COST-UTILITY ANALYSIS OF ANGIOTENSIN RECEPTOR–NEPRILYSIN INHIBITOR SACUBITRIL/VALSARTAN COMPARED WITH ACE INHIBITORS FOR THE TREATMENT OF CHRONIC HEART FAILURE IN THE UNITED STATES

Author(s)

Harrington RL, Zueger PM, Kumar VM, Rigoni G, Atwood AM, DiDomenico RJ, Touchette DR
University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA

OBJECTIVES: Sacubitril/valsartan (SAC/VAL), an angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor, has been shown to reduce the risk of cardiovascular death and hospitalization in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) compared with ACE inhibitors (ACEi), but at a substantially higher cost. This study evaluates the incremental cost-utility of SAC/VAL versus ACEi in patients with HFrEF from the US payer perspective. METHODS: A cohort-based Markov model was developed to compare costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALY) between SAC/VAL and ACEi in patients with HFrEF, using a base case time horizon of 5 years, and a 1 month cycle length. Markov states included New York Heart Association [NYHA] Class (II-IV) and death, with disease progression modeled as the probability of increasing a single NYHA Class during one cycle. Treatment discontinuation and HF-related hospitalizations were modeled as transition states. Transition probabilities for SAC/VAL and ACEi were derived from the PARADIGM trial. Other probabilities, costs, and utilities were obtained from the published literature and public databases. Univariate and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSA) were conducted to evaluate parameter uncertainty. RESULTS: In base case analysis, SAC/VAL cost more than ACEi ($72, 390 vs. $59,693, respectively), but was more effective (2.53 QALYs vs. 2.43 QALYs).  SAC/VAL was associated with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $131,579/QALY versus ACEi. At a willingness to pay (WTP) of $100,000/QALY, SAC/VAL was found to be cost-effective up to a cost of $297/month. Results were most sensitive to SAC/VAL cost, time horizon and NYHA progression probability. In PSA, SAC/VAL was found to have an 18% probability of being cost-effective assuming a WTP of $100,000/QALY. CONCLUSIONS: SAC/VAL is associated with clinical benefit, but may not be a cost-effective option compared to other available therapies. Results of this analysis can be used to inform discussion on the value and position of SAC/VAL in the current market.

Conference/Value in Health Info

2016-05, ISPOR 2016, Washington DC, USA

Value in Health, Vol. 19, No. 3 (May 2016)

Code

PCV55

Topic

Economic Evaluation

Topic Subcategory

Cost-comparison, Effectiveness, Utility, Benefit Analysis

Disease

Cardiovascular Disorders

Explore Related HEOR by Topic


Your browser is out-of-date

ISPOR recommends that you update your browser for more security, speed and the best experience on ispor.org. Update my browser now

×