Search

Background: To assess the cost-effectiveness of sacubitril/valsartan compared with enalapril in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection (HFrEF). Methods: A systematic literature search was conducted searching in major electronic databases from inception to January 1, 2021. All relevant full economic evaluation studies of sacubitril/valsartan versus enalapril for the treatment of patients with HFrEF were identified using ad hoc search strategies. Mortality, hospital admissions, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), lifeyears (LYQs), annual drug costs, total lifetime costs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) were considered as the outcomes. The quality of the included studies was assessed using the CHEERS checklist. This study was conducted and reported in accordance with the "Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses" (PRISMA) guidelines. Results: The initial search yielded a pool of 1026 articles, of which 703 unique articles were screened, 65 full-text articles were assessed for eligibility and 15 studies finally included in the qualitative synthesis. Studies show that sacubitril/valsartan reduces mortality and hospitalization rate. The mean of death risk ratio and hospitalization were computed at 0.843 and 0.844, respectively. Sacubitril/valsartan produced higher annual and total lifetime costs. The lowest and highest lifetime costs for sacubitril/valsartan were found in Thailand ($4,756) and Germany ($118,815), respectively. The lowest ICER was reported in Thailand ($4857/QALY) and the highest in the USA ($143,891/QALY). Conclusion: Sacubitril/valsartan is associated with better outcomes and may be cost-effective compared to enalapril for the management of HFrEF. However, in developing countries such as Thailand, sacubitril-valsartan costs must be reduced to yield an ICER below the threshold. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Sacubitril-valsartan is a new medication that has recently been recommended as a replacement for enalapril in the treatment of patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF).Objective: This study aimed to determine the cost effectiveness of sacubitril-valsartan compared with enalapril.Methods: An analytical decision model was developed to estimate the long-term costs and outcomes from a healthcare perspective. Clinical inputs were mostly derived from the PARADIGM-HF study. Enalapril-related costs, risk of non-cardiovascular death, and all-cause readmission rate were based on data from Thailand. The costs and outcomes were discounted at 3% annually. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was calculated and presented for the year 2017. A series of sensitivity analyses were also performed.Results: For the base-case, the increased cost (144,146 vs. 16,048 Thai baht [THB]) of sacubitril-valsartan was associated with gains in both life-years (9.214 vs. 8.367 years) and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) (7.698 vs. 6.909) compared with enalapril, yielding an ICER of 162,276 THB/QALY ($US4857.11/QALY). This ICER is not considered to be cost effective at the willingness-to-pay (WTP) level of 160,000 THB/QALY. The risk of cardiovascular death and costs of both sacubitril-valsartan and hospitalization influenced the ICER. At a WTP of 160,000 THB/QALY, sacubitril-valsartan had a 48% probability of being a cost-effective treatment.Conclusions: At its current price in Thailand, sacubitril-valsartan may not represent good value for the nations’s limited healthcare resources. The cost of sacubitril-valsartan needs to reduce by approximately 2% to yield an ICER below the threshold. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]