Cost-effectiveness of Sacubitril-Valsartan in Hospitalized Patients Who Have Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction

Angiotensin Receptor-Neprilysin Inhibitor Prescribing Patterns in Patients Hospitalized for Heart Failure

Importance

Angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibition (ARNI) improves mortality among patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), ie, those with an EF of 40% or less.

Objective

To describe national longitudinal trends in ARNI prescribing patterns among hospitalized patients with HFrEF.

Design, Setting, and Participants

Using data from the Get With The Guidelines-Heart Failure (GWTG-HF) registry, hospitalized patients with HFrEF at 614 participating hospitals were identified. Rates of ARNI, angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor (ACEI), and angiotensin II receptor blocker (ARB) prescription at discharge were evaluated across 3 time periods. Adjusted logistic regression and piecewise logistic regression were used to evaluate the impact of publication dates on ARNI prescription rates.

Exposures

ARNI prescribing patterns in hospitalized patients with HFrEF.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Rates of ARNI, ACEI, and ARB prescription at discharge were evaluated across 3 time periods as follows: (1) period 1 included the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval of sacubitril-valsartan to the day before the PIONEER-HF (Comparison of Sacubitril-Valsartan vs Enalapril on Effect on N-Terminal Pro-Brain Natriuretic Peptide in Patients Stabilized From an Acute Heart Failure Episode) trial publication (July 7, 2015-November 10, 2018); (2) period 2 included the day of the PIONEER-HF trial publication to the day before publication of the 2021 Update to the 2017 Consensus for Optimization of Heart Failure Treatment (November 11, 2018-January 10, 2021); and (3) period 3 included the day of the 2021 update publication to the last available data at the time of analysis (January 11, 2021-December 31, 2022).

Results

A total of 114 333 hospitalized patients (mean [IQR] age, 67.0 [57.0-78.0] years; 74 765 male [65.4%]) were included in this study. Rates of ARNI prescribed at discharge increased from 1.1% (27 of 2451) during July 7, 2015, to September 30, 2015, to 55.4% (1957 of 3536) during October 1, 2022, to December 31, 2022. ACEI or ARB prescription at discharge fell from 88.3% (2612 of 2957) to 45.9% (2033 of 4434) over the same period, whereas ACEI, ARB, or ARNI prescription increased from 71.1% (2639 of 3713) to 84.7% (3990 of 4711). In adjusted logistic regression models, compared with period 1, patients discharged during period 2 and period 3 were found to have a 3.81-fold (95% CI, 3.65-3.98) and 9.15-fold (95% CI, 8.79-9.52) increased odds of ARNI prescription at discharge, and a 0.46 (95% CI, 0.45-0.48) and 0.25 (95% CI, 0.24-0.26) decreased odds of ACEI or ARB prescription at discharge.

Conclusions and Relevance

Results of this cross-sectional study reveal that in the 7 years after FDA drug approval of sacubitril-valsartan, rates of ARNI or ACEI, ARB, or ARNI prescription at discharge increased, and rates of ACEI or ARB prescription decreased. Overall prescription of ARNI at discharge was 55.4% in eligible patients at the end of the study, suggesting remaining opportunity for continued improvement in ARNI prescription.

Health Care Spending After Initiating Sacubitril-Valsartan vs Renin-Angiotensin System Blockers for Heart Failure Treatment

Importance

For patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), treatment with sacubitril-valsartan, an angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor, has become increasingly preferred over angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACE-Is) and angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs). However, sacubitril-valsartan is much more expensive than generic ACE-I/ARBs. It is unknown whether the high cost of sacubitril-valsartan is offset by lower spending on hospitalizations and other treatments.

Objective

To compare total and out-of-pocket health care spending among Medicare beneficiaries initiating sacubitril-valsartan vs ACE-I/ARBs for HFrEF.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This was a cohort study using data from Medicare fee-for-service claims with propensity score matching of Medicare beneficiaries with HFrEF. Data analysis was performed from November 2022 to December 2023.

Exposure

Initiation of sacubitril-valsartan or an ACE-I/ARB. Patients were matched by propensity score based on 104 covariates, including demographic characteristics, comorbidities, baseline annual spending, and baseline use of health care services.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Mean total and out-of-pocket health care expenditures during the 365 days after initiating sacubitril-valsartan or an ACE-I/ARB. Censoring for incomplete follow-up was addressed using Kaplan-Meier probability weighting. Cost differences, cost ratios, and 95% CIs were calculated using a nonparametric bootstrapping method with 500 samples drawn with replacement.

Results

Among 13 755 matched pairs of Medicare patients with HFrEF (mean [SD] age, 77.5 [7.5] years; 5138 [39%] 80 years or older; 9949 females [36%] and 17 561 males [64%]), mean annual total health care spending per person was similar for sacubitril-valsartan initiators and ACE-I/ARB initiators (difference, $701; 95% CI, -$132 to $1593). Sacubitril-valsartan initiators had higher prescription drug costs (difference, $1911; 95% CI, $1704 to $2113), lower inpatient costs (difference, -$790; 95% CI, -$1468 to -$72), lower outpatient costs (difference, -$330; 95% CI, -$664 to -$11), and higher annual out-of-pocket spending (difference, $109; 95% CI, $13 to $208).

Conclusions and Relevance

This cohort study found that Medicare beneficiaries initiating sacubitril-valsartan to treat HFrEF had similar total health care spending as those initiating ACE-I/ARBs; higher prescription drug spending was offset by lower inpatient and outpatient spending. However, sacubitril-valsartan use was associated with higher patient out-of-pocket costs, which may exacerbate health disparities and limit access and affordability.

Safety and Tolerability of Initiating Sacubitril-Valsartan With Spironolactone During Hospitalization for Acute Decompensated Heart Failure

Background: Initiation of sacubitril-valsartan and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRA) during hospitalization for acute decompensated heart failure (ADHF) may be an ideal time to optimize guideline-directed medical therapy. However, there is limited research assessing the safety of combining these agents in the hospital. Methods: This was a multi-center, retrospective, propensity-score matched cohort study performed at 7 acute-care hospitals within a large health care system. All adult patients admitted with ADHF between January 1, 2019 to December 31, 2021 who received sacubitril-valsartan with MRA (MRA group) or without MRA (non-MRA group) and had a left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) < 40% were included in the study. Results: 220 patients were screened during the study time frame with 179 meeting inclusion criteria. Following propensity-score matching, 50 patients in the MRA group were matched to 50 patients in the non-MRA group. The overall incidence of adverse drug reactions (ADRs) was 24% in the non-MRA group compared to 20% in the MRA group (P = .629). There was a significantly greater incidence of hyperkalemia in the MRA group (0% vs 10%; P = .022). None of the patients in the non-MRA group were readmitted within 30 days due to an ADR compared to 6% in the MRA group (P = .079). Conclusion: The addition of spironolactone to sacubitril-valsartan in the hospital setting following stabilization of ADHF did not lead to a significantly greater incidence of overall ADRs, but patients were more likely to develop hyperkalemia and there was a numerically higher incidence of 30-day readmissions due to ADRs.

Industry marketing payments to physicians and prescription patterns for sacubitril/valsartan in the USA

OBJECTIVES

Although financial interactions between physicians and pharmaceutical and medical device companies could be potential conflicts of interest, in certain instances, industry promotion targeted at physicians may facilitate the early adoption of effective, novel care for patients such as sacubitril/valsartan in the USA. This study aims to evaluate associations between industry-sponsored meal payments to physicians and their prescribing patterns for sacubitril/valsartan in the USA.

METHODS

Using the publicly accessible Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Medicare Part D database and the Open Payments Database, this study assessed associations between industry-sponsored meal payments to physician prescribers and total amounts of Medicare claims and spending for sacubitril/valsartan between 2015 and 2021.

RESULTS

Among 220 147 eligible physician prescribers, 60 568 (27.5%) received at least one meal payment related to sacubitril/valsartan from the manufacturer, totaling US$13.9 million. The receipt of meal payments was significantly associated with a higher proportion of sacubitril/valsartan prescriptions to all sacubitril/valsartan, angiotensin receptor blocker and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor prescriptions, with an OR of 2.04 (95% CI: 1.98 to 2.10, p<0.001). Moreover, a 10% increase in the annual number of meal payments was associated with a 2.6% (95% CI: 2.5% to 2.6%, p<0.001) increase in the annual number of Medicare claims and a 7.3% (95% CI: 7.1% to 7.5%, p<0.001) increase in annual Medicare spending per physician.

CONCLUSIONS

Given the underprescription of sacubitril/valsartan in the USA, the positive associations between meal payments and physicians' prescribing patterns suggest that industry-sponsored meals may contribute to the early adoption of this cost-effective, novel heart failure drug among US Medicare beneficiaries.

Efficacy of sacubitril/valsartan combined with dapagliflozin in treating patients with heart failure and diabetes after an acute myocardial infarction

Objective

To investigate the efficacy of sacubitril/valsartan combined with dapagliflozin in diabetic patients suffering from heart failure following an acute myocardial infarction.

Methods

This retrospective study included 80 diabetic patients who had heart failure after an acute myocardial infarction (AMI) and were hospitalised at First Hospital of Qinhuangdao between January 2021 and January 2023. They were randomly divided into the control and observation groups (each group n = 40). In addition to fundamental anti-heart failure treatment, the control group was administered with sacubitril/valsartan, whereas the observation group received sacubitril/valsartan combined with dapagliflozin. The treatment lasted for six months, and the patient's glucose-associated targets and prognosis before and after treatment were compared in both groups.

Results

Six months after the treatment, the fasting blood glucose, 2-h postprandial blood glucose and HbA1c levels of patients from both groups significantly decreased. The decrease was more prominent in the observation group than in the control group, with significant differences (P < 0.05). Additionally, the LVEF, CO, CI and NT-proBNP levels considerably decreased in both groups after treatment, with the observation group exhibiting a more notable decrease that was significantly different (P < 0.05). An inter-group comparison showed that the differences were not significant (P > 0.05).

Conclusions

In diabetic patients suffering from heart failure after an AMI, treatment with sacubitril/valsartan combined with dapagliflozin may effectively control blood glucose levels and improve cardiac functions without increasing adverse reactions, indicating high clinical safety.

2024 Update to the 2020 ACC/AHA Clinical Performance and Quality Measures for Adults With Heart Failure: A Report of the American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology Joint Committee on Performance Measures

This document describes performance measures for heart failure that are appropriate for public reporting or pay-for-performance programs and is meant to serve as a focused update of the "2020 ACC/AHA Clinical Performance and Quality Measures for Adults With Heart Failure: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Performance Measures." The new performance measures are taken from the "2022 AHA/ACC/HFSA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines" and are selected from the strongest recommendations (Class 1 or Class 3). In contrast, quality measures may not have as much evidence base and generally comprise metrics that might be useful for clinicians and health care organizations for quality improvement but are not yet appropriate for public reporting or pay-for-performance programs. New performance measures include optimal blood pressure control in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction, the use of sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors for patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, and the use of guideline-directed medical therapy in hospitalized patients. New quality measures include the use of sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors in patients with heart failure with mildly reduced and preserved ejection fraction, the optimization of guideline-directed medical therapy prior to intervention for chronic secondary severe mitral regurgitation, continuation of guideline-directed medical therapy for patients with heart failure with improved ejection fraction, identifying both known risks for cardiovascular disease and social determinants of health, patient-centered counseling regarding contraception and pregnancy risks for individuals with cardiomyopathy, and the need for a monoclonal protein screen to exclude light chain amyloidosis when interpreting a bone scintigraphy scan assessing for transthyretin cardiac amyloidosis.

2024 Update to the 2020 ACC/AHA Clinical Performance and Quality Measures for Adults With Heart Failure: A Report of the American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology Joint Committee on Performance Measures

This document describes performance measures for heart failure that are appropriate for public reporting or pay-for-performance programs and is meant to serve as a focused update of the "2020 ACC/AHA Clinical Performance and Quality Measures for Adults With Heart Failure: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Performance Measures." The new performance measures are taken from the "2022 AHA/ACC/HFSA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines" and are selected from the strongest recommendations (Class 1 or Class 3). In contrast, quality measures may not have as much evidence base and generally comprise metrics that might be useful for clinicians and health care organizations for quality improvement but are not yet appropriate for public reporting or pay-for-performance programs. New performance measures include optimal blood pressure control in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction, the use of sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors for patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, and the use of guideline-directed medical therapy in hospitalized patients. New quality measures include the use of sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors in patients with heart failure with mildly reduced and preserved ejection fraction, the optimization of guideline-directed medical therapy prior to intervention for chronic secondary severe mitral regurgitation, continuation of guideline-directed medical therapy for patients with heart failure with improved ejection fraction, identifying both known risks for cardiovascular disease and social determinants of health, patient-centered counseling regarding contraception and pregnancy risks for individuals with cardiomyopathy, and the need for a monoclonal protein screen to exclude light chain amyloidosis when interpreting a bone scintigraphy scan assessing for transthyretin cardiac amyloidosis.

Effect of sacubitril/valsartan on hospital readmissions in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction in Saudi Arabia: A multicenter retrospective cohort study

Sacubitril/valsartan is an angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI) that has been shown in multiple clinical trials to have clinical benefits and is recommended by major clinical management guidelines as a first-line treatment for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). The most significant benefit that was observed in clinical trials is its effect in reducing hospital readmissions. However, little evidence supports its effectiveness in practice, especially in Saudi Arabia. A multicenter retrospective cohort study was conducted using the patient medical records at 2 tertiary hospitals in Saudi Arabia. Eligible patients were adults (≥18 years old) with a confirmed diagnosis of HFrEF who were discharged on either sacubitril/valsartan or angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEI)/angiotensin receptor blockers (ARB) in addition to the other recommended therapy for HFrEF. The primary endpoint was the all-cause 30-day readmission rate. The secondary endpoints included all-cause readmissions at 60-day, 90-day, and 12 months. Additionally, 30-day, 60-day, and 90-day readmissions due to HF were evaluated. A total of 398 patients were included in our analysis; 199 (50.0%) received sacubitril/valsartan (group 1), and 199 (50.0%) received ACEI/ARB (group 2). Our results showed that all-cause 30-day readmissions in group 1 were significantly lower than in group 2 (7% vs 25.0%, RR 0.28, 95% Cl 0.16-0.49; P < .001). Additionally, the secondary outcomes showed significantly fewer 60-day, 90-day, and 12-month all-cause readmissions were identified in group 1 compared to group 2 (11% vs 30.7%, RR 0.36, 95% CI 0.23-0.56; P < .001), (11.6%. vs 32.6%, RR 0.35, 95% CI 0.23-0.55; P < .001) and (23.6% vs 51.2%, RR 0.46, 95% CI 0.35-0.62; P < .001), respectively. Furthermore, HF readmissions at 30-day, 60-day, and 90-day in group 1 were significantly lower than in group 2 (P < .05). Sacubitril/valsartan for the treatment of HFrEF is associated with a significantly lower rate of all-cause readmission as well as HF readmissions compared to ACEI/ARB. These benefits extend up to 12 months post-discharge.

Budget impact analyses for treatment of heart failure. A systematic review

Heart failure (HF) is increasing globally and turning out to be a serious worldwide public health problem with significant morbidity and mortality. This study aims to systemically review the budget impact analysis of heart failure treatments on health care expenditure worldwide. Scientific databases such as PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar were searched for budget impact analysis and heart failure treatments, over January 2001 to August 2023. The quality assessment of the selected studies was evaluated through ISPOR practice guideline. Nineteen studies were included in this systematic review. Based on ISPOR recommendations, most studies were performed on a 1-year time horizon and used a government (public health) or health system perspective. Data for selected studies was mainly collected from randomized clinical trials, published literature, pharmaceutical companies, and registry data. Only direct costs were reported in the studies. Sensitivity analyses were stated in almost all studies. However, studies conducted in high-income countries reported sensitivity analyses more elaborately than those performed in low- and middle-income countries. In many published articles related to the budget impact analyses of heart failure treatment, addition of new treatments to the health system's formularies can lead to a reduction in cardiovascular hospitalization rates, re-hospitalization rates, cardiac-associated mortality rates, and an improvement in heart failure class, which can decrease the costs of hospitalizations, specified care visits, primary care visits, and other related treatments.

Cost Effectiveness of Dapagliflozin for Heart Failure Across the Spectrum of Ejection Fraction: An Economic Evaluation Based on Pooled, Individual Participant Data From the DELIVER and DAPA-HF Trials

BACKGROUND

The sodium glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors are guideline-recommended to treat heart failure across the spectrum of left ventricular ejection fraction; however, economic evaluations of adding sodium glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors to standard of care in chronic heart failure across a broad left ventricular ejection fraction range are lacking.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We conducted a US-based cost-effectiveness analysis of dapagliflozin added to standard of care in a chronic heart failure population using pooled, participant data from the DAPA-HF (Dapagliflozin and Prevention of Adverse Outcomes in Heart Failure) and DELIVER (Dapagliflozin Evaluation to Improve the Lives of Patients With Preserved Ejection Fraction Heart Failure) trials. The 3-state Markov model used estimates of transitional probabilities, effectiveness of dapagliflozin, and utilities from the pooled trials. Costs estimates were obtained from published sources, including published rebates in dapagliflozin cost. Adding dapagliflozin to standard of care was estimated to produce an additional 0.53 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) compared with standard of care alone. Incremental cost effectiveness ratios were $85 554/QALY when using the publicly reported full (undiscounted) Medicare cost ($515/month) and $40 081/QALY, at a published nearly 50% rebate ($263/month). The addition of dapagliflozin to standard of care would be of at least intermediate value (<$150 000/QALY) at a cost of <$872.58/month, of high value (<$50 000/QALY) at <$317.66/month, and cost saving at <$40.25/month. Dapagliflozin was of at least intermediate value in 92% of simulations when using the full (undiscounted) Medicare list cost in probabilistic sensitivity analyses. Cost effectiveness was most sensitive to the dapagliflozin cost and the effect on cardiovascular death.

CONCLUSIONS

The addition of dapagliflozin to standard of care in patients with heart failure across the spectrum of ejection fraction was at least of intermediate value at the undiscounted Medicare cost and may be potentially of higher value on the basis of the level of discount, rebates, and price negotiations offered.

REGISTRATION

URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifiers: NCT01035255 & NCT01920711.

Comparison of the efficacy of combining left bundle branch pacing with either sacubitril/valsartan or enalapril in the treatment of chronic heart failure: A retrospective observational analysis

Objective

To assess the efficacy of left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) combined with either sacubitril/valsartan or enalapril in the treatment of chronic heart failure (CHF).

Methods

We retrospectively reviewed the records of 138 patients with CHF admitted to Dazhou Central Hospital between June 2020 and June 2022 to extract clinical data. We divided the data into two treatment groups for the analysis: 71 patients received LBBP combined with sacubitril/valsartan treatment (sacubitril/valsartan group), and 67 received LBBP combined with enalapril treatment (enalapril group). The levels of cardiac and cardiopulmonary function indicators, levels of myocardial injury markers, and the scores of the Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire (MLHFQ) before and after the treatment were compared between the two groups.

Results

After six months of treatment, patients in the sacubitril/valsartan group had lower myocardial injury markers, higher cardiopulmonary function indicators, and lower MLHFQ scores (P<0.05).

Conclusions

In CHF patients, the combination of LBBP with sacubitril/valsartan had a better therapeutic effect compared to LBBP with enalapril, with more effective improvement of the cardiopulmonary function, reduction of myocardial injury, and improvement in quality of life.

The economics of heart failure care

Heart failure (HF) poses a significant economic burden in the US, with costs projected to reach $70 billion by 2030. Cost-effectiveness analyses play a pivotal role in assessing the economic value of HF therapies. In this review, we overview the cost-effectiveness of HF therapies and discuss ways to improve patient access. Based on current costs, guideline directed medical therapies for HF with reduced ejection fraction provide high economic value except for sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors, which provide intermediate economic value. Combining therapy with the four pillars of medical therapy also has intermediate economic value, with incremental cost-effectiveness ratios ranging from $73,000 to $98,500/ quality adjusted life-years. High economic value procedures include cardiac resynchronization devices, implantable cardioverter-defibrillators, and coronary artery bypass surgery. In contrast, advanced HF therapies have previously demonstrated intermediate to low economic value, but newer data appear more favorable. Given the affordability challenges of HF therapies, additional efforts are needed to ensure optimal care for patients. The recent Inflation Reduction Act contains provisions to reform policy pertaining to drug price negotiation and out-of-pocket spending, as well as measures to increase access to existing programs, including the Medicare low-income subsidy. On a patient level, it is also important to encourage patient and physician awareness and discussions surrounding medical costs. Overall, a broad approach to improving available therapies and access to care is needed to reduce the growing clinical and economic morbidity of HF.

Health and Economic Evaluation of Sacubitril-Valsartan for Heart Failure Management

Importance

The US Food and Drug Administration expanded labeling of sacubitril-valsartan from the treatment of patients with chronic heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction (EF) to all patients with HF, noting the greatest benefits in those with below-normal EF. However, the upper bound of below normal is not clearly defined, and value determinations across a broader EF range are unknown.

Objective

To estimate the cost-effectiveness of sacubitril-valsartan vs renin-angiotensin system inhibitors (RASis) across various upper-level cutoffs of EF.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This economic evaluation included participant-level data from the PARADIGM-HF (Prospective Comparison of ARNI With ACEI to Determine Impact on Global Mortality and Morbidity in Heart Failure) and the PARAGON-HF (Prospective Comparison of ARNi with ARB Global Outcomes in HF With Preserved Ejection Fraction) trials. PARADIGM-HF was conducted between 2009 and 2014, PARAGON-HF was conducted between 2014 and 2019, and this analysis was conducted between 2021 and 2023.

Main Outcomes and Measures

A 5-state Markov model used risk reductions for all-cause mortality and HF hospitalization from PARADIGM-HF and PARAGON-HF. Quality-of-life differences were estimated from EuroQol-5D scores. Hospitalization and medication costs were obtained from published national sources; the wholesale acquisition cost of sacubitril-valsartan was $7092 per year. Risk estimates and treatment effects were generated in consecutive 5% EF increments up to 60% and applied to an EF distribution of US patients with HF from the Get With the Guidelines-Heart Failure registry. The base case included a lifetime horizon from a health care sector perspective. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were estimated at EFs of 60% or less (base case) and at various upper-level EF cutoffs.

Results

Among 13 264 total patients whose data were analyzed, for those with EFs of 60% or less, sacubitril-valsartan was projected to add 0.53 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) at an incremental lifetime cost of $40 892 compared with RASi, yielding an ICER of $76 852 per QALY. In a probabilistic sensitivity analysis, 95% of the values of the ICER occurred between $71 516 and $82 970 per QALY. Among patients with chronic HF and an EF of 60% or less, treatment with sacubitril-valsartan vs RASis would be at least of economic intermediate value (ICER <$180 000 per QALY) at a sacubitril-valsartan cost of $10 242 or less per year, of high economic value (ICER <$60 000 per QALY) at a cost of $3673 or less per year, and cost-saving at a cost of $338 or less per year. The ICERs were $67 331 per QALY, $59 614 per QALY, and $56 786 per QALY at EFs of 55% or less, 50% or less, and 45% or less, respectively. Treatment with sacubitril-valsartan in only those with EFs of 45% or greater (up to ≤60%) yielded an ICER of $127 172 per QALY gained; treatment was more cost-effective in those at the lower end of this range (ICER of $100 388 per QALY gained for those with EFs of 45%-55%; ICER of $84 291 per QALY gained for those with EFs of 45%-50%).

Conclusions and Relevance

Cost-effectiveness modeling provided an ICER for treatment with sacubitril-valsartan vs RASis consistent with high economic value for patients with reduced and mildly reduced EFs (≤50%) and at least intermediate value at the current undiscounted wholesale acquisition cost price at an EF of 60% or less. Treatment was more cost-effective at lower EF ranges. These findings may have implications for coverage decisions and value assessments in contemporary clinical practice guidelines.

Economic Evaluations of Guideline-Directed Medical Therapies for Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction: A Systematic Review

OBJECTIVES

Decision-analytic models (DAMs) with varying structures and assumptions have been applied in economic evaluations (EEs) to assist decision making for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) therapeutics. This systematic review aimed to summarize and critically appraise the EEs of guideline-directed medical therapies (GDMTs) for HFrEF.

METHODS

A systematic search of English articles and gray literature, published from January 2010, was performed on databases including MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, NHSEED, health technology assessment, Cochrane Library, etc. The included studies were EEs with DAMs that compared the costs and outcomes of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, angiotensin-receptor blockers, angiotensin-receptor neprilysin inhibitors, beta-blockers, mineralocorticoid-receptor agonists, and sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors. The study quality was evaluated using the Bias in Economic Evaluation (ECOBIAS) 2015 checklist and Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) 2022 checklists.

RESULTS

A total of 59 EEs were included. Markov model, with a lifetime horizon and a monthly cycle length, was most commonly used in evaluating GDMTs for HFrEF. Most EEs conducted in the high-income countries demonstrated that novel GDMTs for HFrEF were cost-effective compared with the standard of care, with the standardized median incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $21 361/quality-adjusted life-year. The key factors influencing ICERs and study conclusions included model structures, input parameters, clinical heterogeneity, and country-specific willingness-to-pay threshold.

CONCLUSIONS

Novel GDMTs were cost-effective compared with the standard of care. Given the heterogeneity of the DAMs and ICERs, alongside variations in willingness-to-pay thresholds across countries, there is a need to conduct country-specific EEs, particularly in low- and middle-income countries, using model structures that are coherent with the local decision context.

Effect of sacubitril/valsartan on brain natriuretic peptide level and prognosis of acute cerebral infarction

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Previous studies demonstrated that elevated brain natriuretic peptide (BNP) level is associated with adverse clinical outcomes of acute cerebral infarction (ACI). Researchers hypothesized that BNP might be a potential neuroprotective factor against cerebral ischemia because of the antagonistic effect of the natriuretic peptide system on the renin-angiotensin system and regulation of cardiovascular homeostasis. However, whether decreasing the BNP level can improve the prognosis of ACI has not been studied yet. The main effect of sacubitril/valsartan is to enhance the natriuretic peptide system. We investigated whether the intervention of plasma BNP levels with sacubitril/valsartan could improve the prognosis of patients with ACI.

METHODS

In a randomized, controlled, parallel-group trial of patients with ACI within 48 hours of symptom onset and need for antihypertensive therapy, patients have randomized within 24 hours to sacubitril/valsartan 200mg once daily (the intervention group) or to conventional medical medication (the control group). The primary outcome was a change in plasma BNP levels before and after sacubitril/valsartan administration. The secondary outcomes included plasma levels of brain-derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF), Corin and neprilysin (NEP) before and after medication, the modified Rankin scale, and the National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (at onset, at discharge, 30 days, and 90 days after discharge).

RESULTS

We evaluated 80 eligible patients admitted to the Stroke Center of Lianyungang Second People's Hospital between 1st May, 2021 and 31st June, 2022. Except for 28 patients excluded before randomization and 14 patients who did not meet the criteria or dropped out or lost to follow-up during the trial, the remaining 38 patients (intervention group: 17, control group: 21) had well-balanced baseline features. In this trial, we found that plasma BNP levels (P = 0.003) decreased and NEP levels (P = 0.006) increased in enrolled patients after treatment with sacubitril/valsartan. There were no differences in plasma BDNF and Corin levels between the two groups. Furthermore, no difference in functional prognosis was observed between the two groups (all P values>0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Sacubitril/valsartan reduced endogenous plasma BNP levels in patients with ACI and did not affect their short-term prognosis.

Cost-utility analysis of valsartan, enalapril, and candesartan in patients with heart failure in Iran

BACKGROUND

Today, heart failure is one of the leading causes of death and disability in most developed and developing countries. By 2030, more than 23.3 million people are projected to die of cardiovascular diseases each year, and the prevalence of heart failure is expected to increase by 25%. One of the preventive interventions is pharmacological interventions which can be used to reduce the complications of cardiovascular diseases such as heart failure. One of the most important pharmacological interventions in patients with heart failure is the use of antihypertensive drugs such as candesartan, enalapril, and valsartan. This study aimed to compare the cost-utility of candesartan, enalapril, and valsartan in patients with heart failure using the Markov model in Iran in 2020.

METHODS

In the present study, a four-state Markov model was designed to compare the cost-utility of candesartan, enalapril, and valsartan for a hypothetical cohort of 10,000 heart failure patients older than 24 years. The payers' perspective was used to calculate the costs. The Markov states included outpatients with heart failure, patients with heart failure admitted to general hospital wards, patients with heart failure admitted to the intensive care units (ICUs), and death. The effectiveness measure in this study was the quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). The one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were used to determine the robustness of the results. The TreeAge Pro 2011 software was used for data analysis.

RESULTS

The results showed that the average expected costs and QALYs were 119645.45 USD and 16.15 for valsartan, 113,019.68 USD and 15.16 for enalapril, and 113,093.37 USD and 15.06 for candesartan, respectively. Candesartan was recognized as the dominated option. Because the calculated incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) value (6,692.69 USD) was less than the threshold value (7,256 USD), valsartan was cost-effective compared to enalapril. The results of the cost-effectiveness acceptability curve showed that at the threshold of 7,256 USD, valsartan had a 60% chance of being cost-effective compared to enalapril. The results of one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses confirmed the robustness of the results. Moreover, the results showed that ICU (1,112 USD) had the highest cost among cost items.

CONCLUSION

According to the results, it is recommended that health policymakers consider the use of valsartan by cardiologists when designing clinical guidelines for the treatment of patients with heart failure.

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, β 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.

Effects of Angiotensin Receptor-Neprilysin Inhibitors Versus Enalapril or Valsartan on Patients With Heart Failure: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Recent studies have focused on treating heart failure, primarily mitigating symptoms and reducing the risk of mortality and other cardiovascular complications. A promising new treatment approach involves using LCZ696, an angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI) comprising sacubitril and valsartan. This treatment is superior to the conventional drugs enalapril or valsartan in patients diagnosed with heart failure. A systematic search was conducted on PubMed, the Cochrane Library, and Elsevier's ScienceDirect databases to identify studies comparing sacubitril/valsartan with other drugs in heart failure patients with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). The analyses were conducted using the random-effects model. The study's primary outcomes included all-cause mortality, death from cardiovascular causes, first hospitalization for heart failure, congestive heart failure, and changes in the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ) clinical score. The pooled analysis showed that treatment with the sacubitril/valsartan combination was associated with a significantly decreased rate of first hospitalization for heart failure (RR: 0.86; 95% CI: 0.79, 0.98, p: 0.03; I2: 57%) and significantly increased KCCQ clinical score (WMD: 2.20; 95% CI: 0.33, 4.06, p: 0.02; I2: 100%). However, the two groups had no significant difference in all-cause mortality (RR: 0.90; 95% CI: 0.80, 1.01, p: 0.08; I2: 20%), death from cardiovascular causes (RR: 0.96; 95% CI: 0.87, 1.05, p: 0.34; I2: 0%), or congestive heart failure (RR: 0.97; 95% CI: 0.75, 1.25, p: 0.19; I2: 38%). The research findings suggest that sacubitril/valsartan (LCZ696) reduces hospitalizations due to heart failure and improves KCCQ clinical scores. This treatment also reduces the decline in renal function and side effects associated with enalapril or valsartan. Nonetheless, further high-quality randomized controlled trials with large sample sizes are needed to assess other impacts of this therapy on heart failure patients. Overall, the use of LCZ696 represents a promising new approach to the treatment of heart failure.

Sacubitril/Valsartan Ameliorates Crizotinib-Induced Cardiotoxicity in Mice

Background

Lung cancer is one of the major cause of death globally. Crizotinib is a first-line drug used in treating non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). However, the pathophysiological mechanisms underlying its cardiotoxicity are unknown. This study investigated the mechanisms of crizotinib-induced cardiotoxicity and explored whether this toxicity can be prevented by the angiotensin receptor/neprilysin inhibitor sacubitril/valsartan.

Methods

Male C57BL/6 mice were randomly divided into three groups: control, crizotinib (40 mg ⋅ kg - 1 ⋅ d - 1 for four weeks), and crizotinib + sacubitril/valsartan (40 mg ⋅ kg - 1 ⋅ d - 1 /60 mg ⋅ kg - 1 ⋅ d - 1 for four weeks). Expression of genes in myocardial tissue were detected by transcriptomic sequencing, with verification of the differentially expressed genes (DEGs) using Real time-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR). Blood pressure (BP) and cardiac function of animals were measured using non-invasive monitoring and echocardiography approaches. Ventricular refractory period (RP), as well as the induction rate and score of ventricular arrhythmias (VAs) were detected by in vivo electrophysiology. Epicardial conductance was measured by mapping. Expression of Myh7 in myocardium was detected by western blot and RT-PCR.

Results

DEGs detected using transcriptomic sequencing included 10 up-regulated and 20 down-regulated genes. The first 5 DEGs identified were Myh7, Ngp, Lcn2, Ciart and Ptgds. Kyoto Encyclopedia of Genes and Genomes (KEGG) result indicated that Myh7 is involved in myocarditis, cardiomyopathy, and cardiac muscle contraction. Crizotinib treatment increased blood pressure, prolonged QTc interval, shortened ventricular RP, increased the incidence and score of right VAs, and increased Myh7 expression. Most of these responses were limited by sacubitril/valsartan.

Conclusions

Crizotinib induced a range of cardiotoxic side effects in a mouse model and increased Myh7 expression represents a biomarker for this response. These cardiovascular toxic responses can be largely prevented by sacubitril/valsartan.

Financial Toxicity of Medical Management of Heart Failure: JACC Review Topic of the Week

Optimal medical management of heart failure (HF) improves quality of life, decreases mortality, and decreases hospitalizations. Cost may contribute to suboptimal adherence to HF medications, especially angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitors and sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors. Patients' experiences with HF medication cost include financial burden, financial strain, and financial toxicity. Although there has been research studying financial toxicity in patients with some chronic diseases, there are no validated tools for measuring financial toxicity of HF, and very few data on the subjective experiences of patients with HF and financial toxicity. Strategies to decrease HF-associated financial toxicity include making systemic changes to minimize cost sharing, optimizing shared decision-making, implementing policies to lower drug costs, broadening insurance coverage, and using financial navigation services and discount programs. Clinicians may also improve patient financial wellness through various strategies in routine clinical care. Future research is needed to study financial toxicity and associated patient experiences for HF.

Clinical and Economic Evaluation of Impella Treatment for Fulminant Myocarditis - A Preliminary Retrospective Cohort Study in Japan

BACKGROUND

Fulminant myocarditis (FM) is rare but has an extremely poor prognosis. Impella, a catheter-based heart pump, is a new therapeutic strategy, but reports regarding its health economics are lacking.

METHODS AND RESULTS

This retrospective cohort study compared Impella treatment (Group I) with existing treatments (Group E) using medical data collected from October 2017 to September 2021, with a 1-year analysis period. Cost-effectiveness indices were life-years (LY; effect index) and medical fee amount (cost index). Results were validated using probabilistic sensitivity analysis. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was calculated using quality-adjusted LY (QALY) and medical costs. Each group included 7 patients, and more than half (57.1%) received combined Impella plus extracorporeal membrane oxygenation. There was no significant difference between Groups I and E in 1-year mortality rates (28.6% vs. 57.1%, respectively) or LY (mean [±SD] 163.1±128.3 vs. 107.8±127.3 days, respectively), but mortality risk was significantly lower in Group I than Group E (95% confidence interval 0.02-0.96; P<0.05). Compared with Group E, Group I had higher total costs (9,270,597±4,121,875 vs. 6,397,466±3,801,364 JPY/year; P=0.20) and higher cost-effectiveness (32,443,987±14,742,966 vs. 92,637,756±98,225,604 JPY/LY; P=0.74), which was confirmed in the sensitivity analysis. ICER probability distribution showed 23.2% and 51.5% reductions below 5 million and 10 million JPY/QALY, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Impella treatment is more cost-effective than conventional FM treatments. Large-scale studies are needed to validate the added effects and increasing costs.

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.

Sacubitril/Valsartan for Heart Failure with Preserved Ejection Fraction: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis from the Perspective of the Chinese Healthcare System

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Sacubitril/valsartan has shown effectiveness in reducing hospitalization compared with valsartan in HFpEF patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). We aimed to investigate the cost effectiveness of sacubitril/valsartan as an alternative to valsartan in Chinese patients with heart failure with HFpEF.

METHODS

A Markov model was built to investigate the cost effectiveness of sacubitril/valsartan as an alternative to valsartan in Chinese patients with HFpEF, from the healthcare system perspective. The time horizon was a lifetime, with a cycle length of 1 month. Costs were obtained from local information or published papers, discounted at a rate of 0.05 for future costs. The transition probability and utility were based on other studies. The primary outcome of the study was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). Sacubitril/valsartan was considered cost effective if the ICER obtained was lower than the willingness-to-pay threshold of US dollars (US$) 12,551.5 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses, as well as scenario analysis, were performed to test robustness.

RESULTS

Over a lifetime simulation, a 73-year-old Chinese patient with HFpEF could gain 6.44 QALYs (9.15 life-years) if sacubitril/valsartan plus standard treatment was administered, and 6.37 QALYs (9.07 life-years) if valsartan plus standard treatment was prescribed. The corresponding costs in both groups were US$12,471 and US$8663, respectively. The ICER was US$49,019/QALY (US$46,610/life-year), higher than the willingness-to-pay threshold. Sensitivity analyses and scenario analysis showed that our results were robust.

CONCLUSION

Adding sacubitril/valsartan to standard treatment as an alternative to valsartan for the treatment of HFpEF resulted in more effectiveness but higher costs. Sacubitril/valsartan was likely to not be cost effective in Chinese patients with HFpEF. The cost of sacubitril/valsartan needs to reduce to 34% of its current price to be cost effective in this population. Studies based on real-world data are needed to confirm our conclusions.

Cost-effectiveness of immediate initiation of dapagliflozin in patients with a history of heart failure

AIMS

To compare the cost-effectiveness of immediate and 12-month delayed initiation of dapagliflozin treatment in patients with a history of hospitalization for heart failure (HHF) from the UK, Canadian, German, and Spanish healthcare perspectives.

METHODS AND RESULTS

A cost-utility analysis was conducted using a decision-analytic Markov model with health states defined by Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire scores, type 2 diabetes mellitus status and incidence of heart failure (HF) events. Patient-level data for patients with prior HHF from the Dapagliflozin And Prevention of Adverse-outcomes in Heart Failure (DAPA-HF) trial were used to inform the model inputs on clinical events and utility values. Healthcare costs were sourced from the relevant national reference databases and the published literature. Compared to standard therapy, immediate initiation of dapagliflozin decreased HHF (187 events), urgent HF visits (32 events) and cardiovascular mortality (18 events). Standard therapy was associated with lifetime costs of £13 224 and 4.02 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Twelve-month delayed initiation of dapagliflozin was associated with total discounted lifetime costs and QALYs of £16 660 and 4.61, respectively, compared to £16 912 and 4.66, respectively, for immediate initiation. Compared to standard therapy, immediate and 12-month delayed initiation of dapagliflozin yielded an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of £5779 and £5821, respectively. Compared to 12-month delayed initiation, immediate initiation of dapagliflozin had an ICER of £5263. Results were similar from the Canadian, German, and Spanish healthcare perspectives.

CONCLUSION

Both immediate and 12-month delayed initiation of dapagliflozin are cost-effective. However, immediate initiation provides greater clinical benefits, with almost 10% additional QALYs gain, compared to 12-month delayed initiation of dapagliflozin and should be considered standard of care.

A Proposal of a Cost-Effectiveness Modeling Approach for Heart Failure Treatment Assessment: Considering the Short- and Long-Term Impact of Hospitalization on Event Rates

BACKGROUND

The rate of events such as recurrent heart failure (HF) hospitalization and death are known to dramatically increase directly after HF hospitalization. Furthermore, the number of HF hospitalizations is associated with irreversible long-term disease progression, which is in turn associated with increased event rates. However, cost-effectiveness models of HF treatments commonly fail to capture both the short- and long-term association between HF hospitalization and events.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to provide a decision-analytic model that reflects the short- and long-term association between HF hospitalization and event rates. Furthermore, we assess the impact of omitting these associations.

METHODS

We developed a life-time Markov cohort model to evaluate HF treatments, and modeled the short-term impact of HF hospitalization on event rates via a sequence of tunnel states, with transition probabilities following a parametric survival curve. The corresponding long-term impact was modeled via hazard ratios per HF hospitalization. We obtained baseline event rates and utilities from published literature. Subsequently, we assessed, for a hypothetical HF treatment, how omitting the modeled associations (through a simple two-state model) affects incremental quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs).

RESULTS

We developed a model that incorporates both short- and long-term impacts of HF hospitalizations. Based on an assumed treatment effect of a 20% risk reduction for HF hospitalization (and associated reductions in all-cause mortality of 15%), omitting the short-term, the long-term, or both associations resulted in a 5%, 1%, and 22% decrease in QALYs gained, respectively.

CONCLUSION

For both modeling components, i.e., the short- and long-term implications of HF hospitalization, the impact on incremental outcomes associated with treatment was substantial. Considering these aspects as proposed within this modeling approach better reflects the natural course of this progressive condition and will enhance the evaluation of future HF treatments.

SGLT2 Inhibitors in Heart Failure: Early Initiation to Achieve Rapid Clinical Benefits

Sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors (SGLT2i) are a recent addition to the pillars of medical therapy for heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction, all of which improve quality of life, morbidity, and mortality. These benefits are evident within the first 30 days of initiation. This review discusses the rationale for SGLT2i initiation in simultaneous or in rapid sequence with other guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT). We also discuss SGLT2i use and early benefits in HF patients with an ejection fraction greater than 40%.

Cost effectiveness analyses of pharmacological treatments in heart failure

In a rapidly growing and aging population, heart failure (HF) has become recognised as a public health concern that imposes high economic and societal costs worldwide. HF management stems from the use of highly cost-effective angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEi) and β-blockers to the use of newer drugs such as sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors (SGLT2i), ivabradine, and vericiguat. Modelling studies of pharmacological treatments that report on cost effectiveness in HF is important in order to guide clinical decision making. Multiple cost-effectiveness analysis of dapagliflozin for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) suggests that it is not only cost-effective and has the potential to improve long-term clinical outcomes, but is also likely to meet conventional cost-effectiveness thresholds in many countries. Similar promising results have also been shown for vericiguat while a cost effectiveness analysis (CEA) of empagliflozin has shown cost effectiveness in HF patients with Type 2 diabetes. Despite the recent FDA approval of dapagliflozin and empagliflozin in HF, it might take time for these SGLT2i to be widely used in real-world practice. A recent economic evaluation of vericiguat found it to be cost effective at a higher cost per QALY threshold than SGLT2i. However, there is a lack of clinical or real-world data regarding whether vericiguat would be prescribed on top of newer treatments or in lieu of them. Sacubitril/valsartan has been commonly compared to enalapril in cost effectiveness analysis and has been found to be similar to that of SGLT2i but was not considered a cost-effective treatment for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction in Thailand and Singapore with the current economic evaluation evidences. In order for more precise analysis on cost effectiveness analysis, it is necessary to take into account the income level of various countries as it is certainly easier to allocate more financial resources for the intervention, with greater effectiveness, in high- and middle-income countries than in low-income countries. This review aims to evaluate evidence and cost effectiveness studies in more recent HF drugs i.e., SGLT2i, ARNi, ivabradine, vericiguat and omecamtiv, and gaps in current literature on pharmacoeconomic studies in HF.

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.

Expenditure on Heart Failure in the United States: The Medical Expenditure Panel Survey 2009-2018

BACKGROUND

With rising United States health care expenditure, estimating current spending for patients with heart failure (HF) informs the value of preventative health interventions.

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this study was to estimate current health care expenditure growth for patients with HF in the United States.

METHODS

The authors pooled MEPS (Medical Expenditure Panel Survey) data from 2009-2018 to calculate total HF-related expenditure across clinical settings in the United States. A 2-part model adjusted for demographics, comorbidities, and year was used to estimate annual mean and incremental expenditures associated with HF.

RESULTS

In the United States, an average of $28,950 (2018 inflation-adjusted dollars) is spent per year for health care-related expenditure for individuals with HF compared with $5,727 for individuals without HF. After adjusting for demographics and comorbidities, a diagnosis of HF was associated with $3,594 in annual incremental expenditure compared with those without HF. HF-related expenditure increased from $26,864 annual per person in 2009-2010 to $32,955 in 2017-2018, representing a 23% rise over 10 years. In comparison, expenditure on myocardial infarction, type 2 diabetes mellitus, and cancer grew by 16%, 28%, and 16%, respectively. Most of the cost was related to hospitalization: $12,569 per year. Outpatient office-based care and prescription medications saw the greatest growth in cost over the period, 41% and 24%, respectively. Estimated incremental national expenditure for HF per year was $22.3 billion; total annual expenditure for adults with HF was $179.5 billion.

CONCLUSIONS

HF is a costly condition for which expenditure is growing faster than that of other chronic conditions.

Pharmacological Targets in Chronic Heart Failure with Reduced Ejection Fraction

Heart failure management has been repeatedly reviewed over time. This strategy has resulted in improved quality of life, especially in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). It is for this reason that new mechanisms involved in the development and progression of heart failure, along with specific therapies, have been identified. This review focuses on the most recent guidelines of therapeutic interventions, trials that explore novel therapies, and also new molecules that could improve prognosis of different HFrEF phenotypes.

Medicare Coverage and Out-of-Pocket Costs of Quadruple Drug Therapy for Heart Failure

BACKGROUND

Beta-blockers, angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI), mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists, and sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors (SGLT2i), known as quadruple therapy, are recommended for patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF).

OBJECTIVES

This study sought to determine Medicare coverage and out-of-pocket (OOP) costs of quadruple therapy and regimens excluding ARNI or SGLT2i.

METHODS

This study assessed cost sharing, prior authorization, and step therapy in all 4,068 Medicare prescription drug plans in 2020. OOP costs were determined during the standard coverage period and annually based on the Medicare Part D standard benefit, inclusive of deductible, standard coverage, coverage gap, and catastrophic coverage.

RESULTS

Tier ≥3 cost sharing was required by 99.1% of plans for ARNI and 98.5% for at least 1 SGLT2i. Only ARNI required prior authorization (24.3% of plans), and step therapy was required only for SGLT2is (5.4%) and eplerenone (0.8%). The median 30-day standard coverage OOP cost of quadruple therapy was $94 (IQR: $84-$100), including $47 (IQR: $40-$47) for ARNI and $45 (IQR: $40-$47) for SGLT2i. The median annual OOP cost of quadruple therapy was $2,217 (IQR: $1,956-$2,579) compared with $1,319 (IQR: $1,067-$1,675) when excluding SGLT2i and $1,322 (IQR: $1,025-$1,588) when including SGLT2i and substituting an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker for ARNI. The median 30-day OOP cost of generic regimens was $3 (IQR: $0-$9).

CONCLUSIONS

Medicare drug plans restrict coverage of quadruple therapy through cost sharing, with OOP costs that are substantially higher than generic regimens. Quadruple therapy may be unaffordable for many Medicare patients with HFrEF unless medication prices and cost sharing are reduced.

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.

Relation of Household Income to Access and Adherence to Combination Sacubitril/Valsartan in Heart Failure: A Retrospective Analysis of Commercially Insured Patients

Background: Outcomes in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), are influenced by access and adherence to guideline-directed medical therapy. Our objective was to study the association between annual household income and: (1) the odds of having a claim for sacubitril/valsartan among insured patients with HFrEF and (2) medication adherence (measured as the proportion of days covered [PDC]). We hypothesized that lower annual household income is associated with decreased odds of having a claim for and adhering to sacubitril/valsartan. Methods: Using the Optum de-identified Clinformatics® Data Mart, patients with HFrEF and ≥6 months of enrollment for follow up (2016-2020) were included. Covariates included age, sex, race, ethnicity, educational attainment, US region, number of prescribed medications, and Elixhauser Comorbidity Index. Prescription for sacubitril/valsartan was defined by the presence of a claim within 6 months of HFrEF diagnosis. Adherence was defined as PDC≥80%. We fit multivariable-adjusted logistic regression models and hierarchical logistic regression accounting for covariates. Results: Among 322,007 individuals with incident HFrEF, 135,282 had complete data for analysis. Of the patients eligible for sacubitril/valsartan, 4.7% (6,372) had a claim within 6 months of HFrEF diagnosis. Following multivariable adjustment, individuals in the lowest annual income category (<$40,000) were significantly less likely (OR=0.83, 95% CI [0.76, 0.90]) to have a sacubitril/valsartan claim within 6 months of HFrEF diagnosis than those in the highest annual income category (≥$100,000). Annual income <$40,000 was associated with lower odds of PDC≥80% compared with income ≥$100,000 (OR=0.70, 95% CI [0.59, 0.83]). Conclusions: Lower household income is associated with decreased likelihood of a sacubitril/valsartan claim and medication adherence within 6 months of HFrEF diagnosis, even after adjusting for sociodemographic and clinical factors. Future analyses are needed to identify additional social factors associated with delays in sacubitril/valsartan initiation and long-term adherence.

Physician adherence and patient-reported outcomes in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction in the era of angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor therapy

This Korean nationwide, multicenter, noninterventional, prospective cohort study aimed to analyze physician adherence to guideline-recommended therapy for heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and its effect on patient-reported outcomes (PROs). Patients diagnosed with or hospitalized for HFrEF within the previous year were enrolled. Treatment adherence was considered optimal when all 3 categories of guideline-recommended medications (angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, angiotensin receptor blockers, or angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitors; beta-blockers; and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists) were prescribed and suboptimal when ≤ 2 categories were prescribed. The 36-Item Short Form Survey (SF-36) scores were compared at baseline and 6 months between the 2 groups. Overall, 854 patients from 30 hospitals were included. At baseline, the optimal adherence group comprised 527 patients (61.7%), whereas during follow-up, the optimal and suboptimal adherence groups comprised 462 (54.1%) and 281 (32.9%) patients, respectively. Patients in the suboptimal adherence group were older, with a lower body mass index, and increased comorbidities, including renal dysfunction. SF-36 scores were significantly higher in the optimal adherence group for most domains (P < 0.05). This study showed satisfactory physician adherence to contemporary treatment for HFrEF. Optimal adherence to HF medication significantly correlated with better PROs.

2022 AHA/ACC/HFSA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines

AIM

The "2022 AHA/ACC/HFSA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure" replaces the "2013 ACCF/AHA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure" and the "2017 ACC/AHA/HFSA Focused Update of the 2013 ACCF/AHA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure." The 2022 guideline is intended to provide patient-centric recommendations for clinicians to prevent, diagnose, and manage patients with heart failure.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was conducted from May 2020 to December 2020, encompassing studies, reviews, and other evidence conducted on human subjects that were published in English from MEDLINE (PubMed), EMBASE, the Cochrane Collaboration, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and other relevant databases. Additional relevant clinical trials and research studies, published through September 2021, were also considered. This guideline was harmonized with other American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology guidelines published through December 2021. Structure: Heart failure remains a leading cause of morbidity and mortality globally. The 2022 heart failure guideline provides recommendations based on contemporary evidence for the treatment of these patients. The recommendations present an evidence-based approach to managing patients with heart failure, with the intent to improve quality of care and align with patients' interests. Many recommendations from the earlier heart failure guidelines have been updated with new evidence, and new recommendations have been created when supported by published data. Value statements are provided for certain treatments with high-quality published economic analyses.

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.

2022 AHA/ACC/HFSA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure

AIM

The "2022 AHA/ACC/HFSA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure" replaces the "2013 ACCF/AHA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure" and the "2017 ACC/AHA/HFSA Focused Update of the 2013 ACCF/AHA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure." The 2022 guideline is intended to provide patient-centric recommendations for clinicians to prevent, diagnose, and manage patients with heart failure.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was conducted from May 2020 to December 2020, encompassing studies, reviews, and other evidence conducted on human subjects that were published in English from MEDLINE (PubMed), EMBASE, the Cochrane Collaboration, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and other relevant databases. Additional relevant clinical trials and research studies, published through September 2021, were also considered. This guideline was harmonized with other American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology guidelines published through December 2021.

STRUCTURE

Heart failure remains a leading cause of morbidity and mortality globally. The 2022 heart failure guideline provides recommendations based on contemporary evidence for the treatment of these patients. The recommendations present an evidence-based approach to managing patients with heart failure, with the intent to improve quality of care and align with patients' interests. Many recommendations from the earlier heart failure guidelines have been updated with new evidence, and new recommendations have been created when supported by published data. Value statements are provided for certain treatments with high-quality published economic analyses.

2022 AHA/ACC/HFSA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure: Executive Summary: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines

AIM

The "2022 AHA/ACC/HFSA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure" replaces the "2013 ACCF/AHA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure" and the "2017 ACC/AHA/HFSA Focused Update of the 2013 ACCF/AHA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure." The 2022 guideline is intended to provide patient-centric recommendations for clinicians to prevent, diagnose, and manage patients with heart failure.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was conducted from May 2020 to December 2020, encompassing studies, reviews, and other evidence conducted on human subjects that were published in English from MEDLINE (PubMed), EMBASE, the Cochrane Collaboration, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and other relevant databases. Additional relevant clinical trials and research studies, published through September 2021, were also considered. This guideline was harmonized with other American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology guidelines published through December 2021. Structure: Heart failure remains a leading cause of morbidity and mortality globally. The 2022 heart failure guideline provides recommendations based on contemporary evidence for the treatment of these patients. The recommendations present an evidence-based approach to managing patients with heart failure, with the intent to improve quality of care and align with patients' interests. Many recommendations from the earlier heart failure guidelines have been updated with new evidence, and new recommendations have been created when supported by published data. Value statements are provided for certain treatments with high-quality published economic analyses.

Economic Issues in Heart Failure in the United States

The cost of heart failure care is high owing to the cost of hospitalization and chronic treatments. Heart failure treatments vary in their benefit and cost. The cost effectiveness of therapies can be determined by comparing the cost of treatment required to obtain a certain benefit, often defined as an increase in 1 year of life. This review was sponsored by the Heart Failure Society of America and describes the growing economic burden of heart failure for patients and the health care system in the United States. It also provides a summary of the cost effectiveness of drugs, devices, diagnostic tests, hospital care, and transitions of care for patients with heart failure. Many medications that are no longer under patent are inexpensive and highly cost-effective. These include angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, beta-blockers and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists. In contrast, more recently developed medications and devices, vary in cost effectiveness, and often have high out-of-pocket costs for patients.

Cost Effectiveness of Vericiguat for the Treatment of Chronic Heart Failure with Reduced Ejection Fraction Following a Worsening Heart Failure Event from a US Medicare Perspective

OBJECTIVE

Given the high economic burden of disease among adult patients with chronic heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) following a worsening heart failure event in the US, this study aimed to estimate the cost effectiveness of vericiguat plus prior standard-of-care therapies (PSoCT) versus PSoCT alone from a US Medicare perspective.

METHODS

A four-state Markov model (alive prior to heart failure hospitalization, alive during heart failure hospitalization, alive post-heart failure hospitalization, and death) was developed to predict clinical and economic outcomes, based on the results of the VICTORIA trial, in which patients with chronic HFrEF following a worsening heart failure were randomized to placebo or vericiguat, in addition to PSoCT, which consisted of β-blockers, renin-angiotensin-aldosterone inhibitors, mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists, and the angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor sacubitril/valsartan. Risks of heart failure hospitalization and cardiovascular mortality were based on multivariable regression models derived from VICTORIA data. Utilities were derived from VICTORIA EQ-5D data and the literature. Costs included drug acquisition, heart failure hospitalization, routine care, and terminal care. Primary outcomes included heart failure hospitalization, cardiovascular mortality, life-years, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental costs per QALY gained over a 30-year lifetime horizon, discounted at 3.0% annually.

RESULTS

For the VICTORIA overall intent-to-treat population, compared with PSoCT, vericiguat plus PSoCT resulted in 19 fewer heart failure hospitalizations and 13 fewer cardiovascular deaths per 1000 patients, as well as 0.28 QALY gained per patient at an incremental cost of $23,322, leading to $82,448 per QALY gained.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on the results of VICTORIA, patients treated with vericiguat had lower rates of heart failure hospitalization and cardiovascular death. The addition of vericiguat to PSoCT was estimated to increase QALYs and to be cost effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000 per QALY gained.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Sacubitril/Valsartan Compared to Enalapril for Heart Failure Patients in Indonesia

Objective

Sacubitril/valsartan is a relatively new medication that is more effective than the usual enalapril for heart failure patients with reduced ejection fraction. Therefore, this study aims to determine the cost-effectiveness of sacubitril/valsartan compared to enalapril in Indonesia’s healthcare system.

Methods

In this study, a Markov decision-analytic model was developed to estimate the total cost, health outcomes, and cost-effectiveness of sacubitril/valsartan compared to enalapril from Indonesia’s healthcare perspective. The input parameters for the cost-effectiveness were predominantly from the PARADIGM-HF trial. Subsequently, the country-specific data were synthesized for medication and hospitalization costs, cardiovascular and non-cardiovascular death, as well as re-hospitalization rate. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) per quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained was estimated to determine the cost-effectiveness. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess the impact of parameter uncertainty.

Results and Discussion

In the base case, sacubitril/valsartan was more costly and effective than enalapril with a total cost of IDR 91,783,325,865 (USD 6,487,522) vs IDR 68,101,971,241 (USD 4,813,653) and a total QALYs of 19,680 vs 18,795, resulting in an ICER of IDR 26,742,098 (USD 1890). Based on the willingness to pay threshold GDP per capita in Indonesia, it can be considered cost-effective. The most influential drivers of cost-effectiveness in deterministic sensitivity analysis were risk of mortality outside hospitalization, hospital admission rate, and cost of sacubitril/valsartan. The vast majority of simulation results from probabilistic analysis suggested that sacubitril/valsartan was likely resulted in higher cost and improved QALYs compared with enalapril, indicating the robustness of the model.

Conclusion

Based on the current price in Indonesia, sacubitril/valsartan can be considered a cost-effective option, although this depends heavily on the willingness to pay threshold. Further studies that incorporate real-world evidence with sacubitril/valsartan are needed to inform the decision-making process.

Low- vs high-dose ARNI effects on clinical status, exercise performance and cardiac function in real-life HFrEF patients

Purpose

Only a few studies are available on dose-related effects of sacubitril/valsartan (angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibition (ARNI)) in real-life patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). We sought to investigate clinical and functional effects in real-life HFrEF patients receiving ARNI at a different cumulative dose.

Methods

This was an observational study in consecutive outpatients admitted for HFrEF from October 2017 to June 2019. The PARADIGM criteria were needed for enrolment. ARNI was uptitrated according to blood pressure, drug tolerability, renal function and kaliemia. At least 10-month follow-up was required in each patient. Clinical assessment, Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ) score, 6-min walk test and strain echocardiography were performed in each patient on a regular basis during the observational period. At the end of the study, patients were divided into two groups based on the median yearly dose of the ARNI medication.

Results

A total of 90 patients, 64 ± 11 years, 82% males, were enrolled. The cut-off dose was established in 75 mg BID, and the study population was divided into group A (≤ 75 mg), 52 patients (58%), and group B (> 75 mg), 38 patients (42%). The follow-up duration was 12 months (range 11–13). NYHA class, KCCQ score and 6MWT performance ameliorated in both groups, with a quicker time to benefit in group B. The proportion of patients walking > 350 m increased from 21 to 58% in group A (p < 0.001), and from 29 to 82% in group B (p < 0.001). A positive effect was also disclosed in the left ventricular remodelling, strain deformation and diastolic function.

Conclusion

One-year ARNI treatment was effective in our real-life HFrEF patient population, leading to clinical and functional improvement in both study groups, slightly greater and with a shorter time to benefit in group B.

Supplementary information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s00228-021-03210-0.

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 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.

The evolution of guideline-directed medical therapy among decompensated HFrEF patients in sacubitril/valsartan era: Medical expenses and clinical effectiveness

BACKGROUND

Over recent years, new evolution in guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) contributes to clinical benefits in patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). The additional medical expenditure may be a concern due to the current financial constraint. This study aimed to investigate the medical costs and clinical effectiveness of contemporary GDMT in recently hospitalized HFrEF patients.

METHODS

Acutely decompensated hospitalized HFrEF patients from two multicenter cohorts of different periods were retrospectively analyzed. A propensity score matching was performed to adjust the baseline characteristics. Annual medication costs, risks of mortality, and recurrent heart failure hospitalizations (HFH) were compared.

RESULTS

Following 1:2 propensity score matching, there were 426 patients from the 2017-2018 cohort using sacubitril/valsartan, while 852 patients from 2013 to 2014 did not use so at discharge. Baseline characteristics were similar, whereas the sacubitril/valsartan users were more likely to receive beta-blockers, ivabradine and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists at discharge (79.3% vs 60.4%, 23.2% vs 0%, and 64.1% vs 49.8%, p < 0.001). The 2017-2018 cohort produced more medication costs by 1277 United States dollar (USD) per person per year, while it resulted in lower rates of HFH and all-cause mortality (10.3 vs 20.3 and 48.8 vs 79.9 per 100 person-year, p < 0.001). Costs of preventing a mortality event and a HFH event with contemporary treatments were 15 758 USD (95% confidence interval [CI] 10 436-29 244) and 5317 USD (95% CI 3388-10 098), respectively.

CONCLUSION

The higher adoption of GDMT was associated with greater medical expenses but better clinical outcomes in recently decompensated HFrEF patients.

Angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibition in patients with acute decompensated heart failure: an expert consensus position paper

The short-term mortality and rehospitalization rates after admission for acute heart failure (AHF) remain high, despite the high level of adherence to contemporary practice guidelines. Observational data from non-randomized studies in AHF strongly support the in-hospital administration of oral evidence-based modifying chronic heart failure (HF) medications (i.e., b-blockers, ACE inhibitors, mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists) to reduce morbidity and mortality. Interestingly, a well-designed prospective randomized multicenter study (PIONEER-HF) showed an improved clinical outcome and stress/injury biomarker profile after in-hospital administration of sacubitril/valsartan (sac/val) as compared to enalapril, in hemodynamically stable patients with AHF. However, sac/val implementation during hospitalization remains suboptimal due to the lack of an integrated individualized plan or well-defined appropriateness criteria for transition to oral therapies, an absence of specific guidelines regarding dose selection and the up-titration process, and uncertainty regarding patient eligibility.

In the present expert consensus position paper, clinical practical recommendations are proposed, together with an action plan algorithm, to encourage and facilitate sac/val administration during hospitalization after an AHF episode with the aim of improving efficiencies of care and resource utilization.