A cost-effectiveness analysis of empagliflozin for heart failure patients across the full spectrum of ejection fraction in Spain: combined results of the EMPEROR-Preserved and EMPEROR-Reduced trials.

BACKGROUND: Heart failure (HF) is a chronic condition with considerable clinical burden for patients and economic burden for healthcare systems. Treatment for HF is typically based on ejection fraction (EF) phenotype. The cost-effectiveness of empagliflozin + standard of care (SoC) compared to SoC has been examined for HF phenotypes below or above 40% EF separately, but not across the full spectrum of EF in Spain. METHODS: The results of two preexisting, validated, and published phenotype-specific Markov cohort models were combined using a population-weighted approach, reflecting the incidence of each phenotype in the total HF population in Spain. A probabilistic sensitivity analysis was performed by sampling each model's probabilistic results. RESULTS: Empagliflozin + SoC compared to SoC resulted in increased life-years (LYs) (6.48 vs. 6.35), quality-adjusted LYs (QALYs) (4.80 vs. 4.63), and healthcare costs (€19,090 vs. €18,246), over a lifetime time horizon for the combined HF population in Spain. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was €5,089/QALY. All subgroup, scenario, and probabilistic ICERs were consistently below €10,000/QALY. CONCLUSIONS: Empagliflozin is the first treatment with established efficacy and cost-effectiveness for HF patients across EF from the perspective of healthcare payers in Spain. Empagliflozin also proved to be cost-effective for all subgroups of patients included in the analysis.

Multinational cost-effectiveness analysis of empagliflozin for heart failure patients with ejection fraction >40.

AIMS: Heart failure is a chronic progressive condition, with considerable burden on patients' quality of life and economic burden for the healthcare systems. Before the approval of empagliflozin, there were no proven effective treatments for patients with heart failure with left ventricular ejection fraction (HF LVEF) > 40%. The aim of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of empagliflozin + standard of care (SoC) compared with SoC alone for patients with HF LVEF > 40%, from the perspective of the healthcare systems of the United Kingdom (UK), Spain, and France, and to quantify the healthcare costs for these patients. METHODS AND RESULTS: A lifetime Markov cohort state-transition model was developed based on discrete health states defined by Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire-Clinical Summary Score quartiles to track disease severity. Model inputs relied primarily on the EMPEROR-Preserved trial data or obtained from published literature or country-specific databases, as well as local guidelines for the requirements for the conduct of the economic evaluation of healthcare technologies. The total lifetime cost of receiving SoC per patient was £10 092, €15 765, and €14 958 in the UK, Spain, and France, respectively, which increased by £1407, €1148, and €1485, respectively, with the addition of empagliflozin to the SoC. Empagliflozin + SoC was associated with significantly reduced number of hospitalization for HF or cardiovascular death compared with SoC alone, which was a key driver offsetting its drug acquisition costs. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained was consistently favourable at £14 851, €11 706, and €15 447 in the UK, Spain, and France, respectively. Scenario analysis using the New York Heart Association functional class showed similar results. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses showed more than 50% probability for cost-effectiveness for a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of £/€20 000/QALY for the three countries. CONCLUSIONS: Empagliflozin was found to be the first targeted treatment option that is clinically effective and cost-effective for patients with HF LVEF > 40%. Prescribing empagliflozin with SoC to patients with HF LVEF > 40% is expected to improve clinical outcomes and patients' quality of life and substantially below accepted WTP threshold for the healthcare systems in the UK, Spain, and France.

Economic Impact of Low Adherence to COPD Management Guidelines in Spain.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to assess the non-adherence level of Spanish clinical practice to guideline recommendations for the treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and to estimate the potential impact on pharmaceutical expenditure resulting from transitioning current treatment patterns according to guidelines. METHODS: A model was developed to compare current prescribing patterns with two alternative scenarios: the first aligned with the Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD 2020) recommendations, and the second with the Spanish Guidelines for COPD (GesEPOC 2017). Current treatment practice was obtained from publications that describe treatment patterns by pulmonology departments in Spain. The economic impact between patterns was calculated from the perspective of the Spanish National Health System (NHS), considering the annual pharmacological costs of COPD inhaled maintenance therapy. Two additional analyses were performed: one that included current prescribing patterns of patients managed by pulmonology and primary care centers in Spain (published aggregated data); and another that only considered the appropriate use of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) treatment according to guidelines. RESULTS: It was estimated that 54% and 38% of patients were not treated in line with GOLD and GesEPOC recommendations, respectively, mainly due to a broader use of ICS-based therapies. Adapting treatment to recommendations could provide a potential annual cost-saving of €17,792,022 (according to GOLD) and €5,881,785 (according to GesEPOC). In scenario analysis 1, a 26% of non-adherence to GesEPOC guideline was observed with a potential annual pharmacological cost-saving of €2,707,554. In scenario analysis 2, considering only inappropriate use of ICS treatment, an annual cost-saving of €17,863,750 (according to GOLD) and €9,904,409 (according to GesEPOC) was calculated. CONCLUSION: More than a third of treatments for COPD patients in Spain are not prescribed in accordance with guideline recommendations. The adaptation of clinical practice to guideline recommendations could provide important cost-savings for the Spanish NHS.