Key result
LCZ696 shows cost-effectiveness vs enalapril in the Netherlands at ~€17,600 per QALY gained.
Why the study?
Is sacubitril/valsartan cost-effective compared with enalapril in adult patients with chronic heart failure with reduced ejection fraction in the Netherlands?
Is sacubitril/valsartan cost-effective compared with enalapril in adult patients with chronic heart failure with reduced ejection fraction in the Netherlands?
Sacubitril/valsartan is highly likely to be cost-effective compared with enalapril for HFrEF patients in the Netherlands under both former and current pharmacoeconomic guidelines.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
May inform Dutch HFrEF reimbursement; extends global models by incorporating updated pharmacoeconomic guidelines and indirect costs.
OBJECTIVES: To describe the adaptation of a global health economic model to determine whether treatment with the angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor LCZ696 is cost effective compared with the angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor enalapril in adult patients with chronic heart failure with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction in the Netherlands; and to explore the effect of performing the cost-effectiveness analyses according to the new pharmacoeconomic Dutch guidelines (updated during the submission process of LCZ696), which require a value-of-information analysis and the inclusion of indirect medical costs of life-years gained. METHODS: We adapted a UK model to reflect the societal perspective in the Netherlands by including travel expenses, productivity loss, informal care costs, and indirect medical costs during the life-years gained and performed a preliminary value-of-information analysis. RESULTS: The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio obtained was €17,600 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. This was robust to changes in most structural assumptions and across different subgroups of patients. Probability sensitivity analysis results showed that the probability that LCZ696 is cost-effective at a €50,000 per QALY threshold is 99.8%, with a population expected value of perfect information of €297,128. On including indirect medical costs of life-years gained, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was €26,491 per QALY gained, and LCZ696 was 99.46% cost effective at €50,000 per QALY, with a population expected value of perfect information of €2,849,647. CONCLUSIONS: LCZ696 is cost effective compared with enalapril under the former and current Dutch guidelines. However, the (monetary) consequences of making a wrong decision were considerably different in both scenarios.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ramos et al. (2017) studied chronic heart failure with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction. LCZ696 (sacubitril/valsartan) vs. enalapril was evaluated on incremental cost-effectiveness ratio per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained (€17,600 per QALY gained). LCZ696 was cost-effective compared with enalapril in the Netherlands, with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of €17,600 per QALY gained under former guidelines and €26,491 under current guidelines.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: