Comparative cost-effectiveness analysis of quinidine, procainamide and mexiletine

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.

Use of a decision-analytic model to support the use of a new oral US contrast agent in patients with abdominal pain

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES

The authors performed this study to compare the cost and diagnostic abilities of ultrasound (US) performed with and without the use of an oral contrast material recently approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

An interactive decision-analytic model was constructed to compare US performed with and without contrast material (SonoRx; Bracco Diagnostics) for the evaluation of patients with abdominal pain who were suspected of having pancreatic disease. The model considered all resources that might be used to evaluate a patient suspected of having pancreatic disease (eg, US, computed tomography [CT], endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography, fine-needle aspiration biopsy, and open biopsy). The literature and an expert panel were the clinical data sources. Cost estimates were based on Medicare and non-Medicare reimbursements. The primary cost-effectiveness measure was the cost to achieve a diagnosis.

RESULTS

SonoRx-enhanced US was less expensive than unenhanced US ($714 vs $808, respectively, with Medicare costs; $1,612 vs $1,878, respectively, with non-Medicare costs) and as effective (0.785 vs 0.782, respectively). SonoRx-enhanced US was more cost-effective than unenhanced US ($909 vs $1,034, respectively, with Medicare costs; $2,052 vs $2,401, respectively, with non-Medicare costs). This relationship was maintained throughout extensive sensitivity analyses.

CONCLUSION

SonoRx-enhanced US is more cost-effective than unenhanced US, primarily because it avoids the need for CT. CT may be avoided owing to the higher probability of obtaining optimal US scans with oral contrast material.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of invasive and noninvasive tests in high risk patients treated with amiodarone after acute myocardial infarction

OBJECTIVES

We sought to evaluate 1) the cost-effectiveness of amiodarone therapy in postinfarction patients; and 2) the influence of alternative diagnostic strategies (noninvasive only vs. noninvasive and electrophysiologic testing) on survival benefit and cost-effectiveness ratio of amiodarone therapy.

BACKGROUND

The cost-effectiveness of amiodarone therapy in postinfarction patients is still unknown, and no study has determined which diagnostic strategy should be used to maximize amiodarone survival benefit while improving its cost-effectiveness ratio.

METHODS

We designed a postinfarction scenario wherein heart rate variability analysis on 24-h Holter monitoring was used as a screening test for 2-year amiodarone therapy in a cohort of survivors (mean age 57 years) of a recent myocardial infarction. Three different therapeutic strategies were compared: 1) no amiodarone; 2) amiodarone in patients with depressed heart rate variability; 3) amiodarone in patients with depressed heart rate variability and a positive programmed ventricular stimulation. Total variable costs and quality-adjusted life expectancy during a 20-year period were predicted with use of a Markov simulation model. Costs and charges were calculated with reference to an Italian and American hospital.

RESULTS

Amiodarone therapy in patients with depressed heart rate variability and a positive programmed ventricular stimulation was dominated by a blend of the two alternatives. Compared with the no-treatment strategy, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of amiodarone therapy in patients with depressed heart rate variability was $10,633 and $39,422 per gained quality-adjusted life-year using Italian costs and American charges, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with a noninterventional option, amiodarone prescription in all patients with depressed heart rate variability seems to be a more appropriate approach than the alternative based on the combined use of heart rate variability and electrophysiologic study.

Comparative cost-effectiveness analysis of theophylline and ipratropium bromide in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. A three-center study

The charts of 311 patients receiving theophylline (T) and 289 patients receiving ipratropium bromide (IB) for COPD were reviewed to determine the total costs and cost-effectiveness of these 2 agents in 3 different health-care settings. A direct cost-accounting method assessed cost, and a Markov decision-analysis model calculated cost-effectiveness. Costs to treat toxic effects were greater for T versus IB. The types and incidences of toxic effects, by drug, were similar among the three centers. Overall costs for T were $121.40 per patient per therapy-month versus $84.56 per patient per therapy-month for IB, as determined by the cost-accounting method. The marginal cost was $366 for T over IB when extrapolated over 1 year using the Markov model. The Markov model also predicted that patients receiving IB had a greater number of complication-free therapy-months (measurement of effectiveness) than patients receiving T. We conclude that treatment with IB was less costly and more cost-effective than T.