Independent Market Access and Reimbursement Risk Assessment.

Built by former payers, HTA reviewers, and Industry Experts. 

Empagliflozin / jardiance for treating chronic heart failure with reduced ejection fraction

As of March 2022, MARA’s assessment finds Empagliflozin / Jardiance’s reimbursement risk concentrated in safety and adverse effects, with cost effectiveness a strength; the current MARA Rating and full rationale are available in the report.

The assessment also weighs patient population and subgroups: how closely the trial population matches the patients who would receive the drug in practice; payers often restrict funding to the groups where the evidence is strongest. The strength recorded in cost effectiveness carries weight because that domain asks whether the price asked stands in a defensible relationship to the benefit delivered — the core of most European reimbursement decisions.

Cardiology

This rating sits within MARA’s Cardiology coverage, alongside 24 other independently assessed treatments in the same area.

What payers will ask

Is the clinical benefit the kind payers reward? — Clinical effectiveness

Empagliflozin demonstrated a clear clinical advantage in reducing the risk of cardiovascular death and hospitalizations for heart failure compared to placebo, with a 25% reduction in the primary outcome in the EMPEROR-Reduced trial. However, the lack of direct comparison with dapagliflozin limits the strength of the evidence.

Does the economic case hold at the expected price? — Cost effectiveness

The cost-effectiveness estimates for empagliflozin are within NICE’s acceptable thresholds, and the probabilistic analysis suggests it is likely to be cost-effective compared to dapagliflozin, supporting its recommendation.

Is there quality-of-life evidence payers weigh? — Quality of life

The use of the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ) in the economic model indicates moderate improvements in quality of life, although the evidence is primarily based on indirect comparisons and may not fully capture the long-term benefits.

Does the safety profile hold up for payers? — Safety and Adverse Effects

Empagliflozin has a good safety profile with manageable adverse effects, similar to those of other SGLT2 inhibitors, and no significant safety concerns were raised in the trials.

Was the drug compared against what payers expect? — Comparator Selection

The appraisal committee identified dapagliflozin as the most appropriate comparator, and while there were no direct comparisons, the indirect treatment comparison suggests similar efficacy between empagliflozin and dapagliflozin.

Is the population defined the way payers need it? — Patient Population and Subgroups

The EMPEROR-Reduced trial included a diverse population, although there are concerns regarding the representativeness of the trial population compared to the Healthcare population, particularly regarding age and comorbidities.

Does the drug fit how care is delivered and paid for? — Care Pathway Integration

Empagliflozin can be integrated into existing treatment pathways as an add-on to optimized standard care, requiring only minor adjustments in clinical practice.

Are the wider system costs understood? — Resource Use and Cost Implications

The budget impact of empagliflozin is manageable, and the treatment is expected to be resource-efficient, aligning with Healthcare planning.

Would the evidence survive payer scrutiny? — Evidence Quality and Robustness

The evidence base is supported by a robust Phase III trial (EMPEROR-Reduced) and indirect comparisons, although the reliance on indirect evidence introduces some uncertainty.

How exposed is the case to uncertainty? — Uncertainty, Sensitivity, and Broader Impacts

While there are uncertainties related to the indirect comparisons and the generalizability of trial results, the context of unmet need and potential benefits supports a favorable assessment.

Be alerted when this rating changes:

Sample two-page MARA Rating report for the fictional drug Samplinib: the rating with its decision record, and the ten graded payer questions with the reasoning behind each
Every MARA rating is delivered as a two-page reasoned report (sample, fictional product) — see it in full
Full Legal Disclaimer and Usage Terms

The MARA Rating® is an independent opinion of a drug’s market access pharma risk profile and is provided for informational purposes only—not as investment, medical, legal or any other type of advice. See our full disclaimer here.