Key result
Sacubitril/valsartan was a dominant, cost-saving strategy compared with an ICD in patients with HFrEF, yielding an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of -€98,500 per QALY gained over 10 years.
Why the study?
Is sacubitril/valsartan cost-effective compared with an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator in patients with HFrEF?
Is sacubitril/valsartan cost-effective compared with an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator in patients with HFrEF?
In a simulated HFrEF cohort, sacubitril/valsartan was projected to be a dominant, cost-saving strategy compared to an ICD over a 10-year horizon from an Italian healthcare perspective.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Does not justify replacing ICDs with sacubitril/valsartan in HFrEF; leaves open prospective validation.
AIMS: The availability of novel drugs might affect the modern interplay between pharmacological and device therapy of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). The aim of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of sacubitril/valsartan as compared with an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) on top of optimal medical therapy in patients with HFrEF. METHODS: Data from 2000 adults with demographic and clinical characteristics similar to those in the PARADIGM-HF were derived as inputs for a four-state Markov model simulated HFrEF. Probabilities of all-cause mortality, heart failure hospitalization and ICD-related complications along with quality of life data and costs, discounted at 3%, from an Italian healthcare payer perspective were projected over a 10-year time horizon. Sensitivity analyses on key inputs were performed. RESULTS: According to the model, sacubitril/valsartan would lead to 5.85 life years saved, whilst reducing by more than 20% the risk of heart failure hospitalizations for 1000 patients with HFrEF over 10 years. Estimated incremental costs with sacubitril/valsartan were -13 302 associated with incremental 0.14 quality-adjusted life years gained, yielding an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of -98 500 per quality-adjusted life year gained for the base-case consistent with a dominant, cost-saving and clinically superior treatment strategy. Sacubitril/valsartan was dominant in more than 80% of the scenarios explored with sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSION: The findings of this model suggest that in patients with HFrEF sacubitril/valsartan would be cost-effective by increasing survival at lower costs compared with an ICD. Sensitivity analyses confirmed the cost-effectiveness of sacubitril/valsartan that remained dominant across most of the ranges of the variables tested.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Valerio Zacà (2018) studied Heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) (n=2,000). Sacubitril/valsartan vs. Implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) on top of optimal medical therapy was evaluated on Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained (ICER -€98,500 per QALY gained). Sacubitril/valsartan was a dominant, cost-saving strategy compared with an ICD in patients with HFrEF, yielding an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of -€98,500 per QALY gained over 10 years.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: