Cost-effectiveness of sacubitril/valsartan versus enalapril in patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction

Background: Sacubitril/valsartan reduces cardiovascular death and hospitalizations for heart failure (HF). However, decision-makers need to determine whether its benefits are worth the additional costs, given the low-cost generic status of traditional standard of care.

Aims: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of sacubitril/valsartan compared to enalapril in patients with HF and reduced ejection fraction, from the Singapore healthcare payer perspective.

Methods: A Markov model was developed to project clinical and economic outcomes of sacubitril/valsartan vs enalapril for 66-year-old patients with HF over 10 years. Key health states included New York Heart Association classes I–IV and deaths; patients in each state incurred a monthly risk of hospitalization for HF and cardiovascular death. Sacubitril/valsartan benefits were modeled by applying the hazard ratios (HRs) in PARADIGM-HF trial to baseline probabilities. Primary model outcomes were total and incremental costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for sacubitril/valsartan relative to enalapril

Results: Compared to enalapril, sacubitril/valsartan was associated with an ICER of SGD 74,592 (USD 55,198) per QALY gained. A major driver of cost-effectiveness was the cardiovascular mortality benefit of sacubitril/valsartan. The uncertainty of this treatment benefit in the Asian sub-group was tested in sensitivity analyses using a HR of 1 as an upper limit, where the ICERs ranged from SGD 41,019 (USD 30,354) to SGD 1,447,103 (USD 1,070,856) per QALY gained. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses showed the probability of sacubitril/valsartan being cost-effective was below 1%, 12%, and 71% at SGD 20,000, SGD 50,000, and SGD 100,000 per QALY gained, respectively.

Conclusions: At the current daily price sacubitril/valsartan may not represent good value for limited healthcare dollars compared to enalapril in reducing cardiovascular morbidity and mortality in HF in the Singapore healthcare setting. This study highlights the cost-benefit trade-off that healthcare professionals and patients face when considering therapy.     

Costs of haematological adverse events in chronic myeloid leukaemia patients: a retrospective cost analysis of the treatment of anaemia,neutropenia and thrombocytopenia in patients with chronic myeloid leukaemia

Abstract

Objective: The study aim was to assess costs of haematological adverse events (AE) related to pharmacologic treatment of chronic myeloid leukaemia (CML) patients.

Methods: This was a retrospective cohort study using patient records of adults (n=91) with chronic-phase CML treated at a single university medical centre in the Netherlands. Occurrence of grade III/IV haematological AEs, defined according to CTC-NCI guidelines criteria, was derived from the laboratory registration. Mean age at time of diagnosis was 48 years; 56% male. A healthcare perspective was adopted. Cost estimates are presented in 2006 euros.

Results: Average cost of an episode of anaemia was €1,572, of thrombocytopenia €2,955, and of neutropenia €1,152. The mean cost of febrile neutropenia amounted to €2,462.

Conclusions: Treatment costs of AEs varied considerably. However, apart from the cost of anaemia, the results presented seem to be in line with information from the international literature. The key limitations of the study concern the relatively small cohort of patients at a single centre, the retrospective design and the various treatment regimens of CML during the follow-up.     

Economic burden associated with inadequate antidepressant medication management among patients with depression and known cardiovascular diseases: insights from a United States–based retrospective claims database analysis

Abstract

Aims: The current study examined the association between insufficient major depressive disorder (MDD) care and healthcare resource use (HCRU) and costs among patients with prior myocardial infarction (MI) or stroke.

Methods: This was a retrospective study conducted using the MarketScan Claims Database (2010–2015). The date of the first MI/stroke diagnosis was defined as the cardiovascular disease (CVD) index date and the first date of a subsequent MDD diagnosis was the index MDD date. Adequacy of MDD care was assessed during the 90 days following the index MDD date (profiling period) using 2 measures: dosage adequacy (average fluoxetine equivalent dose of ≥20?mg/day for nonelderly and ≥10?mg/day for elderly patients) and duration adequacy (measured as the proportion of days covered of 80% or higher for all MDD drugs). Study outcomes included all-cause and CVD-related HCRU and costs which were determined from the end of the profiling period until the end of study follow-up. Propensity-score adjusted generalized linear models (GLMs) were used to compare patients receiving adequate versus inadequate MDD care in terms of study outcomes.

Results: Of 1,568 CVD patients who were treated for MDD, 937 (59.8%) were categorized as receiving inadequate MDD care. Results from the GLMs suggested that patients receiving inadequate MDD care had 14% more all-cause hospitalizations, 4% more all-cause outpatient visits, 17% more CVD-related outpatient visits, 13% more CVD-related emergency room (ER) visits, higher per patient per year CVD-related hospitalization costs ($21,485 vs. $17,756), higher all-cause outpatient costs ($2,820 vs. $2,055), and higher CVD-related outpatient costs ($520 vs. $434) compared to patients receiving adequate MDD care.

Limitations: Clinical information such as depression severity and frailty, which are potential predictors of adverse CVD outcomes, could not be ascertained using administrative claims data.

Conclusions: Among post-MI and post-stroke patients, inadequate MDD care was associated with a significantly higher economic burden.     

Quality of life benefits and cost impact of prolonged release oxycodone/naloxone versus prolonged release oxycodone in patients with moderate-to-severe non-malignant pain and opioid-induced constipation: a UK cost-utility analysis

Abstract

Objective:

To compare the cost effectiveness of prolonged release oxycodone/naloxone (OXN) tablets (Targinact) and prolonged release oxycodone (OXY) tablets (OxyContin) in patients with moderate-to-severe non-malignant pain and opioid-induced constipation (OIC) from the perspective of the UK healthcare system.

Methods:

A cohort model used data from a phase III randomised, controlled trial (RCT). It calculated the cost difference between treatments by combining the cost of pain therapy with costs of laxatives and other resources used to manage constipated patients. SF-36 scores were converted into EQ-5D utility values to calculate the quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gains. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed.

Results:

The incremental cost of OXN versus OXY was £159.68 for the average treatment duration of 301 days. OXN gave an incremental QALY gain of 0.0273. The estimated incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was £5841.56 per QALY. Sensitivity analyses gave a maximum ICER of £10,347.03. In some scenarios, OXN dominated with a cost saving of up to £4254.70. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed that OXN had approximately 96.6% probability of cost effectiveness at the £20,000 threshold.

Limitations:

The model was conservative in predicting the probability of constipation beyond the 12-week RCT period. UK cost of constipation data were limited and based on primary care physician opinion.

Conclusions:

In the base case, direct treatment costs were slightly higher for patients treated with OXN than for those treated with OXY. However, patients treated with OXN experienced a quality of life gain, and had an ICER considerably below thresholds commonly applied in the UK. The model was most sensitive to the estimated cost of constipation with a number of realistic scenarios in the sensitivity analysis demonstrating a cost saving with OXN (OXN dominant). OXN is therefore estimated to be a cost-effective option for treating patients with severe non-malignant pain and OIC.