Why the study?
Sacubitril-valsartan is guideline-recommended for HFrEF, but contemporary data on its real-world use and associated costs remained limited after early reports suggested low uptake.
What is the real-world utilization and out-of-pocket cost of sacubitril-valsartan compared to ACEi/ARB in patients with HFrEF?
What is the real-world utilization and out-of-pocket cost of sacubitril-valsartan compared to ACEi/ARB in patients with HFrEF?
Real-world uptake of sacubitril-valsartan in HFrEF remains low, likely driven by high out-of-pocket costs compared to generic ACEi/ARBs.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Infrequent sacubitril-valsartan use in HFrEF signals ongoing implementation gaps; leaves open questions on barriers and strategies to improve uptake.
Background Current guidelines recommend use of sacubitril‐valsartan in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). Early data suggested low uptake of sacubitril‐valsartan, but contemporary data on real‐world use and their associated cost are limited. Methods and Results This was a retrospective study of individuals enrolled in Optum Clinformatics, a national insurance claims data set from 2016 to 2018. We included all adult patients with HFrEF with 2 outpatient encounters or 1 inpatient encounter with an International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision ( ICD‐10 ), diagnosis of HFrEF and 6 months of continuous enrollment, also receiving β‐blockers and angiotensin‐converting enzyme inhibitors/angiotensin receptor blockers within 6 months of HFrEF diagnosis. We included 70 245 patients with HFrEF, and 5217 patients (7.4%) received sacubitril‐valsartan prescriptions. Patients receiving care through a cardiologist compared with a primary care physician alone were more likely to receive sacubitril‐valsartan (odds ratio, 1.61 [95% CI, 1.52–1.71]). Monthly out‐of‐pocket (OOP) cost for sacubitril‐valsartan, compared with angiotensin‐converting enzyme inhibitors/angiotensin receptor blockers, was higher for both commercially insured patients (mean, $69 versus $6.74) and Medicare Advantage (mean, $62 versus $2.52). For patients with commercial insurance, OOP cost was lower in 2016 than in 2018. For patients with Medicare Advantage, there was a significant geographic variation in the OOP costs across the country, ranging from $31 to $68 per month across different regions, holding all other patient‐related factors constant. Conclusions Sacubitril‐valsartan use was infrequent among patients with HFrEF. Patients receiving care with a cardiologist were more likely to receive sacubitril‐valsartan. OOP costs remain high, potentially limiting use. Significant geographic variation in OOP costs, unexplained by patient factors, was noted.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Shore et al. (2022) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: