Search

Background The Comparison of Sacubitril–Valsartan versus Enalapril on Effect on NT-proBNP in Patients Stabilised from an Acute Heart Failure Episode (PIONEER-HF) trial demonstrated significant reductions in N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide. Our study explored the cost-effectiveness of the use of sacubitril-valsartan versus enalapril in acute decompensated heart failure from the Australian healthcare perspective.Methods A Markov model was designed using data from the PIONEER-HF trial to model the clinical progress and costs of patients over a lifetime time horizon. The model consisted of three health states: ‘alive and event-free’, ‘alive after non-fatal hospitalisation for acute decompensated heart failure’ or ‘dead’. Costs and utilities were estimated from published sources. The cost of sacubitril-valsartan (per the Australian pharmaceutical benefits schedule) was AU$7.08/day. Outcomes of interest were the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios in terms of cost per quality-adjusted life year gained and cost per year of life saved. Cost and benefits were discounted at 5.0% per annum.Results Compared to enalapril, sacubitril-valsartan was estimated to cost an additional AU$7464 (discounted) per person, but lead to 0.127 years of life saved (discounted) and 0.096 quality-adjusted life years gained (discounted) over a lifetime analysis. These equated to incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of AU$58,629/year of life saved (US$41,795, EU€58,629, GBP£32,001) and AU$77,889/quality-adjusted life year gained (US$55,526, EU€49,202, GBP£42,504). We have assumed a threshold of AU$50,000/quality-adjusted life year gained to suggest cost-effectiveness.Conclusions At its current acquisition price, sacubitril-valsartan in comparison to enalapril is not likely to be cost-effective in the management of acute decompensated heart failure in Australia. A price reduction of more than 25% would confer cost-effectiveness.

Aim To assess the cost-effectiveness of dapagliflozin in addition to standard care versus standard care alone in patients with chronic heart failure and reduced ejection fraction.Methods A Markov model was constructed based on the Dapagliflozin and Prevention of Adverse Outcomes in Heart Failure trial to assess the clinical outcomes and costs of 1000 hypothetical subjects with established heart failure and reduced ejection fraction. The model consisted of three health states: ‘alive and event-free’, ‘alive after non-fatal hospitalisation for heart failure’ and ‘dead’. Costs and utilities were estimated from published sources. The main outcome was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio per quality-adjusted life-year gained. An Australian public healthcare perspective was employed. All outcomes and costs were discounted at a rate of 5% annually.Results Over a lifetime horizon, the addition of dapagliflozin to standard care in patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction prevented 88 acute heart failure hospitalisations (including readmissions) and yielded an additional 416 years of life and 288 quality-adjusted life-years (discounted) at an additional cost of A$3,692,440 (discounted). This equated to an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of A$12,482 per quality-adjusted life-year gained, well below the Australian willingness-to-pay threshold of A$50,000 per quality-adjusted life-year gained. Subanalyses in subjects with and without diabetes resulted in similar incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of A$13,234 and A$12,386 per quality-adjusted life-year gained, respectively.Conclusion Dapagliflozin is likely to be cost-effective when used as an adjunct therapy to standard care compared with standard care alone for the treatment of chronic heart failure and reduced ejection fraction.

Aims The aim of this study was to estimate the cost-effectiveness, from the perspective of the Australian public healthcare system, of icosapent ethyl in combination with statin therapy compared with statin alone for the prevention of cardiovascular disease.Methods and results A Markov model populated with data from the Reduction of Cardiovascular Events with Icosapent Ethyl–Intervention Trial was designed to predict the effectiveness and costs of icosapent ethyl in combination with statins compared with statins alone over a 20-year time horizon. Data inputs for costs and utilities were sourced from published sources. The annual costs of icosapent ethyl were assumed to be AUD1637 (USD2907) per person. All future costs and outcomes were discounted annually by 5%. The main outcome of interest was incremental cost-effectiveness ratios in terms of cost per quality adjusted life year (QALY) gained and per year of life saved (YoLS). Over a 20-year time horizon, compared with statin alone, icosapent ethyl in combination with statin was estimated to cost an additional AUD$13,022 per person, but led to 0.338 YoLS and 0.289 QALYs gained (all discounted). These equated to incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of AUD45,036 per QALY gained and AUD38,480 per YoLS. Sub-analyses for primary and secondary prevention were AUD96,136 and AUD35,935 per QALY gained, respectively. The results were sensitive to time-horizon, age related trends and the acquisition price of icosapent ethyl.Conclusion Compared with statin alone, icosapent ethyl in combination with statin therapy is likely to be cost-effective in the prevention of cardiovascular disease assuming a willingness-to-pay threshold of AUD50,000 per QALY gained, especially in the secondary preventive setting.

Aims Peripheral artery disease affects 1.2% of the population globally and is associated with an increased risk of atherothrombotic cardiovascular events, major adverse limb events and mortality. The Cardiovascular Outcomes for People Using Anti-coagulation Strategies (COMPASS) trial demonstrated positive results of rivaroxaban plus aspirin therapy compared to aspirin therapy alone in those with peripheral artery disease or carotid artery disease. We sought to estimate the cost-effectiveness from the Australian healthcare system perspective.Methods and results A Markov model was developed to simulate the experiences of a hypothetical population of 1000 individuals with peripheral artery disease or carotid artery disease, profiled on the COMPASS trial, treated with rivaroxaban plus aspirin therapy versus aspirin therapy alone. With each annual cycle, individuals were at risk of having non-fatal cardiovascular disease events, major adverse limb events, or dying. Individuals were also at risk of non-fatal major bleeding. The model had a lifetime time horizon. Costs and utilities were sourced from the literature and discounted at 5.0% annually. Rivaroxaban plus aspirin therapy prevented 143 non-fatal cardiovascular disease events, 118 major adverse limb events and 10 deaths compared to aspirin therapy alone. Conversely, 156 additional major non-fatal bleeds were accrued. With an additional 256 quality-adjusted life years gained, at an additional cost of AUD$6,858,103, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was AUD$26,769 (discounted) per quality-adjusted life year gained, which is below Australia’s arbitrary willingness to pay threshold of AUD$50,000.Conclusion In those with peripheral artery disease or carotid artery disease, rivaroxaban plus aspirin therapy is effective and cost-effective in the prevention of recurrent cardiovascular disease compared to aspirin therapy alone.