Evidence Hub

Cost‐Effectiveness Analysis of Empagliflozin for Treatment of Patients With Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction in the United States

O. Reifsnider, Ali Tafazzoli, S. Linden, J. Ishak, P. Rakonczai, Matthew Stargardter, E. Kuti

Journal of the American Heart Association : Cardiovascular and Cerebrovascular Disease, 2024

3 citations

Abstract

Background In the EMPEROR‐Reduced trial (Empagliflozin Outcome Trial in Patients with Chronic Heart Failure and a Reduced Ejection Fraction), empagliflozin plus standard of care reduced the composite of cardiovascular death or hospitalization for heart failure versus standard of care in adults with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction. This analysis investigated the cost‐effectiveness of the 2 regimens from the perspective of US payors. Methods and Results A Markov cohort model was developed based on Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire Clinical Summary Score quartiles and death. Transition probabilities between health states, risk of cardiovascular/all‐cause death, hospitalization for heart failure and adverse events, treatment discontinuation, and health utilities were estimated from trial data. Medicare and commercial payment rates were combined for treatment acquisition, acute event management, and disease management. An annual discount rate of 3% was used. Empagliflozin plus standard of care yielded 18% fewer hospitalizations for heart failure and 6% fewer deaths versus standard of care over a lifetime, providing cost‐offsets while adding 0.19 life years and 0.19 quality‐adjusted life years at an incremental cost of $16 815/patient. The incremental cost‐effectiveness ratio was $87 725/quality‐adjusted life years gained. Results were consistent across payors, subpopulations, and in deterministic sensitivity analyses. In probabilistic sensitivity analyses,…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a cohort study, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free