Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Empagliflozin for Treatment of Patients With Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction in the United States.

BACKGROUND: In the EMPEROR-Reduced trial (Empagliflozin Outcome Trial in Patients with Chronic Heart Failure and a Reduced Ejection Fraction), empagliflozin plus standard of care reduced the composite of cardiovascular death or hospitalization for heart failure versus standard of care in adults with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction. This analysis investigated the cost-effectiveness of the 2 regimens from the perspective of US payors. METHODS AND RESULTS: A Markov cohort model was developed based on Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire Clinical Summary Score quartiles and death. Transition probabilities between health states, risk of cardiovascular/all-cause death, hospitalization for heart failure and adverse events, treatment discontinuation, and health utilities were estimated from trial data. Medicare and commercial payment rates were combined for treatment acquisition, acute event management, and disease management. An annual discount rate of 3% was used. Empagliflozin plus standard of care yielded 18% fewer hospitalizations for heart failure and 6% fewer deaths versus standard of care over a lifetime, providing cost-offsets while adding 0.19 life years and 0.19 quality-adjusted life years at an incremental cost of $16 815/patient. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was $87 725/quality-adjusted life years gained. Results were consistent across payors, subpopulations, and in deterministic sensitivity analyses. In probabilistic sensitivity analyses, empagliflozin plus standard of care was cost-effective in 3%, 62%, and 80% of iterations at thresholds of $50 000, $100 000, and $150 000/quality-adjusted life years. CONCLUSIONS: Empagliflozin plus standard of care may prevent hospitalizations for heart failure, extend life, and increase quality-adjusted life years for patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction at an acceptable cost for US payors.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of empagliflozin in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction in Japan based on the EMPEROR-Reduced trial.

BACKGROUND: Several studies have reported the cost-effectiveness of sodium-glucose co-transporter 2 inhibitors in heart failure patients; however, their economic implications have not been sufficiently elucidated in Japan. METHODS: A Markov cohort model was developed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of empagliflozin plus standard of care (SoC) vs. SoC for patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) in Japan. Model inputs, including risk of clinical events, costs, and utilities based on Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire Clinical Summary Scores were derived from EMPEROR-Reduced trial data, published literature, and a claims database. RESULTS: The model predicted lower lifetime hospitalizations for heart failure (HHFs) and additional quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs; 0.21) for empagliflozin plus SoC vs. SoC in the overall population. Increased costs of ¥100,495/patient ($772/patient), primarily driven by higher drug costs of ¥239,558/patient ($1,840/patient), were largely offset by reduced HHF management costs of -¥166,160/patient (-$1,276/patient), yielding an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of ¥469,672/QALY ($3,608/QALY). Results were consistent among subgroups and sensitivity analyses. In probabilistic sensitivity analysis, 82.5 % of runs were below the Japanese ICER reference value of ¥5,000,000/QALY ($38,408/QALY). CONCLUSIONS: Empagliflozin was demonstrated to be cost-effective for HFrEF patients in Japan based on the EMPEROR-Reduced trial data.

Cost-Effectiveness of Tepotinib Versus Capmatinib for the Treatment of Adult Patients With Metastatic Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer Harboring Mesenchymal-Epithelial Transition Exon 14 Skipping.

OBJECTIVES: From the US Medicare perspective, this study compared the cost-effectiveness of tepotinib and capmatinib for treating metastatic non-small cell lung cancer with tumors harboring mesenchymal-epithelial transition factor gene exon 14 skipping. METHODS: A 3-state partitioned survival model assessed outcomes over a lifetime horizon. Parametric survival analysis of the phase 2 VISION trial informed clinical inputs for tepotinib. Capmatinib inputs were captured using hazard ratios derived from an unanchored matching-adjusted indirect comparison study and published literature. National cost databases, trial data, and literature furnished drug, treatment monitoring, and disease/adverse event management expenditures (2021 US dollars) and utility inputs. Outcomes were discounted at 3% annually. RESULTS: In the base case, tepotinib dominated capmatinib in frontline settings (incremental discounted quality-adjusted life-years [QALYs] and costs of 0.2127 and -$47 756, respectively) while realizing an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $274 514/QALY in subsequent lines (incremental QALYs and costs of 0.3330 and $91 401, respectively). In a line agnostic context, tepotinib produced an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $105 383/QALY (incremental QALYs and costs of 0.2794 and $29 447, respectively). Sensitivity and scenarios analyses for individual lines typically supported the base case, whereas those for the line agnostic setting suggested sensitivity to drug acquisition costs and efficacy inputs. CONCLUSIONS: Tepotinib could be cost-effective versus capmatinib in frontline and line agnostic contexts, considering the range of willingness-to-pay thresholds recommended by the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review ($100 000-$150 000/QALY). Tepotinib could be cost-effective in subsequent lines at higher willingness-to-pay levels. These results are to be interpreted cautiously, considering uncertainty in key model inputs.

A European multinational cost-effectiveness analysis of empagliflozin in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction.

PURPOSE: This research examined the cost-effectiveness of adding empagliflozin to standard of care (SoC) compared with SoC alone for treatment of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) from the perspective of healthcare payers in the United Kingdom (UK), Spain and France. METHODS: A lifetime Markov cohort model was developed to simulate patients' progression through health states based on Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire Clinical Summary Score. The model predicted risk of death, hospitalisation for worsening heart failure (HHF), treatment-related adverse events, and treatment discontinuation each monthly cycle. Clinical inputs and utilities were derived from EMPEROR-Reduced trial data, supplemented by published literature and national costing databases. Costs (2021 pound sterling/euro) and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were discounted annually for the UK (3.5%), Spain (3.0%) and France (2.5%). RESULTS: In the UK, Spain and France, empagliflozin plus SoC yielded additional QALYs (0.19, 0.23 and 0.21) at higher cost (£1185, €1770 and €1183 per patient) than SoC alone, yielding incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of £6152/QALY, €7736/QALY and €5511/QALY, respectively. Reduced HHF incidence provided most cost offsets for empagliflozin plus SoC. Similar results were obtained for a range of subgroups and sensitivity analyses. Probabilistic sensitivity results indicated empagliflozin plus SoC remained cost-effective vs. SoC at willingness-to-pay thresholds of £20,000/QALY, €20,000/QALY and €30,000/QALY in 79.6%, 75.5% and 97.3% of model runs for the UK, Spain and France, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Empagliflozin added to SoC leads to health benefits for patients with HFrEF and is a cost-effective treatment option for payers in multiple European countries (UK, Spain, France).

Cost-Effectiveness of Empagliflozin in Patients With Diabetic Kidney Disease in the United States: Findings Based on the EMPA-REG OUTCOME Trial.

RATIONALE & OBJECTIVE: Benefits of sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors on kidney outcomes have been demonstrated in clinical trials. Among patients with type 2 diabetes and established cardiovascular (CV) disease enrolled in the EMPA-REG OUTCOME study (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT01131676), empagliflozin added to standard of care (SOC) reduced the risk of incident or worsening nephropathy compared with SOC alone. This analysis evaluated the cost-effectiveness of empagliflozin versus SOC alone in the subpopulation with diabetic kidney disease (DKD) from the perspective of US commercial insurers and Medicare. STUDY DESIGN: Discrete event simulation model. SETTING & POPULATION: Patients with DKD in a US health care system. INTERVENTIONS: Empagliflozin 10 or 25mg with SOC versus SOC alone. SOC included glucose-lowering therapies and medications to treat CV risk factors. OUTCOMES: Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (2020 US dollars per quality-adjusted life-year [QALY] gained). Costs and QALYs were discounted 3.0% per year. MODEL, PERSPECTIVE, & TIME FRAME: Cost-effectiveness analysis, commercial insurers and Medicare perspective, lifetime horizon. RESULTS: The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of empagliflozin with SOC versus SOC alone was $25,974 per QALY. Empagliflozin added 0.67 QALYs and $17,322 per patient over a lifetime horizon. Results were driven by fewer clinical events (including CV death, heart failure hospitalization, albuminuria progression, and a composite kidney outcome) experienced by patients receiving empagliflozin with SOC versus SOC alone. Results were sensitive to rates of CV death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, and heart failure hospitalization, as well as to drug costs and time horizon. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses indicated 91% of simulations at <$50,000 per QALY. LIMITATIONS: The EMPA-REG OUTCOME study was not powered to assess treatment benefits in a subgroup and excluded patients with estimated glomerular filtration rate<30mL/min/1.73m2. CONCLUSIONS: Based on the EMPA-REG OUTCOME study, this cost-effectiveness analysis suggests that, for commercial insurers and Medicare, adding empagliflozin to SOC may be a cost-effective treatment option for patients with DKD.

Budget impact of tepotinib in the treatment of adult patients with metastatic non-small cell lung cancer harboring METex14 skipping alterations in the United States.

AIMS: To estimate the budget impact of adding tepotinib to United States (US) health plans for treating adult patients with metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (mNSCLC) harboring mesenchymal-epithelial transition exon 14 (METex14) skipping alterations. METHODS: The base-case analysis was conducted from the perspective of a hypothetical Medicare plan of 1 million members. Scenarios were analysed for other US health plans. Treatments included tepotinib, capmatinib, crizotinib, and standard of care (SoC). Patients eligible for tepotinib were estimated from published epidemiological data and literature, and real-world evidence. Clinical inputs were derived from the phase II VISION trial, US prescribing information, and published literature. Tepotinib uptake and projected testing rates for METex14 skipping alterations were based on market research. Unit costs (2020 US dollars (USD)) and resource utilization associated with drug acquisition and administration, treatment monitoring, disease and adverse event (AE) management, and subsequent treatment were derived primarily from public sources. RESULTS: In the base-case, 38-65 patients were eligible for tepotinib each year over the three-year time horizon. The cumulative net budgetary impact of tepotinib was -$692,541 (-2.6%); $26,531,670 in the scenario without tepotinib and $25,839,129 in the scenario with tepotinib. A negligible net budget impact was observed per member per month (PMPM) at $0.2457 and $0.2393, respectively, before and after tepotinib's introduction. Results were most sensitive to variability in unit costs of capmatinib and tepotinib and their corresponding median treatment durations. Sensitivity and scenario analyses support the conclusion that introducing tepotinib will have minimal budgetary impact for Medicare health plans. Similar results were obtained for other US health plans. LIMITATIONS: Assumptions and expert opinion were applied to address data gaps in key model inputs. CONCLUSIONS: The estimated budgetary impact of tepotinib for the treatment of adult patients with mNSCLC harboring METex14 skipping alterations is minimal from the perspective of US health plans.

Cost-effectiveness of empagliflozin in the UK in an EMPA-REG OUTCOME subgroup with type 2 diabetes and heart failure.

AIMS: Heart failure (HF) and type 2 diabetes (T2D), common co-morbidities, translate into worse patient prognoses and higher direct costs than for either condition alone. Empagliflozin has been shown to markedly reduce cardiovascular (CV) deaths and HF hospitalizations (HHF) in HF patients with T2D. This study evaluated the lifetime cost-effectiveness of supplementing standard of care (SoC) with empagliflozin, relative to SoC alone, in HF patients with T2D from the UK payer perspective. METHODS AND RESULTS: An existing discrete-event simulation model was adapted for the economic evaluation. Risk equations developed from time-dependent parametric survival analyses using patient-level HF subpopulation data from the EMPA-REG OUTCOME trial were employed to predict CV and renal events. Non-CV death, utility weights, and costs were drawn from UK sources. Quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and costs were discounted at 3.5% per annum. Relative to SoC, empagliflozin with SoC yielded fewer first HHF, recurrent HHF, CV death, and non-fatal myocardial infarction but more non-fatal stroke events. Empagliflozin with SoC vs. SoC alone was associated with increased average life expectancy (10.80 vs. 9.59 LYs) and quality of life (6.27 vs. 5.62 QALYs), though at higher lifetime cost (£18 197 vs. £16 829) per person, resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £2093 per QALY. The probability of empagliflozin being cost-effective in the HF subpopulation at a £20 000 per QALY willingness-to-pay threshold was 91%. CONCLUSIONS: This analysis suggests that adding empagliflozin to SoC in HF patients with T2D constitutes a cost-effective use of UK healthcare resources and may provide long-term health benefits to patients.