Angiotensin Receptor Neprilysin Inhibitors-2019 Update.

An abundance of new data regarding the use of the novel drug compound sacubitril/valsartan in chronic heart failure (CHF) patients is published every year since the initial publication of the PARADIGM-HF study in 2014. This review summarises the most recent evidence (2019 and onwards) of sacubitril/valsartan in CHF patients as well as provides a critical appraisal of these data. New data are grouped in categories such as real-world data, randomised controlled trials, surrogate end-points, cost-effectiveness, use of sacubitril/valsartan as an anti-hypertensive treatment, effect on diuretic dosing and implementation of this novel compound in other populations. This review of recent literature identified important messages such as early initiation during index hospitalisation or immediately post-discharge, barriers against implementation of this novel treatment modality, analytical issues regarding measuring natriuretic peptides in patients under treatment and extrapolated use of sacubitril/valsartan in other than PARADIGM-HF populations. This update may serve as a very helpful evidence-based resource for practising clinicians, future research planning and health-related policy makers.

Neprilysin Inhibitors: Emerging Therapy for Heart Failure.

Biologically active natriuretic peptides (NPs) are an integral part of cardiac homeostasis as they help to maintain sodium and fluid balance. When homeostasis is perturbed by neurohormonal activation in heart failure, levels of NPs rise in response. Neprilysin (NEP) is a naturally occuring enzyme that breaks down NPs. Scientists have recently discovered a novel pharmacologic agent that combines a NEP inhibitor and an angiotensin receptor blocker. In a large clinical trial, this new drug was found to reduce hospitalization and mortality in systolic heart failure. The challenges of implementing this therapy include patient selection, cost, and risk of side effects including angioedema and Alzheimer's disease.

Cost-Effectiveness of Sacubitril/Valsartan in Germany: An Application of the Efficiency Frontier.

BACKGROUND: To assess the cost-effectiveness of new treatments in Germany, the efficiency frontier (EF) method has been developed. We compared the cost-effectiveness analysis using international standards and the German methodology, using the heart failure drug sacubitril/valsartan as an example. METHODS: A previously developed Markov model was adapted to include 4 treatment options: no treatment, enalapril, candesartan, and sacubitril/valsartan. The internationally used incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was calculated, as well as cost-effectiveness acceptability curves. Additionally, EFs, net monetary benefits (NMBs), and price-acceptability curves were created according to German guidelines. All analyses were performed from the perspective of the German Statutory Health Insurance. RESULTS: The base-case ICER for sacubitril/valsartan compared to enalapril is €19 300/quality-adjusted life-year. On the cost-effectiveness acceptability curve, sacubitril/valsartan is most likely to be cost-effective, out of all included comparators, from a hypothetical willingness-to-pay threshold of €18 250/quality-adjusted life-year onward. No EF could be constructed for the base case. Taking the uncertainty of the input parameters into account for the probabilistic sensitivity analysis, a NMB of around -€14 000 was calculated, depending on the outcome considered, with the NMB being zero at a daily price for sacubitril/valsartan ranging from €1.52 to €1.67. CONCLUSION: We calculated an ICER for Germany, comparable to previously published cost-effectiveness analyses for Europe, which widely concluded sacubitril/valsartan to be cost-effective. Using the German EF approach, a considerable discount needs to be applied before sacubitril/valsartan can be considered cost-effective.

Combined Angiotensin Receptor Antagonism and Neprilysin Inhibition.

Heart failure affects ≈5.7 million people in the United States alone. Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, angiotensin receptor blockers, ß-blockers, and aldosterone antagonists have improved mortality in patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction, but mortality remains high. In July 2015, the US Food and Drug Administration approved the first of a new class of drugs for the treatment of heart failure: Valsartan/sacubitril (formerly known as LCZ696 and currently marketed by Novartis as Entresto) combines the angiotensin receptor blocker valsartan and the neprilysin inhibitor prodrug sacubitril in a 1:1 ratio in a sodium supramolecular complex. Sacubitril is converted by esterases to LBQ657, which inhibits neprilysin, the enzyme responsible for the degradation of the natriuretic peptides and many other vasoactive peptides. Thus, this combined angiotensin receptor antagonist and neprilysin inhibitor addresses 2 of the pathophysiological mechanisms of heart failure: activation of the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system and decreased sensitivity to natriuretic peptides. In the Prospective Comparison of ARNI With ACEI to Determine Impact on Global Mortality and Morbidity in Heart Failure (PARADIGM-HF) trial, valsartan/sacubitril significantly reduced mortality and hospitalization for heart failure, as well as blood pressure, compared with enalapril in patients with heart failure, reduced ejection fraction, and an elevated circulating level of brain natriuretic peptide or N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide. Ongoing clinical trials are evaluating the role of valsartan/sacubitril in the treatment of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction and hypertension. We review here the mechanisms of action of valsartan/sacubitril, the pharmacological properties of the drug, and its efficacy and safety in the treatment of heart failure and hypertension.

An Economic Evaluation of Sacubitril/Valsartan for Heart Failure Patients in the Netherlands.

BACKGROUND: In September 2014, the PARADIGM-HF trial showed the heart failure drug combination sacubitril/valsartan to be superior to enalapril for patients with a reduced ejection fraction. OBJECTIVES: To determine the incremental cost-effectiveness of sacubitril/valsartan compared with enalapril in the Netherlands using the clinical data from the PARADIGM-HF trial. METHODS: To compare sacubitril/valsartan and enalapril in a cost-effectiveness study, a Markov model was developed using the effectiveness data from the PARADIGM-HF trial. A health care payer's perspective was applied in the economic evaluation. The developed model was used to evaluate the cost-effectiveness for sacubitril/valsartan at different per diem prices. RESULTS: The base-case analysis showed that sacubitril/valsartan can be cost-effective at maximum daily costs of €5.50 and €14.14 considering willingness-to-pay thresholds of €20,000 and €50,000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY), respectively. Sensitivity analysis demonstrated the robustness of the model, identifying only the price of sacubitril/valsartan and the mortality within the sacubitril/valsartan group as significant drivers of the cost-effectiveness ratio. Sacubitril/valsartan was cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of €20,000 per QALY (€50,000 per QALY) in more than 80% of the replications with certainty at the price point of €3 (€10). CONCLUSIONS: Sacubitril/valsartan can be considered a cost-effective treatment at a daily price of €5.25. Unless priced lower than enalapril (<€0.045 per day), sacubitril/valsartan is very unlikely to be cost-saving/dominant.

Cost Effectiveness of the Angiotensin Receptor Neprilysin Inhibitor Sacubitril/Valsartan for Patients with Chronic Heart Failure and Reduced Ejection Fraction in the Netherlands: A Country Adaptation Analysis Under the Former and Current Dutch Pharmacoeconomic Guidelines.

OBJECTIVES: To describe the adaptation of a global health economic model to determine whether treatment with the angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor LCZ696 is cost effective compared with the angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor enalapril in adult patients with chronic heart failure with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction in the Netherlands; and to explore the effect of performing the cost-effectiveness analyses according to the new pharmacoeconomic Dutch guidelines (updated during the submission process of LCZ696), which require a value-of-information analysis and the inclusion of indirect medical costs of life-years gained. METHODS: We adapted a UK model to reflect the societal perspective in the Netherlands by including travel expenses, productivity loss, informal care costs, and indirect medical costs during the life-years gained and performed a preliminary value-of-information analysis. RESULTS: The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio obtained was €17,600 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. This was robust to changes in most structural assumptions and across different subgroups of patients. Probability sensitivity analysis results showed that the probability that LCZ696 is cost-effective at a €50,000 per QALY threshold is 99.8%, with a population expected value of perfect information of €297,128. On including indirect medical costs of life-years gained, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was €26,491 per QALY gained, and LCZ696 was 99.46% cost effective at €50,000 per QALY, with a population expected value of perfect information of €2,849,647. CONCLUSIONS: LCZ696 is cost effective compared with enalapril under the former and current Dutch guidelines. However, the (monetary) consequences of making a wrong decision were considerably different in both scenarios.

Cost-Effectiveness of Sacubitril-Valsartan in Patients With Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction.

BACKGROUND: Sacubitril-valsartan therapy reduces cardiovascular mortality compared with enalapril therapy in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of sacubitril-valsartan versus angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor therapy in patients with chronic heart failure. DESIGN: Markov decision model. DATA SOURCES: Clinical trials, observational analyses, reimbursement data from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, drug pricing databases, and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention life tables. TARGET POPULATION: Patients at an average age of 64 years, New York Heart Association (NYHA) class II to IV heart failure, and left ventricular ejection fraction of 0.40 or less. TIME HORIZON: Lifetime. PERSPECTIVE: Societal. INTERVENTION: Treatment with sacubitril-valsartan or lisinopril. OUTCOME MEASURES: Life-years, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), costs, heart failure hospitalizations, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. RESULTS OF BASE-CASE ANALYSIS: The sacubitril-valsartan group experienced 0.08 fewer heart failure hospitalization, 0.69 additional life-year, 0.62 additional QALY, and $29 203 in incremental costs, equating to a cost per QALY gained of $47 053. The cost per QALY gained was $44 531 in patients with NYHA class II heart failure and $58 194 in those with class III or IV heart failure. RESULTS OF SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS: Sacubitril-valsartan treatment was most sensitive to the duration of improved outcomes, with a cost per QALY gained of $120 623 if the duration was limited to the length of the trial (median, 27 months). No variations in other parameters caused the cost to exceed $100 000 per QALY gained. LIMITATION: The benefit of sacubitril-valsartan is based on a single clinical trial. CONCLUSION: Treatment with sacubitril-valsartan provides reasonable value in reducing cardiovascular mortality and morbidity in patients with NYHA class II to IV heart failure. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs and Institute for Clinical and Economic Review.

After a Big Entrance, It's Just So-So for Entresto.

Some industry observers wonder why the wunderkind hasn't done more wonderfully on the market. As a brand name drug, Entresto costs substantially more than the generic ACE inhibitors and ARBs. GoodRx reports the average cash price for uninsured patients for Entresto is $504 per month, compared with $44 for enalapril.

The national financial burden of guideline directed medical therapy for heart failure patients from 2013 to 2021.

BACKGROUND: Guideline Directed Medical Therapy (GDMT) has been revolutionary in improving outcomes of heart failure patients. However, with the addition of more medication classes, the annual cost of these medications on the US healthcare system needs further evaluation. OBJECTIVES: We aim to evaluate the trend of annual cost of GDMT from 2013 to 2021 using the Medicare-part D Database. METHODS: Using Medicare Part D database (2013-2021), we determined the number of beneficiaries receiving these drugs, the total number of 30-day fills for each medication, and the total annual spending on these medications. Linear regression was used to analyze data using Python Programming Language. P value of less than 0.05 was considered to be statistically significant. RESULTS: The estimated annual Medicare- part D spending on empagliflozin had a 50 % increase in cost between 2020 and 2021, which could be attributed to its FDA approval for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction. Empagliflozin cost Medicare 3.73 billion USD in 2021 alone. In addition, sacubitril-valsartan had a strong trajectory since its introduction to the market in 2015. Since its approval in July 2015, it cost Medicare 4.51 billion USD. The Mineralocorticoid Receptor Antagonist class was the least costly class of GDMT. CONCLUSION: The rise in the cost of GDMT is not proportionate amongst the different classes of GDMT. Newer classes of medications cast a significant cost on Medicare in recent years.

Contemporary Patterns of Medicare and Medicaid Utilization and Associated Spending on Sacubitril/Valsartan and Ivabradine in Heart Failure.

Importance: In 2015, the US Food and Drug Administration approved 2 new medications for treatment of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, sacubitril/valsartan and ivabradine. However, few national data are available examining their contemporary use and associated costs. Objective: To evaluate national patterns of use of sacubitril/valsartan and ivabradine and associated therapeutic spending in Medicare Part D and Medicaid. Design, Setting, and Participants: In this US nationwide claims-based study, we analyzed data from the Medicare Part D Prescription Drug Event and Medicaid Utilization and Spending data sets to compare national patterns of use of sacubitril/valsartan and ivabradine between 2016 and 2017. Main Outcomes and Measures: Changes in total spending, per-beneficiary/claim spending, number of beneficiaries, and number of claims between 2016 and 2017 for sacubitril/valsartan and ivabradine. Results: The number of Medicare beneficiaries prescribed sacubitril/valsartan increased from 35 423 to 90 606 (156% increase from 2016 to 2017). Medicare beneficiaries prescribed ivabradine increased from 15 856 to 23 213 (46% increase). In 2017, Medicare Part D spent $227 million and $7.3 million on sacubitril/valsartan and ivabradine, respectively. This represented increases of 241% and 59% compared with 2016 spending, respectively. The annual Medicare per-beneficiary spending on sacubitril/valsartan and ivabradine was $2512 and $2400. Parallel trends in use patterns and spending were observed among Medicaid beneficiaries. Conclusions and Relevance: Although initial experiences suggested slow uptake after regulatory approval, these national data demonstrate an increase in use of sacubitril/valsartan and, to a lesser degree, ivabradine in the United States. Current annual per-beneficiary expenditures remain less than spending thresholds that have been reported to be cost-effective. Ongoing efforts are needed to promote high-value care while improving affordability and access to established and emerging heart failure therapies.

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

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.

Heart Failure and Shared Decision-Making: Patients Open to Medication-Related Cost Discussions.

BACKGROUND: Discussions of medication costs between patients and clinicians are infrequent and often suboptimal. In the context of recently introduced drugs that are effective but expensive, patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction provide an ideal population to understand the perspectives of patients with chronic illness on medication cost and cost discussions. METHODS: To explore patients' perspectives on discussing out-of-pocket medication costs with clinicians, 49 adults, aged 44 to 70 years, with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction were recruited from outpatient heart failure clinics. Descriptive qualitative analysis was performed on open-ended text data. RESULTS: Participants who had prior medication-related cost discussions described their experience as generally positive, but about half of the participants had never had a cost discussion with their clinician. Most participants were open to cost discussions with clinicians and preferred that the clinician initiate discussions regarding medication cost. Importantly, these preferences held constant across reported levels of financial burden. CONCLUSIONS: These data suggest a substantial willingness on the part of patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction to incorporate cost discussions into their care and identify important aspects of these discussions for clinicians to consider when engaging in conversations where cost is relevant. Improving understanding about how to integrate patient preferences regarding cost discussions into clinical encounters is an important priority for advancing patient-centered care.

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.

Cost-effectiveness of sacubitril/valsartan for the treatment of patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction in Portugal.

Objectives: This study assesses the cost-effectiveness of sacubitril/valsartan versus enalapril in patients with symptomatic heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF).Methods: We used a previously developed Markov model calibrated with patient-level data from the PARADIGM-HF trial, adapted to the Portuguese setting. The model considers two health states (alive or dead) and uses regression analyzes to estimate hospitalizations and deaths over time. A panel of experts estimated resource consumption in the outpatient setting. To estimate resource consumption with hospitalizations, the National Health Service Diagnosis Related Groups database was used. Unit costs were based on national legislation, and on the Infomed database. The model considers a societal perspective, a time horizon of 30-years, and a 5% annual discount rate. Sensitivity analyses assessed the robustness of results.Results: Sacubitril/valsartan increases life expectancy by 0.5 life-years, corresponding to 0.4 incremental quality adjusted life-years (QALY) versus enalapril. The estimated incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) is 22,702€/QALY. Sensitivity analysis shows that results are robust, but sensitive to the parameter estimates of the cardiovascular survival curve.Conclusion: Sacubitril/valsartan is a cost-effective therapeutic option in the treatment of Portuguese patients with HFrEF and translate into significant health gains and increased life expectancy versus the current standard of care.

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.

Discussing Out-of-Pocket Costs With Patients: Shared Decision Making for Sacubitril-Valsartan in Heart Failure.

Background "Financial toxicity" is a concern for patients, but little is known about how patients consider out-of-pocket cost in decisions. Sacubitril-valsartan provides a contemporary scenario to understand financial toxicity. It is guideline recommended for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, yet out-of-pocket costs can be considerable. Methods and Results Structured interviews were conducted with 49 patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction at heart failure clinics and inpatient services. Patient opinions of the drug and its value were solicited after description of benefits using graphical displays. Descriptive quantitative analysis of closed-ended responses was conducted, and qualitative descriptive analysis of text data was performed. Of participants, 92% (45/49) said that they would definitely or probably switch to sacubitril-valsartan if their physician recommended it and out-of-pocket cost was $5 more per month than their current medication. Only 43% (21/49) would do so if out-of-pocket cost was $100 more per month ( P<0.001). At least 40% across all income categories would be unlikely to take sacubitril-valsartan at $100 more per month. Participants exhibited heterogeneous approaches to cost in decision making and varied on their use and interpretation of probabilistic information. Few (20%) participants stated physicians had initiated a conversation about cost in the past year. Conclusions Out-of-pocket cost variation reflective of contemporary cost sharing substantially influenced stated willingness to take sacubitril-valsartan, a guideline-recommended therapy with mortality benefit. These findings suggest a need for cost transparency to promote shared decision making. They also demonstrate the complexity of cost discussion and need to study how to incorporate out-of-pocket cost into clinical decisions.

Cost-Utility Analysis of Sacubitril/Valsartan Use Compared With Standard Care in Chronic Heart Failure Patients With Reduced Ejection Fraction in South Korea.

PURPOSE: Sacubitril/valsartan, the first-in-class angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI), is a possible treatment option for chronic heart failure patients with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). The aim of this study was to estimate the cost-effectiveness of sacubitril/valsartan use in South Korea for treating patients with HFrEF compared with that of enalapril, an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor, and with angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs). METHODS: A Markov model was designed to estimate the lifetime cost-effectiveness of treatment for patients with HFrEF. Cohorts in the alive-state incurred a monthly risk of hospitalization because of deteriorated HF, adverse events (AEs), or death. Transition probabilities of sacubitril/valsartan and enalapril were estimated by using data from the PARADIGM-HF (Prospective Comparison of ARNI With ACEI to Determine Impact on Global Mortality and Morbidity in Heart Failure) trial. The effectiveness of ARBs (eg, reduction in mortality and hospitalization rates) was assumed to be identical to that of enalapril, according to the results of the meta-analysis. However, there was no comparative evidence for AEs. We therefore conducted a Bayesian network meta-analysis and adjusted the incidence rate of AEs for ARBs. The utility for estimating quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) was elicited by the survey of the general South Korean population by using EuroQol-5 dimensions. We calculated the medical costs, including medication, monitoring, hospitalization, AEs, and terminal care, from the health care sector perspective. Costs and effectiveness were discounted by 5%. One-way sensitivity analyses and a probabilistic sensitivity analysis were conducted to determine the model robustness. FINDINGS: The total cost per patient for sacubitril/valsartan and enalapril was $25,832 and $18,295, respectively. Sacubitril/valsartan was associated with an ∼8- month longer life expectancy compared with enalapril and a QALY gain of 0.59. As a result, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for sacubitril/valsartan versus enalapril was $12,722 per QALY. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of sacubitril/valsartan versus ARB was $11,970 with an incurred cost of $18,741 for the ARB group. The main results and those of various sensitivity analyses were lower than a threshold of $20,000. IMPLICATIONS: From a health care sector perspective, sacubitril/valsartan is a cost-effective treatment for HFrEF compared with enalapril and ARBs. This finding could be helpful for cardiologists or decision makers in reaching cost-effective choices regarding the treatment selection process.

PARADIGM-HF Trial: Secondary Analyses Address Unanswered Questions.

Our aim was to summarize published secondary analyses of the PARADIGM-HF trial. In the original trial, published in September 2014, sacubitril/valsartan significantly reduced the primary composite outcome of cardiovascular death or heart failure hospitalization compared to enalapril. This summary provides a resource for clinicians to review subsequent analyses of the landmark trial evaluating the benefit of sacubitril/valsartan in various subgroups and providing information regarding optimal use of this new therapy in the broader heart failure population. A full list of publications of the existing PARDADIGM-HF post hoc analyses was obtained and summarized, grouped by focus (e.g., severity of illness, tolerability). Twenty-six publications and one abstract analyzing the PARADIGM-HF trial were reviewed, summarizing the most important results that compared the benefits of sacubitril/valsartan to enalapril, including pertinent subgroup information from each analysis. Key publications evaluated the treatment effect of sacubitril/valsartan based on heart failure severity (i.e., ejection fraction or heart failure risk scores), impact on alternate outcomes, influence of additional therapies, tolerability in patients with comorbidities (i.e., diabetes), long-term benefits, and cost-effectiveness. In addition, nine ongoing phase III and phase IV clinical trials with sacubitril/valsartan were briefly summarized to address potential future uses in more extensive heart failure settings. The benefit of sacubitril/valsartan over enalapril for the primary endpoint in the PARADIGM-HF trial is maintained throughout numerous secondary analyses. Though the subgroups analyzed are based on participants from a single clinical trial, clinicians can more confidently incorporate this novel therapy into practice with expanded knowledge of these existing analyses as well as ongoing prospective trials.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Sacubitril/Valsartan for the Treatment of Heart Failure with Reduced Ejection Fraction in the United States.

OBJECTIVE: Sacubitril/valsartan (SAC/VAL) has been shown to reduce mortality and hospitalization in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) compared with enalapril but at a substantially higher cost. This study evaluates the cost-effectiveness of SAC/VAL versus enalapril in patients with HFrEF over a 5-year time horizon from the U.S. payer perspective. METHODS: A cohort-based Markov model was developed to compare costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) between SAC/VAL and enalapril in patients with HFrEF over a 5-year time horizon. Markov states included New York Heart Association (NYHA) class (II-IV) and death. Treatment discontinuation, HF-related hospitalizations, and NYHA class progression were modeled as transition states based on data from the PARADIGM trial. Other probabilities, costs, and utilities were obtained from published literature and public databases. RESULTS: In the base case analysis, SAC/VAL cost more than enalapril ($81,943 vs $67,287) and was more effective (2.647 QALYs vs 2.546 QALYs), resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $143,891/QALY gained. At a willingness to pay (WTP) of $100,000/QALY, SAC/VAL was cost-effective up to a cost of $298/month. Results were most sensitive to SAC/VAL cost, SAC/VAL mortality benefit, and NYHA progression probability. SAC/VAL had a 10% and 52% probability of being cost-effective at WTP thresholds of $100,000/QALY and $150,000/QALY, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: SAC/VAL is associated with clinical benefit and may be cost-effective compared with the current standard of care over realistic treatment durations from the payer perspective. Results of this analysis can inform discussions on the value and position of SAC/VAL in the current market.