Dataset Information

Cost-effectiveness of Dapagliflozin for the Treatment of Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction.

ABSTRACT:

Importance

Heart failure with reduced ejection fraction produces substantial morbidity, mortality, and health care costs. Dapagliflozin is the first sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor approved for the treatment of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction.

Objective

To examine the cost-effectiveness of adding dapagliflozin to guideline-directed medical therapy for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction in patients with or without diabetes.

Design, setting, and participants

This economic evaluation developed and used a Markov cohort model that compared dapagliflozin and guideline-directed medical therapy with guideline-directed medical therapy alone in a hypothetical cohort of US adults with similar clinical characteristics as participants of the Dapagliflozin in Patients with Heart Failure and Reduced Ejection Fraction (DAPA-HF) trial. Dapagliflozin was assumed to cost $4192 annually. Nonparametric modeling was used to estimate long-term survival. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses examined the impact of parameter uncertainty. Data were analyzed between September 2019 and January 2021.

Main outcomes and measures

Lifetime incremental cost-effectiveness ratio in 2020 US dollars per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained.

Results

The simulated cohort had a starting age of 66 years, and 41.8% had diabetes at baseline. Median (interquartile range) survival in the guideline-directed medical therapy arm was 6.8 (3.5-11.3) years. Dapagliflozin was projected to add 0.63 (95% uncertainty interval [UI], 0.25-1.15) QALYs at an incremental lifetime cost of $42 800 (95% UI, $37 100-$50 300), for an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $68 300 per QALY gained (95% UI, $54 600-$117 600 per QALY gained; cost-effective in 94% of probabilistic simulations at a threshold of $100 000 per QALY gained). Findings were similar in individuals with or without diabetes but were sensitive to drug cost.

Conclusions and relevance

In this study, adding dapagliflozin to guideline-directed medical therapy was projected to improve long-term clinical outcomes in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction and be cost-effective at current US prices. Scalable strategies for improving uptake of dapagliflozin may improve long-term outcomes in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction.

SUBMITTER: Isaza N

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8317009 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceIn the Dapagliflozin and Prevention of Adverse Outcomes in Heart Failure (DAPA-HF) trial, dapagliflozin was shown to reduce cardiovascular mortality and hospitalizations due to heart failure while improving patient-reported health status. However, the cost-effectiveness of adding dapagliflozin therapy to standard of care (SOC) is unknown.ObjectiveTo estimate the cost-effectiveness of dapagliflozin therapy among patients with chronic heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF).Design, setting, and participantsThis Markov cohort cost-effectiveness model used estimates of therapy effectiveness, transition probabilities, and utilities from the DAPA-HF trial and other published literature. Costs were derived from published sources. Patients with HFrEF included subgroups based on diabetes status and health status impairment due to heart failure. We compiled parameters from the literature including DAPA-HF, on which our model is based, and many other sources from December 2019 to February 27, 2021. We performed our analysis in February 2021.ExposuresDapagliflozin or SOC.Main outcomes and measuresHospitalizations for heart failure, life-years, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), costs, and the cost per QALY gained (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio).ResultsIn the model, dapagliflozin therapy yielded a mean of 0.78 additional life-years and 0.46 additional QALYs compared with SOC at an incremental cost of $38 212, resulting in a cost per QALY gained of $83 650. The cost per QALY was similar for patients with or without diabetes and for patients with mild or moderate impairment of health status due to heart failure. The cost-effectiveness was most sensitive to estimates of the effect on mortality and duration of therapy effectiveness. If the cost of dapagliflozin decreased from $474 to $270 (43% decline), the cost per QALY gained would drop below $50 000.Conclusions and relevanceThese findings suggest that dapagliflozin provides intermediate value compared with SOC, based on American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association benchmarks. Additional data regarding the magnitude of mortality reduction would improve the precision of cost-effectiveness estimates.

Project description:This study was to determine the cost-effectiveness of dapagliflozin in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) patients in China from a perspective of health care payers. We built a Markov model to perform a cost-effectiveness analysis comparing standard treatment + dapagliflozin (10 mg, q.d.) with standard treatment for HFrEF. The base case in our simulation was a 65-year-old HFrEF patient and was modelled over 15 years. Inputs of the model were derived from the Dapagliflozin and Prevention of Adverse Outcomes in Heart Failure trial and other relevant data from China. Costs, quality-adjusted life year (QALY), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) were estimated for adding dapagliflozin relative to standard treatment. Costs and QALY were discounted at a 4.2% rate annually. All costs are presented in 2017 US dollars. Dapagliflozin would be considered very cost-effective if the ICER was lower than a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $8573.4. Uncertainty was assessed in our model using one-way, two-way, and probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA). In our base case, compared with standard treatment, adding dapagliflozin was more expensive ($5829.4 vs. $4377.1) but more effective (4.82 vs. 4.44 QALYs). The respondent ICER was $3827.6 per QALY gained at 15-year follow-up. When the simulated horizon was longer than 3.5 years, the respondent ICER became lower than the WTP threshold. The inputs with the largest impact on ICER were the cost of dapagliflozin, the cardiovascular mortality in both groups, and the cost of hospitalization for heart failure. Most results of sensitivity analysis were robust. PSA showed a similar result as the base case (ICER = $4412.5 per QALY gained). In Monte Carlo simulation, at a WTP threshold of $8573.4 per QALY, dapagliflozin was considered very cost-effective in 53.10% of the simulations. Dapagliflozin was a very cost-effective treatment option for HFrEF patients in China according to the result of our model. Our findings will help doctors and health care payers to make decisions in clinical practice. Future real-world studies of cost-effectiveness of dapagliflozin based on Chinese population were also needed.

Project description:BackgroundWith emerging evidence on the efficacy of adding dapagliflozin to standard care for patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), this study assessed the cost-effectiveness of add-on dapagliflozin to standard care versus standard care alone for HFrEF from the perspective of healthcare systems in the Asia-Pacific region.MethodsA Markov model was applied to project the outcomes of treatment in terms of lifetime medical cost and quality-adjusted life-years. The transition probabilities between health states in the model were obtained from the Dapagliflozin in Patients with Heart Failure and Reduced Ejection Fraction trial. Country-specific costs and utilities were extracted for modeling. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio against a country-specific willingness-to-pay threshold was applied to determine the cost-effectiveness of treatment. A series of sensitivity analyses were performed to ensure the robustness of the study results. Costs are presented in 2020 United States dollars.ResultsThe incremental cost-effectiveness ratios for add-on dapagliflozin versus standard care alone were $5277, $9980, $12,305, $16,705, and $23,227 per quality-adjusted life-year gained in Korea, Australia, Taiwan, Japan, and Singapore, respectively. When using add-on dapagliflozin to standard care versus standard care alone, ~ 100% of simulations were cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of one gross domestic product per capita of the given Asia-Pacific country; however, the probability of being cost-effective for using add-on dapagliflozin decreased when the time horizon for simulation was restricted to 18 months and when the cardiovascular mortality for the two treatments (43.8% and 33.0%, respectively) was assumed to be the same. The cost-effectiveness results were most sensitive to cardiovascular mortality of treatment.ConclusionsAdding dapagliflozin to standard care is cost-effective for HFrEF in healthcare systems in the Asia-Pacific region, which supports the rational use of dapagliflozin for HFrEF in this region.

Project description:Objective: To evaluate the economics and effectiveness of adding dapagliflozin or empagliflozin to the standard treatment for heart failure (HF) for patients with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) in China. Methods: A Markov model was developed to project the clinical and economic outcomes of adding dapagliflozin or empagliflozin to the standard treatment for 66-year-old patients with HFrEF. A cost-utility analysis was performed based mostly on data from the empagliflozin outcome trial in patients with chronic heart failure and a reduced ejection fraction (EMPEROR-Reduced) study and the dapagliflozin and prevention of adverse outcomes in heart failure (DAPA-HF) trial. The primary outcomes were measured via total and incremental costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). Results: In China, compared to the standard treatment, although adding dapagliflozin to the standard treatment in the treatment of HFrEF was more expensive ($4,870.68 vs. $3,596.25), it was more cost-effective (3.87 QALYs vs. 3.64 QALYs), resulting in an ICER of $5,541.00 per QALY. Similarly, adding empagliflozin was more expensive ($5,021.93 vs. $4,118.86) but more cost-effective (3.66 QALYs vs. 3.53 QALYs), resulting in an ICER of $6,946.69 per QALY. A sensitivity analysis demonstrated the robustness of the model in identifying cardiovascular death as a significant driver of cost-effectiveness. A probabilistic sensitivity analysis indicated that when the willingness-to-pay was $11,008.07 per QALY, the probability of the addition of dapagliflozin or empagliflozin being cost-effective was 70.5 and 55.2%, respectively. A scenario analysis showed that the cost of hospitalization, diabetes status, and time horizon had a greater impact on ICER. Conclusion: Compared with standard treatments with or without empagliflozin, adding dapagliflozin to the standard treatment in the treatment of HFrEF in China was extremely cost-effective.

Project description:ImportanceSacubitril-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.ObjectiveTo 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 participantsThis 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 measuresA 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.ResultsModeled 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 relevanceThe 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.