Cost-effectiveness of dapagliflozin and empagliflozin for treatment of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction.

BACKGROUND

The differences in cost and efficacy between dapagliflozin and empagliflozin in combination with standard of care (SoC) raise the question of which regimen would be cost-effective in treating heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). This study evaluates the cost-effectiveness of dapagliflozin plus SoC (dapagliflozin-SoC) versus empagliflozin plus SoC (empagliflozin-SoC) or SoC alone for treatment of HFrEF.

METHODS

We developed a Markov model to estimate the cost-effectiveness of dapagliflozin-SoC, empagliflozin-SoC, and SoC alone from the healthcare system perspective over a lifetime horizon. Data on efficacy of dapagliflozin-SoC, empagliflozin-SoC, and SoC were obtained from randomized controlled trials. Costs were measured in 2022 US dollars, and effectiveness was measured in quality-adjusted life years (QALYs).

RESULTS

Among three strategies, dapagliflozin-SoC was the most cost-effective strategy and dominated empagliflozin-SoC in an extended sense. Compared with SoC alone, dapagliflozin-SoC and empagliflozin-SoC had incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) of $56,782 and $89,258 per QALY, respectively. Dapagliflozin-SoC cost more $5524 but yielded more 0.20 QALYs than empagliflozin-SoC, with the ICER of $27,861 per QALY. The cost-effectiveness of dapagliflozin-SoC, empagliflozin-SoC, and SoC alone did not depend on diabetic status. However, empagliflozin-SoC was no longer cost-effective versus SoC alone in HFrEF patients without CKD, and dapagliflozin-SoC was not cost-effective versus empagliflozin-SoC in HFrEF patients with CKD.

CONCLUSION

Dapagliflozin-SoC was cost-effective versus empagliflozin-SoC or SoC alone for treatment of HFrEF.