Cost‐Effectiveness Analysis of Sacubitril/Valsartan for the Treatment of Heart Failure with Reduced Ejection Fraction in the United States

• Published in: Pharmacotherapy 2018-05, Vol.38 (5), p.520-530
• Main Authors: Zueger, Patrick M., Kumar, Varun M., Harrington, Rachel L., Rigoni, Gianna C., Atwood, Alicia, DiDomenico, Robert J., Touchette, Daniel R.
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Aminobutyrates - economics; Aminobutyrates - therapeutic use; Angiotensin Receptor Antagonists - economics; Angiotensin Receptor Antagonists - therapeutic use; Cohort Studies; Cost-Benefit Analysis; cost‐effectiveness; Drug Combinations; Drug Costs; Ejection fraction; Heart diseases; Heart failure; Heart Failure - drug therapy; Heart Failure - physiopathology; heart failure with reduced ejection fraction; Hospitalization - economics; Hospitalization - statistics & numerical data; Humans; Markov Chains; Mortality; Patients; Quality-Adjusted Life Years; quality‐adjusted life year; sacubitril‐valsartan; Stroke Volume; Tetrazoles - economics; Tetrazoles - therapeutic use
• ISSN: 0277-0008; 1875-9114
• DOI: 10.1002/phar.2108

Objective Sacubitril/valsartan (SAC/VAL) has been shown to reduce mortality and hospitalization in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) compared with enalapril but at a substantially higher cost. This study evaluates the cost‐effectiveness of SAC/VAL versus enalapril in patients with HFrEF over a 5‐year time horizon from the U.S. payer perspective. Methods A cohort‐based Markov model was developed to compare costs and quality‐adjusted life years (QALYs) between SAC/VAL and enalapril in patients with HFrEF over a 5‐year time horizon. Markov states included New York Heart Association (NYHA) class (II‐IV) and death. Treatment discontinuation, HF‐related hospitalizations, and NYHA class progression were modeled as transition states based on data from the PARADIGM trial. Other probabilities, costs, and utilities were obtained from published literature and public databases. Results In the base case analysis, SAC/VAL cost more than enalapril ($81,943 vs $67,287) and was more effective (2.647 QALYs vs 2.546 QALYs), resulting in an incremental cost‐effectiveness ratio of $143,891/QALY gained. At a willingness to pay (WTP) of $100,000/QALY, SAC/VAL was cost‐effective up to a cost of $298/month. Results were most sensitive to SAC/VAL cost, SAC/VAL mortality benefit, and NYHA progression probability. SAC/VAL had a 10% and 52% probability of being cost‐effective at WTP thresholds of $100,000/QALY and $150,000/QALY, respectively. Conclusions SAC/VAL is associated with clinical benefit and may be cost‐effective compared with the current standard of care over realistic treatment durations from the payer perspective. Results of this analysis can inform discussions on the value and position of SAC/VAL in the current market.