Cost-Utility Analysis of Sacubitril-Valsartan Compared with Enalapril Treatment in Patients with Acute Decompensated Heart Failure in Thailand

Cost‑effectiveness of add‑on dapagliflozin for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction patients without diabetes

AIM

To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of dapagliflozin added to standard of care (SoC) versus SoC in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and without type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) patients from the Qatari healthcare perspective.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A lifetime Markov model was developed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of adding dapagliflozin to SoC based on the findings of Petrie et al. 2020, which were based on the DAPA-HF trial. The model was constructed based on four health states: "alive with no event", "urgent visit for heart failure", "hospitalization for heart failure", and "dead". The model considered 1,000 hypothetical HFrEF and without T2DM patients using 3-month cycles over a lifetime horizon. The outcome of interest was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) per quality-adjusted life-year gained (QALY) and years of life lived (YLL). Utility and cost data were obtained from published sources. A scenario analysis was performed to replace the transition probabilities of events in people without T2DM with the transition probabilities of events irrespective of T2DM status, based on findings of the DAPA-HF trial. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to confirm the robustness of the conclusion.

RESULTS

Adding dapagliflozin to SoC was estimated to dominate SoC alone, resulting in 0.6 QALY and 0.8 YLL, at a cost saving of QAR771 (USD211) per person compared with SoC alone, with total healthcare costs of QAR42,413 (USD 11,620) versus 43,184 (USD11,831) per person, respectively. When replacing the transition probabilities of events in people without T2DM with the transition probabilities of events in people irrespective of T2DM status, dapagliflozin was cost-effective at ICER of QAR5,212 (USD1,428) per QALY gained and QAR3,880 (USD1,063) per YLL. In the probabilistic sensitivity analysis, dapagliflozin combined with SoC was cost saving in over 49% of the cases and cost-effective in over 43% of the simulated cases against QALYs gained and YLL.

LIMITATIONS

Data from clinical trials were used instead of local data, which may limit the local relevance. However, evidence from the local Qatari population is lacking. Also, indirect costs were not included due to a paucity of available data.

CONCLUSIONS

Adding dapagliflozin to SoC is likely to be a cost-saving therapy for patients with HFrEF and without T2DM in Qatar.

Cost-effectiveness of non-communicable disease prevention in Southeast Asia: a scoping review

Background

Cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs) on prevention of non-communicable diseases (NCDs) are necessary to guide decision makers to allocate scarce healthcare resource, especially in Southeast Asia (SEA), where many low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) are in the process of scaling-up preventive interventions. This scoping review aims to summarize the cost-effectiveness evidence of primary, secondary, or tertiary prevention of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and cardiovascular diseases (CVDs) as well as of major NCDs risk factors in SEA.

Methods

A scoping review was done following the PRISMA checklist for Scoping Reviews. Systematic searches were performed on Cochrane Library, EconLit, PubMed, and Web of Science to identify CEAs which focused on primary, secondary, or tertiary prevention of T2DM, CVDs and major NCDs risk factors with the focus on primary health-care facilities and clinics and conducted in SEA LMICs. Risks of bias of included studies was assessed using the Consensus of Health Economic Criteria list.

Results

This study included 42 CEAs. The interventions ranged from screening and targeting specific groups for T2DM and CVDs to smoking cessation programs, discouragement of smoking or unhealthy diet through taxation, or health education. Most CEAs were model-based and compared to a do-nothing scenario. In CEAs related to tobacco use prevention, the cost-effectiveness of tax increase was confirmed in all related CEAs. Unhealthy diet prevention, mass media campaigns, salt-reduction strategies, and tax increases on sugar-sweetened beverages were shown to be cost-effective in several settings. CVD prevention and treatment of hypertension were found to be the most cost-effective interventions. Regarding T2DM prevention, all assessed screening strategies were cost-effective or even cost-saving, and a few strategies to prevent T2DM complications were found to be cost-effective in certain settings.

Conclusion

This review shows that the cost-effectiveness of preventive strategies in SEA against T2DM, CVDs, and their major NCDs risk factors are heterogenous in both methodology as well as outcome. This review combined with the WHO "best buys" could guide LMICs in SEA in possible interventions to be considered for implementation and upscaling. However, updated and country-specific information is needed to further assess the prioritization of the different healthcare interventions.

Systematic review registration

https://osf.io, identifier: 10.17605/OSF.IO/NPEHT.

Economic Evaluations of Guideline-Directed Medical Therapies for Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction: A Systematic Review

OBJECTIVES

Decision-analytic models (DAMs) with varying structures and assumptions have been applied in economic evaluations (EEs) to assist decision making for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) therapeutics. This systematic review aimed to summarize and critically appraise the EEs of guideline-directed medical therapies (GDMTs) for HFrEF.

METHODS

A systematic search of English articles and gray literature, published from January 2010, was performed on databases including MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, NHSEED, health technology assessment, Cochrane Library, etc. The included studies were EEs with DAMs that compared the costs and outcomes of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, angiotensin-receptor blockers, angiotensin-receptor neprilysin inhibitors, beta-blockers, mineralocorticoid-receptor agonists, and sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors. The study quality was evaluated using the Bias in Economic Evaluation (ECOBIAS) 2015 checklist and Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) 2022 checklists.

RESULTS

A total of 59 EEs were included. Markov model, with a lifetime horizon and a monthly cycle length, was most commonly used in evaluating GDMTs for HFrEF. Most EEs conducted in the high-income countries demonstrated that novel GDMTs for HFrEF were cost-effective compared with the standard of care, with the standardized median incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $21 361/quality-adjusted life-year. The key factors influencing ICERs and study conclusions included model structures, input parameters, clinical heterogeneity, and country-specific willingness-to-pay threshold.

CONCLUSIONS

Novel GDMTs were cost-effective compared with the standard of care. Given the heterogeneity of the DAMs and ICERs, alongside variations in willingness-to-pay thresholds across countries, there is a need to conduct country-specific EEs, particularly in low- and middle-income countries, using model structures that are coherent with the local decision context.

Budget Impact Analysis of Utilization of Sacubitril/Valsartan for the Treatment of Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction in the Philippines

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to estimate the financial and economic impact of sacubitril/valsartan compared with enalapril for the treatment and prevention of hospitalization/rehospitalization because of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF).

METHODS

The budget impact analysis was guided by the Philippine Reference Case and ISPOR's Principles of Good Practice for Budget Impact Analysis. A government-funded healthcare payer perspective and a societal perspective were considered. Data collection was guided by the pathways of disease progression and care. Collection of costing data followed a bottom-up approach. The model was based on a Markov model used in a study in Thailand.

RESULTS

Over the next 5 years, there will be 17 625 less hospitalizations (∼5.1% less than enalapril arm) and 7968 less cardiovascular-related deaths (∼7.0% less than enalapril arm). In 5 years, the total cost of treating patients with HFrEF with sacubitril/valsartan at current market coverage and annual growth conditions is ₱15.430 billion, which is ₱11.077 billion higher than fully treating with enalapril only. The total required additional investment with treatment of sacubitril/valsartan compared with the full enalapril arm are ₱407 million (at 30-day coverage), ₱800 million (at 60-day coverage), and ₱1.181 billion (at 90-day coverage). If hospitalizations costs alone are considered, only the 30-day coverage is cost-saving. If a societal perspective is considered, all options are cost-saving where at least ₱4.003 billion is saved by the economy.

CONCLUSION

The initial investment required to treat patients with HFrEF with sacubitril/valsartan is high; nevertheless, the year-on-year cost deficit shrinks in favor of investing in sacubitril/valsartan treatment.

Sacubitril/Valsartan in Heart Failure Hospitalization: Two Pills a Day to Keep Hospitalizations Away?

Heart failure (HF) is a clinical syndrome with signs and symptoms that result from any structural or functional deterioration of ventricular filling or ejection of blood. It is the final stage of various cardiovascular diseases (e.g., coronary artery disease, hypertension, previous myocardial infarction) and remains one of the leading causes of hospitalization. It poses severe health and economic burden worldwide. Patients usually present with shortness of breath due to impaired cardiac ventricular filling and decreased cardiac output. Cardiac remodeling due to the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system overactivation is the final pathological mechanism leading to these changes. The natriuretic peptide system is also activated to stop the remodeling. Sacubitril/valsartan, an angiotensin-receptor neprilysin inhibitor, has prompted a substantial conceptual change in HF treatment. Its primary mechanism is the inhibition of cardiac remodeling and the prevention of natriuretic peptide degradation by inhibiting the enzyme neprilysin. It is an efficacious, safe, and cost-effective therapy that improves the quality of life and survival rate in patients with HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and HF with preserved ejection fraction. It has been demonstrated to significantly reduce hospitalization rates and rehospitalization for HF when compared to enalapril. In this review, we have discussed the benefits of sacubitril/valsartan in treating patients with HFrEF, particularly in reducing hospitalizations and readmissions. We have also compiled studies to examine the drug's effect on adverse cardiac events. Finally, the cost benefits of the drug and optimal dosing strategies are also reviewed. Our review article, combined with the recommendations of the 2022 American Heart Association guidelines for heart failure, strongly suggests that sacubitril/valsartan is a cost-effective strategy that reduces hospitalizations for HFrEF patients when started early with optimal doses. There is still much uncertainty regarding the optimal usage of this drug, its use in HFrEF, and the cost benefits when used alone compared with enalapril.

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.

Vericiguat for the Treatment of Heart Failure with Reduced Ejection Fraction Following a Worsening Heart Failure Event: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis from the Perspective of Chinese Healthcare Providers

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Approximately 38 million people worldwide experience heart failure (HF), with more than 10 million in China. Heart failure exacerbations are the main cause of HF hospitalization, and hospitalizations are the main driver of HF-associated costs. Vericiguat is recommended to treat patients who have had worsening HF despite guideline-directed medical therapy. However, the cost effectiveness of adding vericiguat to the standard treatment of this population in China remains unclear. The objective of this study was to investigate the cost effectiveness of adding vericiguat to standard treatment in patients with HF in the Chinese population METHODS: A lifetime Markov model with a 1-month cycle length was developed to compare the cost effectiveness of vericiguat plus standard treatment versus standard treatment alone in Chinese patients with HF with reduced ejection fraction following an HF exacerbation, from the perspective of Chinese healthcare providers. The clinical data were obtained from the VICTORIA study. The cost was accessed from our institution or studies conducted in China. The primary outcome was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, representing incremental cost per incremental quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). Vericiguat was considered highly cost effective if the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio obtained was lower than 12,551 USD/QALY, cost effective if the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was between 12,551 and 37,654.5 USD/QALY, and not cost effective if the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was higher than 37,654.5 USD/QALY. A scenario analysis, one-way sensitivity analysis, and probabilistic sensitivity analysis were performed to test the robustness of the results.

RESULTS

For a 67-year-old patient with HF following an HF exacerbation, the lifetime cost was 17,721 USD if vericiguat plus standard treatment was given, compared to 7907 USD if standard treatment alone was prescribed. The corresponding effectiveness was 2.20 QALY and 2.10 QALY, respectively. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of vericiguat plus standard treatment versus standard treatment alone in Chinese patients with HF was 89,429 USD/QALY, higher than the willingness-to-pay threshold of 37654.5 USD/QALY. The scenario analysis and sensitivity analysis showed the robustness of our results.

CONCLUSIONS

The addition of vericiguat to the treatment regimen of Chinese patients with HF with reduced ejection fraction following an HF exacerbation resulted in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $89,429 USD/QALY compared to standard treatment. This incremental cost-effectiveness ratio exceeds the willingness-to-pay threshold and thus, vericiguat was deemed not cost effective in the Chinese population.

Sacubitril-valsartan versus enalapril for the treatment of acute decompensated heart failure in Chinese settings: A cost-effectiveness analysis

Background: The episode of acute decompensated heart failure (ADHF) is the main cause of hospitalization for heart failure (HF). Sacubitril-valsartan has been proven to be effective in reducing the risks of hospitalization for HF in ADHF. When to initiate sacubitril-valsartan in ADHF to make it the most cost-effective in China remains unclear. Methods: A lifetime Markov model with a 1-month cycle length was developed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of early or late initiation of sacubitril-valsartan versus enalapril in ADHF. Early initiation of sacubitril-valsartan meant that it was initiated after stabilization from ADHF, and late initiation of sacubitril-valsartan meant that it was initiated after stabilization from HF, which includes no hospitalization for at least three consecutive months. The primary outcome was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), expressed as the ratio of incremental cost to incremental effectiveness. The secondary outcomes were total costs and total effectiveness. Three times of per capita GDP of China in 2021 was set as the willingness-to-pay threshold. One-way sensitivity analysis and probabilistic sensitivity analysis were employed to test the robustness of the results. Results: The early initiation of sacubitril-valsartan treatment resulted in an ICER of 3,662.4 USD per quality-adjusted life year, lower than the willingness-to-pay threshold, and the late initiation of sacubitril-valsartan treatment gained an ICER of 4,444.4 USD/QALY, still lower than the willingness-to-pay threshold. One-way sensitivity analysis showed that our results were robust, and probabilistic sensitivity analysis suggested that early initiation of sacubitril-valsartan in ADHF was cost-effective under a 97.4% circumstance. Conclusion: Early initiation of sacubitril-valsartan after stabilization of ADHF is highly cost-effective compared with the use of enalapril; late initiation of sacubitril-valsartan after stabilization of HF is still cost-effective but not as cost-effective as early initiation of sacubitril-valsartan in ADHF. For Chinese ADHF patients, the time to initiate sacubitril-valsartan should be when the patient is stabilized from ADHF rather than when stabilized from HF, from the perspective of economic evaluation.

Patent foramen ovale closure vs. medical therapy alone after cryptogenic stroke in China: A cost-effectiveness analysis

Background

In 2019, there were 28. 76 million patients with stroke in China, with ~25% of them suffering from cryptogenic stroke (CS). Patent foramen ovale (PFO) is related to CS, and PFO closure can reduce recurrent stroke. To date, no study has investigated the cost-effectiveness of PFO closure vs. medical therapy among such populations in China.

Methods

A Markov model with a cycle length of 3 months was established to compare the 30-year cost-effectiveness of PFO closure and medical therapy. The transition probability of recurrent stroke was derived from the RESPECT study, and the costs and utility were obtained from domestic data or studies conducted in China. The primary outcome of this study was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), which represents the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY). PFO closure was considered cost-effective if the ICER obtained was lower than the willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of 37,654 USD/QALY; otherwise, PFO closure was regarded as not being cost-effective. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to test the robustness of the results.

Results

After a simulation of a 30-year horizon, a cryptogenic stroke patient with PFO was expected to have QALY of 13.15 (15.26 LY) if he received PFO closure and a corresponding value of 11.74 QALY (15.14 LY) after medical therapy. The corresponding costs in both cohorts are US $8,131 and US $4,186, respectively. Thus, an ICER of 2783 USD/QALY and 31264 USD/LY was obtained, which is lower than the WTP threshold. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses showed that the results were robust.

Conclusion

With respect to the WTP threshold of three times per capita GDP in China in 2021, PFO closure is a cost-effective method for Chinese cryptogenic stroke patients with PFO, as shown in the 30-year simulation.

Cost effectiveness analyses of pharmacological treatments in heart failure

In a rapidly growing and aging population, heart failure (HF) has become recognised as a public health concern that imposes high economic and societal costs worldwide. HF management stems from the use of highly cost-effective angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEi) and β-blockers to the use of newer drugs such as sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors (SGLT2i), ivabradine, and vericiguat. Modelling studies of pharmacological treatments that report on cost effectiveness in HF is important in order to guide clinical decision making. Multiple cost-effectiveness analysis of dapagliflozin for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) suggests that it is not only cost-effective and has the potential to improve long-term clinical outcomes, but is also likely to meet conventional cost-effectiveness thresholds in many countries. Similar promising results have also been shown for vericiguat while a cost effectiveness analysis (CEA) of empagliflozin has shown cost effectiveness in HF patients with Type 2 diabetes. Despite the recent FDA approval of dapagliflozin and empagliflozin in HF, it might take time for these SGLT2i to be widely used in real-world practice. A recent economic evaluation of vericiguat found it to be cost effective at a higher cost per QALY threshold than SGLT2i. However, there is a lack of clinical or real-world data regarding whether vericiguat would be prescribed on top of newer treatments or in lieu of them. Sacubitril/valsartan has been commonly compared to enalapril in cost effectiveness analysis and has been found to be similar to that of SGLT2i but was not considered a cost-effective treatment for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction in Thailand and Singapore with the current economic evaluation evidences. In order for more precise analysis on cost effectiveness analysis, it is necessary to take into account the income level of various countries as it is certainly easier to allocate more financial resources for the intervention, with greater effectiveness, in high- and middle-income countries than in low-income countries. This review aims to evaluate evidence and cost effectiveness studies in more recent HF drugs i.e., SGLT2i, ARNi, ivabradine, vericiguat and omecamtiv, and gaps in current literature on pharmacoeconomic studies in HF.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of sacubitril/valsartan for reducing the use of implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) and the risk of death in ICD-eligible heart failure patients with reduced ejection fraction

Although previous cost-effectiveness evaluations of sacubitril/valsartan have demonstrated cardiovascular and economic benefits in heart failure patients with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), whether sacubitril/valsartan is cost-effective for reducing the need for implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) implantation and the risk of death in ICD-eligible patients has not been investigated in patients with HFrEF. Herein, we evaluated the cost-effectiveness of sacubitril/valsartan versus standard of care in reducing the need for ICD implantation and the death rate in HFrEF. A Markov model was developed from the Qatari hospital perspective, comprised of 'survival' and 'death' health states, and was based on 1-monthly Markovian cycles, a 20-years follow-up horizon, and a 3% discount rate. The model inputs were obtained from the literature and local sources. Sacubitril/valsartan resulted in a relative increase of 0.04 quality-adjusted life year (QALY) and 0.67 years of life lived (YLL)/person, with an incremental cost increase of QAR13,952 (USD3,832). Sacubitril/valsartan was associated with incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of QAR341,113 (USD93,687)/QALYs gained and QAR24,431 (USD6,710)/YLL. Sensitivity analyses confirmed robustness, with the cost effectiveness maintained in ≥96.5% of simulated cases. To conclude, sacubitril/valsartan is a cost-effective alternative to standard care against QALY gained and YLL in reducing the need for an ICD therapy and the rate of death among ICD-eligible HFrEF patients.

Sacubitril-valsartan for the treatment of hypertension in China: A cost-utility analysis based on meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Background

Sacubitril-valsartan was recommended for heart failure (HF) and proven cost-effective in HF. Recently, sacubitril-valsartan has been recommended to treat hypertension by the Chinese expert consensus. The cost utility of sacubitril-valsartan for hypertension remains uninvestigated.

Methods

A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was performed to investigate the real efficacy of sacubitril-valsartan on blood pressure, compared with angiotensin receptor blockers or placebo. A lifetime Markov model was developed to compare the cost utility of sacubitril-valsartan vs. valsartan. The primary outcome was the incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR), representing the ratio of incremental costs to the incremental utility. The willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold was three times of per capita gross domestic product (GDP) in China in 2021. Sacubitril-valsartan was considered cost-effective if the ICUR obtained was lower than the WTP threshold, otherwise, sacubitril-valsartanis was not cost-effective.

Results

A total of 10 RCTs of 5,781 patients were included in the meta-analysis. For comparison of sacubitril-valsartan 400 mg/day vs. valsartan 320 mg/day, a reduction in blood pressure (BP) of -5.97 (-6.38, -5.56) (p < 0.01) was observed. Cost-utility analysis showed that for a 60-year-old patient with hypertension, if sacubitril-valsartan was prescribed as the antihypertensive agent, he had a life expectancy of 11.91 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) with costs of 65,066 CNY, and if valsartan was prescribed as the antihypertensive agent, the life expectancy would be 11.82 QALY with costs of 54,769 CNY; thus, an ICUR of 108,622 CNY/QALY was obtained, lower than the WTP threshold.

Conclusion

Compared with valsartan, sacubitril-valsartan is more effective in reducing blood pressure and may result in more quality-adjusted life-year, although with higher costs. Sacubitril-valsartan is cost-effective for hypertension in the current China setting under the willingness-to-pay threshold of 3 times of per capita GDP.