Cost-effectiveness of ace inhibitors versus ARBs in heart failure management
Chukwuka Elendu,Dependable C Amaechi,Tochi C Elendu,Emmanuel C Amaechi,Ijeoma D Elendu,Klein A Jingwa,Sobechukwu F Chiegboka,Umesh Bhadana,Abdelrahman M S Abdelatti,Ifeanyi V Ikeji,Jadzia C Atmadibrata,Ahmed S F Mohamed,Umar Janibabu Sharmila,Fathy E A E Soltan,Nada K Abbas,Mariam M F Eldorghamy,Tuvakbibi Gurbanova,Arome K B Okeme,Arinze A Okeke,Ikpembhosa J Esangbedo
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000039496
2024-09-06
Abstract:Background: Heart failure is a chronic condition that imposes a significant burden on healthcare systems worldwide. Effective management is crucial for improving patient outcomes and reducing costs. Angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors and angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs) are widely used to manage heart failure by reducing cardiac strain and preventing disease progression. Despite their common use, ACE inhibitors and ARBs differ in mechanisms, cost, and potential side effects. ACE inhibitors have long been the standard treatment, while ARBs are often prescribed to patients intolerant to ACE inhibitors, particularly due to side effects like cough. Given these differences, evaluating the cost-effectiveness of these treatments is essential. This study compares the cost-effectiveness of ACE inhibitors and ARBs from a healthcare system perspective, considering both direct medical costs and health outcomes. Methods: A cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted using a decision-analytic Markov model to simulate heart failure progression in a hypothetical cohort. Data inputs included clinical trial outcomes, real-world effectiveness data, direct medical costs (medications, hospitalizations, monitoring), and utility values for quality of life. The primary outcome measures were the cost per quality-adjusted life year gained and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio. Sensitivity analyses tested the robustness of results, and subgroup analyses were conducted based on age and disease severity. Results: The base-case analysis showed that ACE inhibitors were associated with lower overall costs and slightly higher quality-adjusted life years than ARBs. Sensitivity analyses revealed that variations in key parameters, such as transition probabilities, mortality rates, and healthcare expenses, had limited impact on the overall cost-effectiveness conclusions. Subgroup analyses indicated that ACE inhibitors and ARBs exhibited similar cost-effectiveness profiles for patients aged <65 and ≥65 years. However, among patients with severe heart failure, ARBs demonstrated a higher incremental cost-effectiveness ratio compared with ACE inhibitors, suggesting reduced cost-effectiveness in this subgroup. Conclusion: ACE inhibitors are likely a more cost-effective option for managing heart failure than ARBs, particularly from a healthcare system perspective. The findings underscore the importance of tailoring treatment decisions to individual patient factors, preferences, and clinical conditions, providing valuable insights for healthcare policy and practice, particularly regarding cost-effectiveness across patient subgroups.