Skip to main content

A NETwork meta-analysis with COST-effectiveness evaluation of pharmacological treatments for Heart Failure with Reduced Ejection Fraction: NET-COST-HFrEF

Journal
European journal of heart failure (Q1)
Published
16 July 2026
Study design
Systematic review / meta-analysis of RCTs
Evidence level
Level 1, High (CEBM 1a)
Authors
Renzo Laborante, Emiliano Bianchini, Benedikt N Beer, Valeria Valente, Dimitris Mavridis, Rossella Di Bidino, et al.
PMID
42462167
DOI
10.1093/ejhf/xuag233

Why clinicians should know about it

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: To assess the cost-effectiveness of guideline-directed medical treatments for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) by performing a network meta-analysis (NMA) of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) feeding a subsequent cost-effectiveness analysis. METHODS: A random-effects NMA of RCTs was conducted. The primary analysis included only RCTs evaluating drugs in the clinical settings as recommended in the 2021 European Society of Cardiology HF guidelines. Main efficacy outcomes included all-cause mortality (ACM) and total HF hospitalizations (HFH). A decision tree-Markov model was populated with NMA-derived efficacy estimates, quality-of-life data, and costs from United Kingdom (UK, main analysis), as well as Sweden and United States (US) (scenario analyses) healthcare perspectives. RESULTS: 47 RCTs (75,978 patients) were included. The risk of ACM and total HFH decreased with increasing number of pharmacological treatments. In the main (UK) analysis, the greatest benefit was observed with a quadruple therapy including angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI) + β-blocker (BB) + mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist (MRA) + sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors (SGLT2i), which resulted as the most cost-effective strategy (12.31 quality-adjusted life-years; net monetary benefit of £338,460; UK perspective). Findings were consistent in Sweden and US. CONCLUSION: Quadruple therapy with ARNI+BB+MRA+SGLT2i had the highest probability of being the most cost-effective strategy. Our findings might inform future health economic policies and reimbursement decisions, while also considering affordability, budget impact, and implementation feasibility.

Abstract as published, via PubMed.

View on PubMedFull text at the publisherOpen in the app

For healthcare professionals. The summary is generated by AI from the published abstract, and the evidence level is assigned automatically from the study design on the Oxford CEBM hierarchy. Neither is medical advice. Read the full paper before changing practice.