How Do the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review's Assessments of Comparative Effectiveness Compare With the German Federal Joint Committee's Assessments of Added Benefit? A Qualitative Study.

OBJECTIVES: We compared the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review's (ICER) ratings of comparative clinical effectiveness with the German Federal Joint Committee's (G-BA) added benefit ratings, and explored what factors may explain the disagreement between the 2 organizations. METHODS: We included drugs if they were assessed by ICER under its 2020 to 2023 Value Assessment Framework and had a corresponding assessment by G-BA as of January 2024 for the same indication, patient population, and comparator drug. To compare assessments, we modified ICER's proposed crosswalk between G-BA and ICER benefit ratings to account for G-BA's certainty ratings. We also determined whether each pair was based on similar evidence. Assessment pairs exhibiting disagreement based on the modified crosswalk despite a similar evidence base were qualitatively analyzed to identify reasons for disagreement. RESULTS: Out of 15 drug assessment pairs matched on indication, patient subgroup, and comparator, none showed agreement in their assessments when based on similar evidence. Disagreement was attributed to differences in evidence evaluation, including evaluations of safety, generalizability, and study design, as well as G-BA's rejection of the available evidence in 4 cases as unsuitable. CONCLUSIONS: The findings demonstrate that even under conditions where populations and comparators are identical and the evidence base is consistent, different assessors may arrive at divergent conclusions about comparative effectiveness, thus underscoring the presence of value judgments within assessments of clinical effectiveness. To support initiatives that seek to facilitate the exchange of value assessments between countries, these value judgments should always be transparently presented and justified in assessment summaries.

Informing the US Medicare drug price negotiation for apixaban and rivaroxaban: Methodological considerations for value assessments many years after launch.

OBJECTIVES: To demonstrate how health technology assessment (HTA) methods can be used to support Medicare's price negotiations for apixaban and rivaroxaban. METHODS: Following the statutory outline of evidence that will be considered by Medicare, we conducted a systematic literature review, network meta-analyses (NMAs), and decision analyses to evaluate the health outcomes and costs associated with apixaban and rivaroxaban compared to warfarin and dabigatran for patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation. Our methods inform discussions about the therapeutic impact of apixaban and rivaroxaban and suggest price premiums above their therapeutic alternatives over a range of cost-effectiveness thresholds. RESULTS: NMAs found apixaban resulted in a lower risk of major bleeding compared to warfarin and dabigatran, and a lower risk of stroke/systemic embolism compared to warfarin, but not compared to dabigatran. Rivaroxaban resulted in a lower risk of stroke/systemic embolism versus warfarin but not dabigatran, and there was no difference in major bleeding. Decision-analytic modeling of apixaban suggested annual price premiums up to $4,350 above the price of warfarin and up to $530 above the price for dabigatran at cost-effectiveness thresholds up to $200,000 per equal value of life years gained. Analyses of rivaroxaban showed an annual price premium of up to $3,920 above warfarin, and no premium above that paid for dabigatran. CONCLUSIONS: Although HTA is typically performed near the time of regulatory approval, with modifications, we produced comparative clinical and relative cost-effectiveness findings to help guide negotiations on a "fair" price for drugs on the market for over a decade.

Identification of Clinically Significant Cytokine Signature Clusters in Patients With Septic Shock.

OBJECTIVES: To identify cytokine signature clusters in patients with septic shock. DESIGN: Prospective observational cohort study. SETTING: Single academic center in the United States. PATIENTS: Adult (≥ 18 yr old) patients admitted to the medical ICU with septic shock requiring vasoactive medication support. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: One hundred fourteen patients with septic shock completed cytokine measurement at time of enrollment (t 1 ) and 24 hours later (t 2 ). Unsupervised random forest analysis of the change in cytokines over time, defined as delta (t 2 -t 1 ), identified three clusters with distinct cytokine profiles. Patients in cluster 1 had the lowest initial levels of circulating cytokines that decreased over time. Patients in cluster 2 and cluster 3 had higher initial levels that decreased over time in cluster 2 and increased in cluster 3. Patients in clusters 2 and 3 had higher mortality compared with cluster 1 (clusters 1-3: 11% vs 31%; odds ratio [OR], 3.56 [1.10-14.23] vs 54% OR, 9.23 [2.89-37.22]). Cluster 3 was independently associated with in-hospital mortality (hazard ratio, 5.24; p = 0.005) in multivariable analysis. There were no significant differences in initial clinical severity scoring or steroid use between the clusters. Analysis of either t 1 or t 2 cytokine measurements alone or in combination did not reveal clusters with clear clinical significance. CONCLUSIONS: Longitudinal measurement of cytokine profiles at initiation of vasoactive medications and 24 hours later revealed three distinct cytokine signature clusters that correlated with clinical outcomes.

The Influence of US Drug Price Dynamics on Cost-Effectiveness Analyses of Biologics.

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to evaluate the influence of drug price dynamics in cost-effectiveness analyses. METHODS: We evaluated scenarios involving typical US drug price increases during the exclusivity period and price decreases after the loss of exclusivity (LOE). Worked examples are presented using the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review's assessments of tezepelumab for the treatment of severe asthma and targeted immune modulators for rheumatoid arthritis. RESULTS: Tezepelumab case: yearly 2% price increases during the period of exclusivity and a post-LOE price decrease of 25% yielded an incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained that increased over the base case from $430 300 to $444 600 (+3.2%). Yearly 2% price increases followed by a steeper post-LOE price reduction of 40% resulted in a cost per QALY gained of $401 400 (6.8% reduction vs the base case). Rheumatoid arthritis case: incorporating post-LOE price reductions for etanercept (intervention) and adalimumab (comparator) ranging from 25% to 40% yielded an incremental cost per QALY of $121 000 and $122 300, respectively (< 3% increase from the base case of $119 200/QALY). Including a 2% yearly price increase during the projected exclusivity periods of both intervention and comparator increased the cost per QALY gained by > 60%. CONCLUSION: Two biologic treatment cases incorporating price dynamics in cost-effectiveness analyses had varied impacts on the cost-effectiveness ratio depending on the magnitude of pre-LOE price increase and post-LOE price decrease and whether the LOE also affected the comparator. Yearly price increase magnitude during the period of exclusivity, among other factors, may counterbalance the effects of lower post-LOE intervention prices.

Designing a Value-Based Formulary for a Commercial Health Plan: A Simulated Case Study of Diabetes Medications.

OBJECTIVES: The healthcare expenditure for managing diabetes with glucose-lowering medications has been substantial in the United States. We simulated a novel, value-based formulary (VBF) design for a commercial health plan and modeled possible changes in spending and utilization of antidiabetic agents. METHODS: We designed a 4-tier VBF with exclusions in consultation with health plan stakeholders. The formulary information included covered drugs, tiers, thresholds, and cost sharing amounts. The value of 22 diabetes mellitus drugs was determined primarily in terms of incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. Using pharmacy claims database (2019-2020), we identified 40 150 beneficiaries who were on the included diabetes mellitus medicines. We simulated future health plan spending and out-of-pocket costs with 3 VBF designs, using published own price elasticity estimates. RESULTS: The average age of the cohort is 55 years (51% female). Compared with the current formulary, the proposed VBF design with exclusions is estimated to reduce total annual health plan spending by 33.2% (current: $33 956 211; VBF: $22 682 576), saving $281 in annual spending per member (current: $846; VBF: $565) and $100 in annual out-of-pocket spending per member (current: $119; VBF: $19). Implementing the full VBF with new cost shares, along with exclusions, has the potential to achieve the greatest savings, compared with the 2 intermediate VBF designs (ie, VBF with prior cost sharing and VBF without exclusions). Sensitivity analyses using various price elasticity values showed declines in all spending outcomes. CONCLUSION: Designing a VBF with exclusions in a US employer-based health plan has the potential to reduce health plan and patient spending.

Cost-Effectiveness of Nadofaragene Firadenovec and Pembrolizumab in Bacillus Calmette-Guérin Immunotherapy Unresponsive Non-Muscle Invasive Bladder Cancer.

OBJECTIVES: Nadofaragene firadenovec is a gene therapy for bacillus Calmette-Guérin (BCG)-unresponsive non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC) undergoing Food and Drug Administration review. Pembrolizumab is approved for treating patients with BCG-unresponsive NMIBC with carcinoma in situ (CIS). We evaluated the cost-effectiveness of these treatments compared with a hypothetical therapeutic alternative, at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $150 000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained, in CIS and non-CIS BCG-unresponsive NMIBC populations. METHODS: We developed a Markov cohort simulation model with a 3-month cycle length and lifetime horizon to estimate the total costs, QALYs, and cost per additional QALY from the health sector perspective. Clinical inputs were informed by results of single-arm clinical trials evaluating the treatments, and systematic literature reviews were conducted to obtain other model inputs. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess uncertainty in model results. RESULTS: Nadofaragene firadenovec, at a placeholder price 10% higher than the price of pembrolizumab, had an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $263 000 and $145 000 per QALY gained in CIS and non-CIS populations, respectively. Pembrolizumab had an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $168 000 per QALY gained for CIS. A 5.4% reduction in pembrolizumab's price would make it cost-effective. The model was sensitive to many inputs, especially to the probabilities of disease progression, initial treatment response and durability, and drug price. CONCLUSIONS: The cost-effectiveness of nadofaragene firadenovec will depend upon its price. Pembrolizumab, although not cost-effective in our base-case analysis, is an important alternative in this population with an unmet medical need. Comparative trials of these treatments are warranted to better estimate cost-effectiveness.

The Cost-Effectiveness of Remdesivir for Hospitalized Patients With COVID-19.

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to estimate the cost-effectiveness of remdesivir, the first novel therapeutic to receive Emergency Use Authorization for the treatment of hospitalized patients with COVID-19, and identify key drivers of value to guide future pricing and reimbursement efforts. METHODS: A Markov model evaluated the cost-effectiveness of remdesivir in patients hospitalized with COVID-19 from a US healthcare sector perspective. A lifetime time horizon captured potential long-term costs and outcomes. Model outcomes included discounted total costs, life-years, and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). Remdesivir was modeled as an addition to standard of care and compared with standard of care alone, including dexamethasone for patients requiring respiratory support. COVID-19 hospitalizations were assumed to be reimbursed through a single payment based on the respiratory support received alongside a remdesivir carveout payment in the base case. Sensitivity and scenario analyses identified key drivers. RESULTS: At a unit price of $520 per vial and assuming no survival benefit with remdesivir, the incremental cost-effectiveness was $298 200/QALY for patients with moderate to severe COVID-19 and $1 847 000/QALY for patients with mild COVID-19. Although current data do not support a survival benefit, if one was assumed, the cost-effectiveness estimate was $50 100/QALY for the moderate to severe population and $103 400/QALY for the mild population. Another key driver included the hospitalization payment structure (per diem vs bundled payment). CONCLUSIONS: With the current evidence available, remdesivir's price is too high to align with its expected health gains for hospitalized patients with COVID-19. Results from this study provide a rationale for iterative health technology assessment.

Does Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Overvalue Potential Cures? Exploring Alternative Methods for Applying a "Shared Savings" Approach to Cost Offsets.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate alternative methods to calculate and/or attribute economic surplus in the cost-effectiveness analysis of single or short-term therapies. METHODS: We performed a systematic literature review of articles describing alternative methods for cost-effectiveness analysis of potentially curative therapies whose assessment using traditional methods may suggest unaffordable valuations owing to the magnitude of estimated long-term quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gains or cost offsets. Through internal deliberation and discussion with staff at the Health Technology Assessment bodies in England and Canada, we developed the following 3 alternative methods for further evaluation: (1) capping annual costs in the comparator arm at $150 000 per year; (2) "sharing" the economic surplus with the health sector by apportioning only 50% of cost offsets or 50% of cost offsets and QALY gains to the value of the therapy; and (3) crediting the therapy with only 12 years of the average annual cost offsets or cost offsets and QALY gains over the lifetime horizon. The impact of each alternative method was evaluated by applying it in an economic model of 3 hypothetical condition-treatment scenarios meant to reflect a diversity of chronicity and background healthcare costs. RESULTS: The alternative with greatest impact on threshold price for the fatal pediatric condition spinal muscular atrophy type 1 was the 12-year cutoff scenario. For a hypothetical one-time treatment for hemophilia A, capping cost offsets at $150 000 per year had the greatest impact. For chimeric antigen receptor T-cell treatment of non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, capping cost offsets or using 12-year threshold had little impact, whereas 50% sharing of surplus including QALY gains and cost offsets greatly reduced threshold pricing. CONCLUSIONS: Health Technology Assessment bodies and policy makers will wrestle with how to evaluate single or short-term potentially curative therapies and establish pricing and payment mechanisms to ensure sustainability. Scenario analyses using alternative methods for calculating and apportioning economic surplus can provide starkly different assessment results. These methods may stimulate important societal dialogue on fair pricing for these novel treatments.

Bedside estimates of dead space using end-tidal CO2 are independently associated with mortality in ARDS.

PURPOSE: In acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), dead space fraction has been independently associated with mortality. We hypothesized that early measurement of the difference between arterial and end-tidal CO2 (arterial-ET difference), a surrogate for dead space fraction, would predict mortality in mechanically ventilated patients with ARDS. METHODS: We performed two separate exploratory analyses. We first used publicly available databases from the ALTA, EDEN, and OMEGA ARDS Network trials (N = 124) as a derivation cohort to test our hypothesis. We then performed a separate retrospective analysis of patients with ARDS using University of Chicago patients (N = 302) as a validation cohort. RESULTS: The ARDS Network derivation cohort demonstrated arterial-ET difference, vasopressor requirement, age, and APACHE III to be associated with mortality by univariable analysis. By multivariable analysis, only the arterial-ET difference remained significant (P = 0.047). In a separate analysis, the modified Enghoff equation ((PaCO2-PETCO2)/PaCO2) was used in place of the arterial-ET difference and did not alter the results. The University of Chicago cohort found arterial-ET difference, age, ventilator mode, vasopressor requirement, and APACHE II to be associated with mortality in a univariate analysis. By multivariable analysis, the arterial-ET difference continued to be predictive of mortality (P = 0.031). In the validation cohort, substitution of the arterial-ET difference for the modified Enghoff equation showed similar results. CONCLUSION: Arterial to end-tidal CO2 (ETCO2) difference is an independent predictor of mortality in patients with ARDS.

Evolving targets for sedation during mechanical ventilation.

PURPOSES OF REVIEW: Critically ill patients frequently require mechanical ventilation as part of their care. Administration of analgesia and sedation to ensure patient comfort and facilitate mechanical ventilation must be balanced against the known negative consequences of excessive sedation. The present review focuses on the current evidence for sedation management during mechanical ventilation, including choice of sedatives, sedation strategies, and special considerations for acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). RECENT FINDINGS: The Society of Critical Care Medicine recently published their updated clinical practice guidelines for analgesia, agitation, sedation, delirium, immobility, and sleep in adult patients in the ICU. Deep sedation, especially early in the course of mechanical ventilation, is associated with prolonged time to liberation from mechanical ventilation, longer ICU stays, longer hospital stays, and increased mortality. Dexmedetomidine may prevent ICU delirium when administered nocturnally at low doses; however, it was not shown to improve mortality when used as the primary sedative early in the course of mechanical ventilation, though the majority of patients in the informing study failed to achieve the prescribed light level of sedation. In a follow up to the ACURASYS trial, deep sedation with neuromuscular blockade did not result in improved mortality compared to light sedation in patients with severe ARDS. SUMMARY: Light sedation should be targeted early in the course of mechanical ventilation utilizing daily interruptions of sedation and/or nursing protocol-based algorithms, even in severe ARDS.

How Are Incremental Cost-Effectiveness, Contextual Considerations, and Other Benefits Viewed in Health Technology Assessment Recommendations in the United States?

OBJECTIVES: To review assessments from the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER) and describe how cost-effectiveness, other benefits or disadvantages, and contextual considerations affect Council members' assessments of value. METHODS: Assessments published by the ICER between December 2014 and April 2019 were reviewed. Data on the assessment, intervention, results from cost-effectiveness analyses, and Council members' votes were extracted. Voting data were examined using bar charts and radar plots. Spearman's correlations between the number of votes for other benefits and contextual considerations were estimated. Two case studies (tisagenlecleucel and voretigene neparvovec) explored the relationship between different aspects of value and the vote. RESULTS: Thirty-one ICER assessments were reviewed, which included 51 value votes and 17 votes on other benefits and contextual considerations. On average, interventions with lower cost-effectiveness ratios received a higher proportion of high and intermediate value votes; however, there was heterogeneity across assessments. Of other benefits or disadvantages, having a novel mechanism of action received the most votes (n = 138), and reducing health disparities received the fewest (n = 24). Of contextual considerations, treating a condition that has a severe impact on length and quality of life received the most votes (n = 164). There was a strong positive correlation between votes for reduced caregiver/family burden and improving return to work/productivity (ρ = 0.88, P < .05). Two case studies highlighted that factors beyond cost-effectiveness can lead to lower (tisagenlecleucel) or higher (voretigene neparvovec) assessments of value. CONCLUSION: Council members' judgments about the value of interventions are influenced by other benefits or disadvantages and contextual considerations but anchored by cost-effectiveness.

New Cost-Effectiveness Methods to Determine Value-Based Prices for Potential Cures: What Are the Options?

Evaluating different approaches to assessing the clinical effectiveness and value of potential cures will be essential to arm the policymaker, payer, and manufacturer communities with a platform that can reward innovation while supporting a sustainable health insurance system. Potential cures will accentuate concerns about substantial uncertainty in long-term outcomes. They will also focus attention on whether broader elements of value need to be incorporated and whether specific social values have a special place in evaluations of potential cures. In addition, the large magnitudes of potential health gain and cost offsets may require new methods before translation into value-based price recommendations. This article analyzes the challenges and presents several options to modify the conduct and presentation of cost-effectiveness analyses to ensure they provide policy-relevant assessments of the value of potential cures.

The ICER Value Framework: Integrating Cost Effectiveness and Affordability in the Assessment of Health Care Value.

What should be the relationship between the concepts of cost effectiveness and affordability in value assessments for health care interventions? This question has received greater attention in recent years given increasing financial pressures on health systems, leading to different views on how assessment reports and decision-making processes can provide the best structure for considering both elements. In the United States, the advent of explicit value frameworks to guide drug assessments has also focused attention on this issue, driven in part by the prominent inclusion of affordability within the value framework used to guide reports from the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review. After providing a formal definition of affordability for health care systems, this article argues that, even after using empirical estimates of true health system opportunity cost, cost-effectiveness thresholds cannot by themselves be set in a way that subsumes questions about short-term affordability. The article then presents an analysis of different approaches to integrating cost effectiveness and budget impact assessments within information to guide decision making. The evolution and experience with the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review value framework are highlighted, providing lessons learned and guiding principles for future efforts to bring measures of affordability within the scope of value assessment.

Evaluating and Valuing Drugs for Rare Conditions: No Easy Answers.

We find ourselves in an era of unprecedented growth in the development and use of so-called "orphan" drugs to treat rare diseases, which are poised to represent more than one-fifth of pharmaceutical expenditures by 2022. This widespread use has been facilitated by legislative and regulatory incentives in both the United States and abroad, yet US payers and health systems have not yet made a concerted effort to understand whether and how rare diseases require special considerations on their part and how to adapt traditional methods of health technology assessment and economic evaluation to accommodate these situations. In this article, we explore the general ethical dilemmas that rare diseases present, steps taken by health technology assessment bodies worldwide to define the level of rarity that would necessitate special measures and the modifications to their assessment and valuation processes needed, and the contextual components for rare-disease evaluation that lie outside of the assessment framework as a guide to US decision makers on constructing a formal and relevant process stateside.

Comparative effectiveness of targeted immunomodulators for the treatment of moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis: A systematic review and network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The comparative effectiveness of available targeted immunomodulators for moderate-to-severe psoriasis has not been evaluated. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the comparative effectiveness of targeted immunomodulators for adults with moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis. METHODS: Systematic literature review of placebo-controlled and head-to-head randomized trials of 8 targeted immunomodulators that evaluated clinical benefits or harm. The primary outcome was a 75% improvement on the Psoriasis Area and Severity Index. We also conducted a network meta-analysis adjusted for placebo response to perform indirect comparisons between agents. RESULTS: In the network meta-analysis, the targeted immunomodulators ordered by increasing relative risk (demonstrating greater likelihood) of achieving a 75% improvement on the Psoriasis Area and Severity Index relative to placebo were as follows: apremilast (6.2), etanercept (9.6), adalimumab (13.0), ustekinumab (14.0), secukinumab (15.4), infliximab (16.2), brodalumab (17.3), and ixekizumab (17.9). Ixekizumab, brodalumab, and infliximab were all statistically superior to ustekinumab, adalimumab, etanercept, and apremilast; results were similar to those of head-to-head studies where data were available. LIMITATIONS: Much of the evidence is short-term (covering 10-16 weeks); limited direct comparisons. CONCLUSIONS: The interleukin 17A inhibitors are more effective in achieving clearance than ustekinumab, and they are generally more effective than etanercept, adalimumab, and apremilast.

Developing a Value Framework: The Need to Reflect the Opportunity Costs of Funding Decisions.

A growing number of health care systems internationally use formal economic evaluation methods to support health care funding decisions. Recently, a range of organizations have been advocating forms of analysis that have been termed "value frameworks." There has also been a push for analytical methods to reflect a fuller range of benefits of interventions through multicriteria decision analysis. A key principle that is invariably neglected in current and proposed frameworks is the need to reflect evidence on the opportunity costs that health systems face when making funding decisions. The mechanisms by which opportunity costs are realized vary depending on the system's financial arrangements, but they always mean that a decision to fund a specific intervention for a particular patient group has the potential to impose costs on others in terms of forgone benefits. These opportunity costs are rarely explicitly reflected in analysis to support decisions, but recent developments to quantify benefits forgone make more appropriate analyses feasible. Opportunity costs also need to be reflected in decisions if a broader range of attributes of benefit is considered, and opportunity costs are a key consideration in determining the appropriate level of total expenditure in a system. The principles by which opportunity costs can be reflected in analysis are illustrated in this article by using the example of the proposed methods for value-based pricing in the United Kingdom.

Assessing the value of mepolizumab for severe eosinophilic asthma: a cost-effectiveness analysis.

BACKGROUND: Adding mepolizumab to standard treatment with inhaled corticosteroids and controller medications could decrease asthma exacerbations and use of long-term oral steroids in patients with severe disease and increased eosinophils; however, mepolizumab is costly and its cost effectiveness is unknown. OBJECTIVE: To estimate the cost effectiveness of mepolizumab. METHODS: A Markov model was used to determine the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained for mepolizumab plus standard of care (SoC) and for SoC alone. The population, adults with severe eosinophilic asthma, was modeled for a lifetime time horizon. A responder scenario analysis was conducted to determine the cost effectiveness for a cohort able to achieve and maintain asthma control. RESULTS: Over a lifetime treatment horizon, 23.96 exacerbations were averted per patient receiving mepolizumab plus SoC. Avoidance of exacerbations and decrease in long-term oral steroid use resulted in more than $18,000 in cost offsets among those receiving mepolizumab, but treatment costs increased by more than $600,000. Treatment with mepolizumab plus SoC vs SoC alone resulted in a cost-effectiveness estimate of $386,000 per QALY. To achieve cost effectiveness of approximately $150,000 per QALY, mepolizumab would require a more than 60% price discount. At current pricing, treating a responder cohort yielded cost-effectiveness estimates near $160,000 per QALY. CONCLUSION: The estimated cost effectiveness of mepolizumab exceeds value thresholds. Achieving these thresholds would require significant discounts from the current list price. Alternatively, treatment limited to responders improves the cost effectiveness toward, but remains still slightly above, these thresholds. Payers interested in improving the efficiency of health care resources should consider negotiations of the mepolizumab price and ways to predict and assess the response to mepolizumab.

Cost-Effectiveness of Sacubitril-Valsartan in Patients With Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction.

BACKGROUND: Sacubitril-valsartan therapy reduces cardiovascular mortality compared with enalapril therapy in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of sacubitril-valsartan versus angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor therapy in patients with chronic heart failure. DESIGN: Markov decision model. DATA SOURCES: Clinical trials, observational analyses, reimbursement data from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, drug pricing databases, and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention life tables. TARGET POPULATION: Patients at an average age of 64 years, New York Heart Association (NYHA) class II to IV heart failure, and left ventricular ejection fraction of 0.40 or less. TIME HORIZON: Lifetime. PERSPECTIVE: Societal. INTERVENTION: Treatment with sacubitril-valsartan or lisinopril. OUTCOME MEASURES: Life-years, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), costs, heart failure hospitalizations, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. RESULTS OF BASE-CASE ANALYSIS: The sacubitril-valsartan group experienced 0.08 fewer heart failure hospitalization, 0.69 additional life-year, 0.62 additional QALY, and $29 203 in incremental costs, equating to a cost per QALY gained of $47 053. The cost per QALY gained was $44 531 in patients with NYHA class II heart failure and $58 194 in those with class III or IV heart failure. RESULTS OF SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS: Sacubitril-valsartan treatment was most sensitive to the duration of improved outcomes, with a cost per QALY gained of $120 623 if the duration was limited to the length of the trial (median, 27 months). No variations in other parameters caused the cost to exceed $100 000 per QALY gained. LIMITATION: The benefit of sacubitril-valsartan is based on a single clinical trial. CONCLUSION: Treatment with sacubitril-valsartan provides reasonable value in reducing cardiovascular mortality and morbidity in patients with NYHA class II to IV heart failure. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs and Institute for Clinical and Economic Review.