Wang Zhe, Lou Yake, Wang Qi, Sun Min, Li Xiaonan, Wang Yinghui, Wang Yuehui
Department of Geriatrics, The First Hospital of Jilin University, Changchun, 130021, Jilin, People's Republic of China.
Department of Cardiology, The Second Affiliated Hospital of Chongqing Medical University, Chongqing, 400010, People's Republic of China.
Clin Drug Investig. 2023 Apr;43(4):265-275. doi: 10.1007/s40261-023-01249-8. Epub 2023 Mar 28.
Sacubitril/valsartan has shown effectiveness in reducing hospitalization compared with valsartan in HFpEF patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). We aimed to investigate the cost effectiveness of sacubitril/valsartan as an alternative to valsartan in Chinese patients with heart failure with HFpEF.
A Markov model was built to investigate the cost effectiveness of sacubitril/valsartan as an alternative to valsartan in Chinese patients with HFpEF, from the healthcare system perspective. The time horizon was a lifetime, with a cycle length of 1 month. Costs were obtained from local information or published papers, discounted at a rate of 0.05 for future costs. The transition probability and utility were based on other studies. The primary outcome of the study was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). Sacubitril/valsartan was considered cost effective if the ICER obtained was lower than the willingness-to-pay threshold of US dollars (US$) 12,551.5 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses, as well as scenario analysis, were performed to test robustness.
Over a lifetime simulation, a 73-year-old Chinese patient with HFpEF could gain 6.44 QALYs (9.15 life-years) if sacubitril/valsartan plus standard treatment was administered, and 6.37 QALYs (9.07 life-years) if valsartan plus standard treatment was prescribed. The corresponding costs in both groups were US$12,471 and US$8663, respectively. The ICER was US$49,019/QALY (US$46,610/life-year), higher than the willingness-to-pay threshold. Sensitivity analyses and scenario analysis showed that our results were robust.
Adding sacubitril/valsartan to standard treatment as an alternative to valsartan for the treatment of HFpEF resulted in more effectiveness but higher costs. Sacubitril/valsartan was likely to not be cost effective in Chinese patients with HFpEF. The cost of sacubitril/valsartan needs to reduce to 34% of its current price to be cost effective in this population. Studies based on real-world data are needed to confirm our conclusions.
与缬沙坦相比,沙库巴曲缬沙坦在射血分数保留的心力衰竭(HFpEF)患者中已显示出降低住院率的有效性。我们旨在研究在中国HFpEF患者中,沙库巴曲缬沙坦替代缬沙坦的成本效益。
构建马尔可夫模型,从医疗保健系统的角度研究在中国HFpEF患者中,沙库巴曲缬沙坦替代缬沙坦的成本效益。时间范围为终身,周期长度为1个月。成本来自当地信息或已发表的论文,未来成本按0.05的贴现率进行贴现。转移概率和效用基于其他研究。该研究的主要结果是增量成本效益比(ICER)。如果获得的ICER低于每质量调整生命年(QALY)12,551.5美元的支付意愿阈值,则认为沙库巴曲缬沙坦具有成本效益。进行了单因素和概率敏感性分析以及情景分析以检验稳健性。
在终身模拟中,如果给予沙库巴曲缬沙坦加标准治疗,一名73岁的中国HFpEF患者可获得6.44个QALY(9.15个生命年),如果给予缬沙坦加标准治疗,则可获得6.37个QALY(9.07个生命年)。两组相应的成本分别为12,471美元和8663美元。ICER为49,019美元/QALY(46,610美元/生命年),高于支付意愿阈值。敏感性分析和情景分析表明我们的结果是稳健的。
在标准治疗中添加沙库巴曲缬沙坦替代缬沙坦治疗HFpEF可带来更高的有效性,但成本更高。沙库巴曲缬沙坦在中国HFpEF患者中可能不具有成本效益。沙库巴曲缬沙坦的成本需要降至其当前价格的34%才能在该人群中具有成本效益。需要基于真实世界数据的研究来证实我们的结论。