Health Care Spending After Initiating Sacubitril-Valsartan vs Renin-Angiotensin System Blockers for Heart Failure Treatment.

IF 11.3 Q1 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES JAMA Health Forum Pub Date : 2025-02-07 DOI:10.1001/jamahealthforum.2024.5385
Catherine S Hwang, Rishi J Desai, Aaron S Kesselheim, Raisa Levin, Sushama Kattinakere Sreedhara, Benjamin N Rome
{"title":"Health Care Spending After Initiating Sacubitril-Valsartan vs Renin-Angiotensin System Blockers for Heart Failure Treatment.","authors":"Catherine S Hwang, Rishi J Desai, Aaron S Kesselheim, Raisa Levin, Sushama Kattinakere Sreedhara, Benjamin N Rome","doi":"10.1001/jamahealthforum.2024.5385","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Importance: </strong>For patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), treatment with sacubitril-valsartan, an angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor, has become increasingly preferred over angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACE-Is) and angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs). However, sacubitril-valsartan is much more expensive than generic ACE-I/ARBs. It is unknown whether the high cost of sacubitril-valsartan is offset by lower spending on hospitalizations and other treatments.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>To compare total and out-of-pocket health care spending among Medicare beneficiaries initiating sacubitril-valsartan vs ACE-I/ARBs for HFrEF.</p><p><strong>Design, setting, and participants: </strong>This was a cohort study using data from Medicare fee-for-service claims with propensity score matching of Medicare beneficiaries with HFrEF. Data analysis was performed from November 2022 to December 2023.</p><p><strong>Exposure: </strong>Initiation of sacubitril-valsartan or an ACE-I/ARB. Patients were matched by propensity score based on 104 covariates, including demographic characteristics, comorbidities, baseline annual spending, and baseline use of health care services.</p><p><strong>Main outcomes and measures: </strong>Mean total and out-of-pocket health care expenditures during the 365 days after initiating sacubitril-valsartan or an ACE-I/ARB. Censoring for incomplete follow-up was addressed using Kaplan-Meier probability weighting. Cost differences, cost ratios, and 95% CIs were calculated using a nonparametric bootstrapping method with 500 samples drawn with replacement.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Among 13 755 matched pairs of Medicare patients with HFrEF (mean [SD] age, 77.5 [7.5] years; 5138 [39%] 80 years or older; 9949 females [36%] and 17 561 males [64%]), mean annual total health care spending per person was similar for sacubitril-valsartan initiators and ACE-I/ARB initiators (difference, $701; 95% CI, -$132 to $1593). Sacubitril-valsartan initiators had higher prescription drug costs (difference, $1911; 95% CI, $1704 to $2113), lower inpatient costs (difference, -$790; 95% CI, -$1468 to -$72), lower outpatient costs (difference, -$330; 95% CI, -$664 to -$11), and higher annual out-of-pocket spending (difference, $109; 95% CI, $13 to $208).</p><p><strong>Conclusions and relevance: </strong>This cohort study found that Medicare beneficiaries initiating sacubitril-valsartan to treat HFrEF had similar total health care spending as those initiating ACE-I/ARBs; higher prescription drug spending was offset by lower inpatient and outpatient spending. However, sacubitril-valsartan use was associated with higher patient out-of-pocket costs, which may exacerbate health disparities and limit access and affordability.</p>","PeriodicalId":53180,"journal":{"name":"JAMA Health Forum","volume":"6 2","pages":"e245385"},"PeriodicalIF":11.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11829231/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JAMA Health Forum","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1001/jamahealthforum.2024.5385","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Importance: For patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), treatment with sacubitril-valsartan, an angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor, has become increasingly preferred over angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACE-Is) and angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs). However, sacubitril-valsartan is much more expensive than generic ACE-I/ARBs. It is unknown whether the high cost of sacubitril-valsartan is offset by lower spending on hospitalizations and other treatments.

Objective: To compare total and out-of-pocket health care spending among Medicare beneficiaries initiating sacubitril-valsartan vs ACE-I/ARBs for HFrEF.

Design, setting, and participants: This was a cohort study using data from Medicare fee-for-service claims with propensity score matching of Medicare beneficiaries with HFrEF. Data analysis was performed from November 2022 to December 2023.

Exposure: Initiation of sacubitril-valsartan or an ACE-I/ARB. Patients were matched by propensity score based on 104 covariates, including demographic characteristics, comorbidities, baseline annual spending, and baseline use of health care services.

Main outcomes and measures: Mean total and out-of-pocket health care expenditures during the 365 days after initiating sacubitril-valsartan or an ACE-I/ARB. Censoring for incomplete follow-up was addressed using Kaplan-Meier probability weighting. Cost differences, cost ratios, and 95% CIs were calculated using a nonparametric bootstrapping method with 500 samples drawn with replacement.

Results: Among 13 755 matched pairs of Medicare patients with HFrEF (mean [SD] age, 77.5 [7.5] years; 5138 [39%] 80 years or older; 9949 females [36%] and 17 561 males [64%]), mean annual total health care spending per person was similar for sacubitril-valsartan initiators and ACE-I/ARB initiators (difference, $701; 95% CI, -$132 to $1593). Sacubitril-valsartan initiators had higher prescription drug costs (difference, $1911; 95% CI, $1704 to $2113), lower inpatient costs (difference, -$790; 95% CI, -$1468 to -$72), lower outpatient costs (difference, -$330; 95% CI, -$664 to -$11), and higher annual out-of-pocket spending (difference, $109; 95% CI, $13 to $208).

Conclusions and relevance: This cohort study found that Medicare beneficiaries initiating sacubitril-valsartan to treat HFrEF had similar total health care spending as those initiating ACE-I/ARBs; higher prescription drug spending was offset by lower inpatient and outpatient spending. However, sacubitril-valsartan use was associated with higher patient out-of-pocket costs, which may exacerbate health disparities and limit access and affordability.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
开始使用苏比特-缬沙坦与肾素-血管紧张素系统阻滞剂治疗心力衰竭后的医疗保健支出。
重要性:对于心力衰竭伴射血分数降低(HFrEF)的患者,血管紧张素受体-neprilysin抑制剂sacubitil -缬沙坦的治疗越来越受到血管紧张素转换酶抑制剂(ACE-Is)和血管紧张素II受体阻滞剂(ARBs)的青睐。然而,sacubitil -valsartan比仿制的ACE-I/ arb要贵得多。尚不清楚sacubitil -缬沙坦的高成本是否被住院和其他治疗的较低支出所抵消。目的:比较使用苏比替-缬沙坦与ACE-I/ arb治疗HFrEF的医疗保险受益人的总医疗费用和自付医疗费用。设计、设置和参与者:这是一项队列研究,使用来自医疗保险按服务收费索赔的数据,并对医疗保险受益人与HFrEF进行倾向评分匹配。数据分析时间为2022年11月至2023年12月。暴露:开始服用苏比特里-缬沙坦或ACE-I/ARB。患者通过基于104个协变量的倾向评分进行匹配,包括人口统计学特征、合并症、基线年度支出和基线卫生保健服务使用情况。主要结局和措施:在开始服用苏比替-缬沙坦或ACE-I/ARB后365天内的平均总医疗费用和自付医疗费用。使用Kaplan-Meier概率加权处理不完全随访的审查。成本差异、成本比率和95% ci采用非参数自举方法计算,其中500个样本采用替换法绘制。结果:在13对 755对匹配的HFrEF医保患者中(平均[SD]年龄77.5[7.5]岁;5138[39%] 80岁及以上;9949名女性[36%]和17 561名男性[64%]),苏比替-缬沙坦起始剂和ACE-I/ARB起始剂的人均年平均医疗保健总支出相似(差异为701美元;95% CI, - 132至1593美元)。sacubitil -缬沙坦启动剂的处方药成本较高(差异,1911美元;95% CI, 1704 - 2113美元),住院费用降低(差异:- 790美元;95% CI, - 1468美元至- 72美元),门诊费用降低(差异,- 330美元;95% CI, - 664美元至- 11美元),以及更高的年度自付支出(差异,109美元;95% CI, 13 - 208美元)。结论和相关性:该队列研究发现,开始使用苏比替-缬沙坦治疗HFrEF的医疗保险受益人与开始使用ACE-I/ arb的医疗保险受益人的医疗保健总支出相似;较高的处方药支出被较低的住院和门诊支出所抵消。然而,sacubitil -缬沙坦的使用与较高的患者自付费用相关,这可能会加剧健康差距并限制获取和负担能力。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.00
自引率
7.80%
发文量
0
期刊介绍: JAMA Health Forum is an international, peer-reviewed, online, open access journal that addresses health policy and strategies affecting medicine, health, and health care. The journal publishes original research, evidence-based reports, and opinion about national and global health policy. It covers innovative approaches to health care delivery and health care economics, access, quality, safety, equity, and reform. In addition to publishing articles, JAMA Health Forum also features commentary from health policy leaders on the JAMA Forum. It covers news briefs on major reports released by government agencies, foundations, health policy think tanks, and other policy-focused organizations. JAMA Health Forum is a member of the JAMA Network, which is a consortium of peer-reviewed, general medical and specialty publications. The journal presents curated health policy content from across the JAMA Network, including journals such as JAMA and JAMA Internal Medicine.
期刊最新文献
Scanning the Health Care System in the US. Sources of Variation in Cardiovascular Care Cascades. Public Health and Criminal Justice to Reduce Gun Violence. JAMA Health Forum. Private Equity-Acquired Residential Treatment Facilities vs Other For-Profit Facilities.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1