Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Sacubitril/Valsartan for Reducing the Use of Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator (ICD) and the Risk of Death in ICD-Eligible Heart Failure Patients With Reduced Ejection Fraction.

This critical review of Kaddoura et al.'s article on sacubitril/valsartan in heart failure patients underscores the importance of considering potential adverse effects, including renal failure, hyperkalemia, angioedema, and increased reports of sudden cardiac death. It highlights the need for rigorous monitoring and precise treatment regimens, especially in diabetic heart failure patients. Additionally, the review questions the generalizability of the study's results to diverse healthcare settings and emphasizes the importance of grounded patient follow-up data for accurate long-term assessment. These considerations are vital for informed decision-making regarding sacubitril/valsartan use in heart failure management.

MANAGEMENT OF RISKS OF ADVERSE DRUG REACTIONS ACCORDING TO ADR REPORT FORM DATA FROM LVIV REGION HEALTHCARE FACILITIES IN 2022.

The study aimed to analyse the adverse drug reactions report form data received by the State Expert Center of the Ministry of Health of Ukraine from healthcare professionals in the Lviv region in 2022. Regarding specific types of medicines, the ones with proven cause-and-effect relationships that caused the highest frequency of adverse drug reactions incidents were chemotherapeutic agents (35.5%), medicines affecting the cardiovascular system (20.3%), and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (8%). Within the penicillin class, amoxicillin potentiated by clavulanate (67%) and amoxicillin (29%) were the dominant drugs showing the highest incidence rate of adverse reactions. Among cephalosporins, ceftriaxone (46%) and cefixime (15%) were found to take the lead in terms of adverse reaction frequency. The highest proportion among all adverse drug reactions caused by penicillins and cephalosporins was attributed to allergic reactions. To confirm or rule out immediate or delayed type allergies in patients, as well as in patients with a history of immediate-type allergic reactions to ß-lactams and planned administration of another ß-lactam, it is necessary to conduct skin testing (skin prick test, or, in the case of parenteral administration, intradermal test) with the planned ß-lactam antibiotic. The second highest proportion of induced adverse drug reactions was attributed to drugs affecting the cardiovascular system (20.3%). The leading medications in the angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors category were enalapril (47%) and the combination of lisinopril with hydrochlorothiazide (24%). In the angiotensin II receptor blockers category of medications, valsartan (30%) and telmisartan-hydrochlorothiazide combination (20%) ranked highest. In the category of CCB drugs, amlodipine (66%) and nifedipine (20%) held the leading positions. among angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, enalapril caused the most prevalent and predicted adverse reaction, that of cough, affecting 10.5% of patients, whereas, with the combination therapy of lisinopril and hydrochlorothiazide, the cough was observed in only 5.2% of patients. Angiotensin II receptor blockers have a better safety profile, particularly concerning cough. Analysis of adverse drug reactions reports for angiotensin II receptor blockers showed no cases of cough with valsartan and telmisartan-hydrochlorothiazide combination. Among calcium channel blocker medications, amlodipine emerged to rank highest, causing one of the predicted adverse drug reactions, that of lower extremity oedema in 64% of patients. The second position was taken by the combination of amlodipine with valsartan, which showed a statistically significant reduction of 14.3% (p≤0.05) in the incidence of oedema. Using amlodipine at a dose of 5 mg in combination with sartan medicines as angiotensin receptor blockers is an effective therapeutic alternative not only for enhancing blood pressure control in hypertensive patients but also for improving the safety profile of amlodipine. Among all the non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs prescribed to patients in the Lviv region in 2022, the highest number of adverse reactions was associated with the administration of diclofenac, ibuprofen, paracetamol, and nimesulide, causing adverse drug reactions in 22%, 19%, 17%, and 10% of cases, respectively. The most common systemic manifestations of adverse reactions with these non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs were allergic reactions (63.4%) and gastrointestinal disorders (26.8%). From an evidence-based medicine perspective, the most justified approach for primary and secondary prevention of gastrointestinal complications is the use of proton pump inhibitors.

Comparative Outcomes of Sacubitril/Valsartan Use After Hospitalization for Heart Failure Among Medicare Beneficiaries Naïve to Renin-Angiotensin System Inhibitors.

Sacubitril/valsartan improves outcomes in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) compared with angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEis). However, data on postdischarge outcomes in renin-angiotensin system inhibitor (RASi)-naïve patients are limited. We included Medicare beneficiaries aged ≥65 years who were hospitalized for HFrEF in the Get With The Guidelines-Heart Failure registry between October 2015 and June 2019, had part D prescription coverage, and were not on RASi therapy during the 6 months before hospital admission. We examined the associations between sacubitril/valsartan prescription at hospital discharge and outcomes at 30 days and 1 year after discharge using overlap-weighted median regression and Cox proportional hazards models. The end points included "home time" (defined as days alive and out of any health care institution), mortality, and rehospitalization. Among 3,572 patients with HFrEF and who are naïve to RASi therapy, at discharge, 290 (8.1%) were prescribed sacubitril/valsartan and 1,390 (38.9%) were prescribed ACEis and angiotensin receptor blockers. After adjusting for baseline characteristics, patients prescribed sacubitril/valsartan had a longer median home time (parameter estimate 27.0 days, 95% confidence interval [CI] 12.40 to 41.6, p <0.001) and lower all-cause mortality (hazard ratio [HR] 0.74, 95% CI 0.61 to 0.91, p = 0.004) at 1 year than patients not prescribed sacubitril/valsartan. The prescription of sacubitril/valsartan was not significantly associated with all-cause rehospitalization (HR 0.87, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.03, p = 0.10) or heart failure rehospitalization (HR 0.87, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.07, p = 0.19). In a restricted comparison of patients discharged on sacubitril/valsartan versus ACEis and angiotensin receptor blockers, there were no significant differences in the outcomes. In conclusion, in this contemporary population of RASi-naïve patients with HFrEF from routine clinical practice, compared with not initiating, the initiation of sacubitril/valsartan at discharge was associated with longer home time and improvements in overall survival.

Cost-Effectiveness of Quadruple Therapy in Management of Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction in the United States.

BACKGROUND: The 2022 clinical guidelines for management of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction call for quadruple therapy. Quadruple therapy consists of an angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor (ARNi), sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitor (SGLT2i), mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist, and beta blocker. The ARNi and sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitor are newer additions to standard of care with the ARNi replacing ACE (angiotensin-converting enzyme) inhibitors and angiotensin II receptor blockers. METHODS: We investigate the cost-effectiveness of sequentially adding the SGLT2i and ARNi to form quadruple therapy as compared with the previous standard of care with ACE inhibitor/mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist/beta blocker. Using a 2-stage Markov model, we projected the expected lifetime discounted costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) of a simulated cohort of US patients who underwent each treatment option and calculated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. We assessed incremental cost-effectiveness ratios using criteria for health care value (<$50 000/quality-adjusted life year [QALY] indicating high-value, $50 000-150 000/QALY indicating intermediate value, and >$150 000/QALY indicating low-value) and a standard $100 000/QALY cost-effectiveness threshold. RESULTS: Compared with the previous standard of care, the SGLT2i addition had an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $73 000/QALY and weakly dominated the ARNi addition. The addition of both the ARNi and SGLT2i for quadruple therapy offered 0.68 additional discounted QALYs over the SGLT2i addition alone at a lifetime discounted cost of $66 700, resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $98 500/QALY. In sensitivity analysis varying drug prices, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for quadruple therapy ranged from $73 500/QALY using prices available to the US Department of Veterans Affairs to $110 000/QALY using drug list prices. CONCLUSIONS: While quadruple therapy offers intermediate value, it is borderline cost effective compared with adding the SGLT2i alone to previous standard of care. Thus, its cost-effectiveness is sensitive to a payer's ability to negotiate discounts off the increasing list prices for ARNI and SGLT2is. The demonstrated benefits of ARNi and SGLT2is should be weighed against their high prices in payer and policy considerations.

Using Sacubitril/Valsartan to Decrease Health care Costs in Population Health Patients.

Value-based care is the foundation of population health. The Health care Economic Efficiency Ratio (HEERO) scoring system is a promising new tool to measure the cost benefits of care in our Accountable Care Organization. HEERO score compares actual costs spent (utilizing insurance claims) and expected costs spent (estimated using the Centers for Medicare/Medicaid Services Risk score). Scores <1 suggest economic benefit. Sacubitril/valsartan has been shown to decrease readmissions for patients with heart failure (HF) and decrease health care costs. We explored the utility of sacubitril/valsartan in reducing HEERO scores and decreasing overall health care expenditure in patients with HF. Patients with HF in the population health cohort were enrolled. HEERO score was calculated for patients taking sacubitril/valsartan and other HF medications at 3-month intervals up to a year. We compared the average and total health care expenditure and inpatient days for patients on sacubitril/valsartan, spironolactone, ß blocker (BB) along with spironolactone, BB and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor/angiotensin receptor blocker. For patients on sacubitril/valsartan, HEERO scores and inpatient days decreased (decreased health care expenditure) as the number of days of utilization increased (p <0.0001). In total, 270+ days of sacubitril/valsartan decreased health care costs by 22%. This cost reduction was mainly attributed to decreased inpatient days. Additionally, the combination of sacubitril/valsartan, spironolactone, and BB showed decreased HEERO score and inpatient days compared with spironolactone, BB and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor/angiotensin receptor blocker in male patients. Sacubitril/valsartan use beyond 270 days resulted in decreased health care expenditure in a population health cohort compared with other HF medications. This economic benefit is achieved through the reduction in hospitalizations. Sacubitril/valsartan is an integral part of value-based care providing high-value, cost-effective care, and bolstering the economic wellbeing of patient care. Payor sources should consider this in subsidizing the cost of the medicine.

Budget Impact Analysis of Utilization of Sacubitril/Valsartan for the Treatment of Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction in the Philippines.

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to estimate the financial and economic impact of sacubitril/valsartan compared with enalapril for the treatment and prevention of hospitalization/rehospitalization because of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). METHODS: The budget impact analysis was guided by the Philippine Reference Case and ISPOR's Principles of Good Practice for Budget Impact Analysis. A government-funded healthcare payer perspective and a societal perspective were considered. Data collection was guided by the pathways of disease progression and care. Collection of costing data followed a bottom-up approach. The model was based on a Markov model used in a study in Thailand. RESULTS: Over the next 5 years, there will be 17 625 less hospitalizations (∼5.1% less than enalapril arm) and 7968 less cardiovascular-related deaths (∼7.0% less than enalapril arm). In 5 years, the total cost of treating patients with HFrEF with sacubitril/valsartan at current market coverage and annual growth conditions is ₱15.430 billion, which is ₱11.077 billion higher than fully treating with enalapril only. The total required additional investment with treatment of sacubitril/valsartan compared with the full enalapril arm are ₱407 million (at 30-day coverage), ₱800 million (at 60-day coverage), and ₱1.181 billion (at 90-day coverage). If hospitalizations costs alone are considered, only the 30-day coverage is cost-saving. If a societal perspective is considered, all options are cost-saving where at least ₱4.003 billion is saved by the economy. CONCLUSION: The initial investment required to treat patients with HFrEF with sacubitril/valsartan is high; nevertheless, the year-on-year cost deficit shrinks in favor of investing in sacubitril/valsartan treatment.

Deciding Whether to Take Sacubitril/Valsartan: How Cardiologists and Patients Discuss Out-of-Pocket Costs.

Background Out-of-pocket costs have significant implications for patients with heart failure and should ideally be incorporated into shared decision-making for clinical care. High out-of-pocket cost is one potential reason for the slow uptake of newer guideline-directed medical therapies for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction. This study aims to characterize patient-cardiologist discussions involving out-of-pocket costs associated with sacubitril/valsartan during the early postapproval period. Methods and Results We conducted content analysis on 222 deidentified transcripts of audio-recorded outpatient encounters taking place between 2015 and 2018 in which cardiologists (n=16) and their patients discussed whether to initiate, continue, or discontinue sacubitril/valsartan. In the 222 included encounters, 100 (45%) contained discussions about cost. Cost was discussed in a variety of contexts: when sacubitril/valsartan was initiated, not initiated, continued, and discontinued. Of the 97 cost conversations analyzed, the majority involved isolated discussions about insurance coverage (64/97 encounters; 66%) and few addressed specific out-of-pocket costs or affordability (28/97 encounters; 29%). Discussion of free samples of sacubitril/valsartan was common (52/97 encounters; 54%), often with no discussion of a longer-term plan for addressing cost. Conclusions Although cost conversations were somewhat common in patient-cardiologist encounters in which sacubitril/valsartan was discussed, these conversations were generally superficial, rarely addressing affordability or cost-value judgments. Cardiologists frequently provided patients with a course of free sacubitril/valsartan samples without a plan to address the cost after the samples ran out.

Cost-Effectiveness of Sacubitril-Valsartan Compared to Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitors in Patients With Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction.

Objectives: The goal of this study was to compare cost-effectiveness of sacubitril/valsartan with angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors for treating chronic heart failure patients with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) from the published articles and explore the methodology applied in the studies. Methods: Systematic research was conducted in February 2021 using PubMed, Cochrane, and EBSCO. A combination of MeSH terms of "cost-effectiveness analysis," "heart failure with reduced ejection fraction," "sacubitril valsartan," and "angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor" was employed. The review selected for articles published in the last five years in English. Results: A total of 15 studies were included in this review. We found that these studies had been conducted in 12 different countries. The United States had the greatest number of publications (5), followed by the Netherlands (2). The study method most used was the Markov decision model (73%). Almost all studies produced ICERs and QALYs that were numerically high. Conclusions: The use of sacubitril/valsartan associates with longer life expectancy and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio than angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors.

Model parameters influencing the cost-effectiveness of sacubitril/valsartan in heart failure: evidence from a systematic literature review.

OBJECTIVES: To summarize cost-effectiveness (CE) evidence of sacubitril/valsartan for the treatment of heart failure (HF) patients with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). The impact of different modeling approaches and parameters on the CE results is also described. METHODS: We conducted a systematic literature review using multiple databases: Embase®; MEDLINE®; MEDLINE®-In Process; NIHR CRD database including DARE, NHS EED, and HTA databases; and the Cost Effectiveness Analysis registry. We also reviewed HTA countries' websites to identify CE reports of sacubitril/valsartan, published up to 25-July-2021. Articles published in English as full-texts, conference-abstracts, or HTA reports were included. RESULTS: We included 44 CE models [39 from 37 publications (22 full-texts; 15 conference-abstracts) and 5 HTAs; Europe, n = 20; North and South Americas, n = 14; Asia and Australia, n = 10]. Most models adopted a Markov structure with constant transition probabilities of events (n = 27) or a mix of Markov and regression-based models (n = 16), with variations in structural assumptions and chosen parameters. Study authors concluded sacubitril/valsartan to be a cost-effective therapy in 37/41 models in chronic HFrEF patients and 2/3 models in hospitalized patients stabilized after an acute decompensation for HF. CE models showing sacubitril/valsartan not to be a cost-effective treatment generally modeled a shorter time horizon. Effect of sacubitril/valsartan on cardiovascular and all-cause mortality, cost, duration of effect and time horizon was the main model drivers. CONCLUSIONS: Most evidence indicated sacubitril/valsartan is cost-effective in HFrEF. The use of a lifetime horizon is recommended in future models as HF is a chronic disease. Data on the CE of sacubitril/valsartan in the inpatient setting were limited and further research is warranted.

Risk of Acute Kidney Injury Among Older Adults With Heart Failure and With Reduced Ejection Fraction Treated With Angiotensin-Neprilysin Inhibitor vs Renin-Angiotensin System Inhibitor in Routine Clinical Care.

BACKGROUND: The acute hemodynamic effects of sacubitril/valsartan, an angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI), may result in early changes in kidney function, raising concerns about acute kidney injury (AKI), particularly in those who are naïve to renin-angiotensin system inhibitors (RASis). METHODS: We conducted a cohort study using U.S. Medicare fee-for-service claims data (2014-2017). Patients with HFrEF ≥ 65 years newly initiating ARNI or RASi, with no prior use of either drug class, were included. The primary outcome was hospitalization due to AKI as the primary discharge diagnosis, and the secondary outcome included AKI as a primary or secondary discharge diagnosis. AKI risks were described under an as-treated follow-up approach, with censoring on treatment discontinuation, switch, insurance disenrollment, death, or administrative censoring as well as an intent-to-treat approach. Propensity-score-based fine-stratification weighting was used to account for potential confounding by 81 pre-exposure characteristics. Cumulative incidence functions were used to report absolute risks, and Cox proportional hazards models were used to provide hazard ratios (HR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI). RESULTS: We included 27,166 patients with a mean (SD) age of 73 (7.3) years, and 4155 (15.3%) were initiating ARNI. After propensity score weighting, the 180-day cumulative incidence was 2.7% (2.4%-3.1%) among RASi initiators and 2.7% (2.2%-3.5%) among ARNI initiators for the primary outcome, and it was 6.5% (6.0%-7.1%) and 6.1% (5.2%-7.1%), respectively, for the secondary outcome under as-treated follow-up. HR (95% CI) comparing ARNI with RASi were 0.91 (95% CI: 0.72-1.16) for the primary outcome and 0.92 (95% CI: 0.79-1.08) for the secondary outcome. Similar results were observed in the intent-to-treat analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Among a large cohort of U.S. Medicare beneficiaries with HFrEF, ARNI treatment was not associated with higher rates of AKI than RASi treatment. These results provide reassurance for providers considering ARNI initiation in older patients who are RASi-naïve.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Sacubitril/Valsartan for Reducing the Use of Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator (ICD) and the Risk of Death in ICD-Eligible Heart Failure Patients with Reduced Ejection Fraction.

Although previous cost-effectiveness evaluations of sacubitril/valsartan have demonstrated cardiovascular and economic benefits in heart failure patients with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), whether sacubitril/valsartan is cost-effective for reducing the need for implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) implantation and the risk of death in ICD-eligible patients has not been investigated in patients with HFrEF. Herein, we evaluated the cost-effectiveness of sacubitril/valsartan versus standard of care in reducing the need for ICD implantation and the death rate in HFrEF. A Markov model was developed from the Qatari hospital perspective, comprised of 'survival' and 'death' health states, and was based on 1-monthly Markovian cycles, a 20-years follow-up horizon, and a 3% discount rate. The model inputs were obtained from the literature and local sources. Sacubitril/valsartan resulted in a relative increase of 0.04 quality-adjusted life year (QALY) and 0.67 years of life lived (YLL)/person, with an incremental cost increase of QAR13,952 (USD3,832). Sacubitril/valsartan was associated with incremental cost effectiveness ratio of QAR341,113 (USD93,687)/QALYs gained and QAR24,431 (USD6,710)/YLL. Sensitivity analyses confirmed robustness, with the cost-effectiveness maintained in ≥96.5% of simulated cases. To conclude, sacubitril/valsartan is a cost-effective alternative to standard care against QALY gained and YLL in reducing the need for an ICD therapy and the rate of death among ICD-eligible HFrEF patients.

Cost-benefit analysis of sacubitril/valsartan in a Medicaid population.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the cost-benefit of sacubitril/valsartan in adults with heart failure (HF) enrolled in a state Medicaid plan to prevent HF-related hospitalizations and emergency department (ED) visits. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective, claims-based, cost-benefit study. METHODS: This exploratory cost-benefit study evaluated Massachusetts Medicaid (MassHealth) members with HF who had an initial pharmacy claim for sacubitril/valsartan between July 7, 2015, and August 31, 2018 (index date). Efficacy outcomes, HF-related hospitalizations and ED visits, and cost outcomes for HF-related medical and pharmacy claims were compared 1 year pre- and post index date. Benefit-cost ratio and net benefit were calculated for all members. A subgroup analysis evaluated the outcomes for members who were adherent to sacubitril/valsartan. RESULTS: A total of 22 members were identified for the study. There were fewer hospitalizations and ED visits post sacubitril/valsartan initiation in the overall population (post vs pre-: 23 vs 26) and among 12 members adherent to sacubitril/valsartan (10 vs 12). The median (IQR) cost for hospitalizations and ED visits was lower during the postindex period ($576 [$19,439] vs $132 [$11,692]) whereas the median (IQR) cost for HF pharmacotherapies was greater during the postindex period ($4578 [$3033] vs $270 [$255]). The benefit-cost ratio and net benefit were 0.91 and -$336, respectively, for all members and 1.43 and $2337, respectively, for members adherent to sacubitril/valsartan. CONCLUSIONS: The benefit as demonstrated by the cost avoidance of HF-related hospitalizations and ED visits did not outweigh the additional costs of sacubitril/valsartan, but cost-benefit was observed in members who were adherent to sacubitril/valsartan.

Sacubitril/valsartan use patterns among older adults with heart failure in clinical practice: a population-based cohort study of >25 000 Medicare beneficiaries.

AIMS: Sacubitril/valsartan is strongly supported in guidelines for the management of heart failure, but suboptimal adherence and treatment non-persistence may limit the population-level benefit that this therapy might otherwise offer. METHODS AND RESULTS: We identified a cohort of Medicare beneficiaries (2014-2017) initiating sacubitril/valsartan after ≥6 months of continuous enrolment. We assessed adherence as the proportion of days covered (PDC) and proportion of patients non-persistent (having no prescription available) at 180 days after initiation. We fit a multivariable negative binomial model with a count of adherent days to evaluate independent factors associated with of sacubitril/valsartan adherence. Among 27 063 new sacubitril/valsartan users, most (n = 17 663, 65%) were prescribed low-dose at 24 mg/26 mg and most (n = 19 984, 74%) were switched from prior angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor/angiotensin receptor blocker (ACEi/ARB) rather than being RASi treatment naïve. Median 180-day PDC was 86% (25th-75th percentiles 58-98%). Black patients, those with high comorbid disease burden (≥8 comorbidities), and patients with recent hospitalization within 30 days had fewer adherent days, while those treated with preceding ACEi/ARB had more adherent days. Thirty-four percent of patients did not have an active sacubitril/valsartan prescription at day 180. Among these, few had preceding dose down-titrations (6% among patients on 49 mg/51 mg and 9% among patients on 97 mg/103 mg) and 68% did not have a subsequent ACEi/ARB prescription. Among patients who remained persistent, dose up-titrations occurred in 29% of patients who started on 24 mg/26 mg and 27% of patients on 49 mg/51 mg. CONCLUSIONS: Overall adherence to sacubitril/valsartan among Medicare beneficiaries is acceptable, but is lower in Black patients, those with higher comorbidities or those who started therapy after recent hospitalization. While broad implementation of guideline-directed medical therapy is a key priority, additional focused efforts to improve adherence early after hospitalization and among at-risk patients are needed in parallel.

Assessment of sacubitril/valsartan effects on left ventricular dynamics using 3D echocardiography and 3D strain in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction patients.

BACKGROUND: Three-dimensional (3D) echocardiography and 3D strain parameters have been used for a comprehensive quantitative assessment of left ventricular (LV) myocardial dynamics. So far, there are no data on sacubitril/valsartan effects on cardiac functions and LV reverse remodeling using 3D echocardiography. This study aimed to evaluate the effects of sacubitril/valsartan on the LV functions using two-dimensional (2D) echocardiography, 3D echocardiography, and the 3D strain parameters. METHODS: A single-center prospective cohort study which included 100 heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) patients with guidelines-approved indications for sacubitril/valsartan treatment. Patients received a short course (3-month) of sacubitril/valsartan. 3-month follow-up 2D, 3D echocardiographic parameters, and 3D strain were compared to baseline parameters. RESULTS: The results of the study revealed a significant improvement in left ventricular dynamic functions at 3-month follow-up with an improvement in left ventricular systolic function (mean left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) increased from 27.65±4.98% to 32.89±6.03%, P<0.001). Comparison of HFrEF patients with ischemic and non-ischemic etiologies showed that echocardiographic parameters significantly improved in both groups after 3 months of sacubitril/valsartan treatment. There was no statistically significant difference between both groups regarding echocardiographic parameters at baseline and 3-month follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: In a single-center prospective observational cohort study evaluating the effects of short-term (3-month course) sacubitril/valsartan treatment on LV dynamics assessed by 3D echocardiography and 3D strain, sacubitril/valsartan was associated with a significant improvement of LV systolic functions and reverse remodeling effects in both ischemic and non-ischemic HFrEF patients.

SGLT-2 Inhibitors on Top of Current Pharmacological Treatments for Heart Failure: A Comparative Review on Outcomes and Cost Effectiveness.

Heart failure (HF) represents a major global health and economic burden with still unacceptably high morbidity and mortality rates. In recent decades, novel therapeutic opportunities with a significant impact on HF outcomes have been introduced in addition to angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors, ß-blockers, and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists. These include drugs such as ivabradine, sacubitril-valsartan, and sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT-2) inhibitors. The availability of an extremely large pharmacological armamentarium to face this chronic global disease highlights the importance of assessing cost effectiveness to promote sustainable healthcare. In light of the recent approval of SGLT-2 inhibitors for the treatment of HF with reduced ejection fraction, including in individuals without type 2 diabetes mellitus, the aim of this review was to provide an updated comparative evaluation of the efficacy and cost effectiveness of different pharmacological treatments for the prevention (stage A) and treatment of asymptomatic (stage B) and symptomatic (stages C-D) left ventricular dysfunction.

Variation in early diffusion of sacubitril/valsartan and implications for understanding novel drug diffusion.

OBJECTIVES: In the PARADIGM-HF trial, sacubitril/valsartan demonstrated a 20% reduction in mortality and heart failure hospitalization compared with standard angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor therapy. Despite this and a class I indication, drug diffusion has been much slower than anticipated. This study aims to examine the variation in early diffusion of sacubitril/valsartan and describe the factors associated with high and low rates of early use. STUDY DESIGN: Annual, cross-sectional analyses between January 2016 and December 2018. METHODS: We created a nationally representative cohort of Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction fully enrolled in parts A, B, and D for at least 1 year between 2016 and 2018. Sacubitril/valsartan use was determined using National Drug Codes. We generated age, sex, and race-adjusted rates of sacubitril/valsartan prescribing by hospital referral region from 2016 to 2018. We also examined the factors associated with high and low rates of early use. RESULTS: Early use rates of sacubitril/valsartan were low: 1.9% in 2016, 3.3% in 2017, and 4.0% in 2018. Even after controlling for out-of-pocket co-payments, there was substantial geographic variation in early use, with most early use concentrated in the Northeast and South. CONCLUSIONS: There has been substantial variation in the early diffusion of sacubitril/valsartan. In addition to drug cost, geographic prescribing patterns appear to play a major role in early drug diffusion.

Cost-Utility Analysis of Sacubitril-Valsartan Compared with Enalapril Treatment in Patients with Acute Decompensated Heart Failure in Thailand.

BACKGROUND: Sacubitril-valsartan is effective in reducing the N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide level of hospitalized patients with acute decompensated heart failure, with a high acquisition cost compared with enalapril treatment. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to determine the cost utility of sacubitril-valsartan compared with enalapril for acute decompensated heart failure treatment. METHODS: A Markov model was constructed to project the total costs, life-years, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) of early initiation, and a 2-month delay of sacubitril-valsartan treatment and enalapril treatment in hospitalized patients with acute decompensated heart failure over a lifetime horizon from a Thai healthcare system perspective. Clinical inputs were mainly derived from the PIONEER-HF and PARADIGM-HF trials, together with Thai epidemiological data. Cost data were based on the Thai population. All costs and outcomes were discounted at 3% annually. A series of sensitivity analyses were performed. RESULTS: Compared with enalapril, sacubitril-valsartan incurred a higher total cost per year (THB 42,994 [US$1367.48] vs THB 19,787 [US$629.37]), and it gained more QALYs (4.969 vs 4.755). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was THB 108,508/QALY (US$3451.26/QALY). Early initiation of sacubitril-valsartan treatment was more cost effective than delayed treatment. Sensitivity analyses revealed that at a level of willingness to pay of THB 160,000/QALY (US$5089/QALY), sacubitril-valsartan was a cost-effective strategy of about 60%. CONCLUSIONS: Sacubitril-valsartan is cost effective in patients with acute decompensated heart failure. However, the results are highly dependent on the long-term cardiovascular mortality, and they are applicable only to Thailand or countries with a similarly structured healthcare system. Long-term registries should be pursued to decrease the uncertainty around long-term mortality.

Sacubitril/Valsartan Adherence and Postdischarge Outcomes Among Patients Hospitalized for Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction.

OBJECTIVES: The authors sought to investigate associations between sacubitril/valsartan adherence and clinical outcomes after hospitalization for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). BACKGROUND: Sacubitril/valsartan improves outcomes in HFrEF, though the extent to which medication adherence is associated with outcomes in routine care is less well characterized. METHODS: The authors analyzed patients aged ≥65 years hospitalized for HFrEF within the Get With the Guidelines-Heart Failure registry linked with Medicare claims between October 2015 and September 2018 who were discharged with sacubitril/valsartan. Sacubitril/valsartan adherence was assessed using medication fills to calculate proportion of days covered (PDC) through 90 days postdischarge. Associations between postdischarge adherence (PDC < or ≥80%) and risk of readmission and death within 1 year were examined by comparing cumulative incidences and adjusted event rates. RESULTS: Among 897 patients prescribed sacubitril/valsartan at discharge, 295 (32.9%) had PDC ≥80% and 602 (67.1%) had PDC <80%. Baseline characteristics were balanced between groups. Compared with patients with PDC <80%, patients with PDC ≥80% had a significantly lower adjusted hazard of all-cause rehospitalization (HR: 0.66 [95% CI: 0.48-0.89]) and death (HR: 0.42 [95% CI: 0.22-0.79]) at 90 days and at 1 year (HR: 0.69 [95% CI: 0.56-0.86] and HR: 0.53 [95% CI: 0.38-0.74], respectively). For every 5 percentage point increase in PDC, patients experienced a significant reduction in rehospitalization (HR: 0.98 [95% CI: 0.97-0.99]) and death (HR: 0.96 [95% CI: 0.94-0.97]) at 1 year. CONCLUSIONS: In patients hospitalized for HFrEF and discharged on sacubitril/valsartan, high adherence to sacubitril/valsartan within 90 days after discharge was associated with substantially lower rates of readmission and death. Additional efforts to improve adherence with sacubitril/valsartan and other guideline-directed medical therapies in HFrEF are warranted.

Sacubitril/Valsartan Initiation and Postdischarge Adherence Among Patients Hospitalized for Heart Failure.

BACKGROUND: We investigated associations between timing of sacubitril/valsartan initiation and postdischarge adherence among patients hospitalized for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). Clinical trials support initiation of sacubitril/valsartan among patients hospitalized with HFrEF. The association between timing of initiation and postdischarge adherence is unknown. METHODS AND RESULTS: We analyzed patients hospitalized for HFrEF (EF of ≤40%) within the Get With The Guidelines Heart Failure registry linked with Medicare claims between October 2015 and September 2017 who were eligible for sacubitril/valsartan. Follow-up was through December 2018. Patients were grouped by timing of sacubitril/valsartan initiation. Sacubitril/valsartan adherence at 90 and 365 days after discharge was assessed by calculating proportion of days covered (PDC) using medication fills. Among 4666 patients, 108 (2.3%) were continued on sacubitril/valsartan (on sacubitril/valsartan at admission and discharge), 191 (4.1%) were initiated as inpatients, 130 (2.8%) were initiated at discharge, and 4237 (90.1%) were discharged without sacubitril/valsartan. Median (25th, 75th) proportion of days covered through 90 days among those continued, initiated as inpatients, and initiated at discharge was 0.9 (0.6-0.1), 0.3 (0.0-0.7), and 0.0 (0.0-0.7), respectively (P < .001). Patients discharged without sacubitril/valsartan had very low rates of any sacubitril/valsartan fills within 90 and 365 days of discharge (2.1% and 7.7% of surviving patients, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: In 2015-2017 US clinical practice, more than 90% of eligible patients hospitalized for HFrEF were discharged without sacubitril/valsartan. Patients initiated as inpatients had a higher postdischarge proportion of days covered than patients initiated at discharge. Patients discharged without sacubitril/valsartan were unlikely to receive it during follow-up. These findings highlight the importance of initiating sacubitril/valsartan during hospitalization to improve the quality of care.

Cost-effectiveness analyses of sacubitril-valsartan for heart failure.

The objective of this study was to evaluate the pharmacoeconomic value of sacubitril-valsartan for the treatment of heart failure (HF). PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, ScienceDirect, Scopus, CNKI, Wanfang, and VIP databases were searched systematically and the retrieval time ended in August 2019. According to the criteria of inclusion and exclusion, the quality of studies included was evaluated as per the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) scale, and the results were extracted and analyzed systematically. The total of 11 cost-effectiveness studies was identified, 10 were performed in the developed countries and 1 in Thailand. All the patients in the studies had chronic heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). Totally, the quality of all the 11 studies was reported to be of an average score of 20.5. Study perspective and time horizons were described in the 11 studies. All included studies discounted the cost or effectiveness. Only 1 study estimated direct and indirect costs; 10 studies evaluated direct cost. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of sacubitril-valsartan treating HFrEF was $13,150 per quality-adjusted life-years (QALY) in Thailand and $86,735 in Singapore. In European countries, the ICER was from $21,786 to $34,576 per QALY and mean value was $25,410.6 per QALY. In the USA, ICER values ranged from $47,099 to $143,891 per QALY, and mean value was $73,383.5 per QALY; ICER was $30,090 per QALY in Colombia. With the exception of Thailand and Singapore, the ICER of other countries in the included literature was below the implemented country-specific thresholds. Based on existing literatures, with the exception of Thailand and Singapore, sacubitril-valsartan for the treatment of HFrEF is a better cost-effective therapy with ICER basically below the implemented country-specific thresholds. Sacubitril-valsartan was not considered a cost-effective treatment for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction in Thailand and Singapore with the current economic evaluation evidences, but with the willingness-to-pay (WTP) of other counties, sacubitril-valsartan was found to be a cost-effective treatment compared with comparator. Drug cost, time horizon, and hospitalization were the most influential variables across studies. Four studies indicated that with the longer time horizon, the lower ICER value would gain. Further studies are warranted to better evaluate comprehensive utility value of sacubitril-valsartan on heart failure.