MedicalResearch.com Interview with: Dr. Jordan B. King Post Doctoral Fellow Pharmacotherapy Outcome Resctr, University of Utah MedicalResearch.com: What is the background for this study? What are the main findings? Response: The cornerstone of treatment in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) revolves around low-cost generic medications such as angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) and beta-blockers (BBs). However, recently the dual-acting angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI) sacubitril-valsartan, demonstrated improved survival and reduction in heart failure hospitalizations relative to enalapril, an ACEI, and optimal background therapy. This creates a situation in which we have a new medication which improves outcomes, but carries a high price tag ($4,560 per year) compared with ACEIs, the standard of care over the last 20 years, and are available as generic medications for <$50 per year. We set out to determine the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) per quality adjusted life year gained (QALY) from the perspective of a health care payer in the U.S. The ICER is a measure of how much we have to pay for sacubitril-valsartan to gain 1 unit of health relative to enalapril. In this case the unit of health is a year of life adjusted for quality. We used a Markov model to estimate the costs and effectiveness of the two treatment options over a lifetime. In the base case, the ICER for sacubitril-valsartan was $50,959 per QALY gained. Health care interventions which cost <$50,000 per QALY are generally considered cost-effective, but some argue that <$100,000 per QALY is a more appropriate threshold in the U.S. In a probabilistic sensitivity analysis, 57% and 80% of all simulations fell below the $50,000 and $100,000 per QALY thresholds, respectively. Sacubitril-valsartan was the less costly treatment arm in 5% of simulations, and enalapril dominated (less costly and more effective) in 17% of simulations. (more…)