Cost-Effectiveness of Medical Therapy for Heart Failure With Mildly Reduced and Preserved Ejection Fraction.

BACKGROUND: Three medications are now guideline-recommended treatments for heart failure with mildly reduced or preserved ejection fraction (HFmrEF/HFpEF), however, the cost-effectiveness of these agents in combination has yet to be established. OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to determine the cost-effectiveness of mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRA), angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitors (ARNIs), and sodium glucose co-transporter 2 inhibitors (SGLT2is) in individuals with HFmrEF/HFpEF. METHODS: Using a 3-state Markov model, we performed a cost-effectiveness study using simulated cohorts of 1,000 patients with HFmrEF and HFpEF. Treatment with 1-, 2-, and 3-drug combinations was modeled. Based on a United States health care sector perspective, outcome data was used to calculate incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) in 2023 United States dollars based on a 30-year time horizon. RESULTS: Treatment with MRA, MRA+SGLT2i, and MRA+SGLT2i+ARNI therapy resulted in an increase in life years of 1.04, 1.58, and 1.80 in the HFmrEF subgroup, respectively, and 0.99, 1.54, and 1.77 in the HFpEF subgroup, respectively, compared with placebo. At a yearly cost of $18, MRA therapy resulted in ICERs of $10,000 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) in both subgroups. The ICER for the addition of SGLT2i therapy ($4,962 per year) was $113,000 per QALY in the HFmrEF subgroup and $141,000 in the HFpEF subgroup. The addition of ARNI therapy ($5,504 per year) resulted in ICERs >$250,000 per QALY in both subgroups. If SGLT2i and ARNI were available at generic pricing the ICERs become <$10,000 per QALY in both EF subgroups. Outcomes were highly sensitive to assumed benefit in cardiovascular death. CONCLUSIONS: For patients with heart failure, MRA was of high value, SGLT2i was of intermediate value, and ARNI was of low value in both HFmrEF and HFpEF subgroups. For patients with HFmrEF/HFpEF increased use of MRA and SGLT2i therapies should be encouraged and be accompanied with efforts to lower the cost of SGLT2i and ARNI therapies.

Economic Modeling Analysis of an Intensive GDMT Optimization Program in Hospitalized Heart Failure Patients.

BACKGROUND: The STRONG-HF trial (Safety, Tolerability and Efficacy of Up-Titration of Guideline-Directed Medical Therapies for Acute Heart Failure) demonstrated substantial reductions in the composite of mortality and morbidity over 6 months among hospitalized patients with heart failure (HF) who were randomized to intensive guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) optimization compared with usual care. Whether an intensive GDMT optimization program would be cost-effective for patients with HF with reduced ejection fraction is unknown. METHODS: Using a 2-state Markov model, we evaluated the effect of an intensive GDMT optimization program on hospitalized patients with HF with reduced ejection fraction. Two population models were created to simulate this intervention, a clinical trial model, based on the participants in the STRONG-HF trial, and a real-world model, based on the Get With The Guidelines-HF registry of patients admitted with worsening HF. We then modeled the effect of a 6-month intensive triple therapy GDMT optimization program comprised of cardiologists, clinical pharmacists, and registered nurses. Hazard ratios from the intervention arm of the STRONG-HF trial were applied to both population models to simulate clinical and financial outcomes of an intensive GDMT optimization program from a US health care sector perspective with a lifetime time horizon. Optimal quadruple GDMT use was also modeled. RESULTS: An intensive GDMT optimization program was extremely cost-effective with incremental cost-effectiveness ratios <$10 000 per quality-adjusted life-year in both models. Optimal quadruple GDMT implementation resulted in the most gains in life-years with incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of $60 000 and $54 000 in the clinical trial and real-world models, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: An intensive GDMT optimization program for patients hospitalized with HF with reduced ejection fraction would be cost-effective and result in substantial gains in clinical outcomes, especially with the use of optimal quadruple GDMT. Clinicians, payers, and policymakers should prioritize the creation of such programs.

Cost-Effectiveness of Comprehensive Quadruple Therapy for Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction.

BACKGROUND: Heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) is one of the most costly and deadly chronic disease states. The cost effectiveness of a comprehensive quadruple therapy regimen for HFrEF has not been studied. OBJECTIVES: The authors sought to determine the cost-effectiveness of quadruple therapy comprised of beta-blockers, mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists, angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitors, and sodium glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors vs regimens composed of only beta-blockers, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (triple therapy), and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and beta-blockers (double therapy). METHODS: Using a 2-state Markov model, the authors performed a cost-effectiveness study using simulated populations of 1,000 patients with HFrEF based on the participants in the PARADIGM-HF (Prospective comparison of ARNI with ACEI to Determine Impact on Global Mortality and morbidity in Heart Failure) trial and compared them by treatment strategy (quadruple therapy vs triple and double therapy) from a United States health care system perspective. The authors also performed 10,000 probabilistic simulations. RESULTS: Treatment with quadruple therapy resulted in an increase of 1.73 and 2.87 life-years compared with triple therapy and double therapy, respectively, and an increase in quality-adjusted life-years of 1.12 and 1.85 years, respectively. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of quadruple therapy vs triple therapy and double therapy were $81,000 and $51,081, respectively. In 91.7% and 99.9% of probabilistic simulations quadruple therapy had an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of <$150,000 compared with triple therapy and double therapy, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: At current pricing, the use of quadruple therapy in patients with HFrEF was cost effective compared with triple therapy and double therapy. These findings highlight the need for improved access and optimal implementation of comprehensive quadruple therapy in eligible patients with HFrEF.