Public Health Impact and Cost-Effectiveness of Empagliflozin (JARDIANCE®) in the Treatment of Patients with Heart Failure with Preserved Ejection Fraction in France, Based on the EMPEROR-Preserved Clinical Trial.

INTRODUCTION: The efficacy and safety of empagliflozin in the treatment of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) were demonstrated in the EMPEROR-Preserved trial, which showed a 21% reduction in combined risks of cardiovascular death or HF hospitalization [hazard ratio (HR) 0.79; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.69-0.90, p < 0.001] and a 27% reduction in the total number of HF hospitalizations (HR 0.73; 95% CI 0.61-0.88, p < 0.001) compared with placebo. On the basis of these results, the present study aimed to assess the cost-effectiveness of empagliflozin + standard of care (SoC) compared with SoC alone in the treatment of HFpEF. METHODS: A published Markov model was adapted to compare the health and economic outcomes in France, considering a collective perspective, in patients treated with empagliflozin in addition to SoC versus patients treated by SoC alone. The model simulated the intention-to-treat (ITT) population of the trial, transitioning between four mutually exclusive health states representing the quartiles of the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire-Clinical Summary Score (KCCQ-CSS). For each arm, the model estimated (over a lifetime time horizon) the economics and the health outcomes (HF hospitalizations avoided, and life years and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained) to calculate the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). The resources used were derived by pairing the FREnch Survey on HF (FRESH) cohort data to French health insurance claims data, and the utilities were derived on the basis of the EQ-5D-5L questionnaire valued on the French tariff. Both economic and health outcomes were discounted at a 2.5% annual rate. RESULTS: The model predicted that treatment of HFpEF patients with empagliflozin would prevent, for 1000 patients treated, 74 HF hospitalizations and 15 deaths attributable to cardiovascular events, resulting on average in a gain of 1 month in overall survival (7.24 versus 7.16 years with placebo) and 0.11 QALYs (6.14 versus 6.03 with placebo). Empagliflozin costs were partially offset by the cost savings from avoided hospitalizations. The ICERs were €18,597 per life year gained and €13,980 per QALY gained. The sensitivity analyses conducted showed that empagliflozin has a 65% probability to be cost-effective under the €25,000/QALY threshold. CONCLUSIONS: The base-case results showed that empagliflozin is a cost-effective strategy for management of HFpEF, in addition to the impact on public health by preventing HF-hospitalizations and deaths in France. Sensitivity analyses suggest that 65% of simulations are under the €25,000/QALY threshold.

Real-world cost-effectiveness analysis of NOACs versus VKA for stroke prevention in Spain.

AIMS: A Markov model was adapted to assess the real-world cost-effectiveness of rivaroxaban, dabigatran and apixaban. Each of these non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants was compared with vitamin K antagonist for stroke prevention in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation in Spain. METHODS: All inputs were derived from real-world studies: baseline patient characteristics, clinical event rates, as well as persistence rates for the vitamin K antagonist treatment option. A meta-analysis of real-world studies provided treatment effect and persistence data for rivaroxaban, dabigatran and apixaban, each compared with vitamin K antagonist therapy. The model considered 3-month cycles over a lifetime horizon. The model outcomes included different costs, quality-adjusted life years and life-years gained. Sensitivity analyses were performed to test the robustness of the model. RESULTS: When compared with vitamin K antagonist, rivaroxaban incurred incremental costs of €77 and resulted in incremental quality-adjusted life years of 0.08. The incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year was €952. For the same comparison, the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year for dabigatran was €4,612. Finally, compared with vitamin K antagonist, the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year for apixaban was €32,015. The sensitivity analyses confirmed the robustness of the base case results. The probabilities to be cost-effective versus vitamin K antagonist were 94%, 86% and 35%, respectively, for rivaroxaban, dabigatran and apixaban, considering a willingness-to-pay threshold of €22,000 per quality-adjusted life year gained, based on a cost-effectiveness study of the Spanish National Health System. CONCLUSION: These results suggest that rivaroxaban and dabigatran are cost-effective versus vitamin K antagonist for stroke prevention in non-valvular atrial fibrillation, from the Spanish National Health System perspective.

Real-world cost-effectiveness of rivaroxaban and apixaban vs VKA in stroke prevention in non-valvular atrial fibrillation in the UK.

BACKGROUND: Morbidity and mortality associated with non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) imposes a substantial economic burden on the UK healthcare system. OBJECTIVES: An existing Markov model was adapted to assess the real-world cost-effectiveness of rivaroxaban and apixaban, each compared with a vitamin K antagonist (VKA), for stroke prevention in patients with NVAF from the National Health Service (NHS) and personal and social services (PSS) perspective. METHODS: The model considered a cycle length of 3 months over a lifetime horizon. All inputs were drawn from real-world evidence (RWE): baseline patient characteristics, clinical event and persistence rates, treatment effect (meta-analysis of RWE studies), utility values and resource use. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed. RESULTS: The incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year was £14,437 for rivaroxaban, and £20,101 for apixaban, compared with VKA. The probabilities to be cost-effective compared with VKA were 90% and 81%, respectively for rivaroxaban and apixaban, considering a £20,000 threshold. In both comparisons, the results were most sensitive to clinical event rates. CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that rivaroxaban and apixaban are cost-effective vs VKA, based on RWE, considering a £20,000 threshold, from the NHS and PSS perspective in the UK for stroke prevention in patients with NVAF. This economic evaluation may provide valuable information for decision-makers, in a context where RWE is more accessible and its value more acknowledged.