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

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.

Cost-effectiveness of tirofiban for acute ischemic stroke without large or medium-sized vessel occlusion: A Markov modelling analysis from the Chinese and United States perspectives

BACKGROUND

The RESCUE BT2 trial recently showcased the efficacy of tirofiban in treating acute ischemic stroke (AIS) without large or medium-sized vessel occlusion. To further assess the value of tirofiban from the perspectives of Chinese and US healthcare system, a study was conducted to evaluate its cost-effectiveness.

METHODS

A hybrid model, integrating a short-term decision tree with a long-term Markov model, was developed to assess cost-effectiveness between tirofiban and aspirin for stroke patients without large or medium-sized vessel occlusion. Efficacy data for tirofiban was sourced from the RESCUE BT2 trial, while cost information was derived from published papers. Outcomes measured included respective cost, effectiveness, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). We conducted a one-way sensitivity analysis to assess the robustness of the results. Additionally, we performed probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) through 10,000 Monte Carlo simulations to evaluate the uncertainties associated with the results.

RESULTS

The study revealed that tirofiban treatment in AIS patients without large or medium-sized vessel occlusion led to a considerable reduction of 2141 Chinese Yuan (CNY) in total cost, along with a lifetime gain of 0.14 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). In the US settings, tirofiban also exhibited a lower cost ($197,055 versus $201,984) and higher effectiveness (4.15 QALYs versus 4.06 QALYs) compared to aspirin. One-way sensitivity analysis revealed that post-stroke care costs and stroke utility had the greatest impact on ICER fluctuation in both Chinese and US settings. However, these variations did not exceed the willingness-to-pay threshold. PSA demonstrated tirofiban's superior acceptability over aspirin in over 95% of potential scenarios.

CONCLUSION

Tirofiban treatment for AIS without large or medium-sized vessel occlusion appeared dominant compared to aspirin in both China and the US.

Tislelizumab Plus Chemotherapy Versus Placebo Plus Chemotherapy as First-Line Treatment for Chinese Patients with Advanced Esophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Advanced esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) is a prevalent and highly malignant tumor with a poor prognosis. Recently, the RATIONALE-306 trial demonstrated that tislelizumab combined with chemotherapy provided overall survival benefits for these patients. This study aimed to assess the cost-effectiveness of this treatment approach in Chinese patients with advanced ESCC from the perspective of healthcare system.

METHODS

A Markov model was constructed to assess the economic and health benefits associated with tislelizumab plus chemotherapy over a 10-year lifetime horizon, utilizing data from the RATIONALE-306 trial. The analysis encompassed the calculation of several key parameters, including the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), total cost, incremental cost, total effectiveness, and incremental effectiveness. Tislelizumab was considered cost-effective if the ICER obtained was below the willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of US$38,223 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY); otherwise, it would be deemed not cost-effective. To ensure the robustness of the findings, the results were subjected to one-way sensitivity analysis and probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA).

RESULTS

In the base-case analysis, the incremental effectiveness and cost associated with tislelizumab plus chemotherapy, compared to chemotherapy alone, were determined to be 0.40 QALY and US$7604, respectively. This resulted in an ICER of US$18,846 per QALY, which is below the WTP threshold of US$38,223 per QALY. Furthermore, the results from the one-way sensitivity analysis and PSA indicated robustness of the findings.

CONCLUSION

Our lifetime simulation study demonstrated that, in the case of advanced ESCC, the combination of tislelizumab and chemotherapy offers increased effectiveness compared to chemotherapy alone, albeit at a higher cost. Moreover, considering the current WTP threshold in China, the addition of tislelizumab to chemotherapy is considered a cost-effective approach.