Cost-effectiveness of heart failure therapies.

Heart failure (HF) is a leading cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide. Management of HF involves accurate diagnosis and implementation of evidence-based treatment strategies. Costs related to the care of patients with HF have increased substantially over the past 2 decades, partly owing to new medications and diagnostic tests, increased rates of hospitalization, implantation of costly novel devices and, as the disease progresses, consideration for heart transplantation, mechanical circulatory support, and end-of-life care. Not surprisingly, HF places a huge burden on health-care systems, and widespread implementation of all potentially beneficial therapies for HF could prove unrealistic for many, if not all, nations. Cost-effectiveness analyses can help to quantify the relationship between clinical outcomes and the economic implications of available therapies. This Review is a critical overview of cost-effectiveness studies on key areas of HF management, involving pharmacological and nonpharmacological clinical therapies, including device-based and surgical therapeutic strategies.

Cost-effectiveness of cardiac resynchronization therapy in patients with heart failure: the perspective of a middle-income country's public health system.

BACKGROUND: Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) improves symptoms and survival in patients with heart failure (HF). However, the devices used to deliver it are costly and can impose a significant burden to the relatively constrained health budgets of middle-income countries such as Brazil. METHODS: A Markov model was constructed, representing the follow-up of a hypothetical cohort of HF patients, with a 20-year time horizon. Input data were based on information from a Brazilian cohort of 316 HF patients, as well as meta-analyses of data on devices' effectiveness and risks. Stochastic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed for all important variables in the model. Costs were expressed as International Dollars (Int$), by application of current purchasing power parity conversion rate. RESULTS: In the base-case analysis, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of CRT over medical therapy was Int$ 15,723 per quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained. For CRT combined with an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD), ICER was Int$ 36,940/QALY over ICD alone, and Int$ 84,345/QALY over CRT alone. Sensitivity analyses showed that the model was generally robust, though susceptible to the cost of the devices, their impact on HF mortality, and battery longevity. CONCLUSIONS: CRT is cost-effective for HF patients in the Brazilian public health system scenario. In patients eligible for CRT, upgrade to CRT+ICD has an ICER above the World Health Organization willingness-to-pay threshold of three times the nation's Gross Domestic Product per Capita (Int$ 31,689 for Brazil). However, for ICD eligible patients, upgrade to CRT+ICD is marginally cost-effective.

Cost-effectiveness of cardiac resynchronization therapy: perspective from Argentina.

OBJECTIVES: Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) has recently been shown to reduce both mid-term and long-term mortality in patients with mild heart failure. Although proven effective, it is unclear whether CRT is cost-effective in low and middle-income countries (LMIC). Therefore, we set out to analyze the cost-effectiveness of CRT in Argentina in patients with New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional class (FC) I or II heart failure (HF). We chose to compare patients receiving optimal medical treatment (OMT) and CRT with those patients receiving only OMT. METHODS: We constructed a Markov model with a cohort simulation, and a life-time horizon to assess costs, life-years, and quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained as a result of treatment with both CRT and OMT from an Argentine third party payer perspective. We included patients who met the following criteria: left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) ≤ 40 percent, sinus rhythm with a QRS ≥ 120 msec, and NYHA FC I-II HF. The results were expressed as cost per life-year and QALY gained in international dollars (ID$) for the year 2009. RESULTS: For the base case analysis performed, we started at a fixed age of 65. After applying a 3 percent annual discount rate, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was 38.005 ID$ per year of life gained and 34.185 ID$ per QALY gained. CONCLUSIONS: Long-term treatment with CRT appears to be cost-effective in Argentina compared with patients treated solely with OMT. Similar analysis should be performed to determine if this treatment option is cost-effective in other LMIC.