Cost effectiveness of antiarrhythmic medications in patients suffering from atrial fibrillation

Clinical and economic outcomes associated with use of anti-arrhythmic drugs versus ablation in atrial fibrillation

Aim: To evaluate the clinical and economic impact of antiarrhythmic drugs (AADs) compared with ablation both as individual treatments and as combination therapy without/with considering the order of treatment among patients with atrial fibrillation (AFib). Materials & methods: A budget impact model over a one-year time horizon was developed to assess the economic impact of AADs (amiodarone, dofetilide, dronedarone, flecainide, propafenone, sotalol, and as a group) versus ablation across three scenarios: direct comparisons of individual treatments, non-temporal combinations, and temporal combinations. The economic analysis was conducted in accordance with CHEERS guidance as per current model objectives. Results are reported as costs per patient per year (PPPY). The impact of individual parameters was evaluated using one-way sensitivity analysis (OWSA). Results: In direct comparisons, ablation had the highest annual medication/procedure cost ($29,432), followed by dofetilide ($7661), dronedarone ($6451), sotalol ($4552), propafenone ($3044), flecainide ($2563), and amiodarone ($2538). Flecainide had the highest costs for long-term clinical outcomes ($22,964), followed by dofetilide ($17,462), sotalol ($15,030), amiodarone ($12,450), dronedarone ($10,424), propafenone ($7678) and ablation ($9948). In the non-temporal scenario, total costs incurred for AADs (group) + ablation ($17,278) were lower compared with ablation alone ($39,380). In the temporal scenario, AADs (group) before ablation resulted in PPPY cost savings of ($22,858) compared with AADs (group) after ablation ($19,958). Key factors in OWSA were ablation costs, the proportion of patients having reablation, and withdrawal due to adverse events. Conclusion: Utilization of AADs as individual treatment or in combination with ablation demonstrated comparable clinical benefits along with costs savings in patients with AFib.

A value-based budget impact model for dronedarone compared with other rhythm control strategies

Aim: The budgetary consequences of increasing dronedarone utilization for treatment of atrial fibrillation were evaluated from a US payer perspective. Materials & methods: A budget impact model over a 5-year time horizon was developed, including drug-related costs and risks for long-term clinical outcomes (LTCOs). Treatments included antiarrhythmic drugs (AADs; dronedarone, amiodarone, sotalol, propafenone, dofetilide, flecainide), rate control medications, and ablation. Direct comparisons and temporal and non-temporal combination scenarios investigating treatment order were analyzed as costs per patient per month (PPPM). Results: By projected year 5, costs PPPM for dronedarone versus other AADs decreased by $37.69 due to fewer LTCOs, treatment with dronedarone versus ablation or rate control medications + ablation resulted in cost savings ($359.94 and $370.54, respectively), and AADs placed before ablation decreased PPPM costs by $242 compared with ablation before AADs. Conclusion Increased dronedarone utilization demonstrated incremental cost reductions over time.

Arrhythmias in Chronic Kidney Disease

Arrhythmias cause disability and an increased risk of premature death in the general population but far more so in patients with renal failure. The association between the cardiac and renal systems is complex and derives in part from common causality of renal and myocardial injury from conditions including hypertension and diabetes. In many cases, there is a causal relationship, with renal dysfunction promoting arrhythmias and arrhythmias exacerbating renal dysfunction. In this review, the authors expand on the challenges faced by cardiologists in treating common and uncommon arrhythmias in patients with renal failure using pharmacological interventions, ablation and cardiac implantable device therapies. They explore the most important interactions between heart rhythm disorders and renal dysfunction while evaluating the ways in which the coexistence of renal dysfunction and cardiac arrhythmia influences the management of both.

Addressing Multimorbidity and Polypharmacy in Individuals With Atrial Fibrillation

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The objectives of this review were to (1) discuss how multimorbidity and polypharmacy contributes to the complexity of management among individuals with AF and (2) identify any interventions to manage polypharmacy in relation to AF.

RECENT FINDINGS

Based on the four landmark clinical trials of novel anticoagulants, the most common comorbidities with AF are hypertension, heart failure, diabetes, stroke and myocardial infarction. Polypharmacy was also found prevalent in 76.5% of patients with AF, with a median of six drugs per patient. Despite the consequences of polypharmacy in AF, there is very little evidence-based intervention designed to manage it. Hence, there is a need for further research to examine interventions to manage polypharmacy in relation to AF. Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most common type of cardiac arrhythmia requiring treatment in adults. Due to the structural and/or electrophysiological abnormalities that occur in AF, patients are managed through the use of prophylactic anticoagulant and rate and/or rhythm control medications. However, these medications are considered high risk and can increase the chances of medication misadventure. Additionally, AF rarely occurs in isolation and is known to coexist with multiple other medical comorbidities, i.e. multimorbidity. This also increases the number of medications, i.e. polypharmacy and pill burden which results in treatment non-compliance to prescribed therapy.