The costs of treating acute heart failure: an economic analysis of the SURVIVE trial

Abstract

Objective: To estimate the incremental cost per life year gained with levosimendan relative to dobutamine in treatment of acute heart failure based on the Survival of Patients with Acute Heart Failure in Need of Intravenous Inotropic Support (SURVIVE) trial.

Methods: SURVIVE enrolled 1,327 patients (levosimendan 664, dobutamine 663) from nine nations with 180-day survival from date of randomisation as the primary endpoint. Hospital resource utilisation was determined via clinical case reports. Unit costs were derived from hospital payment schedules for France, Germany and the UK, and represent a third-party payer perspective. Cost-effectiveness analysis was performed for a subset of the SURVIVE patient population selected in accordance with current levosimendan labeling.

Results: Mortality in the levosimendan group was 26 versus 28% for dobutamine (hazard ratio 0.91, 95% confidence interval 0.74–1.13, p=0.40). Initial hospitalisation length of stay was identical (levosimendan 14.4, dobutamine 14.5, p=0.98). Slightly lower rates of readmission were observed for levosimendan relative to dobutamine at 31 (p=0.13) and 180 days (p=0.23). Mean costs excluding study drug were equivalent for the index admission (levosimendan €5,060, dobutamine €4,952; p=0.91) and complete episode (levosimendan €5,396, dobutamine €5,275; p=0.93).

Conclusion: At an acquisition cost of €600 per vial, there is at least 50% likelihood that levosimendan is cost effective relative to dobutamine if willingness to pay is equal to or greater than €15,000 per life year gained.     

Estimated cost savings associated with the use of valsartan in heart failure in a large US health plan

Summary

Results from a large, randomised clinical trial demonstrated reduced rates of hospitalisation and mortality, and reduced length of stay associated with valsartan added to the usual care of heart failure patients not currently receiving angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs). These results were used in a budget impact model for a large US health plan. Administrative claims data were used to estimate cost savings over 1 year. In the study health plan, 63,218 patients were identified with heart failure, with 55% not currently receiving ACEI or valsartan. Using health plan-specific cost data, care for the untreated heart failure patients with valsartan would reduce hospitalisation costs from $135 million to $43 million owing to averted heart failure-related hospitalisations and shortened length of stay for the remaining hospitalisations. Economic effects of other aspects of treatment with valsartan (e.g. outpatient or physician visits or adverse events) were not considered. Taking into account only hospitalisations and the costs of valsartan therapy, net savings in the study health plan would be expected to be $64 million.     

Cost-effectiveness analysis of ferric carboxymaltose in iron-deficient patients with chronic heart failure in Sweden

Abstract

Objective:

Iron deficiency is a common but treatable comorbidity in chronic heart failure (CHF) that is associated with impaired health-related quality-of-life (HRQoL). This study evaluates the cost-effectiveness of the intravenous iron preparation ferric carboxymaltose (FCM) for the treatment of iron deficiency in CHF from a Swedish healthcare perspective.     

Understanding the economic burden of heart failure in China: impact on disease management and resource utilization

Introduction and objectives: This study has two objectives: (1) to examine healthcare resource utilization in heart failure (HF) patients; and (2) to examine the treatment costs associated with HF in China.

Methods: The data used in this study was from the 2014 national insurance database sponsored by the China Health Insurance Research Association (CHIRA), that covers national urban employees and residents. ICD-10 codes and keywords indicating heart failure diagnoses were used to identify patients with heart failure. Drug utilization, hospital visits, re-admission, and treatment costs in different service categories were examined.

Results: A total of 7,847 patients were included in this analysis, of which 1,157 patients had a 1-year complete follow-up period. In total, 48.16% of patients received the combination treatment of angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibitor (ACEI)/angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARB) and beta-blockers (BB); and 22.87% of patients received the combination treatment of ACEI/ARB, beta-blockers and Mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRAs). The annual treatment cost per patient with HF diagnosis was RMB 28,974, of which 66% was for inpatient care. The cost on HF medications accounted for 8.2% of annual cost. Treatment cost was much higher in provincial-level municipalities than that of prefecture-level and other cities.

Discussion and conclusion: Hospitalization is a major driver of HF treatment cost. Compared to the requirements in international treatment guidelines, HF standard of care medication treatment was under-utilized among HF patients in China. The high re-admission rate among Chinese patients indicates that the management of HF needs to be improved. The percentage of GDP spent on treating HF patients was much lower than that in the developed countries.     

Ultrafiltration versus diuretics for the treatment of fluid overload in patients with heart failure: a hospital cost analysis

Abstract

Background: Heart failure (HF) is a common, serious disease in the US and Europe. Patients with HF often require treatment for fluid overload, resulting in costly inpatient visits; however, limited evidence exists on the costs of alternative treatments. This study performed a cost-analysis of ultrafiltration (UF) vs diuretic therapy (DIUR-T) for patients with HF from the hospital perspective.

Methods: The model used clinical data from the literature and hospital data from the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project to follow a decision-analytic framework reflecting treatment decisions, probabilistic outcomes, and associated costs for treating patients with HF and hypervolemia with veno-venous UF or intravenous DIUR-T. A 90-day timeframe was considered to account for hospital readmissions beyond 30?days. Sensitivity and scenario analyses were performed to gauge the robustness of the results.

Results: Although initial hospitalization costs were higher, fluid removal by UF reduced hospital readmission days, leading to cost savings of $3,975 (14.4%) at the 90-day follow-up (UF costs, $23,633; DIUR-T costs, $27,608).

Conclusions: UF is a viable alternative to DIUR-T when treating fluid overload in HF patients because it reduces hospital readmission rates and durations, which substantially lowers costs over a 90-day period compared to DIUR-T.     

Economic evaluation of valsartan in patients with chronic heart failure: results from Val-HeFT adapted to The Netherlands

Summary

The Valsartan Heart Failure Trial (Val-HeFT) was a multinational randomised trial of valsartan versus placebo in a total of 5,010 patients with heart failure. During the study period, valsartan resulted in significant reductions in hospitalisations due to heart failure.

The objective of this study was to evaluate the economic impact of valsartan in Dutch heart failure patients.

Resource use during Val-HeFT was multiplied by Dutch cost estimates. Mean patient follow-up was 23 months and costs for hospitalisations were €617 lower among valsartan patients. Mean total costs for valsartan and placebo patients were €8,810 and €8,441, respectively, resulting in incremental costs of €368. In patients receiving an angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor but no beta-blocker, these incremental costs were even lower (€171). There were overall net savings of €1,311 in patients not receiving an ACE inhibitor at baseline.

Valsartan provides clinical benefits at modest costs in The Netherlands. In patients not receiving an ACE inhibitor at baseline, valsartan was dominant.     

Real-world comparison of hospitalization costs for heart failure in type 2 diabetes mellitus patients with established cardiovascular disease treated with canagliflozin versus other antihyperglycemic agents

Abstract

Aims: This real-world study compared hospitalization for heart failure (HHF) costs and all-cause healthcare costs in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and established cardiovascular disease treated with the sodium glucose co-transporter 2 inhibitor (SGLT2i) canagliflozin and non-SGLT2i antihyperglycemic agents (AHAs).

Materials and methods: Propensity score-matched cohorts from a retrospective observational study (OBSERVE-4D) using the Truven MarketScan Commercial Claims and Encounters and Optum Clinformatics databases were analyzed. HHF and all-cause healthcare costs per-patient-per-month (PPPM) were compared for patients initiated on canagliflozin and non-SGLT2i AHAs in the on-treatment analysis.

Results: Baseline characteristics were well balanced between matched cohorts that included new users of canagliflozin or non-SGLT2i AHAs in the Truven (13,954 and 45,101, respectively) and Optum (11,490 and 53,360, respectively) databases. The mean (95% CI) PPPM cost of HHF was lower for canagliflozin than for non-SGLT2i AHAs in analyses of both the Truven ($21.31 [$21.25, $21.37]) and Optum ($30.43 [$30.41, $30.45]) databases. The mean (95% CI) PPPM all-cause healthcare cost was also lower for canagliflozin than for non-SGLT2i AHAs in analyses of both the Truven ($321 [$280, $361]) and Optum ($449 [$402, $495]) databases.

Limitations: This study is subject to the limitations inherent to observational research including potential for coding errors and biases and unobserved confounding. Because all patients were in commercially administered health plans, these findings cannot be easily generalized to uninsured or Medicaid populations. Patient costs were evaluated up to and including their first HHF event. Post-discharge costs such as the costs of subsequent rehospitalizations were not included in this analysis.

Conclusions: For patients with T2DM and established cardiovascular disease in this real-world study, treatment with canagliflozin was associated with lower HHF costs and all-cause healthcare costs compared with treatment with non-SGLT2i AHAs.     

L-carnitine in the management of patients after acute myocardial infarction: a cost effectiveness analysis in Italy

Summary

The prevalence of acute myocardial infarction (AMI) is estimated at 500,000 individuals in the Italian population; the annual incidence can be crudely estimated at 100,000 events. This represents a major healthcare problem and generates questions about the rational allocation of public resources devoted to healthcare, since in Italy there is a National Health Service. We focused on modelling the possible economic consequences of adding L-carnitine administration to the standard care of AMI patients in Italy, by extrapolating the results obtained in the SAVE trial and matching entry criteria from the CEDIM and SAVE studies. The cost-effectiveness ratios were explored using different assumptions of the effectiveness and cost of the intervention under analysis. In our base case, administering L-carnitine had an Incremental Cost/Effectiveness Ratio of 28.2 and 22.2 million Lira per life year saved (LYS), respectively, depending on whether discounted or non-discounted benefits were used in this model. The results were sensitive to both the cost and effectiveness of L-carnitine.     

Economic impact of introducing TYRX amongst patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction undergoing implanted cardiac device procedures: a retrospective model based cost analysis

Background and aims: Infection is a serious and expensive complication of Cardiac Implantable Electronic Device (CIED) procedures. A retrospective based cost analysis was performed to estimate Trust level savings of using the TYRX antibacterial envelope as a primary prevention measure against infection in a tertiary referral centre in South London, UK.

Methods: A retrospective cohort of heart failure patients with reduced ejection fraction undergoing Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator (ICD) or Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy (CRT) procedures were evaluated. Decision-analytic modelling was performed to determine economic savings of using the envelope during CIED procedure vs CIED procedure alone.

Results: Over a 12?month follow-up period following CIED procedure, the observed infection rate was 3.14% (n?=?5/159). The average cost of a CIED infection inpatient admission was £41,820 and, further to economic analysis, the additional costs attributable to infection was calculated at £62,213.94. A cost saving of £624 per patient by using TYRX during CIED procedure as a primary preventative measure against infection was estimated.

Conclusions: TYRX would be a cost-saving treatment option amongst heart failure patients undergoing ICD and CRT device procedures based on analysis in the local geographical area of South London. If upscaled to the UK population, we estimate potential cost savings for the National Health Service (NHS).     

Evaluation of costs associated with tolvaptan-mediated length-of-stay reduction among heart failure patients with hyponatremia in the US,based on the EVEREST trial

Abstract

Background:

The Efficacy of Vasopressin Antagonism in Heart Failure Outcome Study with Tolvaptan (EVEREST) trial showed that tolvaptan use improved heart failure (HF) signs and symptoms without serious adverse events.

Objective:

To evaluate the potential cost savings associated with tolvaptan usage among hospitalized hyponatremic HF patients.

Methods:

The Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project (HCUP) 2008 Nationwide Inpatient Sample (NIS) database was used to estimate hospital cost and length of stay (LOS), for diagnosis-related group (DRG) hospitalizations of adult (age ≥18 years) HF patients with complications and comorbidities or major complications and comorbidities. EVEREST trial data for patients with hyponatremia were used to estimate tolvaptan-associated LOS reductions. A cost offset model was constructed to evaluate the impact of tolvaptan on hospital cost and LOS, with univariate and multivariate Monte Carlo sensitivity analyses.

Results:

Tolvaptan use among hyponatremic EVEREST trial HF patients was associated with shorter hospital LOS than placebo patients (9.72 vs 11.44 days, respectively); 688,336 hospitalizations for HF DRGs were identified from the HCUP NIS database, with a mean LOS of 5.4 days and mean total hospital costs of $8415. Using an inpatient tolvaptan treatment duration of 4 days with a wholesale acquisition cost of $250 per day, the cost offset model estimated a LOS reduction among HF hospitalizations of 0.81 days and an estimated total cost saving of $265 per admission. Univariate and multivariate sensitivity analysis demonstrated that cost reduction associated with tolvaptan usage is consistent among variations of model variables.

Conclusions:

The estimated LOS reduction and cost savings projected by the cost offset model suggest a clinical and economic benefit to tolvaptan use in hyponatremic HF patients.

Study Limitations:

The EVEREST trial data may not generalize well to the US population. Clinical trial patient profiles and relative LOS reductions may not be applicable to real-world patient populations.     

Evaluating the cost-effectiveness of percutaneous closure of a patent foramen ovale versus medical management in patients with a cryptogenic stroke: from the UK payer perspective

Aims: Percutaneous closure of a patent foramen ovale (PFO) is known to lower the risk of recurrent stroke in patients with a cryptogenic stroke. However, the economic implications of transcatheter PFO closure are less well known. From a UK payer perspective, a detailed economic appraisal of PFO closure was performed for prevention of recurrent ischemic stroke in patients with a PFO who had experienced a cryptogenic stroke.

Materials and methods: A Markov cohort model was constructed using a 5-year time-horizon with a patient mean age of 45.2 years, reflecting the characteristics reported in the REDUCE trial. Transition probabilities, clinical inputs, costs, and utility values were ascertained from published and national costing sources. Total costs, incremental costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were calculated, utilizing a discount rate of 3.5%. A range of univariate and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were also performed.

Results: When applying a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of £20,000/QALY in accordance with NICE guidelines, PFO closure compared with antiplatelet therapy alone showed a beneficial cost/QALY of £18,584, attained at 4 years. Applying discount rates of 0% and 6% had a negligible effect on the base-case model findings. PFO closure demonstrated a 76.9% probability of being cost-effective at a WTP threshold of £20,000/QALY at a 5-year time-horizon.

Limitations: This model focused specifically on UK stroke patients and typically enrolled young (mean age <65 years old) patients. Hence, caution should be taken when comparing data vs non-UK populations, and it remains unclear how older patients might have affected cost-effectiveness findings, as the risk of paradoxical embolism can persist as patients age.

Conclusion: Percutaneous closure of a PFO is cost-effective compared with antiplatelet therapy alone, underlining the economic benefits potentially afforded by this treatment in selected patients.     

Modeling of the clinical and economic impact of a risk-sharing agreement supporting a treat-to-target strategy in the management of patients with rheumatoid arthritis in France

Objectives: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of a Treat-to-Target strategy with certolizumab pegol in patients with rheumatoid arthritis in the context of a pay-for-performance agreement in which medication costs are refunded in case of discontinuation during the first 3 months of treatment.

Methods: The Treat-to-Target strategy consisted of a systematic switch to second-line tumor necrosis factor (TNF)α inhibitor in case of an unmet ACR50 response at 3 months compared to current routine clinical practice. A reference cohort treated first-line with certolizumab pegol according to current practice without systematic switching was considered as the comparator. A decision-tree model was constructed to estimate clinical outcome (health assessment questionnaire-disability index or HAQ-DI score), time spent in ACR50 response (ACR 50), and direct costs of treatment over a 2-year period. HAQ scores were derived from American College of Rheumatology 50 (ACR50) responses. All TNFα inhibitors were assumed to have equivalent efficacy and tolerability. Costs were estimated at 2013 French retail prices (date of the pay-for-performance agreement).

Results: The mean duration of an ACR50 response was 1.23 years in the Treat-to-Target strategy certolizumab pegol cohort vs 0.98 years in the reference cohort, resulting in a mean gain in HAQ at 24 months of 0.117. The Treat-to-Target strategy with a mix of TNFα inhibitors as second-line therapy was more expensive than the reference strategy in absolute terms, but this difference was entirely offset by the pay-for-performance agreement. The Treat-to-Target strategy was, thus, cost-neutral over a 2-year period after the payback of CZP cost for patients not achieving the target at 3 months.

Conclusions: In the context of a pay-for-performance agreement, the management of patients with rheumatoid arthritis using a Treat-to-Target strategy with certolizumab pegol in first line is dominant compared to standard use of this drug in the French setting in 2013.     

Comparison of costs and outcomes of dapagliflozin with other glucose-lowering therapy classes added to metformin using a short-term cost-effectiveness model in the US setting

Objective: To compare 1-year costs and benefits of dapagliflozin (DAPA), a sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT-2) inhibitor, with those of other treatments for type 2 diabetes (T2D), such as glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RAs), sulfonylureas (SUs), thiazolidinediones (TZDs), and dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (DPP-4i), all combined with metformin.

Methods: A short-term decision-analytic model with a 1-year time horizon was developed from a payer’s perspective in the United States setting. Costs and benefits associated with four clinical end-points (glycated hemoglobin [A1C], body weight, systolic blood pressure [SBP], and risk of hypoglycemia) were evaluated in the analysis. The impact of DAPA and other glucose-lowering therapy classes on these clinical end-points was estimated from a network meta-analysis (NMA). Data for costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) associated with a per-unit change in these clinical end-points were taken from published literature. Drug prices were taken from an annual wholesale price list. All costs were inflation-adjusted to December 2016 costs using the medical care component of the consumer price index. Total costs (both medical and drug costs), total QALYs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were estimated. Sensitivity analyses (SA) were performed to explore uncertainty in the inputs. To assess face validity, results from the short-term model were compared with long-term models published for these drugs.

Results: The total annual medical cost for DAPA was less than that for GLP-1RA ($186 less), DPP-4i ($1,142 less), SU ($2,474 less), and TZD ($1,640 less). Treatment with DAPA resulted in an average QALY gain of 0.0107, 0.0587, 0.1137, and 0.0715 per treated patient when compared with GLP-1RA, DPP-4i, SU, and TZD, respectively. ICERs for DAPA vs SU and TZD were $19,005 and $25,835, respectively. DAPA was a cost-saving option when compared with GLP-1RAs and DPP-4is. Among all four clinical end-points, change in weight had the greatest impact on total annual costs and ICERS. Sensitivity analysis showed that results were robust, and results from the short-term model were found to be similar to those of published long-term models.

Conclusion: This analysis showed that DAPA was cost-saving compared with GLP-1RA and DPP-4i, and cost-effective compared with SU and TZD in the US setting over 1 year. Furthermore, the results suggest that, among the four composite clinical end-points, change in weight and SBP had an impact on cost-effectiveness results.     

An economic evaluation attached to a single-centre,parallel group,unmasked, randomized controlled trial of a 3-day intensive social cognitive treatment (can do treatment) in patients with relapsing remitting multiple sclerosis and low disability

Abstract

Aims: This trial-based economic evaluation (EE) assesses from a societal perspective the cost-effectiveness of an intensive 3-day cognitive theory-based intervention (CDT), compared to care-as-usual, in patients with relapsing remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS) and low disability (Expanded Disability Status Scale [EDDS] score < 4.0).

Materials and methods: The trial of the EE was registered in the Dutch Trial Register: Trial NL5158 (NTR5298). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was expressed in cost on the Control sub-scale of the Multiple Sclerosis Self-Efficacy Scale (MSSES) and the incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR) in the cost per Quality Adjusted Life Years (QALY) using the EQ-5D-5L. Bootstrap, sensitivity, and sub-group analyses were performed to determine the robustness of the findings.

Results: The two groups of 79 patients were similar in baseline characteristics. The base case ICER is situated in the northeast quadrant (€72 (40.74/€2,948)) due to a higher MSSES Control score and higher societal costs in the CDT group. The ICUR is situated in the northwest (inferior) quadrant due to losses in QALY and higher societal costs for the CDT group (?0.02/€2,948). Overall, bootstrap, sensitivity, and sub-group analyses confirm the base case findings. However, when the SF-6D is used as a study outcome, there is a high probability that the ICUR is situated in the northeast quadrant.

Limitations: The relative short follow-up time (6?months) and the unexpected increase in MSSES Control in the control group.

Conclusions: When using the EQ-5D-5L to calculate a QALY, CDT is not a cost-effective alternative in comparison to care as usual. However, when using self-efficacy or SF-6D as outcomes, there is a probability that CDT is cost-effective. Based on the current results, CDT for patients with RRMS clearly show its potential. However, an extended follow-up for the economic evaluation is warranted before a final decision on implementation can be made.