scholarly journals PCV24 REAL-WORLD COST-EFFECTIVENESS OF SACUBITRIL/VALSARTAN IN SYMPTOMATIC HEART FAILURE WITH REDUCED EJECTION FRACTION IN PORTUGAL

2019 ◽  
Vol 22 ◽  
pp. S545
Author(s):  
M. Afonso-Silva ◽  
P.A. Laires
2020 ◽  
Vol 41 (Supplement_2) ◽  
Author(s):  
U Zeymer ◽  
L.H Lund ◽  
V Barrios ◽  
C Fonseca ◽  
A.L Clark ◽  
...  

Abstract Background Heart failure (HF) is a major medical and economic burden that is often managed in office based practices. Recently, the angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI) sacubitril/valsartan (S/V) was introduced as novel therapeutic option into European guidelines for the management of HF. The ARIADNE registry aims to provide information on how outpatients with HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) are managed in Europe, in light of this novel treatment option. Methods ARIADNE was a prospective registry of patients with HFrEF treated by office-based cardiologists (OBC) or selected primary care physicians (recognized as HF specialists; PCP) in a real world setting. HFrEF patients were included prospectively, independently of whether treatment had been changed recently or not. 9069 patients were recruited from 687 centres in 17 European countries. Results The mean age of all patients was 68.1 years (S/V: 67.3 years, Non-S/V: 68.9 years). The majority of patients were in NYHA class II (61.3%), or NYHA class III (37.1%) overall, while more patients in the S/V group showed NYHA class III (S/V: 42.8%, Non-S/V: 30.9%). Mean LVEF was slightly lower in the S/V group than in the Non-S/V group (S/V: 32.7%, Non-S/V: 35.4%, overall 34.0%). The most frequently observed signs of HF were dyspnoea upon effort, followed by fatigue, palpitations on exertion at baseline. More patients tend to have more severe symptoms in the S/V groups (e.g. for dyspnoea on effort, Non-S/V: moderate 40.8%, severe 8.6%; S/V: moderate 46.4%, severe 14.1%). 44.0% of patients from the S/V group and 39.3% of non-S/V patients reported at least one hospitalization within 12 months prior to baseline, of which 73.3% in S/V and 69.9% in non-S/V patients were due to HF., At baseline, 44.7% of the patients used a CV device, of which most were implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD: Non-S/V 54.2%, S/V: 52.8%), implantable cardioverter defibrillator (CRT-ICD:Non-S/V 21.9%, S/V: 27.0%), and pacemaker (Non-S/V: 13.4%, S/V: 10.5%). The mean KCCQ overall summary score was 62.6 in the S/V group and 69.5 in the Non-S/V group at baseline. 83.9% of patients were treated with ARB or ACEi in Non-S/V group, (ACEi 57.3%, ARB 26.9%). The most frequently taken drug combinations in either group were ACEi/ ARB or S/V with β -blockers (Non-S/V 69.3%, S/V 67.3%). 40.2% in the Non-S/V group and 42.9% in S/V groups used a combination of ACEi/ARB or S/V, β-blocker and MRA. Conclusions The ARIADNE prospective registry provides insights and reflects variations in HF treatment practices in outpatients in Europe and the way S/V was introduced by OBCs and specialized PCPs in a real-world setting. In the observed population, S/V is more often prescribed to slightly younger patients with slightly lower LVEF, there was a greater observed percentage of S/V patients NYHA class III, with lower quality of life measurements and with more severe symptoms and recent hospitalizations for heart failure. Funding Acknowledgement Type of funding source: Private company. Main funding source(s): Novartis Pharma AG


2018 ◽  
Vol 35 (6) ◽  
pp. 785-795 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dana Drzayich Antol ◽  
Adrianne Waldman Casebeer ◽  
Richard W. DeClue ◽  
Stephen Stemkowski ◽  
Patricia A. Russo

2018 ◽  
Vol 21 (12) ◽  
pp. 1148-1149
Author(s):  
Lin Liang ◽  
David Bin-Chia Wu ◽  
Mohamed Ismail Abdul Aziz ◽  
Raymond Wong ◽  
David Sim ◽  
...  

Circulation ◽  
2015 ◽  
Vol 132 (suppl_3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Alexander T Sandhu ◽  
Jeremy D Goldhaber-Fiebert ◽  
Mintu P Turakhia ◽  
Daniel W Kaiser ◽  
Paul A Heidenreich

Background: For management of heart failure, the value of the CardioMems device remains uncertain. We assessed the cost-effectiveness of the CardioMems device. Methods: We developed a Markov model to determine quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), cost, and cost-effectiveness of patients with heart failure receiving CardioMems implantation compared to those with routine care. In the main case analysis, we modeled the intervention in the CHAMPION trial cohort, which included patients with NYHA Class III heart failure with a heart failure hospitalization within the past twelve months. We also performed subgroup analyses of patients with preserved ejection fraction or reduced ejection fraction, and a scenario analysis of a second cohort of patients from the CHARM trials with a previous heart failure hospitalization. We obtained event rates and utilities from published trial data; we used costs from literature estimates and Medicare payment data. The main case analysis was calibrated to the hospitalization and survival rates of the CHAMPION trial. Results: In the CHAMPION trial main case analysis, CardioMems reduced lifetime hospitalizations (2.37 versus 3.27), increased months of survival (67 versus 62), increased QALYs (2.66 versus 2.38) and increased costs ($171,132 versus $154,084), yielding a cost of $59,520 per QALY gained or $40,301 per life-year gained. The cost per QALY gained was $71,964 in patients with reduced ejection fraction compared to $34,899 in those with preserved ejection fraction. In less ill patients from the CHARM trials, which included patients with NYHA Class II heart failure, the device cost increased to $110,565 per QALY gained. If the device cost decreased from $17,500 in the main case analysis to $15,000, the intervention would cost less than $50,000 per QALY gained. The duration of effectiveness was initially assumed to be lifelong; if less than 29 months, CardioMems would cost more than $150,000 per QALY gained. Conclusion: The CardioMems device is cost-effective in populations similar to the CHAMPION trial, with a cost of less than $100,000 per QALY gained, if durability of device effectiveness is sustained. Post-marketing surveillance data on the device’s durability will further clarify its value.


2020 ◽  
Vol 7 (4) ◽  
pp. 1477-1487
Author(s):  
Alexandra Arvanitaki ◽  
Eleni Michou ◽  
Andreas Kalogeropoulos ◽  
Haralambos Karvounis ◽  
George Giannakoulas

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document