Health and Economic Evaluation of Sacubitril-Valsartan for Heart Failure Management.

Importance: The US Food and Drug Administration expanded labeling of sacubitril-valsartan from the treatment of patients with chronic heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction (EF) to all patients with HF, noting the greatest benefits in those with below-normal EF. However, the upper bound of below normal is not clearly defined, and value determinations across a broader EF range are unknown. Objective: To estimate the cost-effectiveness of sacubitril-valsartan vs renin-angiotensin system inhibitors (RASis) across various upper-level cutoffs of EF. Design, Setting, and Participants: This economic evaluation included participant-level data from the PARADIGM-HF (Prospective Comparison of ARNI With ACEI to Determine Impact on Global Mortality and Morbidity in Heart Failure) and the PARAGON-HF (Prospective Comparison of ARNi with ARB Global Outcomes in HF With Preserved Ejection Fraction) trials. PARADIGM-HF was conducted between 2009 and 2014, PARAGON-HF was conducted between 2014 and 2019, and this analysis was conducted between 2021 and 2023. Main Outcomes and Measures: A 5-state Markov model used risk reductions for all-cause mortality and HF hospitalization from PARADIGM-HF and PARAGON-HF. Quality-of-life differences were estimated from EuroQol-5D scores. Hospitalization and medication costs were obtained from published national sources; the wholesale acquisition cost of sacubitril-valsartan was $7092 per year. Risk estimates and treatment effects were generated in consecutive 5% EF increments up to 60% and applied to an EF distribution of US patients with HF from the Get With the Guidelines-Heart Failure registry. The base case included a lifetime horizon from a health care sector perspective. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were estimated at EFs of 60% or less (base case) and at various upper-level EF cutoffs. Results: Among 13 264 total patients whose data were analyzed, for those with EFs of 60% or less, sacubitril-valsartan was projected to add 0.53 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) at an incremental lifetime cost of $40 892 compared with RASi, yielding an ICER of $76 852 per QALY. In a probabilistic sensitivity analysis, 95% of the values of the ICER occurred between $71 516 and $82 970 per QALY. Among patients with chronic HF and an EF of 60% or less, treatment with sacubitril-valsartan vs RASis would be at least of economic intermediate value (ICER <$180 000 per QALY) at a sacubitril-valsartan cost of $10 242 or less per year, of high economic value (ICER <$60 000 per QALY) at a cost of $3673 or less per year, and cost-saving at a cost of $338 or less per year. The ICERs were $67 331 per QALY, $59 614 per QALY, and $56 786 per QALY at EFs of 55% or less, 50% or less, and 45% or less, respectively. Treatment with sacubitril-valsartan in only those with EFs of 45% or greater (up to ≤60%) yielded an ICER of $127 172 per QALY gained; treatment was more cost-effective in those at the lower end of this range (ICER of $100 388 per QALY gained for those with EFs of 45%-55%; ICER of $84 291 per QALY gained for those with EFs of 45%-50%). Conclusions and Relevance: Cost-effectiveness modeling provided an ICER for treatment with sacubitril-valsartan vs RASis consistent with high economic value for patients with reduced and mildly reduced EFs (≤50%) and at least intermediate value at the current undiscounted wholesale acquisition cost price at an EF of 60% or less. Treatment was more cost-effective at lower EF ranges. These findings may have implications for coverage decisions and value assessments in contemporary clinical practice guidelines.

Kidney function assessment and endpoint ascertainment in clinical trials.

Heterogeneity in the reporting of kidney function, kidney outcomes, and definitions for kidney endpoints in clinical trials makes it challenging to compare results and gauge incremental benefit of interventions across trials. We conducted a systematic review of the ascertainment of baseline kidney variables, reporting of kidney endpoints, and definitions used to characterize these endpoints in type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), kidney, and heart failure (HF) trials. Medline, Scopus, and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched from January 2014 through January 2021 for large (>1000 participants) T2DM, HF, and kidney disease trials and their secondary analyses. Trial publication and supplementary appendices were searched to abstract relevant data. Thirty-three trials (16 T2DM; 10 HF; 7 kidney diseases) were included. Thirteen trials did not include patients with estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) <30 mL/min/1.73 m2 and for trials that did, representation of this cohort ranged from 0.1% to 15%. Reporting of baseline kidney function and albuminuria remained low, especially in HF trials. Variability was observed in the definition of chronic kidney disease, sustained decline in eGFR, end-stage kidney disease, kidney death, and kidney composite endpoint across trials. eGFR slope was reported in less than half trials, with differences observed in statistical models, definition of acute or chronic slope, and follow-up duration across trials. Significant heterogeneity in reporting of kidney function and kidney outcomes in large T2DM, kidney, and HF trials underscores the need for future stakeholders to draft a consensus solution. Detailed profiling of patients at baseline, accrual of more patients with advanced kidney disease, and standardization of definitions in trials may improve the ability to compare the results across trials.

Digoxin Use and Outcomes in Patients With Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction.

BACKGROUND: Heart failure is a leading cause for hospital readmission. Digoxin use may lower this risk in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), but data on contemporary patients receiving other evidence-based therapies are lacking. METHODS: Of the 11,900 patients with HFrEF (ejection fraction ≤45%) in Medicare-linked OPTIMIZE-HF, 8401 were not on digoxin, of whom 1571 received discharge prescriptions for digoxin. We matched 1531 of these patients with 1531 not receiving digoxin by propensity scores for digoxin use. The matched cohort (n = 3062; mean age, 76 years; 44% women; 14% African American) was balanced on 52 baseline characteristics. We assembled a second matched cohort of 2850 patients after excluding those with estimated glomerular filtration rate <15 mL/min/1.73 m2 and heart rate <60 beats/min. Hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for digoxin-associated outcomes were estimated in the matched cohorts. RESULTS: Among the 3062 matched patients, digoxin use was associated with a significantly lower risk of heart failure readmission at 30 days (HR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.59-0.93), 1 year (HR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.72-0.92), and 6 years (HR, 0.90; 95% CI 0.81-0.99). The association with all-cause readmission was significant at 1 and 6 years but not 30 days. There was no association with mortality. Similar associations were observed among the 2850 matched patients without bradycardia or renal insufficiency. CONCLUSIONS: Among hospitalized older patients with HFrEF receiving contemporary treatments for heart failure, digoxin use is associated with a lower risk of hospital readmission but not all-cause mortality.

Income Inequality and Outcomes in Heart Failure: A Global Between-Country Analysis.

OBJECTIVES: This study examined the relationship between income inequality and heart failure outcomes. BACKGROUND: The income inequality hypothesis postulates that population health is influenced by income distribution within a society, with greater inequality associated with worse outcomes. METHODS: This study analyzed heart failure outcomes in 2 large trials conducted in 54 countries. Countries were divided by tertiles of Gini coefficients (where 0% represented absolute income equality and 100% represented absolute income inequality), and heart failure outcomes were adjusted for standard prognostic variables, country per capita income, education index, hospital bed density, and health worker density. RESULTS: Of the 15,126 patients studied, 5,320 patients lived in Gini coefficient tertile 1 countries (coefficient: <33%), 6,124 patients lived in tertile 2 countries (33% to 41%), and 3,772 patients lived in tertile 3 countries (>41%). Patients in tertile 3 were younger than tertile 1 patients, were more often women, and had less comorbidity and several indicators of less severe heart failure, yet the tertile 3-to-1 hazard ratios (HRs) for the primary composite outcome of cardiovascular death or heart failure hospitalization were 1.57 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.38 to 1.79) and 1.48 for all-cause death (95% CI: 1.29 to 1.71) after adjustment for recognized prognostic variables. After additional adjustments were made for per capita income, education index, hospital bed density, and health worker density, these HRs were 1.46 (95% CI: 1.25 to 1.70) and 1.30 (95% CI: 1.10 to 1.53), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Greater income inequality was associated with worse heart failure outcomes, with an impact similar to those of major comorbidities. Better understanding of the societal and personal bases of these findings may suggest approaches to improve heart failure outcomes.

Reduced loop diuretic use in patients taking sacubitril/valsartan compared with enalapril: the PARADIGM-HF trial.

AIMS: To assess differences in diuretic dose requirements in patients treated with sacubitril/valsartan compared with enalapril in the Prospective comparison of ARNI with ACEI to Determine Impact on Global Mortality and morbidity in Heart Failure (PARADIGM-HF) trial. METHODS AND RESULTS: Overall, 8399 patients with New York Heart Association class II-IV heart failure and reduced LVEF were randomized to sacubitril/valsartan 200 mg bid or enalapril 10 mg twice daily. Loop diuretic doses were assessed at baseline, 6, 12, and 24 months, and furosemide dose equivalents were calculated via multiplication factors (2x for torsemide and 40x for bumetanide). Percentages of participants with reductions or increases in loop diuretic dose were determined. At baseline, 80.8% of participants were taking any diuretics (n = 6290 for loop diuretics, n = 496 for other diuretics); of those, recorded dosage data for loop diuretics were available on 5487 participants. Mean baseline furosemide equivalent doses were 48.2 mg for sacubitril/valsartan and 49.6 mg for enalapril (P = 0.25). Patients treated with sacubitril/valsartan were more likely to reduce diuretic dose and less likely to increase diuretic dose relative to those randomized to enalapril at 6, 12, 24 months post-randomization, with an overall decreased diuretic use of 2.0% (P = 0.02), 4.1% (P < 0.001), and 6.1% (P < 0.001) at 6, 12, and 24 months, respectively, with similar findings in an on-treatment analysis. CONCLUSION: Treatment with sacubitril/valsartan was associated with more loop diuretic dose reductions and fewer dose increases compared with enalapril, suggesting that treatment with sacubitril/valsartan may reduce the requirement for loop diuretics relative to enalapril in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction.

Role of Payers in the Development of Cardiovascular Therapeutics: Misalignment Between Approval and Reimbursement.

Regulators and payers have contrasting priorities that can lead to divergent decisions and delays in patient access to new treatments. Those involved in coverage decisions have not routinely been integrated in the drug development process. Theoretically, inclusion of payer representatives early in development could help discern discordance among stakeholder priorities; facilitate cooperation to align objectives; foster agreement on the evidence required for approval and reimbursement; improve transparency, accountability, and consistency of payer decision making; and ideally, minimize delays in patient access to new therapies. However, early participation by payers may not provide these expected benefits if payers' decision-making processes are not evidence based or cannot be reliably predicted. This paper describes current interactions among regulatory agencies, payers, sponsors, and investigators and proposes collaboration among all stakeholders earlier in the development process. The premise that a priori discussions might facilitate the delivery of advances in cardiovascular care is a hypothesis worth testing.

Cardiovascular drug development: is it dead or just hibernating?

Despite the global burden of cardiovascular disease, investment in cardiovascular drug development has stagnated over the past 2 decades, with relative underinvestment compared with other therapeutic areas. The reasons for this trend are multifactorial, but of primary concern is the high cost of conducting cardiovascular outcome trials in the current regulatory environment that demands a direct assessment of risks and benefits, using clinically-evident cardiovascular endpoints. To work toward consensus on improving the environment for cardiovascular drug development, stakeholders from academia, industry, regulatory bodies, and government agencies convened for a think tank meeting in July 2014 in Washington, DC. This paper summarizes the proceedings of the meeting and aims to delineate the current adverse trends in cardiovascular drug development, understand the key issues that underlie these trends within the context of a recognized need for a rigorous regulatory review process, and provide potential solutions to the problems identified.

Carvedilol reduces the costs of medical care in severe heart failure: an economic analysis of the COPERNICUS study applied to the United Kingdom.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to determine the effects of carvedilol on the costs related to the treatment of severe chronic heart failure (CHF). METHODS: Costs for the treatment for heart failure within the National Health Service (NHS) in the United Kingdom (UK) were applied to resource utilisation data prospectively collected in all patients randomized into the Carvedilol Prospective Randomized Cumulative Survival (COPERNICUS) Study. Unit-specific, per diem (hospital bed day) costs were used to calculate expenditures due to hospitalizations. We also included costs of carvedilol treatment, general practitioner surgery/office visits, hospital out-patient clinic visits and nursing home care based on estimates derived from validated patterns of clinical practice in the UK. RESULTS: The estimated cost of carvedilol therapy and related ambulatory care for the 1156 patients assigned to active treatment was pound530,771 ( pound44.89 per patient/month of follow-up). However, patients assigned to carvedilol were hospitalised less often and accumulated fewer and less expensive days of admission. Consequently, the total estimated cost of hospital care was pound3.49 million in the carvedilol group compared with pound4.24 million for the 1133 patients in the placebo arm. The cost of post-discharge care was also less in the carvedilol than in the placebo group ( pound479,200 vs. pound548,300). Overall, the cost per patient treated in the carvedilol group was pound3948 compared to pound4279 in the placebo group. This equated to a cost of pound385.98 vs. pound434.18, respectively, per patient/month of follow-up: an 11.1% reduction in health care costs in favour of carvedilol. CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that not only can carvedilol treatment increase survival and reduce hospital admissions in patients with severe CHF but that it can also cut costs in the process.

Do evidence-based treatments provide incremental benefits to patients with congestive heart failure already receiving angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors? A secondary analysis of one-year outcomes from the Assessment of Treatment with Lisinopril and Survival (ATLAS) study.

BACKGROUND: In patients with congestive heart failure (CHF), use of submaximal doses of angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors (ie, low-dose ACE inhibitors) represents usual care in routine clinical practice, whereas high-dose ACE inhibitors, beta-blockers, and digoxin have each been shown to improve outcomes. OBJECTIVE: We examined whether treatment with high dose-ACE inhibitors, beta-blockers, and digoxin would each provide incremental benefits over that achieved with usual care and whether concurrent use of high-dose ACE inhibitors, beta-blockers, and digoxin would provide maximal benefits. METHODS: We conducted a secondary analysis of a randomized, controlled, active-comparator trial. Specifically, we studied 1-year outcomes data from the Assessment of Treatment with Lisinopril and Survival trial (ATLAS), which assessed high-dose ACE inhibitors (mean dosage, 33.2 mg daily lisinopril) versus low-dose ACE inhibitors (mean dosage, 4.5 mg daily lisinopril) in patients of any age with advanced CHF in 287 centers in 19 countries in the 1990s. In our analysis, patients were classified by their use of low-dose or high-dose ACE inhibitors, beta-blockers, and/or digoxin at the time of randomization. The primary outcome of interest was the ATLAS composite end point of all-cause mortality or hospitalization for any reason at 1 year. Multiple logistic regression analyses were used to adjust for baseline differences in patient characteristics. RESULTS: The 3164 patients in the ATLAS study had a mean (SD) age of 64 (10) years; 2516 patients (80%) were men and 648 (20%) were women; mean (SD) left-ventricular ejection fraction was 23% (6%); and 2671 patients (84%) had New York Heart Association class III or IV symptoms. At 1 year, the mortality rate was 13% (408 patients); 43% (1369 patients) had > or =1 hospitalization; and the composite end point of mortality or hospitalization was 47% (1489 patients). Most patients (2873; 91%) remained on their initial treatment regimen. Compared with low-dose ACE inhibitors (n = 471), the composite end point decreased incrementally with the use of high-dose ACE inhibitors (n = 475) (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.93; P = NS), high-dose ACE inhibitors plus beta-blockers (n = 72) (aOR, 0.89; P = NS), and high-dose ACE inhibitors plus beta-blockers plus digoxin (n = 77) (aOR, 0.47; P = 0.006). In absolute proportions, patients receiving high-dose ACE inhibitors plus beta-blockers plus digoxin for 1 year had 12% fewer deaths and hospitalizations than patients receiving low-dose ACE inhibitors alone. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with usual care for patients with CHF, in this analysis, an evidence-based strategy that incorporated high-dose ACE inhibitors plus beta-blockers plus digoxin was associated with incrementally greater reductions in morbidity and mortality. These findings support treatment guidelines that recommend the concurrent use of all available proven efficacious treatment in patients with advanced CHF.

Issues in regulatory guidelines for data monitoring committees.

As clinical trials have emerged as the major research method for evaluating new interventions, the process for monitoring intervention safety and benefit has also evolved. The Data Monitoring Committee (DMC) has become the standard approach to implement this responsibility for many Phase III trials. Recent draft guidelines on the operation of DMCs by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) have raised issues that need further clarification or discussion, especially for industry sponsored trials. These include, the time when DMCs are needed, the role of the independent statistician to support the DMC, and sponsor participation at DMC meetings. This paper provides an overview of these issues, based on the discussions at the January, 2003 workshop sponsored by Duke Clinical Research Institute.