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.

Frailty and uptake of angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction.

BACKGROUND: Frail older adults may be less likely to receive guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT)-renin-angiotensin blockers, beta-blockers, and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists-for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). We aimed to examine the uptake of angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI) and GDMT in frail older adults with HFrEF. METHODS: Using 2015-2019 Medicare data, we estimated the proportion of beneficiaries with HFrEF receiving ARNI and GDMT each year by frailty status, defined by a claims-based frailty index. Logistic regression was used to identify clinical characteristics associated with ARNI initiation. Cox proportional hazards regression was used to examine the association of GDMT use in 2015 and death or heart failure hospitalization in 2016-2019. RESULTS: Among 147,506-180,386 beneficiaries with HFrEF (mean age: 77 years; 27% women; 42.6-49.1% frail) in 2015-2019, the proportion of patients receiving ARNI increased in both non-frail (0.4%-16.4%) and frail (0.3%-13.7%) patients (p for yearly-trend-by-frailty = 0.970). Among those not receiving a renin-angiotensin system blocker, patients with age ≥ 85 years (odds ratio [95% CI], 0.89 [0.80-0.99]), dementia (0.88 [0.81-0.96]), and frailty (0.87 [0.81-0.94]) were less likely to initiate ARNI. The proportion of patients receiving all 3 GDMT classes increased in non-frail patients (22.0%-27.0%) but changed minimally in frail patients (19.6%-21.8%). Regardless of frailty status, treatment with at least 1 class of GDMT was associated with lower death or heart failure hospitalization than no GDMT medications (hazard ratio [95% CI], 0.94 [0.91-0.97], 0.92 [0.89-0.94], 0.94 [0.91-0.97] for 1, 2, and 3 classes, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest an evidence-practice gap in the use of ARNI and GDMT in Medicare beneficiaries with HFrEF, particularly those with frailty. Efforts to narrow this gap are needed to reduce the burden of HFrEF in older adults.