Article

Cost effectiveness of eplerenone in patients with heart failure after acute myocardial infarction who were taking both ACE inhibitors and beta-blockers: subanalysis of the EPHESUS.

School of Public Health, Nantong University, Nantong, P.R. China.
American Journal of Cardiovascular Drugs (Impact Factor: 2.07). 01/2010; 10(1):55-63. DOI: 10.2165/11319940-000000000-00000
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT The EPHESUS (Eplerenone Post-Acute Myocardial Infarction Heart Failure and Survival Study) showed that the use of aldosterone blockade with eplerenone decreased mortality in patients with heart failure after acute myocardial infarction, and a subsequent analysis showed eplerenone to be highly cost effective in this population.
To assess the cost effectiveness of eplerenone in an EPHESUS subgroup population who were taking both ACE inhibitors and beta-blockers (beta-adrenoceptor antagonists) at baseline. In the EPHESUS, a total of 6632 patients were randomized to receive eplerenone 25-50 mg/day (n = 3319) or placebo (n = 3313) concurrently with standard therapy and were followed for up to 2.5 years. Of these, 4265 (64.3%) patients (eplerenone: n = 2113; placebo: n = 2152) were taking both ACE inhibitors and beta-blockers at baseline.
Resource use after the initial hospitalization included additional hospitalizations, outpatient services, emergency room visits, and medications. Eplerenone was priced at an average wholesale price of $US3.60 per day (year 2004 value). Bootstrap methods were used to estimate the fraction of the joint distribution of the cost and effectiveness. A net-benefit regression model was used to derive the propensity score-adjusted cost-effectiveness curve. The incremental cost effectiveness of eplerenone in cost per life-year gained (LYG) and cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained beyond the trial period was estimated using data from the Framingham Heart Study, the Saskatchewan Health database, and the Worcester Heart Attack Registry. Both costs and effectiveness were discounted at 3%. Although not all resource use could be accounted for, the overall perspective was societal.
As in the overall EPHESUS population, the total direct treatment costs were higher in the eplerenone arm than the placebo arm for patients who were taking both ACE inhibitors and beta-blockers ($US14,563 vs $US12,850, difference = $US1713; 95% CI 721, 2684). The number of LYGs with eplerenone compared with placebo was 0.1665 based on the Framingham data, 0.0979 using the Saskatchewan data, and 0.2172 using the Worcester data. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was $US10,288/LYG with the Framingham data, $US17,506/LYG with the Saskatchewan data, and $US7888/LYG with the Worcester data (99% <$US50,000/LYG for all three sources). The ICERs were systematically higher when calculated as the cost per QALY gained ($US14,926, $US25,447, and $US11,393, respectively) as the utilities were below 1 with no difference between the treatment arms.
As for the overall EPHESUS population, aldosterone blockade with eplerenone is effective in reducing mortality and is cost effective in increasing years of life for the EPHESUS subgroup of patients who were taking both ACE inhibitors and beta-blockers.

1 Bookmark
 · 
71 Views
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: 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.
    Nature Reviews Cardiology 04/2013; · 10.40 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Chronic heart failure (CHF) remains an important cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide. Currently, there are no cost-effectiveness studies of eplerenone use in patients with New York Heart Association (NYHA) class II CHF. We sought to evaluate the cost effectiveness of eplerenone compared with placebo in patients with chronic systolic heart failure and NYHA class II symptoms. A 10-year Markov model with yearly cycles was constructed to evaluate the cost effectiveness of eplerenone compared with placebo, based on data from the EMPHASIS-HF (Eplerenone in Mild Patients Hospitalization And Survival Study in Heart Failure) study. The model classified subjects into two health states: 'Alive with CHF' and 'Dead'. Information about the cost of disease was derived from Australian Refined Diagnosis-Related Groups (AR-DRG) data. The cost of eplerenone was taken from the Australian Pharmaceutical Benefit Scheme. Utility data were derived from published sources, and a 5 % annual discount rate was applied to future costs and benefits. Over 10 years, and compared with placebo, the model predicted that eplerenone would lead to a saving of 0.5 life-years (discounted) and 0.4 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) per person. The net cost was (in Australian dollars [$A]) $A6,117 (discounted) per person. These equated to incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of $A12,024 per life-year saved and $A16,700 per QALY saved. Sensitivity analyses indicated that these results were robust. Eplerenone may represent a cost-effective strategy for preventing morbidity and mortality among patients with chronic systolic heart failure and NYHA class II symptoms.
    American Journal of Cardiovascular Drugs 03/2014; · 2.07 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Cell therapy has been shown to be effective in improving LV function post myocrdial infarction (MI). We hypothesized that eNOS-transfected bone marrow cells (BMCs) are safe in a swine model of myocardial infarction (MI). We also hypothesized that endothelial nitric oxide synthase (eNOS) transfection would enhance cell function, as assessed by myocardial functional recovery post-MI. Fifteen female Yorkshire pigs underwent bone marrow aspiration and creation of MI. BMCs were cultured for 7 days and each pig received either autologous BMCs transiently transfected with eNOS plasmid (eNOS-BMC, n=5), non-transfected BMCs (nt-BMC, n=4) or PBS control (n=6). Cardiac MRI was performed at baseline (1 week post-MI) as well as 6 weeks post-MI. There was no difference in safety outcomes between groups. Absolute left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) at six weeks showed a trend toward improvement in both cell therapy groups compared to baseline but worsened in the phosphate buffered saline (PBS) control group. The absolute improvement in LVEF was significantly greater in both cell therapy groups compared with PBS control. Infarct mass was significantly lower in the eNOS-BMC group between baseline and 6 weeks, but the absolute change in infarct mass was not different between groups. Finally, there was a trend toward reduced LV mass in the eNOS-BMC group. BMC delivery, with and without eNOS overexpression, is safe and leads to improvement in LVEF when administered in the coronary circulation 7 days following acute MI in swine. Transfection of healthy BMCs with eNOS resulted in some improvement of left ventricular remodeling. Further study is warranted in a preclinical model that approximates the impact of cardiovascular risk factors on BMC function. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.
    Cardiovascular Therapeutics 07/2013; · 2.85 Impact Factor