Key result
Sacubitril/valsartan adds ~$18M in 5-year budget impact vs enalapril while reducing HF hospitalizations.
Why the study?
The budget impact and alternative funding mechanisms under decision uncertainty for sacubitril/valsartan compared with enalapril in treating heart failure with reduced ejection fraction in Thailand needed evaluation.
What is the budget impact of sacubitril/valsartan compared with enalapril for treating heart failure with reduced ejection fraction in Thailand over a 5-year time horizon?
What is the budget impact of sacubitril/valsartan compared with enalapril for treating heart failure with reduced ejection fraction in Thailand over a 5-year time horizon?
In Thailand, adopting sacubitril/valsartan for HFrEF increases total expenditure by USD 18.40 million over 5 years compared to enalapril, though costs are partially offset by preventing 300 heart failure hospitalizations and 146 cardiovascular deaths and can be managed via alternative funding agreements.
Objective This study evaluated the budget impact of sacubitril/valsartan for treating heart failure with reduced ejection fraction compared with enalapril and assessed alternative funding mechanisms under decision uncertainty. Methods The study comprised 3 components. First, a decision tree and a Markov model were used to estimate the budget impact over a 5-year time horizon. The base-case adopted a payer perspective, including direct medical costs, whereas a scenario analysis incorporated direct non-medical and indirect costs. Second, a situation analysis identified key decision uncertainties. Third, an economic impact analysis evaluated alternative funding mechanisms relative to the current reimbursement system. Results In the base-case, the cumulative net budget impact was United States dollars (USD) 18.40 million. For the scenario analysis, the net economic impact decreased to USD 15.72 million, indicating a partial offset of the additional drug expenditure. The new treatment mix was estimated to avoid 300 heart failure hospitalizations and 146 cardiovascular deaths over 5 years. Key uncertainties included high budget requirements, limited epidemiological data, and variability in clinical outcomes. To address these, 2 funding mechanisms were explored: coverage with evidence development to reduce clinical uncertainty and a price-volume agreement with a capped budget to manage financial risk. Conclusion Sacubitril/valsartan increased total expenditure compared with the current treatment; however, savings from reduced hospitalizations and broader societal costs partially offset the additional drug cost. Sacubitril/valsartan may be a manageable option when implemented with coverage with evidence development and price-volume agreements, supporting financial sustainability and long-term health outcomes.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Luksameesate et al. (2026) studied Heart failure with reduced ejection fraction. Sacubitril/valsartan vs. Enalapril was evaluated on Cumulative net budget impact over a 5-year time horizon (USD 18.40 million net budget impact). Sacubitril/valsartan yielded a 5-year net budget impact of USD 18.40M versus enalapril while avoiding 300 HF hospitalizations and 146 cardiovascular deaths.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: