Key result
Ivabradine is cost-effective for Japanese HF patients ≥75 bpm at ~2.46 million JPY per QALY.
Why the study?
Ivabradine is a new treatment option for heart rate reduction in reduced ejection fraction heart failure, but its cost-effectiveness on top of standard therapy in Japan needed assessment.
Is adding ivabradine to standard therapy cost-effective compared to standard therapy alone in patients with chronic heart failure with reduced ejection fraction in Japan?
Is adding ivabradine to standard therapy cost-effective compared to standard therapy alone in patients with chronic heart failure with reduced ejection fraction in Japan?
Adding ivabradine to standard therapy is a cost-effective treatment option for patients with chronic heart failure with reduced ejection fraction in Japan.
Supports ivabradine addition for Japanese HFrEF patients with HR ≥75 bpm; leaves open real-world confirmation before practice change.
Ivabradine is indicated as a new treatment option for heart rate reduction in patients with reduced ejection fraction heart failure. This study aims to assess the cost-effectiveness of ivabradine on top of standard therapy in patients with chronic heart failure in Japan.A two-state Markov model was used to analyze the cost-effectiveness of ivabradine from a Japanese health-care payer perspective. The Quality-Adjusted Life Year (QALY) was set as an outcome measure. Two study population cohorts were included in this analysis: patients with chronic heart failure with a resting heart rate ≥ 75 beats per min (bpm) and those with a resting heart rate ≥ 70 bpm.The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for ivabradine with standard therapy compared to standard therapy alone was estimated as JPY 2,460,952 per QALY gained for the ≥ 75 bpm population and JPY 2,556,899 per QALY for the ≥ 70 bpm population. With a willingness-to-pay threshold of JPY 5,000,000 per QALY, ivabradine with standard therapy was 90% more likely to be cost-effective for the ≥ 75 bpm cohort in Japan. These findings were found to be robust in both the sensitivity and scenario analyses.This study suggests that adding ivabradine to standard therapy represents a cost-effective treatment option for chronic heart failure patients with reduced ejection fraction in Japan.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Inomata et al. (2024) studied Chronic heart failure. Ivabradine vs. Standard therapy alone was evaluated on Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) per QALY gained (JPY 2,460,952 per QALY). Adding ivabradine to standard therapy in Japanese patients with chronic heart failure is cost-effective, yielding an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of JPY 2,460,952 per QALY gained for the ≥75 bpm cohort.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: