Search

Background and aim:Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) is associated with an increased risk of heart failure (HF) hospitalizations and cardiovascular death (CVD). Both dapagliflozin and sacubitril–valsartan have recently shown convincing reductions in the combined risk of CVD and HF hospitalizations in patients with HF and mildly reduced ejection fraction (HFmrEF) or HFpEF. We aimed to investigate the cost-per-outcome implications of dapagliflozin vs sacubitril–valsartan in the treatment of HFmrEF or HFpEF patients.Methods:We compared the annualized cost needed to treat (CNT) to prevent the composite outcome of total HF hospitalizations and CVD with dapagliflozin or sacubitril–valsartan. The CNT was estimated by multiplying the annualized number needed to treat (aNNT) by the annual cost of therapy. The aNNT was calculated based on data collected from the DELIVER trial for dapagliflozin and a pooled analysis of the PARAGLIDE-HF and PARAGON-HF trials for sacubitril–valsartan. Costs were based on 2022 US prices. Scenario analyses were performed to attenuate the differences in the studies’ populations.Results:The aNNT with dapagliflozin in DELIVER was 30 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 21-62) versus 44 (95% CI: 25-311) with sacubitril–valsartan in a pooled analysis of PARAGLIDE-HF and PARAGON-HF, with an annual cost of $4,951 and $5,576, respectively. The corresponding CNTs were $148,547.13 (95% CI: $103,982.99–$306,997.39) for dapagliflozin and $245,346.77 (95% CI: $139,401.58–1,734,155.60) for sacubitril–valsartan for preventing the composite outcome of CVD and HF hospitalizations. The CNT for preventing all-cause mortality was lower for dapagliflozin than sacubitril–valsartan $1,128,958.15 [CI: $401,077.24–∞] vs $2,185,816.71 [CI: $607,790.87–∞].Conclusion:Dapagliflozin provides a better monetary value than sacubitril–valsartan in preventing the composite outcome of total HF hospitalizations and CVD among patients with HFmrEF or HFpEF.

Background and Aim: Dapagliflozin and empagliflozin have demonstrated favorable clinical outcomes among patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD). However, their comparative monetary value for improving outcomes in CKD patients is unestablished. We examined the cost-per-outcome implications of utilizing dapagliflozin as compared to empagliflozin for prevention of renal and cardiovascular events in CKD patients.Methods: For calculation of preventable events we divided the allocated budget by the cost needed to treat (CNT) for preventing a single renal or cardiovascular event. CNT was derived by multiplying the annualized number needed to treat (aNNT) by the annual therapy cost. The aNNTs were determined based on data from the DAPA-CKD and EMPEROR-KIDNEY trials. The budget limit was defined based on the threshold recommended by the United States’ Institute for Clinical and Economic Review.Results: The aNNT was 42 both dapagliflozin (95% confidence interval [CI]: 34-59) and empagliflozin (CI: 33-66). The CNT estimates for the prevention of one primary event for dapagliflozin and empagliflozin were comparable at $201,911 (CI: $163,452-$283,636) and $209,664 (CI: $164,736-$329,472), respectively. However, diabetic patients had a higher CNT with dapagliflozin ($201,911 [CI: $153,837-$346,133]) than empagliflozin ($134,784 [CI: $109,824-$214,656]), whereas non-diabetic patients had lower CNT for dapagliflozin ($197,103 [CI: $149,029-$346,133]) than empagliflozin ($394,368 [CI: $219,648-$7,093,632]). The CNT for preventing CKD progression was higher for dapagliflozin ($427,858 [CI: $307,673-$855,717]) than empagliflozin ($224,640 [CI: $169,728-$344,448]). For preventing cardiovascular death (CVD), the CNT was lower for dapagliflozin ($1,634,515 [CI: $740,339-∞]) than empagliflozin ($2,990,208 [CI: $1,193,088-∞]).Conclusion: Among patients with CKD, empagliflozin provides a better monetary value for preventing the composite renal and cardiovascular events in diabetic patients while dapagliflozin has a better value for non-diabetic patients. Dapagliflozin provides a better monetary value for the prevention of CVD, whereas empagliflozin has a better value for the prevention of CKD progression.