scholarly journals Cost-Effectiveness Evaluation of Add-on Empagliflozin in Patients With Heart Failure and a Reduced Ejection Fraction From the Healthcare System's Perspective in the Asia-Pacific Region

2021 ◽  
Vol 8 ◽  
Author(s):  
Chia-Te Liao ◽  
Chun-Ting Yang ◽  
Fang-Hsiu Kuo ◽  
Mei-Chuan Lee ◽  
Wei-Ting Chang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Heart Failure ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Ejection Fraction ◽  
Standard Therapy ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Asia Pacific ◽  
Reduced Ejection Fraction ◽  
Patients With Heart Failure ◽  
The Cost ◽  
Country Specific

Background: EMPEROR-Reduced trial provides promising evidence on the efficacy of empagliflozin adding to the standard treatment in patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). This study aimed to investigate the cost-effectiveness of add-on empagliflozin vs. standard therapy alone in HFrEF from the perspective of the Asia-Pacific healthcare systems.Methods: A Markov model was constructed to simulate HFrEF patients and to project the lifetime direct medical costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALY) of both therapies. Transitional probabilities were derived from the EMPEROR-Reduced trial. Country-specific costs and utilities were extracted from published resources. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) against willingness to pay (WTP) threshold was used to examine the cost-effectiveness. A series of sensitivity analyses was performed to ensure the robustness of the results.Results: The ICERs of add-on empagliflozin vs. standard therapy alone in HFrEF were US$20,508, US$24,046, US$8,846, US$53,791, US$21,543, and US$20,982 per QALY gained in Taiwan, Japan, South Korea, Singapore, Thailand, and Australia, respectively. Across these countries, the probabilities of being cost-effective for using add-on empagliflozin under the WTP threshold of 3-times country-specific gross domestic product per capita were 93.7% in Taiwan, 95.6% in Japan, 96.3% in South Korea, 94.2% Singapore, 51.9% in Thailand, and 95.9% in Australia. The probabilities were reduced when shortening the time horizon, assuming the same cardiovascular mortality for both treatments, and setting lower WTP thresholds.Conclusion: Adding empagliflozin to HFrEF treatment is expected to be a cost-effective option among the Asia-Pacific countries. The cost-effectiveness is influenced by the WTP thresholds of different countries.

scholarly journals Cost-effectiveness of sacubitril/valsartan in the treatment of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction

Heart ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 104 (12) ◽  
pp. 1006-1013 ◽  
Author(s):  
John J V McMurray ◽  
David Trueman ◽  
Elizabeth Hancock ◽  
Martin R Cowie ◽  
Andrew Briggs ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Heart Failure ◽  
Sensitivity Analysis ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Ejection Fraction ◽  
Willingness To Pay ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Reduced Ejection Fraction ◽  
The Uk ◽  
The Cost

ObjectiveChronic heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HF-REF) represents a major public health issue and is associated with considerable morbidity and mortality. We evaluated the cost-effectiveness of sacubitril/valsartan (formerly LCZ696) compared with an ACE inhibitor (ACEI) (enalapril) in the treatment of HF-REF from the perspective of healthcare providers in the UK, Denmark and Colombia.MethodsA cost-utility analysis was performed based on data from a multinational, Phase III randomised controlled trial. A decision-analytic model was developed based on a series of regression models, which extrapolated health-related quality of life, hospitalisation rates and survival over a lifetime horizon. The primary outcome was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER).ResultsIn the UK, the cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained for sacubitril/valsartan (using cardiovascular mortality) was £17 100 (€20 400) versus enalapril. In Denmark, the ICER for sacubitril/valsartan was Kr 174 000 (€22 600). In Colombia, the ICER was COP$39.5 million (€11 200) per QALY gained. Deterministic sensitivity analysis showed that results were most sensitive to the extrapolation of mortality, duration of treatment effect and time horizon, but were robust to other structural changes, with most scenarios associated with ICERs below the willingness-to-pay threshold for all three country settings. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis suggested the probability that sacubitril/valsartan was cost-effective at conventional willingness-to-pay thresholds was 68%–94% in the UK, 84% in Denmark and 95% in Colombia.ConclusionsOur analysis suggests that, in all three countries, sacubitril/valsartan is likely to be cost-effective compared with an ACEI (the current standard of care) in patients with HF-REF.

scholarly journals Economic evaluation of sacubitril/valsartan versus enalapril in the treatment of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Haiqiang SANG ◽  
Yaohui JIANG ◽  
Zhe WANG ◽  
Rujie ZHENG
Keyword(s):  
Heart Failure ◽  
Sensitivity Analysis ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Ejection Fraction ◽  
Incremental Cost ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Incremental Cost Effectiveness Ratio ◽  
Cost Effectiveness Ratio ◽  
Reduced Ejection Fraction ◽  
The Cost

Abstract Background: In 2020, sacubitril/valsartan(formerly LCZ696) will implement the new negotiated price of medical insurance in China, and the cost of treatment will be significantly reduced. The aim of study is to evaluate the economy of sacubitril/valsartan(SAC/VAL) compared with an angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor (ACEI) (enalapril) in the treatment of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) in China.Method: A Markov model was developed to project clinical and economic outcomes of SAC/VAL versus enalapril for 64-year-old patients with HFrEF over 10 years from the Chinese medical and health system perspective. A cost-utility analysis was performed mostly based on data from the PARADIGM trial. Other transition probability, costs, and utilities were obtained from published literature and public databases. The primary outcome were total and incremental costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for SAC/VAL relative to enalapril. The model was verified the uncertainty using the sensitivity analysis furtherly.Results: Compared with enalapril, SAC/VAL cost more than enalapril (¥96532 vs. ¥34560) and was more cost-effective (4.6 QALYs vs. 4.3 QALYs), resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of ¥185720 per QALY gained for patients with HFrEF at a WTP threshold of ¥212676 per QALY. Sensitivity analysis demonstrated the robustness of the model, identifying the death on the SAC/VAL group as a significant drivers of the cost-effectiveness. At the national negotiation price (¥9.95 per 100mg), probability of SAC/VAL being cost-effective was about 53% at a WTP threshold of ¥212676 per QALY.Conclusion: SAC/VAL was associated with clinical benefit and may be cost-effective compared with an ACEI (the current standard of care) in patients with HFrEF.

scholarly journals Cost-effectiveness evaluation of add-on dapagliflozin for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction from perspective of healthcare systems in Asia–Pacific region

2021 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Chia-Te Liao ◽  
Chun-Ting Yang ◽  
Han Siong Toh ◽  
Wei-Ting Chang ◽  
Hung-Yu Chang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Heart Failure ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Standard Care ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Healthcare Systems ◽  
Asia Pacific ◽  
Pacific Region ◽  
Asia Pacific Region ◽  
Reduced Ejection Fraction ◽  
The Cost

Abstract Background With 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. Methods A 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. Results The 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. Conclusions Adding 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.

Abstract 15981: Cost-effectiveness of Dapagliflozin in Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction

Circulation ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 142 (Suppl_3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Nicolas Isaza ◽  
Paola Calvachi ◽  
Inbar Raber ◽  
Changyu Shen ◽  
Michael C Gavin ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Heart Failure ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Ejection Fraction ◽  
Incremental Cost ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Healthcare Sector ◽  
Base Case ◽  
Reduced Ejection Fraction ◽  
Life Years ◽  
The Cost

Introduction: In May 2020, the US FDA approved the use of dapagliflozin, an SGLT2 inhibitor, for the reduction of cardiovascular death and heart failure hospitalization in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). We examined the cost-effectiveness of adding dapagliflozin to guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) in patients with or without diabetes. Methods: We developed a state-transition Markov model with inputs from the DAPA-HF trial, FDA review documents, published literature, and nationally representative datasets (Panel A). The model was calibrated to event rates observed in DAPA-HF; survival was extrapolated using non-parametric approaches. The main outcomes were quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and incremental cost effectiveness ratio (ICER) of dapagliflozin + GDMT compared with GDMT alone, from a healthcare sector perspective and a lifetime analytic horizon. We applied a discount rate of 3% per year for future costs and benefits, and assumed a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000 per QALY gained. In sensitivity analyses, we examined subgroups with or without diabetes, and varied the cost of dapagliflozin (base case = $6,188 per year). This analysis was independent of the trial sponsor. Results: Compared with GDMT alone, adding dapagliflozin produced 0.57 additional QALYs at an incremental cost of $56,650, producing an ICER of $98,700 per QALY gained (Panel B). In subgroup analyses, dapagliflozin produced 0.71 additional QALYs in patients with diabetes at an ICER of $89,100 per QALY gained, and 0.48 additional QALYs in patients without diabetes at an ICER of $108,800 per QALY (Panels C and D). A 9% price reduction (to $5,613 per year) would make dapagliflozin cost-effective in patients without diabetes. Conclusions: Adding dapagliflozin to GDMT in patients with HFrEF is cost-effective and has the potential to improve long-term outcomes. Scalable strategies to improve access and uptake are urgently required.

Reply: Cost-effectiveness of sacubitril/valsartan versus enalapril in patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction

2018 ◽  
Vol 21 (12) ◽  
pp. 1148-1149
Author(s):  
Lin Liang ◽  
David Bin-Chia Wu ◽  
Mohamed Ismail Abdul Aziz ◽  
Raymond Wong ◽  
David Sim ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Heart Failure ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Ejection Fraction ◽  
Reduced Ejection Fraction ◽  
Patients With Heart Failure

Abstract 19228: Cost-effectiveness of the CardioMems Implantable Pulmonary Artery Pressure Monitoring System in Patients With Chronic Heart Failure

Circulation ◽  
2015 ◽  
Vol 132 (suppl_3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Alexander T Sandhu ◽  
Jeremy D Goldhaber-Fiebert ◽  
Mintu P Turakhia ◽  
Daniel W Kaiser ◽  
Paul A Heidenreich
Keyword(s):  
Heart Failure ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Ejection Fraction ◽  
Nyha Class ◽  
Case Analysis ◽  
Preserved Ejection Fraction ◽  
Heart Failure Hospitalization ◽  
Reduced Ejection Fraction ◽  
Life Years ◽  
The Cost

Background: For management of heart failure, the value of the CardioMems device remains uncertain. We assessed the cost-effectiveness of the CardioMems device. Methods: We developed a Markov model to determine quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), cost, and cost-effectiveness of patients with heart failure receiving CardioMems implantation compared to those with routine care. In the main case analysis, we modeled the intervention in the CHAMPION trial cohort, which included patients with NYHA Class III heart failure with a heart failure hospitalization within the past twelve months. We also performed subgroup analyses of patients with preserved ejection fraction or reduced ejection fraction, and a scenario analysis of a second cohort of patients from the CHARM trials with a previous heart failure hospitalization. We obtained event rates and utilities from published trial data; we used costs from literature estimates and Medicare payment data. The main case analysis was calibrated to the hospitalization and survival rates of the CHAMPION trial. Results: In the CHAMPION trial main case analysis, CardioMems reduced lifetime hospitalizations (2.37 versus 3.27), increased months of survival (67 versus 62), increased QALYs (2.66 versus 2.38) and increased costs ($171,132 versus $154,084), yielding a cost of $59,520 per QALY gained or $40,301 per life-year gained. The cost per QALY gained was $71,964 in patients with reduced ejection fraction compared to $34,899 in those with preserved ejection fraction. In less ill patients from the CHARM trials, which included patients with NYHA Class II heart failure, the device cost increased to $110,565 per QALY gained. If the device cost decreased from $17,500 in the main case analysis to $15,000, the intervention would cost less than $50,000 per QALY gained. The duration of effectiveness was initially assumed to be lifelong; if less than 29 months, CardioMems would cost more than $150,000 per QALY gained. Conclusion: The CardioMems device is cost-effective in populations similar to the CHAMPION trial, with a cost of less than $100,000 per QALY gained, if durability of device effectiveness is sustained. Post-marketing surveillance data on the device’s durability will further clarify its value.

scholarly journals RE: Cost-effectiveness of sacubitril/valsartan versus enalapril in patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction

2018 ◽  
Vol 21 (12) ◽  
pp. 1145-1147
Author(s):  
Joaquim Cristino ◽  
Immanuel Tang ◽  
Caroline Ng ◽  
Jonathan Tan ◽  
David Trueman ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Heart Failure ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Ejection Fraction ◽  
Reduced Ejection Fraction ◽  
Patients With Heart Failure

scholarly journals Cost-Effectiveness of Adding SGLT2 Inhibitors to Standard Treatment for Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction Patients in China

2021 ◽  
Vol 12 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yaohui Jiang ◽  
Rujie Zheng ◽  
Haiqiang Sang
Keyword(s):  
Heart Failure ◽  
Sensitivity Analysis ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Ejection Fraction ◽  
Standard Treatment ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Old Patients ◽  
Reduced Ejection Fraction ◽  
Diabetes Status ◽  
Life Years

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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document