Cost-effectiveness evaluation of add-on dapagliflozin for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction from perspective of healthcare systems in Asia-Pacific region.

BACKGROUND: With emerging evidence on the efficacy of adding dapagliflozin to standard care for patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), this study assessed the cost-effectiveness of add-on dapagliflozin to standard care versus standard care alone for HFrEF from the perspective of healthcare systems in the Asia-Pacific region. METHODS: A Markov model was applied to project the outcomes of treatment in terms of lifetime medical cost and quality-adjusted life-years. The transition probabilities between health states in the model were obtained from the Dapagliflozin in Patients with Heart Failure and Reduced Ejection Fraction trial. Country-specific costs and utilities were extracted for modeling. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio against a country-specific willingness-to-pay threshold was applied to determine the cost-effectiveness of treatment. A series of sensitivity analyses were performed to ensure the robustness of the study results. Costs are presented in 2020 United States dollars. RESULTS: The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios for add-on dapagliflozin versus standard care alone were $5277, $9980, $12,305, $16,705, and $23,227 per quality-adjusted life-year gained in Korea, Australia, Taiwan, Japan, and Singapore, respectively. When using add-on dapagliflozin to standard care versus standard care alone, ~ 100% of simulations were cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of one gross domestic product per capita of the given Asia-Pacific country; however, the probability of being cost-effective for using add-on dapagliflozin decreased when the time horizon for simulation was restricted to 18 months and when the cardiovascular mortality for the two treatments (43.8% and 33.0%, respectively) was assumed to be the same. The cost-effectiveness results were most sensitive to cardiovascular mortality of treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Adding dapagliflozin to standard care is cost-effective for HFrEF in healthcare systems in the Asia-Pacific region, which supports the rational use of dapagliflozin for HFrEF in this region.

Cost-Effectiveness of Ivabradine in the Treatment of Chronic Heart Failure.

BACKGROUND: In the Systolic Heart failure treatment with the If inhibitor Trial (SHIFT) randomised placebo-controlled trial, ivabradine was shown to reduce hospital admissions for worsening heart failure (HF) and deaths due to HF in patients with symptomatic systolic HF and an elevated resting heart rate (HR). This analysis evaluates the cost effectiveness of adding ivabradine to optimal standard HF treatment in patients with a HR≥77 bpm. METHODS: A Markov model was developed to assess the impact of ivabradine on mean survival and quality of life over a patient's lifetime (10 years). The hospitalisation and death rates were calculated using patient-level data from SHIFT. The reduction in quality of life due to HF hospitalisations was estimated directly from EQ-5D data collected in SHIFT. Australian costs were applied to the resource use from SHIFT. RESULTS: The modelled mean increase in survival with ivabradine was 0.115 years. The mean increase in quality-adjusted survival was 0.108 years. The average cost of ivabradine was A$2,957 and the cost savings associated with a reduction in HF hospitalisations was A$1,344. The cost per quality adjusted life year gained (QALYG) was A$14,905. The conservative approach to the modelled evaluation, as well as results of the sensitivity analysis, demonstrates that ivabradine is likely to be cost-effective in this indication. CONCLUSIONS: The conservative approach to the modelled evaluation, as well as results of the sensitivity analysis, demonstrates that ivabradine is a cost-effective treatment in the Australian setting for HF patients with a HR≥77 bpm on optimal standard therapy with a cost per QALYG similar or lower than that for other publicly funded treatments.

Analyzing Health-Related Quality of Life Data to Estimate Parameters for Cost-Effectiveness Models: An Example Using Longitudinal EQ-5D Data from the SHIFT Randomized Controlled Trial.

INTRODUCTION: The aim of this article is to discuss methods used to analyze health-related quality of life (HRQoL) data from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) for decision analytic models. The analysis presented in this paper was used to provide HRQoL data for the ivabradine health technology assessment (HTA) submission in chronic heart failure. METHODS: We have used a large, longitudinal EuroQol five-dimension questionnaire (EQ-5D) dataset from the Systolic Heart Failure Treatment with the I f Inhibitor Ivabradine Trial (SHIFT) (clinicaltrials.gov: NCT02441218) to illustrate issues and methods. HRQoL weights (utility values) were estimated from a mixed regression model developed using SHIFT EQ-5D data (n = 5313 patients). The regression model was used to predict HRQoL outcomes according to treatment, patient characteristics, and key clinical outcomes for patients with a heart rate ≥75 bpm. RESULTS: Ivabradine was associated with an HRQoL weight gain of 0.01. HRQoL weights differed according to New York Heart Association (NYHA) class (NYHA I-IV, no hospitalization: standard care 0.82-0.46; ivabradine 0.84-0.47). A reduction in HRQoL weight was associated with hospitalizations within 30 days of an HRQoL assessment visit, with this reduction varying by NYHA class [-0.07 (NYHA I) to -0.21 (NYHA IV)]. CONCLUSION: The mixed model explained variation in EQ-5D data according to key clinical outcomes and patient characteristics, providing essential information for long-term predictions of patient HRQoL in the cost-effectiveness model. This model was also used to estimate the loss in HRQoL associated with hospitalizations. In SHIFT many hospitalizations did not occur close to EQ-5D visits; hence, any temporary changes in HRQoL associated with such events would not be captured fully in observed RCT evidence, but could be predicted in our cost-effectiveness analysis using the mixed model. Given the large reduction in hospitalizations associated with ivabradine this was an important feature of the analysis. FUNDING: The Servier Research Group.

Budget Impact of Adding Ivabradine to Standard of Care in Patients with Chronic Systolic Heart Failure in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Heart failure (HF) costs $21 billion annually in direct health care costs, 80% of which is directly attributable to hospitalizations. The SHIFT clinical study demonstrated that ivabradine plus standard of care (SoC) reduced HF-related and all-cause hospitalizations compared with SoC alone. OBJECTIVE: To estimate the budget impact of ivabradine from a U.S. commercial payer perspective. METHODS: A budget impact model estimated the per-member-per month (PMPM) impact of introducing ivabradine to existing formularies by comparing a reference scenario (SoC) and a new drug scenario (ivabradine + SoC) in hypothetical 1 million-member commercial and Medicare Advantage plans. In both scenarios, U.S. claims data were used for the reference cumulative annual rates of hospitalizations (HF, non-HF cardiovascular [CV], and non-CV), and hospitalization rates were adjusted using SHIFT data. The model controlled for mortality risk using SHIFT and U.S. life table data, and hospitalization costs were obtained from U.S. claims data: HF-related = $37,507; non-HF CV = $28,951; and non-CV = $17,904. The annualized wholesale acquisition cost of ivabradine was $4,500, with baseline use for this new drug at 2%, increasing 2% per year. RESULTS: Based on the approved U.S. indication, approximately 2,000 commercially insured patients from a 1 million-member commercial plan were eligible to receive ivabradine. Ivabradine resulted in a PMPM cost savings of $0.01 and $0.04 in years 1 and 3 of the core model, respectively. After including the acquisition price for ivabradine, the model showed a decrease in total costs in the commercial ($991,256 and $474,499, respectively) and Medicare populations ($13,849,262 and $4,280,291, respectively) in year 1. This decrease was driven by ivabradine's reduction in hospitalization rates. For the core model, the estimated pharmacy-only PMPM in year 1 was $0.01 for the commercial population and $0.24 for the Medicare Advantage population. CONCLUSIONS: Adding ivabradine to SoC led to lower average annual treatment costs. The negative PMPM budget impact indicates that ivabradine is an affordable option for U.S. payers. DISCLOSURES: This study was funded by Amgen. Patel is employed by Amgen; Kielhorn was employed by Amgen at the time of the study but is no longer affiliated with Amgen. Borer, Böhm, Ford, and Komajda have received scientific support, consultative fees, and/or speakers honoraria from Servier and Amgen in connection with SHIFT, the trial underlying this analysis. Borer also has received consultative fees from Celladon, Pfizer, ARMGO, Cardiorentis, Novartis, and Takeda USA. Kansal, Dorman, Krotneva, and Zheng are employees of Evidera, which was hired to assist with this study. Tavazzi has received research grants and consultation fees from Servier in connection with this study and has had advisory board memberships with Boston Scientific, Servier, Cardiorentis, Medtronic, St. Jude Medical, and CVie Therapeutics. Study concept and design were contributed by Dorman and Keilhorn, along with the other authors. Tavazzi, Komajda, Ford, BÖhm, and Borer oversaw collection of the data. Tavazzi, Komajda, Ford, BÖhm, and Borer (along with Karl Swedberg) formed the Executive Committee of SHIFT, the trial underlying this analysis. The manuscript was written by Kansal, along with the other authors, and revised by Borer and Patel, with assistance from the other authors.

Cost-effectiveness of implantable cardiac devices in patients with systolic heart failure.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs), cardiac resynchronisation therapy pacemakers (CRT-Ps) and combination therapy (CRT-D) in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction based on a range of clinical characteristics. METHODS: Individual patient data from 13 randomised trials were used to inform a decision analytical model. A series of regression equations were used to predict baseline all-cause mortality, hospitalisation rates and health-related quality of life and device-related treatment effects. Clinical variables used in these equations were age, QRS duration, New York Heart Association (NYHA) class, ischaemic aetiology and left bundle branch block (LBBB). A UK National Health Service perspective and a lifetime time horizon were used. Benefits were expressed as quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). Results were reported for 24 subgroups based on LBBB status, QRS duration and NYHA class. RESULTS: At a threshold of £30 000 per QALY gained, CRT-D was cost-effective in 10 of the 24 subgroups including all LBBB morphology patients with NYHA I/II/III. ICD is cost-effective for all non-NYHA IV patients with QRS duration <120 ms and for NYHA I/II non-LBBB morphology patients with QRS duration between 120 ms and 149 ms. CRT-P was also cost-effective in all NYHA III/IV patients with QRS duration >120 ms. Device therapy is cost-effective in most patient groups with LBBB at a threshold of £20 000 per QALY gained. Results were robust to altering key model parameters. CONCLUSIONS: At a threshold of £30 000 per QALY gained, CRT-D is cost-effective in a far wider group than previously recommended in the UK. In some subgroups ICD and CRT-P remain the cost-effective choice.

Cost Effectiveness of Eplerenone for the Treatment of Systolic Heart Failure with Mild Symptoms in Alberta, Canada.

BACKGROUND: Eplerenone has been demonstrated as being cost effective for the treatment of patients with systolic heart failure (HF) and mild symptoms in several jurisdictions; however, its cost effectiveness is unknown in the context of Alberta, Canada. METHODS: We used a discrete-event simulation model to compare costs and outcomes between standard care and standard care plus eplerenone for the treatment of HF with mild symptoms. We used Alberta data (whenever possible) together with a healthcare perspective, a lifetime horizon, and 3 % annual discount rate for analyses. RESULTS: Clinically, eplerenone prevented HF hospitalizations, atrial fibrillations, and cardiovascular (CV) deaths, but incurred more adverse events and device implantations than standard care. The remaining life of patients receiving eplerenone was 7.08 versus 5.83 years for those receiving standard care. Eplerenone gained 1.25 life-years and 1.18 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), with an incremental cost of $Can7200. Therefore, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was $Can5700 per life-year gained and $Can6100 per QALY gained. CONCLUSIONS: Given the most cited ICER threshold is $Can50,000, the use of eplerenone as an adjunct to standard care for treating patients with systolic HF and mild symptoms is cost effective in the context of Alberta. Eplerenone would cost the Alberta health system about $Can4.6 million a year in drug costs. Incorporating reductions in health services utilization associated with eplerenone, the budget impact is smaller. For the first year, the use of eplerenone is cost saving and for 5 years the cost is approximately $Can6 million.

Resource use and cost implications of implementing a heart failure program for patients with systolic heart failure in Swedish primary health care.

AIM: Heart failure (HF) is a common but serious condition which involves a significant economic burden on the health care economy. The purpose of this study was to evaluate cost and quality of life (QoL) implications of implementing a HF management program (HFMP) in primary health care (PHC). METHODS AND RESULTS: This was a prospective randomized open-label study including 160 patients with a diagnosis of HF from five PHC centers in south-eastern Sweden. Patients randomized to the intervention group received information about HF from HF nurses and from a validated computer-based awareness program. HF nurses and physicians followed the patients intensely in order to optimize HF treatment according to current guidelines. The patients in the control group were followed by their regular general practitioner (GP) and received standard treatment according to local management routines. No significant changes were observed in NYHA class and quality-adjusted life years (QALY), implying that functional class and QoL were preserved. However, costs for hospital care (HC) and PHC were reduced by EUR 2167, or 33%. The total cost was EUR 4471 in the intervention group and EUR 6638 in the control group. CONCLUSIONS: Introducing HFMP in Swedish PHC in patients with HF entails a significant reduction in resource utilization and costs, and maintains QoL. Based on these results, a broader implementation of HFMP in PHC may be recommended. However, results should be confirmed with extended follow-up to verify long-term effects.

Cost-effectiveness of eplerenone in patients with systolic heart failure and mild symptoms.

AIM: In the Eplerenone in Mild Patients Hospitalization and Survival Study in Heart Failure (EMPHASIS-HF), aldosterone blockade with eplerenone decreased mortality and hospitalisation in patients with mild symptoms (New York Heart Association class II) and chronic systolic heart failure (HF). The present study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of eplerenone in the treatment of these patients in the UK and Spain. METHODS AND RESULTS: Results from the EMPHASIS-HF trial were used to develop a discrete-event simulation model estimating lifetime direct costs and effects (life years and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained) of the addition of eplerenone to standard care among patients with chronic systolic HF and mild symptoms. Eplerenone plus standard care compared with standard care alone increased lifetime direct costs per patient by £4284 for the UK and €7358 for Spain, with additional quality-adjusted life expectancy of 1.22 QALYs for the UK and 1.33 QALYs for Spain. Mean lifetime costs were £3520 per QALY in the UK and €5532 per QALY in Spain. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis suggested a 100% likelihood of eplerenone being regarded as cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of £20 000 per QALY (UK) or €30 000 per QALY (Spain). CONCLUSIONS: By currently accepted standards of value for money, the addition of eplerenone to optimal medical therapy for patients with chronic systolic HF and mild symptoms is likely to be cost-effective.

Digoxin reduces 30-day all-cause hospital admission in older patients with chronic systolic heart failure.

BACKGROUND: Heart failure is a leading cause of hospital admission and readmission in older adults. The new United States healthcare reform law has created provisions for financial penalties for hospitals with higher than expected 30-day all-cause readmission rates for hospitalized Medicare beneficiaries aged ≥65 years with heart failure. We examined the effect of digoxin on 30-day all-cause hospital admission in older patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction. METHODS: In the main Digitalis Investigation Group trial, 6800 ambulatory patients with chronic heart failure (ejection fraction ≤45%) were randomly assigned to digoxin or placebo. Of these, 3405 were aged ≥65 years (mean age, 72 years; 25% were women; 11% were nonwhite). The main outcome in the current analysis was 30-day all-cause hospital admission. RESULTS: In the first 30 days after randomization, all-cause hospitalization occurred in 5.4% (92/1693) and 8.1% (139/1712) of patients in the digoxin and placebo groups, respectively, (hazard ratio {HR} when digoxin was compared with placebo, 0.66; 95% confidence interval {CI}, 0.51-0.86; P=.002). Digoxin also reduced both 30-day cardiovascular (3.5% vs 6.5%; HR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.38-0.72; P<.001) and heart failure (1.7 vs 4.2%; HR, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.26-0.62; P<.001) hospitalizations, with similar trends for 30-day all-cause mortality (0.7% vs 1.3%; HR, 0.55; 95% CI, 0.27-1.11; P=.096). Younger patients were at lower risk of events but obtained similar benefits from digoxin. CONCLUSIONS: Digoxin reduces 30-day all-cause hospital admission in ambulatory older patients with chronic systolic heart failure. Future studies need to examine its effect on 30-day all-cause hospital readmission in hospitalized patients with acute heart failure.

Long term health care consumption and cost expenditure in systolic heart failure.

BACKGROUND: The prevalence, health care consumption, and mortality increase in elderly patients with heart failure. This study aimed to analyse long term cost expenditure and predictors of health care consumption in these patients. METHODS: We included 208 patients aged 60 years or older and hospitalised with heart failure (NYHA class II-IV and left ventricular systolic dysfunction); 58% were men, mean age 76 years, and mean ejection fraction 0.34. Data on all hospital admissions, discharge diagnoses, lengths of stay, and outpatient visits were collected from the National Board of Health and Welfare. We obtained data of all health care consumption for each individual. RESULTS: After 8-12 years of prospective follow up 72% were dead (median survival 4.6 years). Main drivers of health care expenditure were non-cardiac (40%) and cardiac (29%) hospitalizations, and visits to primary care centres (16%), and hospital outpatient clinics (15%). On average, health care expenditures were € 36,447 per patient during follow up. The average yearly cost per patient was about 5,700€, in contrast to the estimated consumption of primary and hospital care in the general population: € 1,956 in 65-74 year olds and € 2,701 in 75-84 year olds. Poor quality of life (Nottingham Health Profile) was the strongest independent predictor of total health care consumption and costs (p<0.001; by multivariate analyses). CONCLUSION: Health care costs in chronic systolic heart failure are at least two-fold higher than in the general population. Quality of life is a strong independent predictor of health care consumption.

Assessment of the clinical outcomes and cost-effectiveness of the management of systolic heart failure in Chinese patients using a home-based intervention.

This study was designed to assess the clinical effect of a home-based telephone intervention in Chinese heart failure patients. A total of 550 Chinese heart failure patients were enrolled into either (i) a group that received the usual standard of care (UC group); or (ii) a group that received a home-based heart failure centre management programme using nursing specialist-led telephone consultations (HFC group). The impact of the home-based intervention on admission rate, admission length and medical costs over 6 months was measured. Although the mean left ventricular ejection fraction in HFC patients was 29.3% compared with 34.8% in UC patients, the home-based intervention resulted in a significantly lower all-cause admission rate per person (HFC 0.60 +/- 0.77 times/person; UC 0.96 +/- 0.85 times/person), a shorter all-cause hospital stay (reduced by 8 days per person) and lower total 6-month medical costs (reduced by US$2682 per patient). These results suggest that the home-based intervention with nursing specialist-led telephone consultations may improve the clinical outcome and provide cost-savings for Chinese patients with heart failure.

Long-term cost-effectiveness of disease management in systolic heart failure.

BACKGROUND: Although congestive heart failure (CHF) is a primary target for disease management programs, previous studies have generated mixed results regarding the effectiveness and cost savings of disease management when applied to CHF. OBJECTIVE: We estimated the long-term impact of systolic heart failure disease management from the results of an 18-month clinical trial. METHODS: We used data generated from the trial (starting population distributions, resource utilization, mortality rates, and transition probabilities) in a Markov model to project results of continuing the disease management program for the patients' lifetimes. Outputs included distribution of illness severity, mortality, resource consumption, and the cost of resources consumed. Both cost and effectiveness were discounted at a rate of 3% per year. Cost-effectiveness was computed as cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained. RESULTS: Model results were validated against trial data and indicated that, over their lifetimes, patients experienced a lifespan extension of 51 days. Combined discounted lifetime program and medical costs were $4850 higher in the disease management group than the control group, but the program had a favorable long-term discounted cost-effectiveness of $43,650/QALY. These results are robust to assumptions regarding mortality rates, the impact of aging on the cost of care, the discount rate, utility values, and the targeted population. CONCLUSIONS: Estimation of the clinical benefits and financial burden of disease management can be enhanced by model-based analyses to project costs and effectiveness. Our results suggest that disease management of heart failure patients can be cost-effective over the long term.

Quantifying the paradoxical effect of higher systolic blood pressure on mortality in chronic heart failure.

BACKGROUND: Although higher blood pressures are generally recognised to be an adverse prognostic marker in risk assessment of cardiology patients, its relationship to risk in chronic heart failure (CHF) may be different. OBJECTIVE: To examine systematically published reports on the relationship between blood pressure and mortality in CHF. METHODS: Medline and Embase were used to identify studies that gave a hazard or relative risk ratio for systolic blood pressure in a stable population with CHF. Included studies were analysed to obtain a unified hazard ratio and quantify the degree of confidence. RESULTS: 10 studies met the inclusion criteria, giving a total population of 8088, with 29 222 person-years of follow-up. All studies showed that a higher systolic blood pressure (SBP) was a favourable prognostic marker in CHF, in contrast to the general population where it is an indicator of poorer prognosis. The decrease in mortality rates associated with a 10 mm Hg higher SBP was 13.0% (95% CI 10.6% to 15.4%) in the heart failure population. This was not related to aetiology, ACE inhibitor or beta blocker use. CONCLUSION: SBP is an easily measured, continuous variable that has a remarkably consistent relationship with mortality within the CHF population. The potential of this simple variable in outpatient assessment of patients with CHF should not be neglected. One possible application of this information is in the optimisation of cardiac resynchronisation devices.

Ruling out heart failure in primary-care: the cost-benefit of pre-screening using NT-proBNP and QRS width.

BACKGROUND: Half of the patients presenting to primary-care with signs and symptoms of heart failure (HF) are found not to have serious heart disease after echocardiographic assessment. This places an unnecessary burden on hospital services. We sought to assess the cost-benefit of screening for left ventricular systolic dysfunction (LVSD) and major structural heart disease (SHD) using N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) and QRS-width from an electrocardiogram in patients presenting with suspected HF to primary-care physicians (PCP). METHODS: Patients were recruited from a community-based service pilot. Blood samples for NT-proBNP measurement were obtained in primary-care. All patients were referred irrespective of the NT-proBNP result, with echocardiograms reviewed by a cardiologist blinded to the NT-proBNP result. RESULTS: NT-proBNP<180 pg/ml (21 pmol/l) 'ruled-out' major-LVSD avoiding 38% of echoes and 23% of cost compared with direct referral for echocardiography. NT-proBNP<93 pg/ml (11 pmol/l) 'ruled-out' major-SHD, avoiding 20% of echoes and 8% of cost. A QRS<84 ms 'ruled-out' major-LVSD, avoiding 28% of echoes and 17% of cost. A QRS<82 ms 'ruled-out' major-SHD avoiding 20% of echoes and 9% of cost. Intermediate values of NT-proBNP were often associated with equivocal echocardiography and in some scenarios NT-proBNP testing might avoid 61% of echocardiograms and 46% of cost. CONCLUSION: Use of NT-proBNP by PCPs to detect major-LVSD and major-SHD in patients with suspected HF could reduce referrals for specialist HF-assessment, provide cost-avoidance compared to direct referral and improve the efficiency of care. QRS-width is less effective as a diagnostic test and adds little cost-benefit when combined with NT-proBNP.