Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Randomized Controlled Trial
. 2023 Oct 3;148(14):1087-1098.
doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.122.063602. Epub 2023 Sep 6.

Cost-Effectiveness of Vericiguat in Patients With Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction: The VICTORIA Randomized Clinical Trial

Affiliations
Randomized Controlled Trial

Cost-Effectiveness of Vericiguat in Patients With Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction: The VICTORIA Randomized Clinical Trial

Derek S Chew et al. Circulation. .

Abstract

Background: The VICTORIA trial (Vericiguat Global Study in Subjects With Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction) demonstrated that, in patients with high-risk heart failure, vericiguat reduced the primary composite outcome of cardiovascular death or heart failure hospitalization relative to placebo. The hazard ratio for all-cause mortality was 0.95 (95% CI, 0.84-1.07). In a prespecified analysis, treatment effects varied substantially as a function of baseline NT-proBNP (N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide) levels, with survival benefit for vericiguat in the lower NT-proBNP quartiles (hazard ratio, 0.82 [95% CI, 0.69-0.97]) and no benefit in the highest NT-proBNP quartile (hazard ratio, 1.14 [95% CI, 0.95-1.38]). An economic analysis was a major secondary objective of the VICTORIA research program.

Methods: Medical resource use data were collected for all VICTORIA patients (N=5050). Costs were estimated by applying externally derived US cost weights to resource use counts. Life expectancy was projected from patient-level empirical trial survival results with the use of age-based survival modeling methods. Quality-of-life adjustments were based on prospectively collected EQ-5D-based utilities. The primary outcome was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, comparing vericiguat with placebo, assessed from the US health care sector perspective over a lifetime horizon. Cost-effectiveness was estimated using the total VICTORIA cohort, both with and without interaction between treatment and baseline NT-proBNP.

Results: Life expectancy modeling results varied according to whether the observed heterogeneity of treatment effect by baseline NT-proBNP values was incorporated into the modeling. Including the interaction term, the vericiguat arm had an estimated quality-adjusted life expectancy of 4.56 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) compared with 4.13 QALYs for placebo (incremental discounted QALY, 0.43). Without the treatment heterogeneity/interaction term, vericiguat had 4.50 QALYs compared with 4.33 QALYs for placebo (incremental discounted QALY, 0.17). Incremental discounted costs (vericiguat minus placebo) were $28 546 with the treatment interaction and $20 948 without it. Corresponding incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were $66 509 per QALY allowing for treatment heterogeneity and $124 512 without heterogeneity.

Conclusions: Vericiguat use in the VICTORIA trial met criteria for intermediate value, but the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio estimates were sensitive to whether the analysis accounted for observed NT-proBNP treatment effect heterogeneity. The cost-effectiveness of vericiguat was driven by the projected incremental life expectancy among patients in the lowest 3 quartiles of NT-proBNP.

Registration: URL: https://www.

Clinicaltrials: gov; Unique identifier: NCT02861534.

Keywords: drug therapy; health care economics and organizations; heart failure.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Disclosures Dr Cowper reports research grant support from Merck, Eli Lilly, Novartis, AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, AGA Medical, Tenax Therapeutics, GE Healthcare, Mayo Clinic, and Gilead. Dr Anstrom reports research support from the National Institutes of Health and Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute and research support from Bayer and Merck outside the submitted work. Dr Hernandez reports research grants from American Regent, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squib, Merck, Novartis, and Verily, as well as consulting from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Boston Scientific, Myokardia, and Novartis. Dr O’Connor reports consulting fees from Merck. Dr Armstrong reports receiving grant support from Merck, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Bayer and consulting fees from Novo Nordisk. Dr Mark reports grants from the National Institutes of Health/National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and Mayo Clinic during the conduct of the study; grants from Merck and HeartFlow; and consulting fees from Novartis and Boehringer Ingelheim outside the submitted work. Dr Bigelow reports stock holdings in Merck, Johnson & Johnson, Covidien, Pfizer, Sanofi, McKesson, Viatris and Organon, as well as consulting fees from Rafael and Elixir Medical. The other authors report no conflicts.

Publication types

Associated data