Sacubitril-valsartan versus enalapril for acute decompensated heart failure: a cost-effectiveness analysis.

BACKGROUND: The Comparison of Sacubitril-Valsartan versus Enalapril on Effect on NT-proBNP in Patients Stabilised from an Acute Heart Failure Episode (PIONEER-HF) trial demonstrated significant reductions in N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide. Our study explored the cost-effectiveness of the use of sacubitril-valsartan versus enalapril in acute decompensated heart failure from the Australian healthcare perspective. METHODS: A Markov model was designed using data from the PIONEER-HF trial to model the clinical progress and costs of patients over a lifetime time horizon. The model consisted of three health states: 'alive and event-free', 'alive after non-fatal hospitalisation for acute decompensated heart failure' or 'dead'. Costs and utilities were estimated from published sources. The cost of sacubitril-valsartan (per the Australian pharmaceutical benefits schedule) was AU$7.08/day. Outcomes of interest were the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios in terms of cost per quality-adjusted life year gained and cost per year of life saved. Cost and benefits were discounted at 5.0% per annum. RESULTS: Compared to enalapril, sacubitril-valsartan was estimated to cost an additional AU$7464 (discounted) per person, but lead to 0.127 years of life saved (discounted) and 0.096 quality-adjusted life years gained (discounted) over a lifetime analysis. These equated to incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of AU$58,629/year of life saved (US$41,795, EU€58,629, GBP£32,001) and AU$77,889/quality-adjusted life year gained (US$55,526, EU€49,202, GBP£42,504). We have assumed a threshold of AU$50,000/quality-adjusted life year gained to suggest cost-effectiveness. CONCLUSIONS: At its current acquisition price, sacubitril-valsartan in comparison to enalapril is not likely to be cost-effective in the management of acute decompensated heart failure in Australia. A price reduction of more than 25% would confer cost-effectiveness.

Show Me the Money: Patients' Perspectives on a Decision Aid for Sacubitril/Valsartan Addressing Out-of-Pocket Cost.

BACKGROUND: Out-of-pocket medication costs for patients who have heart failure with reduced ejection fraction may be an important part of shared decision-making, but cost has generally been excluded from clinical discussions. This study reports patients' perspectives on a decision aid for sacubitril/valsartan that explicitly addresses out-of-pocket costs. METHODS: Structured, in-depth interviews were conducted with 20 patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction from 2 medical centers to elicit their views on a publicly available decision aid for sacubitril/valsartan that explicitly incorporates considerations related to out-of-pocket costs. Qualitative descriptive analysis was conducted. RESULTS: Key themes identified were general enthusiasm for decision aids for medication decisions, openness on the part of patients to incorporation of cost into decision-making and the decision aid, requests for greater specificity regarding patient-specific cost, and challenges communicating evidence of benefit in a way that allows patients to make cost-benefit analyses for themselves. Patients also raised questions regarding logistical challenges of incorporating a decision aid into the normal clinical and decision-making workflow. CONCLUSIONS: Patients were receptive to the inclusion of out-of-pocket cost as relevant in a decision aid for sacubitril/valsartan. Key challenges to effective integration of cost in these decisions include developing mechanisms for acquiring reliable patient-specific cost estimates and addressing patients' difficulties (and sometimes skepticism) applying trial evidence to their own situation. In addition, implementation strategies are important to develop to facilitate decision aid integration for routine medical decisions into clinic workflow.

Benchmarking the Cost-Effectiveness of Interventions Delaying Diabetes: A Simulation Study Based on NAVIGATOR Data.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate using the UK Prospective Diabetes Study Outcomes Model Version 2 (UKPDS-OM2) the impact of delaying type 2 diabetes onset on costs and quality-adjusted life expectancy using trial participants who developed diabetes in the NAVIGATOR (Nateglinide And Valsartan in Impaired Glucose Tolerance Outcomes Research) study. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: We simulated the impact of delaying diabetes onset by 1-9 years, utilizing data from the 3,058 of 9,306 NAVIGATOR trial participants who developed type 2 diabetes. Costs and utility weights associated with diabetes and diabetes-related complications were obtained for the U.S. and U.K. settings, with costs expressed in 2017 values. We estimated discounted lifetime costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) with 95% CIs. RESULTS: Gains in QALYs increased from 0.02 (U.S. setting, 95% CI 0.01, 0.03) to 0.15 (U.S. setting, 95% CI 0.10, 0.21) as the imposed time to diabetes onset was increased from 1 to 9 years, respectively. Savings in complication costs increased from $1,388 (95% CI $1,092, $1,669) for a 1-year delay to $8,437 (95% CI $6,611, $10,197) for a delay of 9 years. Interventions costing up to $567-$2,680 and £201-£947 per year would be cost-effective at $100,000 per QALY and £20,000 per QALY thresholds in the U.S. and U.K., respectively, as the modeled delay in diabetes onset was increased from 1 to 9 years. CONCLUSIONS: Simulating a hypothetical diabetes-delaying intervention provides guidance concerning the maximum cost and minimum delay in diabetes onset needed to be cost-effective. These results can inform the ongoing debate about diabetes prevention strategies and the design of future intervention studies.

Conflicting Perspectives on the Value of Neprilysin Inhibition in Heart Failure Revealed During Development of a Decision Aid Focusing on Patient Costs for Sacubitril/Valsartan.

BACKGROUND: Despite concerns about rising costs in health care, cost is rarely an issue discussed by patients and clinicians when making treatment decisions in a clinical setting. This study aimed to understand stakeholder perspectives on a patient decision aid (PtDA) meant to help patients with heart failure choose between a generic and relatively low-cost heart failure medication (ACE [angiotensin-converting enzyme] inhibitor or angiotensin II receptor blocker) and a newer, but more expensive, heart failure medication (angiotensin II receptor blocker neprilysin inhibitor). METHODS AND RESULTS: Feedback on the PtDA was solicited from 26 stakeholders including patients, clinicians, and the manufacturer. Feedback was recorded and discussed among development team members until consensus regarding both the interpretation of the data and the appropriate changes to the PtDA was reached. Stakeholders found the PtDA sufficient in clarifying the different treatment options for heart failure. However, patients, physicians, and the manufacturer had different opinions on the importance of highlighting cost in a PtDA. Patients indicated issues of cost were crucial to the decision while physicians and manufacturers expressed that the cost issue was secondary and should be de-emphasized. CONCLUSIONS: The stratified perspectives on the role of cost in medical decision-making expressed by our participants underscore the importance and challenge of having clear, frank discussions during clinic visits about treatment cost and perceived value.

Adoption of Sacubitril/Valsartan for the Management of Patients With Heart Failure.

BACKGROUND: The US Food and Drug Administration approved the use of sacubitril/valsartan in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction in July 2015. We aimed to assess the adoption and prescription drug costs of sacubitril/valsartan in its first 18 months after Food and Drug Administration approval. METHODS AND RESULTS: Using a large US insurance database, we identified privately insured and Medicare Advantage beneficiaries who filled a first prescription for sacubitril/valsartan between July 1, 2015, and December 31, 2016. We compared them to patients treated with an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker. Outcomes included adoption, prescription drug costs, and 180-day adherence, defined as a proportion of days covered ≥80%. A total of 2244 patients initiated sacubitril/valsartan. Although the number of users increased over time, the proportion of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction patients taking sacubitril/valsartan remained low (<3%). Patients prescribed sacubitril/valsartan were younger, more often male, with less comorbidity than those taking an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor/angiotensin receptor blocker. Although a majority of prescription costs were covered by the health plan (mean, $328.37; median, $362.44 per 30-day prescription), out-of-pocket costs were still high (mean, $71.16; median, $40.27). By comparison, median out-of-pocket costs were $2 to $3 for lisinopril, losartan, carvedilol, and spironolactone. Overall, 59.1% of patients were adherent to sacubitril/valsartan. Refill patterns suggested that nearly half of nonadherent patients discontinued sacubitril/valsartan within 180 days of starting. CONCLUSIONS: Adoption of sacubitril/valsartan after Food and Drug Administration approval has been slow and may be associated with the high cost.

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

BACKGROUND: Sacubitril/valsartan reduces cardiovascular death and hospitalizations for heart failure (HF). However, decision-makers need to determine whether its benefits are worth the additional costs, given the low-cost generic status of traditional standard of care. AIMS: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of sacubitril/valsartan compared to enalapril in patients with HF and reduced ejection fraction, from the Singapore healthcare payer perspective. METHODS: A Markov model was developed to project clinical and economic outcomes of sacubitril/valsartan vs enalapril for 66-year-old patients with HF over 10 years. Key health states included New York Heart Association classes I-IV and deaths; patients in each state incurred a monthly risk of hospitalization for HF and cardiovascular death. Sacubitril/valsartan benefits were modeled by applying the hazard ratios (HRs) in PARADIGM-HF trial to baseline probabilities. Primary model outcomes were total and incremental costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for sacubitril/valsartan relative to enalapril Results: Compared to enalapril, sacubitril/valsartan was associated with an ICER of SGD 74,592 (USD 55,198) per QALY gained. A major driver of cost-effectiveness was the cardiovascular mortality benefit of sacubitril/valsartan. The uncertainty of this treatment benefit in the Asian sub-group was tested in sensitivity analyses using a HR of 1 as an upper limit, where the ICERs ranged from SGD 41,019 (USD 30,354) to SGD 1,447,103 (USD 1,070,856) per QALY gained. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses showed the probability of sacubitril/valsartan being cost-effective was below 1%, 12%, and 71% at SGD 20,000, SGD 50,000, and SGD 100,000 per QALY gained, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: At the current daily price sacubitril/valsartan may not represent good value for limited healthcare dollars compared to enalapril in reducing cardiovascular morbidity and mortality in HF in the Singapore healthcare setting. This study highlights the cost-benefit trade-off that healthcare professionals and patients face when considering therapy.

Cost-effectiveness of sacubitril/valsartan in chronic heart-failure patients with reduced ejection fraction.

AIMS: We aimed to assess the cost effectiveness of sacubitril/valsartan compared to angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) for the treatment of individuals with chronic heart failure and reduced-ejection fraction (HFrEF) from the perspective of the Swiss health care system. METHODS: The cost-effectiveness analysis was implemented as a lifelong regression-based cohort model. We compared sacubitril/valsartan with enalapril in chronic heart failure patients with HFrEF and New York-Heart Association Functional Classification II-IV symptoms. Regression models based on the randomised clinical phase III PARADIGM-HF trials were used to predict events (all-cause mortality, hospitalisations, adverse events and quality of life) for each treatment strategy modelled over the lifetime horizon, with adjustments for patient characteristics. Unit costs were obtained from Swiss public sources for the year 2014, and costs and effects were discounted by 3%. The main outcome of interest was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), expressed as cost per quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained. Deterministic sensitivity analysis (DSA) and scenario and probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) were performed. RESULTS: In the base-case analysis, the sacubitril/valsartan strategy showed a decrease in the number of hospitalisations (6.0% per year absolute reduction) and lifetime hospital costs by 8.0% (discounted) when compared with enalapril. Sacubitril/valsartan was predicted to improve overall and quality-adjusted survival by 0.50 years and 0.42 QALYs, respectively. Additional net-total costs were CHF 10 926. This led to an ICER of CHF 25 684. In PSA, the probability of sacubitril/valsartan being cost-effective at thresholds of CHF 50 000 was 99.0%. CONCLUSION: The treatment of HFrEF patients with sacubitril/valsartan versus enalapril is cost effective, if a willingness-to-pay threshold of CHF 50 000 per QALY gained ratio is assumed.

Impact of the Commercialization of Three Generic Angiotensin II Receptor Blockers on Adverse Events in Quebec, Canada: A Population-Based Time Series Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Once the patent of a brand-name drug expires, generic drugs are commercialized, and substitution from brand-name to generics may occur. Generic drug equivalence is evaluated through comparative bioavailability studies. Few studies have assessed outcomes after generic drug commercialization at a population level. We evaluated the impact of 3 generic angiotensin II receptor blockers commercialization on adverse events: hospitalizations or emergency room consultations. METHODS AND RESULTS: This is an interrupted time series analysis using the Quebec Integrated Chronic Disease Surveillance System. Rates of adverse events for losartan, valsartan, and candesartan users (N=136 177) aged ≥66 years were calculated monthly, 24 months before and 12 months after generics commercialization. Periods before and after generics commercialization were compared by negative binomial segmented regression models. Sensitivity analyses were also conducted. For all users, there was a monthly mean rate of 100 adverse events for 1000 angiotensin II receptor blocker users before and after generic commercialization. Among generic users of losartan, valsartan, and candesartan, there was an increase in rates of adverse events of 8.0% (difference of proportions versus brand-name, 7.5% [95% confidence interval, -0.9% to 15.9%]; P=0.0643), 11.7% (difference of proportions, 17.1% [95% confidence interval, 9.9%-24.3%]; P<0.0001), and 14.0% (difference of proportions, 16.6% [95% confidence interval, 7.9%-25.3%]; P<0.0001), respectively, the month of generic commercialization. The monthly trend of adverse events was affected for generic versus brand-name losartan users only (difference of proportions, 2.0% [0.7%-3.4%]; P=0.0033) ≤1 year after generics commercialization. Similar results were found in sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSIONS: Among generic users, immediate or delayed differences in adverse events rates were observed right after generic commercialization for 3 antihypertensive drugs. Rates of adverse events remained higher for generic users. Increases were more pronounced for generic candesartan, which is the studied product with the largest difference in comparative bioavailability. Risk and survival analysis studies controlling for several potential confounding factors are required to better characterize generic substitution.

Cost-effectiveness Analysis of Sacubitril/Valsartan vs Enalapril in Patients With Heart Failure and Reduced Ejection Fraction.

IMPORTANCE: The angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor sacubitril/valsartan was associated with a reduction in cardiovascular mortality, all-cause mortality, and hospitalizations compared with enalapril. Sacubitril/valsartan has been approved for use in heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction in the United States and cost has been suggested as 1 factor that will influence the use of this agent. OBJECTIVE: To estimate the cost-effectiveness of sacubitril/valsartan vs enalapril in the United States. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Data from US adults (mean [SD] age, 63.8 [11.5] years) with HF with reduced ejection fraction and characteristics similar to those in the PARADIGM-HF trial were used as inputs for a 2-state Markov model simulated HF. Risks of all-cause mortality and hospitalization from HF or other reasons were estimated with a 30-year time horizon. Quality of life was based on trial EQ-5D scores. Hospital costs combined Medicare and private insurance reimbursement rates; medication costs included the wholesale acquisition cost for sacubitril/valsartan and enalapril. A discount rate of 3% was used. Sensitivity analyses were performed on key inputs including: hospital costs, mortality benefit, hazard ratio for hospitalization reduction, drug costs, and quality-of-life estimates. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Hospitalizations, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), costs, and incremental costs per QALY gained. RESULTS: The 2-state Markov model of US adult patients (mean age, 63.8 years) calculated that there would be 220 fewer hospital admissions per 1000 patients with HF treated with sacubitril/valsartan vs enalapril over 30 years. The incremental costs and QALYs gained with sacubitril/valsartan treatment were estimated at $35 512 and 0.78, respectively, compared with enalapril, equating to an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $45 017 per QALY for the base-case. Sensitivity analyses demonstrated ICERs ranging from $35 357 to $75 301 per QALY. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: For eligible patients with HF with reduced ejection fraction, the Markov model calculated that sacubitril/valsartan would increase life expectancy at an ICER consistent with other high-value accepted cardiovascular interventions. Sensitivity analyses demonstrated sacubitril/valsartan would remain cost-effective vs enalapril.