Monitoring clinical changes in patients with heart failure: a comparison of methods.

BACKGROUND: Although monitoring the clinical status of patients with heart failure rests at the core of clinical medicine, the ability of different techniques to reflect clinical change has not been evaluated. This study sought to describe changes in various measures of disease status associated with gradations of clinical change. METHODS: A prospective, 14-center cohort of 476 outpatients was assessed at baseline and 6 +/- 2 weeks to compare changes in 7 heart failure measures with clinically observed change. Measures included health status instruments (the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire [KCCQ], Short Form-12, and EQ-5D), physician-assessed functional class (New York Heart Association [NYHA]), an exercise test (6-minute walk), patient weight, and a biomarker (B-type natriuretic peptide). Cardiologists, blinded to all measures except weight and NYHA, categorized clinical change ranging from large deterioration to large improvement. RESULTS: The KCCQ, NYHA, and 6-minute walk test were most sensitive to clinical change. For patients with large, moderate, and small deteriorations, the KCCQ decreased by 25 +/- 16, 17 +/- 14, and 5.3 +/- 11 points, respectively. For patients with small, moderate, and large improvements, the KCCQ increased by 5.7 +/- 16, 10.5 +/- 16, and 22.3 +/- 16 points, respectively (P < .01 for all compared with the no change group). New York Heart Association and 6-minute walk distance were significantly different for those with moderate and large changes (P < .05) but neither revealed a difference between those with small versus no clinical deterioration. The KCCQ had the highest c statistic for monitoring individual patients, followed by NYHA and 6-minute walk. CONCLUSION: The KCCQ, followed by the NYHA and the 6-minute walk test, most accurately reflected clinical change in patients with heart failure.

Cost-effectiveness of eplerenone compared with placebo in patients with myocardial infarction complicated by left ventricular dysfunction and heart failure.

BACKGROUND: In the Eplerenone Post-Acute Myocardial Infarction Heart Failure Efficacy and Survival Study (EPHESUS), aldosterone blockade with eplerenone decreased mortality in patients with left ventricular systolic dysfunction and heart failure after acute myocardial infarction. The present study was performed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of eplerenone compared with placebo in these patients. METHODS AND RESULTS: A total of 6632 patients with left ventricular systolic dysfunction and heart failure after acute myocardial infarction were randomized to eplerenone or placebo and followed up for a mean of 16 months. The coprimary end points were all-cause mortality and the composite of cardiovascular mortality/cardiovascular hospitalization. The evaluation of resource use included hospitalizations, outpatient services, and medications. Eplerenone was priced at the average wholesale price, 3.60 dollars per day. Survival beyond the trial period was estimated from data from the Framingham Heart Study, the Saskatchewan Health database, and the Worcester Heart Attack Registry. The incremental cost-effectiveness of eplerenone in cost per life-year and quality-adjusted life-year gained compared with placebo was estimated. The number of life-years gained with eplerenone was 0.1014 based on Framingham (95% CI, 0.0306 to 0.1740), 0.0636 with Saskatchewan (95% CI, 0.0229 to 0.1038), and 0.1337 with Worcester (95% CI, 0.0438 to 0.2252) data. Cost was 1391 dollars higher over the trial period in the eplerenone arm (95% CI, 656 to 2165) because of drug cost. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was 13,718 dollars per life-year gained with Framingham (96.7% under 50,000 dollars per life-year gained), 21,876 dollars with Saskatchewan, and 10,402 dollars with Worcester. CONCLUSIONS: Eplerenone compared with placebo in the treatment of heart failure after acute myocardial infarction is effective in reducing mortality and is cost-effective in increasing years of life by commonly used criteria.

Depressive symptoms are the strongest predictors of short-term declines in health status in patients with heart failure.

OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to assess whether depressive symptoms are independently associated with changes in heart failure (HF)-specific health status. BACKGROUND: Depression is common in patients with HF, but the impact of depressive symptoms on the health status of these patients over time is unknown. METHODS: We conducted a multicenter prospective cohort study of outpatients with HF. Data from 460 patients who completed a baseline Medical Outcomes Study-Depression Questionnaire and both a baseline and follow-up (6 +/- 2 weeks) Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ) were analyzed. The KCCQ measures HF-specific health status, including symptoms, physical and social function, and quality of life. Multivariable regression was used to evaluate depressive symptoms as a predictor of change in KCCQ scores, adjusting for baseline KCCQ scores and other patient variables. The primary outcome was change in KCCQ summary scores (range 0 to 100; higher scores indicate better health status; 5 points is a clinically meaningful change). RESULTS: Approximately 30% (139/460) of the patients had significant depressive symptoms at baseline. Depressed patients had markedly lower baseline KCCQ summary scores (beta = -19.6; p < 0.001). After adjustment for potential confounders, depressed patients were at risk for significant worsening of their HF symptoms, physical and social function, and quality of life (average change in KCCQ summary score = -7.1 points; p < 0.001). Depressive symptoms were the strongest predictor of decline in health status in the multivariable models. CONCLUSIONS: Depressive symptoms are a strong predictor of short-term worsening of HF-specific health status. The recognition and treatment of depression may be an important component of HF care.

Design and analysis of unit cost estimation studies: How many hospital diagnoses? How many countries?

We evaluated three questions that commonly arise when unit costing exercises for multinational trials are conducted: (1). In countries where investigators plan to collect hospital unit cost estimates for a selected set of diagnoses, how should one estimate unit costs for the remaining diagnoses observed in the trial for which cost data were not collected? (2). For how many hospital diagnoses should estimates be obtained? (3). For how many countries should they be obtained? We addressed these questions using unit cost data collected in four western European countries and three relative value measures from the US Medicare diagnosis-related group (DRG) payment system. We found that the arithmetic mean length of stay from the US DRG payment system was a good predictor of unit costs in four countries in Europe. We also found that the imputation error decreased as the number of hospital diagnoses and countries sampled increased, but that the rate of reduction in error shrank. Finally, we found that - given the existence of a reliable method for cost imputation - from a pure information standpoint, it is better to obtain estimates for fewer hospital diagnoses from more countries than the reverse.

Economic evaluation of the randomized aldactone evaluation study (RALES): treatment of patients with severe heart failure.

PURPOSE: To use data from the Randomized Aldactone Evaluation Study (RALES) to compare clinical outcomes and costs as part of the assessment of the economic implications of spironolactone treatment of advanced heart failure. METHODS: RALES was a randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled trial that enrolled participants who had severe heart failure and a left ventricular ejection fraction of no more than 35% and who were receiving standard therapy, including an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor, a loop diuretic, and, in some cases, digoxin. We used a decision analytic model that incorporated data from participants in RALES as well as cost data from five countries that participated in the study. Costs were calculated for nonfatal hospitalizations, ambulatory care, spironolactone therapy, and death. The primary health outcome was quality-adjusted life-years saved (QALYS). Outcomes were evaluated for the first 35 months of observation in RALES. RESULTS: Spironolactone therapy during the first 35 months of follow-up in RALES increased quality-adjusted survival time (0.13 QALYS, 95% CI, 0.07 to 0.18) without increasing costs ($713 savings, 95% CI, $2,123 savings to $783 in costs). Spironolactone therapy either dominated placebo or had a ratio of cost per QALYS that was unlikely to exceed $20,300. These results were robust in both one-way and multiway sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSIONS: Even after implementation of current clinical guidelines, addition of spironolactone therapy provides an opportunity to further reduce the large clinical and economic burden of patients with heart failure.

Cost and cost-effectiveness studies in heart failure research.

BACKGROUND: Heart failure is a major and increasing cause of death and disability and accounts for significant resource use. In the United States alone, the prevalence is 4.6 million, with an incidence rate of 550,000 new cases a year and approximately 957,000 hospitalizations a year. METHODS AND RESULTS: Methods of evaluating cost and outcome and of comparing cost with outcome are reviewed. Economic and cost-effectiveness studies in heart failure research, especially those related to clinical trials, are reviewed in the therapeutic areas of digoxin, angiotension-converting enzyme inhibition, beta blockers, disease management, and transplantation. CONCLUSION: In an era in which economic constraints on medical resource use limit the ability to give all services to all patients, economic studies can help guide more rational decision making. Economic studies in heart failure can be expected to improve and so help society to make better, more informed choices.

Expanding the outcomes in clinical trials of heart failure: the quality of life and economic components of EPHESUS (EPlerenone's neuroHormonal Efficacy and SUrvival Study).

BACKGROUND: Although quantification of the impact of treatment on survival remains the cornerstone of clinical research, the assessment of a broader range of disease outcomes is growing increasingly important. This manuscript provides an overview of the considerations made regarding quantification of a range of clinical and economic outcomes in the EPHESUS (EPlerenone's neuroHormonal Efficacy and SUrvival Study) study, a 6200-patient, randomized, controlled trial of aldosterone blockade in patients with heart failure as a complication of acute myocardial infarction. METHODS AND RESULTS: Relevant clinical outcomes include disease progression (mortality, hospitalization), health status (symptoms, functioning, and quality of life), and costs. The primary hypothesis for the quality of life component of EPHESUS is that eplerenone will improve health status as defined by the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire summary score. In addition to the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire, the Short Form-12, the EuroQOL, the Medical Outcomes Study-Depression Scale and an Anxiety measure will be collected throughout the trial. Health care resource utilization including hospitalizations, emergency room visits, outpatient procedures and tests, and medications will also be collected. Analyses will estimate and describe the effect of aldosterone blockade on costs over time. If both the clinical effect and costs are greater for patients receiving aldosterone blockade, then eplerenone's cost-effectiveness will be estimated. CONCLUSION: The EPHESUS trial has been designed to quantify a wide range of clinical outcomes. This broad range of data will allow a comprehensive assessment of the potential benefits of aldosterone blockade on patient health status and costs.