Dapagliflozin sacubitril-valsartan for heart failure with mildly reduced or preserved ejection fraction.

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.

Dapagliflozin versus empagliflozin in patients with chronic kidney disease.

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.

Liraglutide versus semaglutide for weight reduction-a cost needed to treat analysis.

Objective: Higher doses of the glucagon-like peptide-1 agonists liraglutide and, more recently, semaglutide have demonstrated a significant reduction in body weight. However, their comparative value for money for this indication is unclear.

Methods: The cost needed to treat to achieve a 1% reduction in body weight using semaglutide or liraglutide was calculated.

Effect of Dapagliflozin Versus Empagliflozin on Cardiovascular Death in Patients with Heart Failure Across the Spectrum of Ejection Fraction: Cost per Outcome Analysis.

Background: Dapagliflozin and empagliflozin have shown clinical benefits in patients with heart failure (HF). Their comparative monetary value remains undetermined, and we therefore sought to compare the cost-per-outcome implications of utilizing dapagliflozin versus empagliflozin to prevent cardiovascular death (CVD) in patients with HF across the spectrum of ejection fraction.

Methods: We estimated the cost needed to treat (CNT) to prevent one CVD with either dapagliflozin or empagliflozin.

Tirzepatide versus semaglutide for weight loss in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus: A value for money analysis.

Aims: Higher doses of the glucagon-like peptide-1 agonist semaglutide and, more recently, tirzepatide, a dual glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide and glucagon-like peptide-1 agonist showed a significant reduction in body weight in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. However, their comparative value for money for this indication is unclear. Therefore, we aimed to establish which provides better value for money.

Aspirin with Low-Dose Ticagrelor or with Low-Dose Rivaroxaban for Secondary Prevention: A Cost per Outcome Analysis.

Introduction: Secondary prevention of cardiovascular events among patients with diagnosed cardiovascular disease and high ischemic risk poses a significant challenge in clinical practice. The combinations of aspirin with low-dose (LD) ticagrelor or LD rivaroxaban have shown superiority in preventing major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) compared with aspirin treatment alone. The comparative value for money of these two regimens remains unexplored.

Oral versus subcutaneous semaglutide for prevention of major adverse cardiovascular events: cost per outcome analysis of SUSTAIN-6 and PIONEER-6.

Background: Semaglutide, a glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist (GLP1a), reduces the risk of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) in patients with Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). An oral version of semaglutide is now available, and patients may prefer it over the subcutaneous form. Our objective was to compare the value for money of the two modalities by assessing the cost needed to treat (CNT) to prevent MACE.

Usefulness of Empagliflozin Versus Oral Semaglutide for Prevention of Cardiovascular Mortality in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus.

Empagliflozin and oral semaglutide reduce the incidence of cardiovascular mortality (CVM) in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. However, these therapies impose a significant financial burden on healthcare systems. Therefore, we compared the value for money of empagliflozin versus oral semaglutide to prevent CVM.

Dapagliflozin Versus Sacubitril-Valsartan to Improve Outcomes of Patients with Reduced Ejection Fraction and Diabetes Mellitus.

Background: Comorbid heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM) is associated with a very high risk of HF events. Sacubitril-valsartan, an angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI), and dapagliflozin, a sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitor, improve HF outcomes in these patients, but their comparative value for money in this patient population has not yet been determined.

Objective: We aimed to compare the cost needed to treat (CNT) to avoid an HF event with each drug.

Usefulness of Sodium-Glucose Cotransporter 2 Inhibitors for Primary Prevention of Heart Failure in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus.

The sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors (SGLT2i) empagliflozin, canagliflozin, and dapagliflozin reduce the risk of heart failure (HF) events in patients with diabetes mellitus (DM) at high risk for HF. Differences in HF outcomes between SGLT2i were demonstrated in a recent-published meta-analysis. Nevertheless, comparative cost-effectiveness analyses of SGLT2i provided for this indication have not been published yet.

Dapagliflozin vs. sacubitril-valsartan for prevention of heart failure events in non-diabetic patients with reduced ejection fraction: a cost per outcome analysis.

Aims: The Angiotensin Receptor-Neprilysin Inhibitor sacubitril-valsartan (ARNI) and dapagliflozin, a sodium-glucose transport protein 2 inhibitor, reduce the risk of heart failure hospitalization (hHF) and cardiovascular (CV) mortality in patients with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). Their comparative value for money is undetermined. Therefore, our aim was to compare the cost per outcome implications of utilizing dapagliflozin vs.

Icosapent Ethyl for Primary Versus Secondary Prevention of Major Adverse Cardiovascular Events in Hypertriglyceridemia: Value for Money Analysis.

Background: Icosapent ethyl (IPE) is approved for the prevention of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) in patients with hypertriglyceridemia. However, due to budget constraints, access to IPE will inevitably be limited to a fraction of eligible patients. To help maximize value for money spent, we estimated the number of preventable MACE when providing IPE for primary versus secondary prevention.

Correction to: Sodium-Glucose Cotransporter 2 Inhibitors for Prevention of Heart Failure Events in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: A Cost Per Outcome Analysis.

The original version of this article unfortunately contained a mistake. The correct information is given below.

Sodium-Glucose Cotransporter 2 Inhibitors for Prevention of Heart Failure Events in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: A Cost Per Outcome Analysis.

Background And Objective: Sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors (SGLT2i) have significant efficacy in reducing the risk of hospitalization for heart failure (hHF) or cardiovascular (CV) mortality in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). However, there are differences in HF outcomes between the SGLT2i. Therefore, we compared the cost needed to achieve these outcomes between empagliflozin, canagliflozin, and dapagliflozin.