Comparative Effectiveness and Costs of Sacubitril/Valsartan Versus Angiotensin Receptor Blockers in Heart Failure with Preserved Ejection Fraction
Author(s)
Riaz M1, Smith S1, Winchester DE2, Guo J2, Dietrich E2, Park H1
1University of Florida, College of Pharmacy, Gainesville, FL, USA, 2University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA
Presentation Documents
OBJECTIVES: Sacubitril/valsartan (SAC/VAL) and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARB) are recommended therapy for heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), but little is known about their real-world comparative effectiveness and costs. We aimed to assess comparative effectiveness of SAC/VAL vs. ARB for preventing HF-related and all-cause hospitalizations in patients with HFpEF and their related medical costs.
METHODS: We conducted a cohort study of patients with diagnosed HFpEF aged > 18 years who initiated SAC/VAL (2015-2020) or ARB (2009-2014) using MarketScan® Commercial and Medicare Supplemental databases. Patients were required to have continuous enrolment in any commercial health benefit plan 6 months prior to the prescription fill date (index date) for inclusion in clinical outcome models. For economic outcomes, pre-index continuous enrolment was also required; however, we excluded patients if they had capitated health benefit plans. After 1 up to 3 propensity score matching, Cox proportional hazards regression models were used with robust variance estimators to compare HF-related and all-cause hospitalizations between the SAC/VAL and ARB users. We compared the post- treatment medical costs (HF-related and all-cause costs) per patient per month considering HF-related or any-cause services using a two-part model.
RESULTS: After propensity score matching, 2,520 patients (846 SAC/VAL users and 1,674 ARB users) were included in the clinical outcomes cohort and 1,705 (553 SAC/VAL users and 1,152 ARB users) in economic outcomes cohort. There was no significant differences in risk of HF-related hospitalization (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 0.95; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.76-1.18; p=0.63) and all-cause hospitalization (aHR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.80-1.04; p=0.18) between SAC/VAL and ARB groups. There was no significant differences in HF-related ($4,303 vs. $1,952, p=0.07) and all-cause ($7,877 vs. $6,432, p=0.32) medical costs between SAC/VAL and ARB users.
CONCLUSIONS: SAC/VAL and ARB users did not differ significantly in the risk of HF-related and all-cause hospitalizations and related medical costs.
Conference/Value in Health Info
Value in Health, Volume 26, Issue 6, S2 (June 2023)
Code
CO138
Topic
Clinical Outcomes, Economic Evaluation
Topic Subcategory
Comparative Effectiveness or Efficacy, Cost-comparison, Effectiveness, Utility, Benefit Analysis
Disease
Drugs