ArticleClinicoEconomics and outcomes research : CEOR2021
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Sacubitril/Valsartan Compared to Enalapril for Heart Failure Patients in Indonesia.
Article in ClinicoEconomics and outcomes research : CEOR, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Feasibility of a Mobile-Based Home Monitoring System for Patients With Heart Failure: Mixed Methods Pilot Study.JMIR human factors · 2026Article
- Cost effectiveness analyses of pharmacological treatments in heart failure.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveSacubitril/valsartan is a relatively new medication that is more effective than the usual enalapril for heart failure patients with reduced ejection fraction. Therefore, this study aims to determine the cost-effectiveness of sacubitril/valsartan compared to enalapril in Indonesia's healthcare system.
methodsIn this study, a Markov decision-analytic model was developed to estimate the total cost, health outcomes, and cost-effectiveness of sacubitril/valsartan compared to enalapril from Indonesia's healthcare perspective. The input parameters for the cost-effectiveness were predominantly from the PARADIGM-HF trial. Subsequently, the country-specific data were synthesized for medication and hospitalization costs, cardiovascular and non-cardiovascular death, as well as re-hospitalization rate. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) per quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained was estimated to determine the cost-effectiveness. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess the impact of parameter uncertainty. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: In the base case, sacubitril/valsartan was more costly and effective than enalapril with a total cost of IDR 91,783,325,865 (USD 6,487,522) vs IDR 68,101,971,241 (USD 4,813,653) and a total QALYs of 19,680 vs 18,795, resulting in an ICER of IDR 26,742,098 (USD 1890). Based on the willingness to pay threshold GDP per capita in Indonesia, it can be considered cost-effective. The most influential drivers of cost-effectiveness in deterministic sensitivity analysis were risk of mortality outside hospitalization, hospital admission rate, and cost of sacubitril/valsartan. The vast majority of simulation results from probabilistic analysis suggested that sacubitril/valsartan was likely resulted in higher cost and improved QALYs compared with enalapril, indicating the robustness of the model.
conclusionBased on the current price in Indonesia, sacubitril/valsartan can be considered a cost-effective option, although this depends heavily on the willingness to pay threshold. Further studies that incorporate real-world evidence with sacubitril/valsartan are needed to inform the decision-making process.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.