empagliflozin from $4,645.23 to $5,916.50 was associated with a quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gain from 4.70 to 4.81, projecting an ICER of $11,292.06, which was lower than a WTP threshold of $12,652.5. Univariate sensitivity analysis revealed that the parameters with the largest impact on ICER were cardiovascular mortality in both groups, followed by the cost of empagliflozin and the cost of hospitalization for heart failure. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis indicated that when the WTP threshold was $12,652.5 and $37,957.5, the probability of being cost-effective for adding empagliflozin was 52.7% and 67.6%, respectively. Scenario analysis demonstrated that the cost of empagliflozin, the cost of hospitalization for heart failure, NYHA functional classes, and time horizon had a greater impact on the ICER.

Conclusion

At a WTP threshold of $12,652.5, the add-on empagliflozin treatment for HFpEF was cost-effective in healthcare systems in China, which promoted the rational use of empagliflozin for HFpEF.