Search

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]

The objective of this study was to evaluate the pharmacoeconomic value of sacubitril-valsartan for the treatment of heart failure (HF). PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, ScienceDirect, Scopus, CNKI, Wanfang, and VIP databases were searched systematically and the retrieval time ended in August 2019. According to the criteria of inclusion and exclusion, the quality of studies included was evaluated as per the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) scale, and the results were extracted and analyzed systematically. The total of 11 cost-effectiveness studies was identified, 10 were performed in the developed countries and 1 in Thailand. All the patients in the studies had chronic heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). Totally, the quality of all the 11 studies was reported to be of an average score of 20.5. Study perspective and time horizons were described in the 11 studies. All included studies discounted the cost or effectiveness. Only 1 study estimated direct and indirect costs; 10 studies evaluated direct cost. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of sacubitril-valsartan treating HFrEF was $13,150 per quality-adjusted life-years (QALY) in Thailand and $86,735 in Singapore. In European countries, the ICER was from $21,786 to $34,576 per QALY and mean value was $25,410.6 per QALY. In the USA, ICER values ranged from $47,099 to $143,891 per QALY, and mean value was $73,383.5 per QALY; ICER was $30,090 per QALY in Colombia. With the exception of Thailand and Singapore, the ICER of other countries in the included literature was below the implemented country-specific thresholds. Based on existing literatures, with the exception of Thailand and Singapore, sacubitril-valsartan for the treatment of HFrEF is a better cost-effective therapy with ICER basically below the implemented country-specific thresholds. Sacubitril-valsartan was not considered a cost-effective treatment for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction in Thailand and Singapore with the current economic evaluation evidences, but with the willingness-to-pay (WTP) of other counties, sacubitril-valsartan was found to be a cost-effective treatment compared with comparator. Drug cost, time horizon, and hospitalization were the most influential variables across studies. Four studies indicated that with the longer time horizon, the lower ICER value would gain. Further studies are warranted to better evaluate comprehensive utility value of sacubitril-valsartan on heart failure. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]