Dataset Information

Cost-effectiveness of Sacubitril-Valsartan in Hospitalized Patients Who Have Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction.

ABSTRACT:

Importance

Sacubitril-valsartan use reduces mortality and hospitalizations compared with enalapril among patients with chronic heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF); however, the cost-effectiveness of these treatments when initiated during hospitalization for HF is unknown.

Objective

To estimate the cost-effectiveness of inpatient initiation of sacubitril-valsartan vs enalapril compared with no initiation or posthospitalization initiation of sacubitril-valsartan among stabilized patients with HFrEF.

Design, setting, and participants

This economic evaluation included data on US patients with HFrEF who were eligible for sacubitril-valsartan treatment from December 8, 2009, to May 15, 2018.

Main outcomes and measures

A 5-state Markov model with all-cause mortality, HF, and non-HF hospitalization probabilities was used. Quality of life was estimated using Euro-QoL EQ-5D scores. Hospitalization, long-term care, and medication costs for sacubitril-valsartan and enalapril were modeled with a discount rate of 3%. The base-case analysis included a lifetime horizon from a health care and societal perspective.

Results

Modeled patients were a mean (SD) age of 63.8 (11.5) years. Inpatient treatment with sacubitril-valsartan ($5628 per year) was associated with 62 fewer HF-related admissions per 1000 patients compared with outpatient initiation or 116 fewer HF-related admissions compared with continuation of enalapril treatment. From a health care system perspective, initiation of sacubitril-valsartan during hospitalization saved $452 per year compared with continuing enalapril and $811 per year compared with initiation at 2 months after hospitalization and was associated with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $21 532 per quality-adjusted life-year compared with continued enalapril treatment over a lifetime. From a societal perspective, inpatient initiation was estimated to save $460 per year per patient compared with no initiation of sacubitril-valsartan and $813 per year per patient compared with initiation after hospitalization. In a budget analysis, inpatient initiation of sacubitril-valsartan was estimated to save up to $449 per person for 1 year or $2550 per person over 5 years compared with continuation of enalapril.

Conclusions and relevance

The findings suggest that, for patients with HFrEF, initiation of sacubitril-valsartan during hospitalization may be associated with reduced hospitalizations, increased quality-adjusted life expectancy, and cost savings compared with no initiation or initiation after hospitalization.

SUBMITTER: Gaziano TA

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7675099 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background Sacubitril/Valsartan has been highly efficacious in randomized trials of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). However, the effectiveness of sacubitril/valsartan in older patients hospitalized for HFrEF in real-world US practice is unclear. Methods and Results This study included Medicare beneficiaries age ≥65 years who were hospitalized for HFrEF ≤40% in the Get With The Guidelines-Heart Failure registry between October 2015 and December 2018, and eligible for sacubitril/valsartan. Associations between discharge prescription of sacubitril/valsartan and clinical outcomes were assessed after inverse probability of treatment weighting and adjustment for other HFrEF medications. Overall, 1551 (10.9%) patients were discharged on sacubitril/valsartan. Of those not prescribed sacubitril/valsartan, 7857 (62.0%) were prescribed an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor/angiotensin II receptor blocker. Over 12-month follow-up, compared with a discharge prescription of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor/angiotensin II receptor blocker, sacubitril/valsartan was independently associated with lower all-cause mortality (adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 0.82; 95% CI, 0.72-0.94; P=0.004) but not all-cause hospitalization (adjusted HR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.89-1.07; P=0.55) or heart failure hospitalization (adjusted HR, 1.04; 95% CI, 0.91-1.18; P=0.59). Patients prescribed sacubitril/valsartan versus those without a prescription had lower risk of all-cause mortality (adjusted HR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.60-0.79; P<0.001), all-cause hospitalization (adjusted HR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.82-0.98; P=0.02), but not heart failure hospitalization (adjusted HR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.82-1.08; P=0.40). Conclusions Among patients hospitalized for HFrEF, prescription of sacubitril/valsartan at discharge was independently associated with reduced postdischarge mortality compared with angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor/angiotensin II receptor blocker, and reduced mortality and all-cause hospitalization compared with no sacubitril/valsartan. These findings support the use of sacubitril/valsartan to improve postdischarge outcomes among older patients hospitalized for HFrEF in routine US clinical practice.

Project description:BackgroundSacubitril/valsartan (an Angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor-ARNI) is one of the cornerstones in the management of patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) having demonstrated significant reductions in both mortality and hospitalisations as compared with enalapril. It proved to be a cost-effective treatment in many countries with stable economies. In Argentina, a country with chronic financial instability and a fragmented health care system, the estimation of its cost-effectiveness requires to consider local financial data.ObjectivesTo estimate the cost-effectiveness of sacubitril/valsartan in HFrEF in Argentina.MethodsWe populated an Excel-based cost-effectiveness model, previously validated, using inputs from the pivotal phase-3 PARADIGM-HF trial and from local sources. As the main problem to consider was the financial instability, we adopted a differential approach to cost discounting based on the opportunity cost of capital. Thus, a discount rate for costs were set at 31.6%, using the BADLAR rate published by the Central Bank of Argentina. Discount for effects were set at 5% as is the current practice. Costs were expressed in Argentinian pesos (ARS). We used the perspective for both the social security and private payers at a 30-year horizon. The primary analysis was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) versus enalapril, the previous standard of care. Alternative scenarios performed included a 5% cost discount rate and 3 a 5-year horizon (as is usually used).ResultsIn Argentina the cost-per quality adjusted life-year (QALY) gained for sacubitril/valsartan versus enalapril was 391,158 ARS and 376,665 ARS for a social security and a private payer, respectively, at a 30- year horizon. These ICERs were under the cost- effectiveness threshold of 520,405.79 ARS (1 Gross domestic product (GDP) per capita) suggested by Argentinian health technology assessment bodies. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed an acceptability of sacubitril/valsartan as a cost-effective alternative of 86.40% and 88.25% for social security and private payers, respectively.ConclusionSacubitril/valsartan is a cost-effective treatment in HFrEF using local inputs that considered the financial instability. For both payers considered the cost per QALY gained are under the cost-effectiveness threshold considered.

Project description:ObjectivesThis paper aims to compare the effectiveness of sacubitril-valsartan and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor (ACE)/angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) in systolic heart failure (HF).BackgroundSacubitril-valsartan reduced risks of death and hospitalization for HF versus enalapril in ambulatory patients with HF and reduced ejection fraction in the PARADIGM-HF (Prospective Comparison of Angiotensin II Receptor Blocker Neprilysin Inhibitor with Angiotensin Converting Enzyme Inhibitor to Determine Impact on Global Mortality and Morbidity in HF) trial. However, the comparative effectiveness of sacubitril-valsartan and ACE/ARB in patients treated in routine clinical practice is unclear.MethodsWe identified patients with systolic HF in a U.S. administrative claims database treated with sacubitril-valsartan or ACE/ARB from July 1, 2015, to February 2, 2018. One-to-one propensity score matching was used to balance patients on 29 clinical variables. Cox models were used to compare outcomes between treatment groups.ResultsA total of 7,893 matched pairs were included; mean (SD) follow-up was 6.3 (5.4) months. Sacubitril-valsartan was associated with lower risks of all-cause mortality or all-cause hospitalization (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.86, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.81 to 0.91; p < 0.001), all-cause mortality (HR: 0.80, 95% CI: 0.66 to 0.97; p = 0.027), and all-cause hospitalization (HR: 0.86, 95% CI: 0.80 to 0.91; p < 0.001), but not HF hospitalization (HR: 1.07, 95% CI: 0.96 to 1.19; p = 0.26). A lower risk of the primary outcome with sacubitril-valsartan was observed in white patients (HR: 0.83, 95% CI: 0.76 to 0.90) but not black patients (21% of population, HR: 1.00, 95% CI: 0.88 to 1.15; interaction p = 0.032). No statistically significant differences in treatment response by sex or age were observed.ConclusionsSacubitril-valsartan was associated with lower risks of death and hospitalization compared with ACE/ARB in a heterogeneous cohort of patients with systolic HF. However, our finding that outcomes with sacubitril-valsartan and ACE/ARBs were similar in black patients warrants further evaluation.

Project description:AimsIvabradine and sacubitril/valsartan are second-line therapies for patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) based on guideline recommendations. We aimed to evaluate the synergistic effects of these two medications.Methods and resultsPatients' data were extracted from a multicentre database between 2016 and 2018. Patients were classified into (1) Simultaneous group: simultaneous prescription of ivabradine and sacubitril/valsartan within 6 weeks; (2A) Sequential group, ivabradine-first: ivabradine was prescribed first, followed by sacubitril/valsartan; and (2B) Sequential group, sacubitril/valsartan-first: sacubitril/valsartan was prescribed first, followed by ivabradine. A total of 464 patients with HFrEF were enrolled. Cardiovascular death and/or unplanned re-hospitalizations for HF were less frequent (28.6% vs. 44.8%, P = 0.01), and the improvement of left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) was significantly greater in patients from the Simultaneous group than those from the Sequential group (∆LVEF 12.8 ± 12.9% vs. 9.3 ± 12.6%, P = 0.007). Among Sequential subgroups, the ivabradine-first treatment decreased heart rate and increased systolic blood pressure (SBP) compared with sacubitril/valsartan-first treatment (∆heart rate -9.1 ± 12.9 b.p.m. vs. 2.6 ± 16.0 b.p.m., P < 0.001; ∆SBP 4.6 ± 16.5 mmHg vs. -4.8 ± 17.2 mmHg, P < 0.001), whereas sacubitril/valsartan-first treatment showed a higher degree of LVEF improvement (∆LVEF 3.6 ± 7.8% vs. 0.7 ± 7.7%, P = 0.002) than ivabradine-first treatment. At the end of follow-up, SBP, LVEF, and left ventricular volume were comparable between two Sequential subgroups.ConclusionsAmong patients with HFrEF, simultaneous rather than sequential treatment with sacubitril/valsartan and ivabradine was a better strategy to reduce adverse events and achieve left ventricular reverse remodelling. Ivabradine treatment had a more significant benefit on improving haemodynamic stability, whereas sacubitril/valsartan treatment showed a more significant effect on improving LVEF.