Empagliflozin cost-effectiveness analysis in Japanese heart failure with mildly reduced and preserved ejection fraction.

AIMS: Empagliflozin, a sodium-glucose co-transporter 2 inhibitor, was shown to be effective in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) in the EMPEROR-Preserved trial. The present study aims to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of empagliflozin among Japanese patients with HFpEF. METHODS AND RESULTS: A Markov cohort model was developed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of empagliflozin added to standard of care (SoC) compared with SoC alone in patients with HFpEF from the perspective of the Japanese healthcare system and with a lifetime horizon. In addition to clinical events, the progression of disease severity was modelled based on the migration of Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire-Clinical Summary Scores (KCCQ-CSS). Model inputs, including risk of clinical events, costs, and utilities/disutilities, were derived from EMPEROR-Preserved trial data, a claims database and published literature. The generalizability of model results was investigated by applying various subgroups including age, body mass index (BMI), and region Asia, based on the subgroup analysis of EMPEROR-Preserved data. In the base-case analysis, empagliflozin yielded additional quality-adjusted life years (QALYs; 0.11) with an incremental cost of $1408 per patient for Japanese patients with HFpEF. Incremental cost, mainly derived from drug acquisition cost ($1963 per patient), was largely offset by reduced cost in hospitalization for heart failure (HHF) and cardiovascular death (-$537 per patient and -$166 per patient, respectively). Treatment of empagliflozin provided incremental 0.11 QALYs and 0.08 life years compared with SoC alone. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was $12 772 (¥1 662 689)/QALY, which was below the Japanese willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $38 408 (¥5 000 000)/QALY. The results were consistent across all the subgroups considered, and empagliflozin was dominant over SoC alone in the region Asia and BMI < 25 kg/m2 subgroups. ICERs for the remaining subgroups ranged from $7520/QALY (¥978 972/QALY, patients with baseline age ≥ 75 years) to $31 049/QALY (¥4 041 896/QALY, patients with baseline New York Heart Association class III/IV). Deterministic sensitivity analysis result showed that the treatment effect on HHF is the biggest driver of the cost-effectiveness analysis, while the ICER will be still under the threshold even if no effect of empagliflozin on HHF was assumed. The probabilistic sensitivity analysis result showed that 64% of simulations were cost-effective based on the Japanese WTP threshold. CONCLUSIONS: Empagliflozin was demonstrated to be cost-effective for patients with HFpEF in Japan based on EMPEROR-Preserved trial data.

[Cost-Effectiveness Analysis and Budget Impact Analysis of Enzalutamide for the Treatment of Metastatic Hormone-Sensitive Prostate Cancer].

We conducted cost-effectiveness analysis and budget impact analysis for androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) plus enzalutamide (ENZ) on patients with metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC) from the publicly-funded healthcare system perspective. Using a partitioned survival model, lifetime costs, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) of ADT＋ENZ were estimated against ADT alone, ADT plus abiraterone (ADT＋ABI), and ADT plus apalutamide (ADT＋APA). Total healthcare cost differences with and without ENZ in mHSPC therapy were estimated for the period from 2022 to 2026. Based on cost-effectiveness analysis, the ICER of ADT＋ENZ versus ADT alone was estimated as ￥7.18 million/QALY gained. ADT＋ABI and ADT＋APA were dominated options (extended dominance). Budget impact analysis showed that incorporation of ENZ had a net budget impact of ￥57.19 billion, an 8.4% increase, over these 5 years. This amounted to a budgetary impact of ￥16,000 per patient per month at year 5. However, the number of patients with disease progressed to metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) would be reduced from 79,000 (without ENZ) to 65,000 (with ENZ), resulting in a 17% cost reduction within the mCRPC phase. In conclusion, ADT＋ENZ would be a cost-effective option, at the willingness to pay threshold of ￥7.5 million/QALY gained. Introduction of ENZ in the mHSPC treatment would result in a marginal increase in the total budget. However, ENZ is also expected to provide clinical benefits in reducing the number of patients with disease that would otherwise progress to mCRPC during these 5 years, resulting in cost savings in this phase.