Multinational economic evaluation of valsartan in patients with chronic heart failure: results from the Valsartan Heart Failure Trial (Val-HeFT)

The economics of heart failure care

Heart failure (HF) poses a significant economic burden in the US, with costs projected to reach $70 billion by 2030. Cost-effectiveness analyses play a pivotal role in assessing the economic value of HF therapies. In this review, we overview the cost-effectiveness of HF therapies and discuss ways to improve patient access. Based on current costs, guideline directed medical therapies for HF with reduced ejection fraction provide high economic value except for sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors, which provide intermediate economic value. Combining therapy with the four pillars of medical therapy also has intermediate economic value, with incremental cost-effectiveness ratios ranging from $73,000 to $98,500/ quality adjusted life-years. High economic value procedures include cardiac resynchronization devices, implantable cardioverter-defibrillators, and coronary artery bypass surgery. In contrast, advanced HF therapies have previously demonstrated intermediate to low economic value, but newer data appear more favorable. Given the affordability challenges of HF therapies, additional efforts are needed to ensure optimal care for patients. The recent Inflation Reduction Act contains provisions to reform policy pertaining to drug price negotiation and out-of-pocket spending, as well as measures to increase access to existing programs, including the Medicare low-income subsidy. On a patient level, it is also important to encourage patient and physician awareness and discussions surrounding medical costs. Overall, a broad approach to improving available therapies and access to care is needed to reduce the growing clinical and economic morbidity of HF.

2022 AHA/ACC/HFSA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines

AIM

The "2022 AHA/ACC/HFSA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure" replaces the "2013 ACCF/AHA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure" and the "2017 ACC/AHA/HFSA Focused Update of the 2013 ACCF/AHA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure." The 2022 guideline is intended to provide patient-centric recommendations for clinicians to prevent, diagnose, and manage patients with heart failure.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was conducted from May 2020 to December 2020, encompassing studies, reviews, and other evidence conducted on human subjects that were published in English from MEDLINE (PubMed), EMBASE, the Cochrane Collaboration, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and other relevant databases. Additional relevant clinical trials and research studies, published through September 2021, were also considered. This guideline was harmonized with other American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology guidelines published through December 2021. Structure: Heart failure remains a leading cause of morbidity and mortality globally. The 2022 heart failure guideline provides recommendations based on contemporary evidence for the treatment of these patients. The recommendations present an evidence-based approach to managing patients with heart failure, with the intent to improve quality of care and align with patients' interests. Many recommendations from the earlier heart failure guidelines have been updated with new evidence, and new recommendations have been created when supported by published data. Value statements are provided for certain treatments with high-quality published economic analyses.

2022 AHA/ACC/HFSA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure: Executive Summary: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines

AIM

The "2022 AHA/ACC/HFSA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure" replaces the "2013 ACCF/AHA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure" and the "2017 ACC/AHA/HFSA Focused Update of the 2013 ACCF/AHA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure." The 2022 guideline is intended to provide patient-centric recommendations for clinicians to prevent, diagnose, and manage patients with heart failure.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was conducted from May 2020 to December 2020, encompassing studies, reviews, and other evidence conducted on human subjects that were published in English from MEDLINE (PubMed), EMBASE, the Cochrane Collaboration, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and other relevant databases. Additional relevant clinical trials and research studies, published through September 2021, were also considered. This guideline was harmonized with other American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology guidelines published through December 2021. Structure: Heart failure remains a leading cause of morbidity and mortality globally. The 2022 heart failure guideline provides recommendations based on contemporary evidence for the treatment of these patients. The recommendations present an evidence-based approach to managing patients with heart failure, with the intent to improve quality of care and align with patients' interests. Many recommendations from the earlier heart failure guidelines have been updated with new evidence, and new recommendations have been created when supported by published data. Value statements are provided for certain treatments with high-quality published economic analyses.

2022 AHA/ACC/HFSA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure

AIM

The "2022 AHA/ACC/HFSA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure" replaces the "2013 ACCF/AHA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure" and the "2017 ACC/AHA/HFSA Focused Update of the 2013 ACCF/AHA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure." The 2022 guideline is intended to provide patient-centric recommendations for clinicians to prevent, diagnose, and manage patients with heart failure.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was conducted from May 2020 to December 2020, encompassing studies, reviews, and other evidence conducted on human subjects that were published in English from MEDLINE (PubMed), EMBASE, the Cochrane Collaboration, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and other relevant databases. Additional relevant clinical trials and research studies, published through September 2021, were also considered. This guideline was harmonized with other American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology guidelines published through December 2021.

STRUCTURE

Heart failure remains a leading cause of morbidity and mortality globally. The 2022 heart failure guideline provides recommendations based on contemporary evidence for the treatment of these patients. The recommendations present an evidence-based approach to managing patients with heart failure, with the intent to improve quality of care and align with patients' interests. Many recommendations from the earlier heart failure guidelines have been updated with new evidence, and new recommendations have been created when supported by published data. Value statements are provided for certain treatments with high-quality published economic analyses.

Empagliflozin Improves Cardiovascular and Renal Outcomes in Heart Failure Irrespective of Systolic Blood Pressure

BACKGROUND

Empagliflozin reduces the risk of cardiovascular death or heart failure (HF) hospitalization in patients with reduced ejection fraction. Its interplay with systolic blood pressure (SBP) is not known.

OBJECTIVES

The goal of this study was to evaluate the interplay of SBP and the effects of empagliflozin in EMPEROR-Reduced (Empagliflozin Outcome Trial in Patients With Chronic Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction).

METHODS

Study patients (N = 3,730) were randomly assigned to groups according to SBP at baseline (<110 mm Hg, n = 928; 110-130 mm Hg, n = 1,755; >130 mm Hg, n = 1,047). This study explored the influence of SBP on the effects of empagliflozin on cardiovascular death or HF hospitalization (primary outcome), as well as on total HF hospitalizations, rate of decline in estimated glomerular filtration rate, renal outcomes, and empagliflozin's effects and significance on SBP.

RESULTS

Over a median of 16 months considering only patients receiving placebo, baseline SBP and the risk of cardiovascular death or hospitalization for HF (P trend = 0.0015) were inversely related. Corrected for placebo, a slight early increase was observed in SBP at <110 mm Hg, no change at 110-130 mm Hg, and a slight reduction at >130 mm Hg. These between-group differences were of borderline significance (P for interaction trend = 0.05-0.10) after 4 and 12 weeks but were not significant later. SBP at baseline did not influence the effect of empagliflozin to reduce the risk of HF events or renal endpoints. When treated with empagliflozin, patients with SBP <110 mm Hg did not have an increased rate of symptomatic hypotension.

CONCLUSIONS

Empagliflozin was effective and safe, with no meaningful interaction between SBP and the effects of empagliflozin in the EMPEROR-Reduced trial. (Empagliflozin Outcome Trial in Patients With Chronic Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction [EMPEROR-Reduced]; NCT03057977).

Quality of health economic evaluations for the ACC/AHA stable ischemic heart disease practice guideline: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

The American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association (ACC/AHA) recently published a rigorous framework to guide integration of economic data into clinical guidelines. We assessed the quality of economic evaluations in a major ACC/AHA clinical guidance report.

METHODS

We systematically identified cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs) of RCTs cited in the ACC/AHA 2012 Guideline for the Diagnosis and Management of Patients with Stable Ischemic Heart Disease. We extracted: (1) study identifiers; (2) parent RCT information; (3) economic analysis characteristics; and (4) study quality using the Quality of Health Economic Studies instrument (QHES).

RESULTS

Quality scores were categorized as high (≥75 points) or low (<75 points). Of 1,266 citations in the guideline, 219 were RCTs associated with 77 CEAs. Mean quality score was 81 (out of 100) and improved over time, though 29.9% of studies were low-quality. Cost-per-QALY was the most commonly reported primary outcome (39.0%). Low-quality studies were less likely to report study perspective, use appropriate time horizons, or address statistical and clinical uncertainty. Funding was overwhelmingly private (83%). A detailed methodological assessment of high-quality studies revealed domains of additional methodological issues not identified by the QHES.

CONCLUSIONS

Economic evaluations of RCTs in the 2012 ACC/AHA ischemic heart disease guideline largely had high QHES scores but methodological issues existed among "high-quality" studies. Because the ACC/AHA has generally been more systematic in its integration of scientific evidence compared to other professional societies, it is likely that most societies will need to proceed more cautiously in their integration of economic evidence.

Systolic blood pressure, cardiovascular outcomes and efficacy and safety of sacubitril/valsartan (LCZ696) in patients with chronic heart failure and reduced ejection fraction: results from PARADIGM-HF

Background

Compared to heart failure patients with higher systolic blood pressure (SBP), those with lower SBP have a worse prognosis. To make matters worse, the latter patients often do not receive treatment with life-saving therapies that might lower blood pressure further. We examined the association between SBP and outcomes in the Prospective Comparison of angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI) with an angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor to Determine Impact on Global Mortality and Morbidity in Heart Failure trial (PARADIGM-HF), as well as the effect of sacubitril/valsartan, compared with enalapril, according to baseline SBP.

Methods

We analysed the effect of treatment on SBP and on the primary composite outcome (cardiovascular death or heart failure hospitalization), its components and all-cause death. We examined baseline SBP as a categorical (<110, 110 to < 120, 120 to < 130, 130 to < 140 and ≥140 mmHg) and continuous variable, as well as average in-trial SBP and time-updated SBP.

Findings

All-cause and cardiovascular mortality rates were highest in patients with the lowest SBP whereas there was a U-shaped relationship between SBP and the rate of heart failure hospitalization. The benefit of sacubitril/valsartan over enalapril was consistent across all baseline SBP categories for all outcomes. For example, the sacubitril/valsartan versus enalapril hazard ratio for the primary endpoint was 0.88 (95%CI 0.74-1.06) in patients with a baseline SBP <110 mmHg and 0.81 (0.65-1.02) for those with a SBP ≥140 mmHg (P for interaction = 0.55). Symptomatic hypotension, study drug dose-reduction and discontinuation were more frequent in patients with a lower SBP.

Interpretation

In PARADIGM-HF, patients with lower SBP at randomization, notably after tolerating full doses of both study drugs during a run-in period, were at higher risk but generally tolerated sacubitril/valsartan and had the same relative benefit over enalapril as patients with higher baseline SBP.

Economic Evaluation alongside Multinational Studies: A Systematic Review of Empirical Studies

Purpose of the study

This study seeks to explore methods for conducting economic evaluations alongside multinational trials by conducting a systematic review of the methods used in practice and the challenges that are typically faced by the researchers who conducted the economic evaluations.

Methods

A review was conducted for the period 2002 to 2012, with potentially relevant articles identified by searching the Medline, Embase and NHS EED databases. Studies were included if they were full economic evaluations conducted alongside a multinational trial.

Results

A total of 44 studies out of a possible 2667 met the inclusion criteria. Methods used for the analyses varied between studies, indicating a lack of consensus on how economic evaluation alongside multinational studies should be carried out. The most common challenge appeared to be related to addressing differences between countries, which potentially hinders the generalisability and transferability of results. Other challenges reported included inadequate sample sizes and choosing cost-effectiveness thresholds.

Conclusions

It is recommended that additional guidelines be developed to aid researchers in this area and that these be based on an understanding of the challenges associated with multinational trials and the strengths and limitations of alternative approaches. Guidelines should focus on ensuring that results will aid decision makers in their individual countries.

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.

The pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of valsartan in the post-myocardial infarction population

INTRODUCTION

The most common risk factors for heart failure are hypertension and myocardial infarction. Angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) attenuate the deleterious effects of angiotensin II. Valsartan is a once or twice daily ARB that is FDA-approved for hypertension, LV dysfunction post-myocardial infarction and congestive heart failure as both an adjunct in ACE-inhibitor tolerant, and alternative in ACE-I intolerant patients.

AREAS COVERED

This article presents a comprehensive review of the literature regarding the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of valsartan, with particular attention paid to the post-myocardial infarction population.

EXPERT OPINION

Valsartan is a safe, well-tolerated and readily titratable ARB. In addition to its vasodilatory effects there are pleotropic effects associated with the ARB such as modulation of a number of neurohormonal regulators, cytokines and small molecules. Given the clear evidence-based benefits above and beyond its hypertensive properties, it has the potential, if priced appropriately, to grow in its impact as a pharmacotherapeutic long after its patent expires.

Introduction of the Tools for Economic Analysis of Patient Management Interventions in Heart Failure Costing Tool: a user-friendly spreadsheet program to estimate costs of providing patient-centered interventions

BACKGROUND

Patient-centered health care interventions, such as heart failure disease management programs, are under increasing pressure to demonstrate good value. Variability in costing methods and assumptions in economic evaluations of such interventions limit the comparability of cost estimates across studies. Valid cost estimation is critical to conducting economic evaluations and for program budgeting and reimbursement negotiations.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Using sound economic principles, we developed the Tools for Economic Analysis of Patient Management Interventions in Heart Failure (TEAM-HF) Costing Tool, a spreadsheet program that can be used by researchers and health care managers to systematically generate cost estimates for economic evaluations and to inform budgetary decisions. The tool guides users on data collection and cost assignment for associated personnel, facilities, equipment, supplies, patient incentives, miscellaneous items, and start-up activities. The tool generates estimates of total program costs, cost per patient, and cost per week and presents results using both standardized and customized unit costs for side-by-side comparisons. Results from pilot testing indicated that the tool was well-formatted, easy to use, and followed a logical order. Cost estimates of a 12-week exercise training program in patients with heart failure were generated with the costing tool and were found to be consistent with estimates published in a recent study.

CONCLUSIONS

The TEAM-HF Costing Tool could prove to be a valuable resource for researchers and health care managers to generate comprehensive cost estimates of patient-centered interventions in heart failure or other conditions for conducting high-quality economic evaluations and making well-informed health care management decisions.

Economic evaluation of the HF-ACTION (Heart Failure: A Controlled Trial Investigating Outcomes of Exercise Training) randomized controlled trial: an exercise training study of patients with chronic heart failure

BACKGROUND

Heart Failure: A Controlled Trial Investigating Outcomes of Exercise Training (HF-ACTION) assigned 2331 outpatients with medically stable heart failure to exercise training or usual care. We compared medical resource use and costs incurred by these patients during follow-up.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Extensive data on medical resource use and hospital bills were collected throughout the trial for estimates of direct medical costs. Intervention costs were estimated using patient-level trial data, administrative records, and published unit costs. Mean follow-up was 2.5 years. There were 2297 hospitalizations in the exercise group and 2332 in the usual care group (P=0.92). The mean number of inpatient days was 13.6 (standard deviation [SD], 27.0) in the exercise group and 15.0 (SD, 31.4) in the usual care group (P=0.23). Other measures of resource use were similar between groups, except for trends indicating that fewer patients in the exercise group underwent high-cost inpatient procedures. Total direct medical costs per participant were an estimated $50,857 (SD, $81,488) in the exercise group and $56,177 (SD, $92,749) in the usual care group (95% confidence interval for the difference, $-12,755 to $1547; P=0.10). The direct cost of exercise training was an estimated $1006 (SD, $337). Patient time costs were an estimated $5018 (SD, $4600).

CONCLUSIONS

The cost of exercise training was relatively low for the health care system, but patients incurred significant time costs. In this economic evaluation, there was little systematic benefit in terms of overall medical resource use with this intervention.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00047437.

The cost effectiveness and cost utility of valsartan in chronic heart failure therapy in Italy: a probabilistic markov model

To evaluate the cost effectiveness and cost utility of the use of valsartan in addition to standard therapy for the treatment of patients with chronic heart failure with low left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). The study was conducted by means of a cohort simulation based on a probabilistic Markov model and projecting the 23-month follow-up results of the Val-HeFT (Valsartan Heart Failure Trial) study over a 10-year time horizon. The model included four states (New York Heart Association [NYHA] classes II, III, IV, and death), and had a cycle duration of 1 month. Probabilistic simulations were performed using the WinBUGS software for Bayesian analysis. The distribution of patient parameters (sex, age, use of beta-adrenoceptor antagonists, and ACE inhibitors) in the simulated population were derived from the Italian heart failure patient population. Individual mortality data were derived from general mortality data by multiplying by a NYHA state-specific relative risk, while the probability of changing NYHA class was taken from the Val-HeFT data. Costs (2007 values) were calculated from the perspective of the Italian Health Service (IHS) and included costs for drugs and heart failure hospitalizations. Quality-of-life (QOL) weights were obtained by using published health-related QOL data for heart failure patients. A 3.5% annual discount rate was applied. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis was performed on each parameter using original-source 95% confidence interval (CI) values, or a +/-10% range when 95% CI values were unavailable. For the 10-year time horizon, patients were estimated to live for an average of 2.3 years or 1.7 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), with slight increases in the valsartan group. In this group, hospitalizations for worsening heart failure were predicted to be significantly reduced and overall treatment costs per patient to decrease by about and U20AC;550. In subgroup analyses, valsartan lost dominance in patients in NYHA II, and in those receiving beta-adrenoceptor antagonists or ACE inhibitors; the mean incremental cost-utility ratio for these groups was 21 240, 129 200, and 36 500 and U20AC;/QALY, respectively. Valsartan in addition to standard therapy is predicted to dominate standard therapy alone in Italian patients with mild to severe heart failure and low LVEF. There are relevant differences among various patient subgroups, and valsartan is expected to be good value for money particularly in the treatment of the most severe and less intensively treated (no ACE inhibitors, no beta-adrenoceptor antagonist) heart failure patients.

A cost-saving strategy for inpatient management of advanced decompensated heart failure patients: the Cardiomyopathy Unit

BACKGROUND

This article analyzes the relative costs and revenues of the Tufts Medical Center Cardiomyopathy Unit (CMU), a recent innovation for grouping and managing advanced decompensated heart failure patients.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We selected a retrospective sample of all patients with the primary diagnosis of heart failure, primary procedure of pulmonary artery catheterization, and with no other hospitalization procedures, admitted to Tufts Medical Center between 2000 and 2006. Regression models were used to estimate the cost for the intervention group and controls. Propensity analysis was used to test for selection bias in the comparison groups. We identified 114 hospitalizations meeting these criteria. Patients in the CMU group were well-balanced compared with controls with respect to demographic and clinical variables. Estimated direct medical costs for CMU and control groups were $11,817 (95% CI $7678-$16,106) and $17,236 (95% CI $11,199-$23,493), respectively. A similar pattern of cost differentials was displayed among propensity-matched sample groups. Net revenue was $12,609 (95% CI $9578-$16,845) and $15,627 (95% CI $11,871-$20,877) in the CMU and control groups, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The inpatient CMU may offer a lower cost and higher contribution margin alternative for the management of advanced heart failure patients requiring hemodynamic monitoring without other major inpatient procedures.

Economic benefits of treating high-risk hypertension with angiotensin II receptor antagonists (blockers)

Hypertension is one of the leading risk factors for cardiovascular disease and represents a major health and economic burden. Most patients with high- or very high-risk hypertension have multiple cardiovascular risk factors with or without accompanying subclinical organ damage or established cardiovascular or renal disease. Patients with severe hypertension or with moderate hypertension and one to two additional risk factors have absolute 10-year risks of cardiovascular disease of 21-30% and 15-20%, respectively. Current European treatment guidelines recommend that antihypertensive therapy be initiated rapidly and aggressively in patients with high-risk hypertension. Most patients require two or more antihypertensive agents to achieve the strict blood pressure target of <130/80 mmHg. This article reviews the existing cost-effectiveness data on the use of angiotensin II receptor antagonists (blockers) [ARBs] in patients with high-risk hypertension. Aggressive ARB treatment of patients in the early (microalbuminuric) stages of diabetic nephropathy has a significant renoprotective effect, delaying the onset of overt (proteinuric) nephropathy. By slowing the progression of these patients to end-stage renal disease, substantial cost savings can be made. There is a paucity of cost-effectiveness data regarding the use of fixed-dose ARB plus thiazide diuretic combination therapies. Longitudinal cost-benefit studies of this attractive and efficacious first-line treatment option are needed.

Economic burden of heart failure in the elderly

Heart failure (HF) ranks among the most costly chronic diseases in developed countries. At present these countries devote 1-2% of all healthcare expenditures towards HF. In the US, these costs are estimated at $US30.2 billion for 2007. The burden of HF is greatest among the elderly, with 80% of HF hospitalizations and 90% of HF-related deaths in this cohort. As a result, approximately three-quarters of the resources for HF care are consumed by elderly patients. As demographic shifts increase the number of elderly individuals in both developed and developing nations, the resources devoted to HF care will likely further increase. Hospitalization accounts for roughly two-thirds of HF costs, but procedures, outpatient visits and medications also consume significant financial resources. HF also adversely impacts patient quality of life, and these relevant effects may not be captured in pure cost analyses. The cost effectiveness of several pharmacological interventions has been explored. In general, neurohormonal antagonists used for outpatient treatment of chronic HF are relatively cost effective, in part by reducing hospitalizations. Because HF poses such an enormous financial burden, efficient resource allocation for its management is a major societal and governmental challenge. In order to make informed decisions and allocate resources for HF care rationally, detailed data regarding costs and resource use will be essential. Further studies are needed to examine the impact of pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions on costs and resource use in elderly individuals with HF.

Prescribing for chronic heart failure in Europe: does the country make the difference? A European survey

PURPOSE

International differences in prescribing patterns for chronic heart failure (CHF) have been demonstrated repeatedly. It is not clear whether these differences arise entirely from patient characteristics or factors related to the country itself, such as health care systems or culture. We aim to assess the role of countries in this international variation, aside from the role of patient characteristics.

METHODS

In this European primary care practice survey (from 1999/2000) 11062 CHF patients from 14 countries were included. The influence of country (corrected for patient characteristics) on prescribed drug regimes was assessed by multinomial logistical regression.

RESULTS

Prescribing of guideline-recommended drug regimes ranged from 28.1% in Turkey to 61.8% in Hungary. Including additional regimes justifiable by patients' co-morbidities, increased overall 'rational' prescribing by 11%, but differences among countries remained similar. Multivariate analysis for one-drug and two-drug regimes explained between 35% and 42% of the total variance, country contributed 7%-8% (p < 0.005). Countries determined the number of drugs used and the likelihood of individual drug regimes. For example, in Czech Republic digoxin alone was more likely to be given than the recommended ACE-inhibitors (OR: 3.45; 95%CI: 2.56-4.64), while the combination of digoxin with ACE-inhibitors was as likely as the recommended combination of ACE-inhibitors and beta-blockers (OR: 1.17; 95%CI: 0.88-1.55).

CONCLUSION

Country of residence clearly influenced prescribed drug volume and choice of drug regimes. Therefore, optimal CHF management cannot be achieved without considering country specific factors. It remains to be established which factors within health-care systems are responsible for these effects.

Underutilization of Evidence-Based Therapies in Heart Failure: The Pharmacist's Role

Utilization of evidence-based therapy in the heart failure population includes implementation of heart failure treatment guidelines, interventions to improve prescribing, and inclusion of pharmacists on the multidisciplinary team. Use of treatment guidelines eases the challenge of selecting the appropriate drug and dosage; quality interventions by pharmacists can ensure optimal prescribing of therapy; and provision of care by a multidisciplinary team can improve outcomes in patients with heart failure. Evidence-based therapy, however, remains underutilized in the heart failure population. Barriers to utilization include misperceptions that various heart failure subpopulations do not need certain medical therapies, a fear of polypharmacy, inappropriate assumptions about adverse effects and contraindications, and cost. In fact, optimal prescribing of evidence-based therapy can actually reduce costs. Clearly documented processes and systems are needed to ensure that evidence-based therapy and education are available to every patient.

Heart failure: metabolic derangements and therapeutic rationale

In the USA, over two-thirds of patients with heart failure (HF) are cared for by primary care practitioners exclusively. Significant progress has been made through basic science and clinical research focusing on the prevention of HF via control of known risk factors. There has also been a great deal of progress in both pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic management of the disease. These therapeutic interventions, however, continue to be underutilized, with seemingly inadequate translation of new evidence and updated guidelines (American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association, European Society of Cardiology, Canadian Cardiovascular Society, and Heart Failure Society of America updates in 2005-2006) into clinical practice. In this review, we discuss the pathophysiology of HF in addition to the metabolic derangements and therapeutic rationale surrounding current treatment options, with a particular focus on the interventions that have been shown and recommended in updated guidelines to prevent the disease or halt its progression.

Analytic considerations in economic evaluations of multinational cardiovascular clinical trials

OBJECTIVES

The growing number of economic evaluations that use data collected in multinational clinical trials raises numerous questions regarding their execution and interpretation. Although recommendations for conducting economic evaluations have been widely disseminated, relatively little guidance has been given for conducting economic evaluations alongside clinical trials, particularly multinational trials.

METHODS

Building on a literature review that was conducted in preparation for an expert workshop, we evaluated a subset of methodological issues related to conducting economic evaluations alongside multinational clinical trials.

RESULTS

We found wide variation in the types of costs included as part of the analyses and in the methods used to assign costs to hospitalization events. Furthermore, we found that the extrapolation of costs and survival outcomes beyond the trial period is an inconsistent practice and is often not dependent on whether a survival benefit was observed in the trial or on the epidemiology or practice patterns in the country to which the findings are directed.

CONCLUSIONS

Although the limited sample size precluded a quantitative analysis of trial characteristics and their associations with the methodologies employed, our findings highlight the need for more guidance to analysts regarding the execution of economic evaluations using data from multinational clinical trials. As the research community grapples with the complexities of methodological and logistical issues involved in multinational economic evaluations, the development of a standardized format to report the basic methodological characteristics of such studies would help to improve transparency and comparability for other analysts and decision-makers.

Isosorbide dinitrate and hydralazine hydrochloride: a review of efficacy and safety

In the USA alone, there are over 5,000,000 people diagnosed with heart failure. A disproportionate number of African-Americans are affected by this disease, with increased morbidity and mortality, yet they are tremendously under-represented in clinical trials. Several drugs have been approved for use in heart failure based on clinical trials, with percentages of African-American subjects as low as 1%. In the African-American Heart Failure Trial the use of BiDil, a drug combining isosorbide dinitrate and hydralazine hydrochloride, demonstrated a 43% decrease in overall mortality and a 39% decrease in first hospitalization. The combination consists of 20 mg of isosorbide and 37.5 mg hydralazine hydrochloride in a fixed dose that functions as a nitric oxide enhancer and an antioxidant, and helps to prevent tolerance to the prolonged use of nitrate. The hemodynamic effects of the combination drug in heart failure includes increased cardiac output. The US Food and Drug Administration approved the combination of isosorbide dinitrate based on the African-American Heart Failure Trial. Further clinical trials utilizing isosorbide dinitrate will hopefully determine the benefit of this combination in a larger population, including caucasians and other racial/ethnic groups.

Cost-effectiveness of fixed-dose combination of isosorbide dinitrate and hydralazine therapy for blacks with heart failure

BACKGROUND

Fixed-dose combination of isosorbide dinitrate/hydralazine (ISDN/HYD) improved clinical outcomes in the African-American Heart Failure Trial (A-HeFT). We assessed the resource use, costs of care, and cost-effectiveness of ISDN/HYD therapy in the A-HeFT trial population.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We obtained resource use data from A-HeFT, assigning costs through the use of US federal sources. Excluding indirect costs, we summarized the within-trial experience and modeled cost-effectiveness over extended time horizons, including a US societal lifetime reference case. During the mean trial follow-up of 12.8 months, the ISDN/HYD group incurred fewer heart failure-related hospitalizations (0.33 versus 0.47 per subject; P=0.002) and shorter mean hospital stays (6.7 versus 7.9 days; P=0.006). When study drug costs were excluded, both heart failure-related and total healthcare costs were lower in the ISDN/HYD group (mean per-subject heart failure-related costs, 5997 dollars versus 9144 dollars; P=0.04; mean per-subject total healthcare costs, 15,384 dollars versus 19,728 dollars; P=0.03). With an average daily drug cost of 6.38 dollars, ISDN/HYD therapy was dominant (reduced costs and improved outcomes) over the trial duration. Assuming that no additional benefits accrue beyond the trial, we project the cost-effectiveness of ISDN/HYD therapy using heart failure-related costs to be 16,600 dollars/life-year at 2 years after enrollment, 37,100 dollars/life-year at 5 years, and 41,800 dollars/life-year over lifetime (reference case).

CONCLUSIONS

ISDN/HYD therapy, previously shown to improve clinical outcomes, also reduced resource use and costs in A-HeFT, primarily because of a large reduction in hospitalizations. Long-term use of ISDN/HYD therapy should be associated with a favorable cost-effectiveness profile in this population.

Conducting economic evaluations alongside multinational clinical trials: toward a research consensus

Demand for economic evaluations in multinational clinical trials is increasing, but there is little consensus about how such studies should be conducted and reported. At a workshop in Durham, North Carolina, we sought to identify areas of agreement about how the primary findings of economic evaluations in multinational clinical trials should be generated and presented. In this paper, we propose a framework for classifying multinational economic evaluations according to (a) the sources of an analyst's estimates of resource use and clinical effectiveness and (b) the analyst's method of estimating costs. We review existing studies in the cardiology literature in the context of the proposed framework. We then describe important methodological and practical considerations in conducting multinational economic evaluations and summarize the advantages and disadvantages of each approach. Finally, we describe opportunities for future research. Delineation of the various approaches to multinational economic evaluation may assist researchers, peer reviewers, journal editors, and decision makers in evaluating the strengths and limitations of particular studies.