Dapagliflozin versus sacubitril-valsartan for heart failure with mildly reduced or preserved ejection fraction.

Background and aim: Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) is associated with an increased risk of heart failure (HF) hospitalizations and cardiovascular death (CVD). Both dapagliflozin and sacubitril-valsartan have recently shown convincing reductions in the combined risk of CVD and HF hospitalizations in patients with HF and mildly reduced ejection fraction (HFmrEF) or HFpEF. We aimed to investigate the cost-per-outcome implications of dapagliflozin vs sacubitril-valsartan in the treatment of HFmrEF or HFpEF patients. Methods: We compared the annualized cost needed to treat (CNT) to prevent the composite outcome of total HF hospitalizations and CVD with dapagliflozin or sacubitril-valsartan. The CNT was estimated by multiplying the annualized number needed to treat (aNNT) by the annual cost of therapy. The aNNT was calculated based on data collected from the DELIVER trial for dapagliflozin and a pooled analysis of the PARAGLIDE-HF and PARAGON-HF trials for sacubitril-valsartan. Costs were based on 2022 US prices. Scenario analyses were performed to attenuate the differences in the studies' populations. Results: The aNNT with dapagliflozin in DELIVER was 30 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 21-62) versus 44 (95% CI: 25-311) with sacubitril-valsartan in a pooled analysis of PARAGLIDE-HF and PARAGON-HF, with an annual cost of $4,951 and $5,576, respectively. The corresponding CNTs were $148,547.13 (95% CI: $103,982.99-$306,997.39) for dapagliflozin and $245,346.77 (95% CI: $139,401.58-1,734,155.60) for sacubitril-valsartan for preventing the composite outcome of CVD and HF hospitalizations. The CNT for preventing all-cause mortality was lower for dapagliflozin than sacubitril-valsartan $1,128,958.15 [CI: $401,077.24-∞] vs $2,185,816.71 [CI: $607,790.87-∞]. Conclusion: Dapagliflozin provides a better monetary value than sacubitril-valsartan in preventing the composite outcome of total HF hospitalizations and CVD among patients with HFmrEF or HFpEF.

Dapagliflozin versus empagliflozin in patients with chronic kidney disease.

Background and Aim: Dapagliflozin and empagliflozin have demonstrated favorable clinical outcomes among patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD). However, their comparative monetary value for improving outcomes in CKD patients is unestablished. We examined the cost-per-outcome implications of utilizing dapagliflozin as compared to empagliflozin for prevention of renal and cardiovascular events in CKD patients. Methods: For calculation of preventable events we divided the allocated budget by the cost needed to treat (CNT) for preventing a single renal or cardiovascular event. CNT was derived by multiplying the annualized number needed to treat (aNNT) by the annual therapy cost. The aNNTs were determined based on data from the DAPA-CKD and EMPEROR-KIDNEY trials. The budget limit was defined based on the threshold recommended by the United States' Institute for Clinical and Economic Review. Results: The aNNT was 42 both dapagliflozin (95% confidence interval [CI]: 34-59) and empagliflozin (CI: 33-66). The CNT estimates for the prevention of one primary event for dapagliflozin and empagliflozin were comparable at $201,911 (CI: $163,452-$283,636) and $209,664 (CI: $164,736-$329,472), respectively. However, diabetic patients had a higher CNT with dapagliflozin ($201,911 [CI: $153,837-$346,133]) than empagliflozin ($134,784 [CI: $109,824-$214,656]), whereas non-diabetic patients had lower CNT for dapagliflozin ($197,103 [CI: $149,029-$346,133]) than empagliflozin ($394,368 [CI: $219,648-$7,093,632]). The CNT for preventing CKD progression was higher for dapagliflozin ($427,858 [CI: $307,673-$855,717]) than empagliflozin ($224,640 [CI: $169,728-$344,448]). For preventing cardiovascular death (CVD), the CNT was lower for dapagliflozin ($1,634,515 [CI: $740,339-∞]) than empagliflozin ($2,990,208 [CI: $1,193,088-∞]). Conclusion: Among patients with CKD, empagliflozin provides a better monetary value for preventing the composite renal and cardiovascular events in diabetic patients while dapagliflozin has a better value for non-diabetic patients. Dapagliflozin provides a better monetary value for the prevention of CVD, whereas empagliflozin has a better value for the prevention of CKD progression.

Liraglutide versus semaglutide for weight reduction-a cost needed to treat analysis.

OBJECTIVE: Higher doses of the glucagon-like peptide-1 agonists liraglutide and, more recently, semaglutide have demonstrated a significant reduction in body weight. However, their comparative value for money for this indication is unclear. METHODS: The cost needed to treat to achieve a 1% reduction in body weight using semaglutide or liraglutide was calculated. The body weight reductions were extracted from the published STEP 1 trial and the SCALE trial results, respectively. A scenario analysis was performed to mitigate the primary differences between the two studies' populations. Drug costs were based on US GoodRx prices as of October 2022. RESULTS: Liraglutide in STEP 1 resulted in a weight loss of 5.4% (95% CI: 5%-5.8%). Semaglutide in SCALE resulted in a weight loss of 12.4% (95% CI: 11.5%-13.4%). The total cost of therapy with liraglutide during the trial was estimated at $17,585 compared with $22,878 with semaglutide. Accordingly, the cost needed to treat per 1% of body weight reduction with liraglutide is estimated at $3256 (95% CI: $3032-$3517) compared with $1845 (95% CI: $1707-$1989) with semaglutide. CONCLUSIONS: Semaglutide provides significantly better value for money than liraglutide for weight reduction.

Effect of Dapagliflozin Versus Empagliflozin on Cardiovascular Death in Patients with Heart Failure Across the Spectrum of Ejection Fraction: Cost per Outcome Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Dapagliflozin and empagliflozin have shown clinical benefits in patients with heart failure (HF). Their comparative monetary value remains undetermined, and we therefore sought to compare the cost-per-outcome implications of utilizing dapagliflozin versus empagliflozin to prevent cardiovascular death (CVD) in patients with HF across the spectrum of ejection fraction. METHODS: We estimated the cost needed to treat (CNT) to prevent one CVD with either dapagliflozin or empagliflozin. CNT was estimated by multiplying the annualized number needed to treat (aNNT) by the annual cost of therapy. The aNNTs were calculated based on data from the DAPA-HF and DELIVER trials for dapagliflozin, and the EMPEROR-Reduced and EMPEROR-Preserved trials for empagliflozin. Drug costs were calculated as 75% of the 2022 US National Average Drug Acquisition Cost. RESULTS: The aNNT to prevent one event of CVD was 110 (95% confidence interval [CI] 58-∞) for dapagliflozin in a pooled analysis of DAPA-HF and DELIVER versus 204 (95% CI 71-∞) for empagliflozin in a pooled analysis of the EMPEROR-Reduced and EMPEROR-Preserved trials. The annual costs of therapy were $4807 and $4992, respectively. The corresponding CNTs were $528,770 (95% CI $278,806-∞) for dapagliflozin and $1,018,368 (95% CI $354,432-∞) for empagliflozin. This remained consistent in Europe, using the price estimates in Germany, with CNT (€77,490 for dapagliflozin and €143,708 for empagliflozin). CONCLUSION: In incorporating data from all four outcomes trials of sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors, dapagliflozin provides better monetary value for preventing CVD events in patients with HF across the spectrum of ejection fraction.

Tirzepatide versus semaglutide for weight loss in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus: A value for money analysis.

AIMS: Higher doses of the glucagon-like peptide-1 agonist semaglutide and, more recently, tirzepatide, a dual glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide and glucagon-like peptide-1 agonist showed a significant reduction in body weight in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. However, their comparative value for money for this indication is unclear. Therefore, we aimed to establish which provides better value for money. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We calculated the cost needed to treat to achieve a 1% reduction in body weight using high-dose tirzepatide (15 mg) versus semaglutide (2.4 mg). The body weight reductions were extracted from published results of SURMOUNT-1 and STEP 1 trials, respectively. In addition, we performed a scenario analysis to mitigate the primary differences between the two study populations. Drug costs were based on US GoodRx prices as of October 2022. RESULTS: Using tirzepatide resulted in a weight loss of 17.8% (95% CI: 16.3%-19.3%) compared with 12.4% (95% CI: 11.5%-13.4%) for semaglutide. The total cost of 72 weeks of tirzepatide was estimated at $17 527 compared with $22 878 for 68 weeks of semaglutide. Accordingly, the cost needed to treat per 1% of body weight reduction with tirzepatide is estimated at $985 (95% CI: $908-$1075) compared with $1845 (95% CI: $1707-$1989) with semaglutide. Scenario analysis confirmed these findings. CONCLUSIONS: Tirzepatide provides better value for money than semaglutide for weight reduction.

Aspirin with Low-Dose Ticagrelor or with Low-Dose Rivaroxaban for Secondary Prevention: A Cost per Outcome Analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Secondary prevention of cardiovascular events among patients with diagnosed cardiovascular disease and high ischemic risk poses a significant challenge in clinical practice. The combinations of aspirin with low-dose (LD) ticagrelor or LD rivaroxaban have shown superiority in preventing major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) compared with aspirin treatment alone. The comparative value for money of these two regimens remains unexplored. METHODS: We analyzed each regimen's annual cost needed to treat (CNT) by multiplying the annualized number needed to treat (aNNT) by the annual cost of each drug. The aNNTs were based on outcome data from PEGASUS TIMI-54 and COMPASS trials. Scenario analyses were performed to overcome variances in terms of population risk. Costs were calculated as 75% of US National Average Drug Acquisition Cost (NADAC), extracted in January 2022. The primary outcome was defined as CNT to prevent one MACE across the two regimens. Secondary value analysis was performed for myocardial infarction (MI), stroke, and cardiovascular death as separate outcomes. RESULTS: The aNNTs to prevent MACE with LD ticagrelor and with LD rivaroxaban were 229 [95% confidence interval (CI) 141-734] and 147 (95% CI 104-252), respectively. At an annual cost of US$3726 versus US$4533, the corresponding CNTs were US$853,254 (95% CI 525,366-2,734,884) with LD ticagrelor and US$666,351 (95% CI 471,432-1,142,316) with LD rivaroxaban. CONCLUSION: Combining aspirin with LD rivaroxaban provides better value for money than with LD ticagrelor for secondary prevention of MACE.

Oral versus subcutaneous semaglutide for prevention of major adverse cardiovascular events: cost per outcome analysis of SUSTAIN-6 and PIONEER-6.

BACKGROUND: Semaglutide, a glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist (GLP1a), reduces the risk of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) in patients with Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). An oral version of semaglutide is now available, and patients may prefer it over the subcutaneous form. Our objective was to compare the value for money of the two modalities by assessing the cost needed to treat (CNT) to prevent MACE. METHODS: The CNT to prevent MACE was figured by multiplying the one-year number needed to treat (NNT) with either oral or subcutaneous semaglutide by the annual cost of therapy. Efficacy estimates and the resulting NNT figures were extracted from the published results of the SUSTAIN-6 and the PIONEER-6 trials for the injectable and oral versions of semaglutide, respectively. Drug costs were estimated as 75% of the United States national average drug acquisition cost listing in June 2021. We performed a scenario analysis to mitigate the primary differences between the populations in the two trials. Sensitivity analysis was performed to evaluate the effect of price changes of the interventions. RESULTS: The CNT to prevent one MACE with subcutaneous semaglutide in SUSTAIN-6 was $966,693 ($594,888-$5,035,302) compared to $948,689 ($463,465-∞) with oral semaglutide in PIONEER-6. The scenario analysis demonstrated a 17% lower CNT for oral semaglutide. The difference between CNTs was sensitive to price fluctuations of the two interventions. CONCLUSIONS: Oral and subcutaneous semaglutide prescribed to prevent MACE in patients with T2DM provide similar value for money. The choice between both therapies should be guided mainly by patient preferences.

Usefulness of Empagliflozin Versus Oral Semaglutide for Prevention of Cardiovascular Mortality in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus.

Empagliflozin and oral semaglutide reduce the incidence of cardiovascular mortality (CVM) in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. However, these therapies impose a significant financial burden on healthcare systems. Therefore, we compared the value for money of empagliflozin versus oral semaglutide to prevent CVM. We calculated the cost needed to treat to prevent 1 case of CVM using either drug by multiplying the annualized number needed to treat to prevent 1 event by the annual cost of the therapy. Efficacy estimates were extracted from published randomized controlled trials data. We performed a scenario analysis to mitigate the primary differences between the populations of randomized controlled trials. Drug costs were calculated as 75% of the United States National Average Drug Acquisition Cost listing. The annualized number needed to treat for empagliflozin in EMPA-REG-OUTCOME was 141 (95% confidence interval [CI] 104 to 230) and 141 (95% CI 96 to 879) for oral semaglutide in PIONEER 6. The annual treatment costs are $4,797 for empagliflozin versus $7,133 for oral semaglutide. Therefore, the corresponding costs needed to treat are $676,385 ($498,894-$1,101,039) and $1,005,855 (95% CI $684,837-$6,270,544) respectively. In conclusion, our findings suggest that empagliflozin provides better value for money than oral semaglutide to prevent CVM in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus at the current United States prices of the interventions.

Dapagliflozin Versus Sacubitril-Valsartan to Improve Outcomes of Patients with Reduced Ejection Fraction and Diabetes Mellitus.

BACKGROUND: Comorbid heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM) is associated with a very high risk of HF events. Sacubitril-valsartan, an angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI), and dapagliflozin, a sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitor, improve HF outcomes in these patients, but their comparative value for money in this patient population has not yet been determined. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to compare the cost needed to treat (CNT) to avoid an HF event with each drug. METHODS: CNT was estimated by multiplying the annualized number needed to treat (NNT) to prevent one HF event by the annual cost of each therapy. HF events were defined as the first event of hospitalization for HF or cardiovascular mortality. Drug efficacy data were extracted from published secondary analyses of patients with DM in the DAPA-HF and PARADIGM-HF trials. Drug costs were estimated as 75% of the 2021 US National Average Drug Acquisition Cost listing. Sensitivity analysis was performed on parameters that may have affected the CNT. RESULTS: The annualized NNT was 24 (95% confidence interval [CI] 16-54) for dapagliflozin and 57 (95% CI 31-433) for the ARNI. At an annual cost of $US4523 and 5099, respectively, the CNT was $US108,563 (95% CI 72,375-244,267) for dapagliflozin and $US290,671 (95% CI 158,084-2,208,079) for the ARNI. CONCLUSIONS: Dapagliflozin seems to offer greater value for money than the ARNI for patients with HFrEF and DM. Our results provide support for contemporary guidelines advocating the use of dapagliflozin in these patients.

Usefulness of Sodium-Glucose Cotransporter 2 Inhibitors for Primary Prevention of Heart Failure in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus.

The sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors (SGLT2i) empagliflozin, canagliflozin, and dapagliflozin reduce the risk of heart failure (HF) events in patients with diabetes mellitus (DM) at high risk for HF. Differences in HF outcomes between SGLT2i were demonstrated in a recent-published meta-analysis. Nevertheless, comparative cost-effectiveness analyses of SGLT2i provided for this indication have not been published yet. Therefore, we aimed to provide a preceding economic comparison of the costs required for improving HF outcomes by these three SGLT2i. The primary outcome was the cost needed to treat (CNT) to prevent one event of hospitalization for HF or cardiovascular mortality. CNT is calculated by multiplying the annualized number needed to treat to prevent one event by the annual cost of therapy. Clinical outcome data were extracted from pre-specified cohorts of HF-naïve patients in the pivotal randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Costs of interventions were estimated as 75% of the US National Average Drug Acquisition Cost listing. Sensitivity analysis was performed to mitigate differences between the RCT's populations. We figured the CNT for the primary prevention of HF events in DM patients to be $542,328 ($409,044-$905,412) for empagliflozin, $2,347,488 ($1,066,208-∞) for canagliflozin and $2,128,374 ($1,204,740-$48,140,518) for dapagliflozin. Sensitivity analysis confirmed the cost benefit of empagliflozin. Our findings suggest that between the available SGLT2i, the cost of primary prevention of HF in patients with DM at high risk for HF is lowest with empagliflozin. These findings may help choose an SGLT2i until head-to-head RCTs, and comprehensive cost-effective analyses for this indication are available.

Dapagliflozin vs. sacubitril-valsartan for prevention of heart failure events in non-diabetic patients with reduced ejection fraction: a cost per outcome analysis.

AIMS: The Angiotensin Receptor-Neprilysin Inhibitor sacubitril-valsartan (ARNI) and dapagliflozin, a sodium-glucose transport protein 2 inhibitor, reduce the risk of heart failure hospitalization (hHF) and cardiovascular (CV) mortality in patients with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). Their comparative value for money is undetermined. Therefore, our aim was to compare the cost per outcome implications of utilizing dapagliflozin vs. ARNI for preventing heart failure (HF) events of non-diabetic patients with HFrEF. METHODS AND RESULTS: We calculated the cost needed to treat (CNT) to prevent one HF event. The cost needed to treat was estimated by multiplying the annualized number needed to treat (NNT) to prevent one event by each therapy's annual cost. Efficacy estimates were extracted from published secondary analyses of non-diabetic patients in DAPA-HF and PARADIGM-HF trials. Drug costs were estimated as 75% of the 2020 US National Average Drug Acquisition Cost listing. Sensitivity analysis was performed to mitigate differences between the trial's populations and drug costs in various countries.The annualized NNT to prevent one HF event for dapagliflozin was 31 (95% CI 21-71) vs. 33 (95% CI 24-62) for ARNI. The CNT of dapagliflozin in the US is $141 112 (95% CI $95 592-$323 192) compared to $158 169 (95% CI $115 032-$297 166) for sacubitril-valsartan. The CNT results were sensitive to drug costs in various countries. CONCLUSION: Dapagliflozin and ARNI provide comparable value for money for preventing HF events in non-diabetic patients with HFrEF. In healthcare settings where dapagliflozin's price is significantly lower than ARNI, it provides superior value for money.

Icosapent Ethyl for Primary Versus Secondary Prevention of Major Adverse Cardiovascular Events in Hypertriglyceridemia: Value for Money Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Icosapent ethyl (IPE) is approved for the prevention of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) in patients with hypertriglyceridemia. However, due to budget constraints, access to IPE will inevitably be limited to a fraction of eligible patients. To help maximize value for money spent, we estimated the number of preventable MACE when providing IPE for primary versus secondary prevention. METHODS: The number of preventable MACE was estimated by dividing the available budget by the cost needed to treat (CNT) to prevent one MACE. CNT was calculated as the product of the number needed to treat (NNT) to prevent 1 MACE by therapy cost. NNT values were determined according to the Reduction of Cardiovascular Events with Icosapent Ethyl-Intervention Trial (REDUCE-IT) results. The budget limit was set as the United States' threshold suggested by the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review. Sensitivity analysis was performed regarding the cost of IPE in the United States. RESULTS: The NNT to prevent 1 MACE over 4.9 years in the Reduction of Cardiovascular Events with Icosapent Ethyl-Intervention Trial primary prevention cohort was 59 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 24-∞) versus 14 (11-21) for secondary prevention. At an annual IPE cost of $2915, the CNT to prevent 1 MACE was $842,726 (95% CI: $342,804-∞) and $199,969 ($157,118-$299,953) accordingly. A total of $819 million worth of IPE can avoid 4762 MACE (95% CI: 0-11,707) versus 20,069 (13,379-25,541), when provided as primary versus secondary prevention therapy; P < .001. The number of avoided MACE is sensitive to IPE price. CONCLUSIONS: Prioritizing IPE therapy for patients with an established cardiovascular disease may provide significantly more value for money than primary prevention.

Correction to: Sodium-Glucose Cotransporter 2 Inhibitors for Prevention of Heart Failure Events in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: A Cost Per Outcome Analysis.

The original version of this article unfortunately contained a mistake. The correct information is given below.

Sodium-Glucose Cotransporter 2 Inhibitors for Prevention of Heart Failure Events in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: A Cost Per Outcome Analysis.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors (SGLT2i) have significant efficacy in reducing the risk of hospitalization for heart failure (hHF) or cardiovascular (CV) mortality in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). However, there are differences in HF outcomes between the SGLT2i. Therefore, we compared the cost needed to achieve these outcomes between empagliflozin, canagliflozin, and dapagliflozin. METHODS: We calculated the cost needed to treat (CNT) in order to prevent one event of hHF or CV mortality, by multiplying the annualized number needed to treat (NNT) to prevent one event, by the annual cost of each therapy. Efficacy estimates were extracted from published randomized controlled trial (RCT) data. A sensitivity analysis was performed to mitigate differences between the RCT populations. Drug costs were extracted from the 2020 US National Average Drug Acquisition Cost listing. RESULTS: We figured empagliflozin's CNT to be $664,464 (95% CI $499,872-$1,097,280), $1,535,387 (95% CI $886,074-$3,210,501) for canagliflozin, and $2,693,145 (95% CI $1,639,563-$11,092,206) for dapagliflozin. The sensitivity analysis confirmed the cost advantage of empagliflozin. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that empagliflozin prescribed for preventing CV death or hHF in T2DM patients seems to be cost saving compared to treatment with canagliflozin, and dapagliflozin.