Ademi Zanfina, Pfeil Alena M, Hancock Elizabeth, Trueman David, Haroun Rola Haroun, Deschaseaux Celine, Schwenkglenks Matthias
Institute of Pharmaceutical Medicine (ECPM), University of Basel, Switzerland, and Monash Centre of Cardiovascular Research and Education in Therapeutics, Department of Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia.
Institute of Pharmaceutical Medicine (ECPM), University of Basel, Switzerland.
Swiss Med Wkly. 2017 Nov 15;147:w14533. doi: 10.4414/smw.2017.14533. eCollection 2017.
We aimed to assess the cost effectiveness of sacubitril/valsartan compared to angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) for the treatment of individuals with chronic heart failure and reduced-ejection fraction (HFrEF) from the perspective of the Swiss health care system.
The cost-effectiveness analysis was implemented as a lifelong regression-based cohort model. We compared sacubitril/valsartan with enalapril in chronic heart failure patients with HFrEF and New York-Heart Association Functional Classification II-IV symptoms. Regression models based on the randomised clinical phase III PARADIGM-HF trials were used to predict events (all-cause mortality, hospitalisations, adverse events and quality of life) for each treatment strategy modelled over the lifetime horizon, with adjustments for patient characteristics. Unit costs were obtained from Swiss public sources for the year 2014, and costs and effects were discounted by 3%. The main outcome of interest was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), expressed as cost per quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained. Deterministic sensitivity analysis (DSA) and scenario and probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) were performed.
In the base-case analysis, the sacubitril/valsartan strategy showed a decrease in the number of hospitalisations (6.0% per year absolute reduction) and lifetime hospital costs by 8.0% (discounted) when compared with enalapril. Sacubitril/valsartan was predicted to improve overall and quality-adjusted survival by 0.50 years and 0.42 QALYs, respectively. Additional net-total costs were CHF 10 926. This led to an ICER of CHF 25 684. In PSA, the probability of sacubitril/valsartan being cost-effective at thresholds of CHF 50 000 was 99.0%.
The treatment of HFrEF patients with sacubitril/valsartan versus enalapril is cost effective, if a willingness-to-pay threshold of CHF 50 000 per QALY gained ratio is assumed.
从瑞士医疗保健系统的角度,评估沙库巴曲缬沙坦与血管紧张素转换酶抑制剂(ACEI)相比,用于治疗慢性心力衰竭且射血分数降低(HFrEF)患者的成本效益。
成本效益分析采用基于终身回归的队列模型。我们将沙库巴曲缬沙坦与依那普利在患有HFrEF且纽约心脏协会功能分级为II-IV级症状的慢性心力衰竭患者中进行比较。基于随机临床III期PARADIGM-HF试验的回归模型用于预测每种治疗策略在整个生命周期内的事件(全因死亡率、住院率、不良事件和生活质量),并对患者特征进行调整。单位成本取自2014年瑞士公共来源,成本和效果按3%进行贴现。主要关注的结果是增量成本效益比(ICER),以每获得一个质量调整生命年(QALY)的成本表示。进行了确定性敏感性分析(DSA)以及情景和概率敏感性分析(PSA)。
在基础案例分析中,与依那普利相比,沙库巴曲缬沙坦策略显示住院次数每年绝对减少6.0%,终身住院成本降低8.0%(贴现后)。预计沙库巴曲缬沙坦分别使总体生存率和质量调整生存率提高0.50年和0.42个QALY。额外的总净成本为10926瑞士法郎。这导致ICER为25684瑞士法郎。在PSA中,沙库巴曲缬沙坦在50000瑞士法郎阈值下具有成本效益的概率为99.0%。
如果假设每获得一个QALY的支付意愿阈值为50000瑞士法郎,那么用沙库巴曲缬沙坦而非依那普利治疗HFrEF患者具有成本效益。