Xinyue Dong1,2, Xiaoning He1,2, Jing Wu3,4. 1. School of Pharmaceutical Science and Technology, Tianjin University, Tianjin, China. 2. Center for Social Science Survey and Data, Tianjin University, Tianjin, China. 3. School of Pharmaceutical Science and Technology, Tianjin University, Tianjin, China. jingwu@tju.edu.cn. 4. Center for Social Science Survey and Data, Tianjin University, Tianjin, China. jingwu@tju.edu.cn.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to model the potential long-term disease progression and pharmacoeconomic value of sacubitril/valsartan for the treatment of essential hypertension from a Chinese healthcare system perspective. METHODS: A Markov cohort model with five health states was constructed to simulate the incidence of acute cardiovascular events and cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained with sacubitril/valsartan compared with allisartan isoproxil and valsartan over a lifetime horizon with an annual cycle. Multivariable risk regression models derived from China-PAR data accompanied by hazard ratios were used to transform the dual mechanism of sacubitril/valsartan to lower blood pressure and left ventricular mass index into long-term fatal and non-fatal cardiovascular risks. Efficacy data were calculated using a network meta-analysis integrated by the results of clinical trials. Healthcare costs were determined from a real-world study and published literature, supplemented by expert opinion. Utilities were derived from literature. Both costs and health outcomes were discounted at 5.0% annually, and prices corresponded to 2021. Model validation, deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted to test the robustness of results. RESULTS: For simulated patients with hypertension, sacubitril/valsartan reduced the rates of myocardial infarction by 6.67% and 6.39%, stroke by 9.38% and 8.98%, and heart failure hospitalization by 9.92% and 9.62% relative to allisartan isoproxil and valsartan, respectively. It was also associated with gains in life expectancy among hypertensive individuals of 0.362-0.382 years. Eventually, lifetime costs per patient were CN¥59,272 (US$9187) for sacubitril/valsartan, CN¥54,783 (US$8492) for allisartan isoproxil, and CN¥56,714 (US$8791) for valsartan; total QALYs were 11.38, 11.24, and 11.25, respectively. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was CN¥31,805/QALY (US$4930/QALY) compared with allisartan isoproxil, and CN¥19,247/QALY (US$2983/QALY) compared with valsartan, both of which are below the one time per-capita GDP of CN¥80,976/QALY (US$12,551/QALY) in China. Similar results were obtained in various extensive sensitivity analysis scenarios. CONCLUSIONS: This was the first study to evaluate the cost effectiveness of sacubitril/valsartan in the treatment of hypertension. Sacubitril/valsartan compares favorably with allisartan isoproxil and valsartan in the Chinese setting, which is mainly due to its higher efficacy resulting in fewer cardiovascular events and ultimately less related mortality over time. The results could inform deliberations regarding reimbursement and access to this treatment in China and may provide reference for facilitating more reasonable and efficient allocation of limited resources in such low- and middle-income countries.
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to model the potential long-term disease progression and pharmacoeconomic value of sacubitril/valsartan for the treatment of essential hypertension from a Chinese healthcare system perspective. METHODS: A Markov cohort model with five health states was constructed to simulate the incidence of acute cardiovascular events and cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained with sacubitril/valsartan compared with allisartan isoproxil and valsartan over a lifetime horizon with an annual cycle. Multivariable risk regression models derived from China-PAR data accompanied by hazard ratios were used to transform the dual mechanism of sacubitril/valsartan to lower blood pressure and left ventricular mass index into long-term fatal and non-fatal cardiovascular risks. Efficacy data were calculated using a network meta-analysis integrated by the results of clinical trials. Healthcare costs were determined from a real-world study and published literature, supplemented by expert opinion. Utilities were derived from literature. Both costs and health outcomes were discounted at 5.0% annually, and prices corresponded to 2021. Model validation, deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted to test the robustness of results. RESULTS: For simulated patients with hypertension, sacubitril/valsartan reduced the rates of myocardial infarction by 6.67% and 6.39%, stroke by 9.38% and 8.98%, and heart failure hospitalization by 9.92% and 9.62% relative to allisartan isoproxil and valsartan, respectively. It was also associated with gains in life expectancy among hypertensive individuals of 0.362-0.382 years. Eventually, lifetime costs per patient were CN¥59,272 (US$9187) for sacubitril/valsartan, CN¥54,783 (US$8492) for allisartan isoproxil, and CN¥56,714 (US$8791) for valsartan; total QALYs were 11.38, 11.24, and 11.25, respectively. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was CN¥31,805/QALY (US$4930/QALY) compared with allisartan isoproxil, and CN¥19,247/QALY (US$2983/QALY) compared with valsartan, both of which are below the one time per-capita GDP of CN¥80,976/QALY (US$12,551/QALY) in China. Similar results were obtained in various extensive sensitivity analysis scenarios. CONCLUSIONS: This was the first study to evaluate the cost effectiveness of sacubitril/valsartan in the treatment of hypertension. Sacubitril/valsartan compares favorably with allisartan isoproxil and valsartan in the Chinese setting, which is mainly due to its higher efficacy resulting in fewer cardiovascular events and ultimately less related mortality over time. The results could inform deliberations regarding reimbursement and access to this treatment in China and may provide reference for facilitating more reasonable and efficient allocation of limited resources in such low- and middle-income countries.
Authors: Mohammad H Forouzanfar; Patrick Liu; Gregory A Roth; Marie Ng; Stan Biryukov; Laurie Marczak; Lily Alexander; Kara Estep; Kalkidan Hassen Abate; Tomi F Akinyemiju; Raghib Ali; Nelson Alvis-Guzman; Peter Azzopardi; Amitava Banerjee; Till Bärnighausen; Arindam Basu; Tolesa Bekele; Derrick A Bennett; Sibhatu Biadgilign; Ferrán Catalá-López; Valery L Feigin; Joao C Fernandes; Florian Fischer; Alemseged Aregay Gebru; Philimon Gona; Rajeev Gupta; Graeme J Hankey; Jost B Jonas; Suzanne E Judd; Young-Ho Khang; Ardeshir Khosravi; Yun Jin Kim; Ruth W Kimokoti; Yoshihiro Kokubo; Dhaval Kolte; Alan Lopez; Paulo A Lotufo; Reza Malekzadeh; Yohannes Adama Melaku; George A Mensah; Awoke Misganaw; Ali H Mokdad; Andrew E Moran; Haseeb Nawaz; Bruce Neal; Frida Namnyak Ngalesoni; Takayoshi Ohkubo; Farshad Pourmalek; Anwar Rafay; Rajesh Kumar Rai; David Rojas-Rueda; Uchechukwu K Sampson; Itamar S Santos; Monika Sawhney; Aletta E Schutte; Sadaf G Sepanlou; Girma Temam Shifa; Ivy Shiue; Bemnet Amare Tedla; Amanda G Thrift; Marcello Tonelli; Thomas Truelsen; Nikolaos Tsilimparis; Kingsley Nnanna Ukwaja; Olalekan A Uthman; Tommi Vasankari; Narayanaswamy Venketasubramanian; Vasiliy Victorovich Vlassov; Theo Vos; Ronny Westerman; Lijing L Yan; Yuichiro Yano; Naohiro Yonemoto; Maysaa El Sayed Zaki; Christopher J L Murray Journal: JAMA Date: 2017-01-10 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: George W Carides; Shahnaz Shahinfar; Erik J Dasbach; William F Keane; William C Gerth; Charles M Alexander; William H Herman; Barry M Brenner Journal: Pharmacoeconomics Date: 2006 Impact factor: 4.981