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

Cost-effectiveness of empagliflozin in the treatment of Malaysian patients with chronic heart failure and preserved or mildly reduced ejection fraction

INTRODUCTION

Empagliflozin demonstrates promising clinical benefits in patients with heart failure (HF). While an early study demonstrates that empagliflozin is cost-effective for treating HF patients with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) in Malaysia, its cost-effectiveness for HF with ejection fraction (EF)>40% remains unclear. Therefore, the current study aimed to assess the cost-effectiveness of adding empagliflozin to the standard of care (SoC) for HF patients with EF>40% from the perspective of Malaysian healthcare system. Subsequently, the results were consolidated with the findings for HFrEF to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of empagliflozin when used for all HF patients in Malaysia, irrespective of EF.

METHODS

A cost-utility analysis was performed using a validated Markov model, which modelled a cohort of adult patients through health states related to symptom severity and functional impairment, to estimate costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). The influence of model inputs and assumptions, sensitivity, scenario, and subgroup analyses were explored. All costs were expressed in 2022 Malaysian ringgits (RM). Costs and QALYs were discounted at an annual rate of 3.0% as per local pharmacoeconomic guideline.

RESULTS

The base-case incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for HF patients with EF>40% was RM 40,454 per QALY gained. At a cost-effectiveness threshold of RM 47,439/QALY gained, empagliflozin was cost-effective in 57% of replications. The model outcomes were sensitive to inputs related to the treatment effect of empagliflozin in reducing HF-related hospitalisation and cardiovascular mortality, and empagliflozin cost. For the overall HF population, the ICER was RM 29,463/QALY gained.

CONCLUSION

The findings suggest that empagliflozin is a cost-effective treatment option for the Malaysian HF population, including those with EF>40%. As such, the intervention warrants consideration by the Malaysian healthcare provider to mitigate the burden of HF and address the unmet needs of the EF>40% population.

Influenza vaccination for heart failure patients: a cost-effectiveness analysis from the perspective of Chinese healthcare system

Purpose

Influenza infection induces cardiovascular events in heart failure (HF) patients, with potential risk reduction through vaccination. This study aims to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of influenza vaccination for HF patients in China.

Methods

We developed a Markov model with a 3-month cycle to simulate the cost-effectiveness of administering the influenza vaccine to patients with HF over a 3-year period. Patients in the model received either the influenza vaccine or a placebo, in addition to standard HF treatment. Cost data, sourced from the China Healthcare Statistic Yearbook and other public records, and effectiveness data from the IVVE (Influenza Vaccine to Prevent Adverse Vascular Events in HF) trial, were incorporated. Specifically, the cost of the influenza vaccine was 75 Chinese Yuan (CNY) (11 USD), the cost of hospitalization for heart failure (HHF) was 9,326 CNY (1,386 USD), and the cost of treatment for pneumonia was 5,984 CNY (889 USD). The study's primary outcome, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), quantifies the incremental cost (CNY and USD) per incremental quality-adjusted life year (QALY). Additional outcomes included total cost, total effectiveness, incremental cost, and incremental effectiveness. We conducted one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSA) to assess certainty and uncertainty, respectively. Scenario analysis, considering various situations, was performed to evaluate the robustness of the results.

Results

In the base case analysis, influenza vaccine, compared to placebo, among Chinese HF patients, resulted in a cost increase from 21,004 CNY (3,121 USD) to 21,062 CNY (3,130 USD) and in QALYs from 1.89 to 1.92 (2.55 life years vs. 2.57 life years) per patient. The resulting ICER was 2,331 CNY (346 USD) per QALY [2,080 CNY (309 USD) per life year], falling below the willingness-to-pay threshold based on per capita GDP. One-way sensitivity analysis revealed that disparities in HHF and cardiovascular death rates between groups had the most significant impact on the ICER, while the cost of vaccines had a marginal impact. PSA and scenario analysis collectively affirmed the robustness of our findings.

Conclusion

This study suggests that adding the influenza vaccine to standard treatment regimens for Chinese patients with HF may represent a highly cost-effective option. Further real-world data studies are essential to validate these findings.

Cost-Utility Analysis of Vericiguat in Heart Failure with Reduced Ejection Fraction After Worsening Heart Failure Events in China

OBJECTIVE

Vericiguat is a new medication to demonstrate clinical efficacy in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) after worsening heart failure (WHF) events, but its cost-utility was unknown. We aimed to assess the cost-utility of combining the application of vericiguat with standard treatment in HFrEF patients who had WHF events.

METHODS

A multistate Markov model was implemented to mimic the economic results of HFrEF patients who had WHF events in China after receiving vericiguat or placebo. An analysis of cost-utility was conducted; most parameters were set according to the published studies and related databases. All the utilities and costs were decreased at a rate of 5% annually. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were the primary outcome measure. We also conducted sensitivity analyses.

RESULTS

Over a 20 year lifetime horizon, additional use of vericiguat led to an elevated cost from US$9725.03 to US$20,660.76 at the current vericiguat costs. This was related to increased quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) from 2.50 to 2.66, along with an ICER of US$65,057.24 per QALY, which was over the willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of US$36,096.30 per QALY. If the vericiguat costs were discounted at 80%, it contributed to an ICER of US$12,226.77 per QALY. Additional use of vericiguat for patients with plasma N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) of ≤ 5314 pg per ml produced an ICER of US$23,688.46 per QALY. The outcomes of the one-way sensitivity analysis showed the risk of death from cardiovascular disease in both groups was variable with the highest sensitivity. The probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed that 41.6% of the mimicked population receiving vericiguat combined with standard therapy was cost-effective at the WTP threshold of US$36,096.30 per QALY.

CONCLUSIONS

From the perspective of Chinese public healthcare system, the combined use of vericiguat and standard treatment in patients with HFrEF following WHF events did not generate advantages in cost-utility in China but was a cost-effective therapeutic strategy for those who with plasma NT-proBNP of ≤ 5314 pg per ml.

Cost-effectiveness of dapagliflozin for patients with heart failure across the spectrum of ejection fraction: A pooled analysis of DAPA-HF and DELIVER data

AIM

To assess the cost-effectiveness of dapagliflozin in addition to usual care, compared with usual care alone, in a large population of patients with heart failure (HF), spanning the full range of left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF).

METHODS AND RESULTS

Patient-level data were pooled from HF trials (DAPA-HF, DELIVER) to generate a population including HF with reduced, mildly reduced and preserved LVEF, to increase statistical power and enable exploration of interactions among LVEF, renal function and N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide levels, as they are relevant determinants of health status in this population. Survival and HF recurrent event risk equations were derived and applied to a lifetime horizon Markov model with health states defined by Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire total symptom score quartiles; costs and utilities were in the UK setting. The base case incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was £6470 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained, well below the UK willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of £20 000/QALY gained. In interaction sensitivity analyses, the highest ICER was observed for elderly patients with preserved LVEF (£16 624/QALY gained), and ranged to a region of dominance (increased QALYs, decreased costs) for patients with poorer renal function and reduced/mildly reduced LVEF. Results across the patient characteristic interaction plane were mostly between £5000 and £10 000/QALY gained.

CONCLUSIONS

Dapagliflozin plus usual care, versus usual care alone, yielded results well below the WTP threshold for the UK across a heterogeneous population of patients with HF including the full spectrum of LVEF, and is likely a cost-effective intervention.

Empagliflozin cost-effectiveness analysis in Japanese heart failure with mildly reduced and preserved ejection fraction

AIMS

Empagliflozin, a sodium-glucose co-transporter 2 inhibitor, was shown to be effective in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) in the EMPEROR-Preserved trial. The present study aims to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of empagliflozin among Japanese patients with HFpEF.

METHODS AND RESULTS

A Markov cohort model was developed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of empagliflozin added to standard of care (SoC) compared with SoC alone in patients with HFpEF from the perspective of the Japanese healthcare system and with a lifetime horizon. In addition to clinical events, the progression of disease severity was modelled based on the migration of Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire-Clinical Summary Scores (KCCQ-CSS). Model inputs, including risk of clinical events, costs, and utilities/disutilities, were derived from EMPEROR-Preserved trial data, a claims database and published literature. The generalizability of model results was investigated by applying various subgroups including age, body mass index (BMI), and region Asia, based on the subgroup analysis of EMPEROR-Preserved data. In the base-case analysis, empagliflozin yielded additional quality-adjusted life years (QALYs; 0.11) with an incremental cost of $1408 per patient for Japanese patients with HFpEF. Incremental cost, mainly derived from drug acquisition cost ($1963 per patient), was largely offset by reduced cost in hospitalization for heart failure (HHF) and cardiovascular death (-$537 per patient and -$166 per patient, respectively). Treatment of empagliflozin provided incremental 0.11 QALYs and 0.08 life years compared with SoC alone. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was $12 772 (¥1 662 689)/QALY, which was below the Japanese willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $38 408 (¥5 000 000)/QALY. The results were consistent across all the subgroups considered, and empagliflozin was dominant over SoC alone in the region Asia and BMI < 25 kg/m2 subgroups. ICERs for the remaining subgroups ranged from $7520/QALY (¥978 972/QALY, patients with baseline age ≥ 75 years) to $31 049/QALY (¥4 041 896/QALY, patients with baseline New York Heart Association class III/IV). Deterministic sensitivity analysis result showed that the treatment effect on HHF is the biggest driver of the cost-effectiveness analysis, while the ICER will be still under the threshold even if no effect of empagliflozin on HHF was assumed. The probabilistic sensitivity analysis result showed that 64% of simulations were cost-effective based on the Japanese WTP threshold.

CONCLUSIONS

Empagliflozin was demonstrated to be cost-effective for patients with HFpEF in Japan based on EMPEROR-Preserved trial data.

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).

Evaluating the long-term cost-effectiveness of fixed-ratio combination insulin degludec/liraglutide (IDegLira) versus other treatment regimens in the chinese type 2 diabetes patients

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

To assess the cost-effectiveness of utilizing IDegLira in comparison to other treatment regimens ( liraglutide and degludec) in managing type 2 diabetes, taking into account the Chinese healthcare system's perspective.

METHODS

The clinical data were obtained from the randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of the DUAL I and DUAL II evidence studies that took place in China. To estimate the lifetime quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and direct medical costs of patients receiving different treatment strategies from a long-term perspective, the IQVIA CORE Diabetes Model version 9.0 (IQVIA, Basel, Switzerland) was utilized. The costs were evaluated from the perspective of the China National Health System. Future costs and clinical benefits were discounted annually at 5%, and sensitivity analyses were conducted.

RESULTS

IDegLira was projected to reduce the incidence of diabetes-related complications and improve quality-adjusted life expectancy (QALE) versus liraglutide and degludec. A survival benefit was observed with IDegLira over Liraglutide (0.073 years). Lifetime costs were lower by Chinese yuan (CNY) 27,945 on IDegLira than on Liraglutide therapy. A similar survival benefit was observed with IDegLira over degludec (0.068 years). Lifetime costs were lower by CNY 1196 on IDegLira than on degludec therapy. Therefore, IDegLira was found to be cost-effective versus liraglutide and degludec with incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of Dominant per QALY gained, respectively, under the threshold of three times the gross domestic product (GDP) per capita in China.

CONCLUSION

IDegLira is a cost-effective hypoglycemic treatment option that delivers positive clinical outcomes while also reducing costs for Chinese patients living with type 2 diabetes.

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.

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-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.