Cost-Effectiveness of Midazolam Versus Haloperidol Versus Olanzapine for the Management of Acute Agitation in the Accident and Emergency Department.

OBJECTIVES: A multicenter randomized clinical trial in Hong Kong Accident and Emergency (A&E) departments concluded that intramuscular (IM) olanzapine is noninferior to haloperidol and midazolam, in terms of efficacy and safety, for the management of acutely agitated patients in A&E setting. Determining their comparative cost-effectiveness will further provide an economic perspective to inform the choice of sedative in this setting. METHODS: This analysis used data from a randomized clinical trial conducted in Hong Kong A&E departments between December 2014 and September 2019. A within-trial cost-effectiveness analysis comparing the 3 sedatives was conducted, from the A&E perspective and a within-trial time horizon, using a decision-analytic model. Sensitivity analyses were also undertaken. RESULTS: In the base-case analysis, median total management costs associated with IM midazolam, haloperidol, and olanzapine were Hong Kong dollar (HKD) 1958.9 (US dollar [USD] 251.1), HKD 2504.5 (USD 321.1), and HKD 2467.6 (USD 316.4), respectively. Agitation management labor cost was the main cost driver, whereas drug costs contributed the least. Midazolam dominated over haloperidol and olanzapine. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses supported that midazolam remains dominant > 95% of the time and revealed no clear difference in the cost-effectiveness of IM olanzapine versus haloperidol (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio 667.16; 95% confidence interval -770.89, 685.90). CONCLUSIONS: IM midazolam is the dominant cost-effective treatment for the management of acute agitation in the A&E setting. IM olanzapine could be considered as an alternative to IM haloperidol given that there is no clear difference in cost-effectiveness, and their adverse effect profile should be considered when choosing between them.

Hospitalization and Mortality in Patients With Heart Failure Treated With Sacubitril/Valsartan vs. Enalapril: A Real-World, Population-Based Study.

Background: The effect of sacubitril/valsartan on survival and hospitalization risk in older patients with heart failure has not been explored. We aimed to investigate the risk of hospitalization and mortality with the use of sacubitril/valsartan vs. enalapril in patients with heart failure. Methods: This was a population-based cohort study using the Hong Kong-wide electronic healthcare database. Patients diagnosed with heart failure and newly prescribed sacubitril/valsartan or enalapril between July 2016 and June 2019 were included. The risk of primary composite outcome of cardiovascular mortality or heart failure-related hospitalization, all-cause hospitalization, heart failure-related hospitalization, cardiovascular mortality and all-cause mortality were compared using Cox regression with inverse probability treatment weighting. Additional analysis was conducted by age stratification. Results: Of the 44,503 patients who received sacubitril/valsartan or enalapril, 3,237 new users (sacubitril/valsartan, n = 1,056; enalapril, n = 2,181) with a diagnosis of heart failure were identified. Compared with enalapril, sacubitril/valsartan users were associated with a lower risk of primary composite outcome [hazard ratio (HR) 0.58; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.45-0.75], heart failure-related hospitalization (HR 0.59; 95% CI, 0.45-0.77), all-cause mortality (HR 0.51; 95% CI, 0.36-0.74) and borderline non-significant reductions in all-cause hospitalization (HR 0.85; 95% CI, 0.70-1.04) and cardiovascular mortality (HR 0.63; 95% CI, 0.39-1.02). The treatment effect of sacubitril/valsartan remains unaltered in the patient subgroup age ≥ 65 years (73%). Conclusions: In real-world settings, sacubitril/valsartan was associated with improved survival and reduced heart failure-related hospitalization compared to enalapril in Asian patients with heart failure. The effectiveness remains consistent in the older population.