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.
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.
- SourceAvailable from: circ.ahajournals.org[show abstract] [hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Few data are available on the impact of heart failure (HF) across all types of acute coronary syndromes (ACS). The Global Registry of Acute Coronary Events (GRACE) is a prospective study of patients hospitalized with ACS. Data from 16 166 patients were analyzed: 13 707 patients without prior HF or cardiogenic shock at presentation were identified. Of these, 1778 (13%) had an admission diagnosis of HF (Killip class II or III). HF on admission was associated with a marked increase in mortality rates during hospitalization (12.0% versus 2.9% [with versus without HF], P<0.0001) and at 6 months after discharge (8.5% versus 2.8%, P<0.0001). Of note, HF increased mortality rates in patients with unstable angina (defined as ACS with normal biochemical markers of necrosis; mortality rates: 6.7% with versus 1.6% without HF at admission, P<0.0001). By logistic regression analysis, admission HF was an independent predictor of hospital death (odds ratio, 2.2; P<0.0001). Admission HF was associated with longer hospital stay and higher readmission rates. Patients with HF had lower rates of catheterization and percutaneous cardiac intervention, and fewer received beta-blockers and statins. Hospital development of HF (versus HF on presentation) was associated with an even higher in-hospital mortality rate (17.8% versus 12.0%, P<0.0001). In patients with HF, in-hospital revascularization was associated with lower 6-month death rates (14.0% versus 23.7%, P<0.0001; adjusted hazard ratio, 0.5; 95% CI, 0.37 to 0.68, P<0.0001). In this observational registry, heart failure was associated with reduced hospital and 6-month survival across all ACS subsets, including patients with normal markers of necrosis. More aggressive treatment of these patients may be warranted to improve prognosis.Circulation 02/2004; 109(4):494-9. · 15.20 Impact Factor
- [show abstract] [hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: The superiority of clopidogrel and aspirin versus aspirin alone for up to 1 year in patients who undergo percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) after presenting with acute coronary syndromes without ST-segment elevation was demonstrated in the PCI-CURE study. We evaluated the long-term cost-effectiveness of clopidogrel use for up to 1 year using patient-level outcomes and resource use from PCI-CURE, and estimates of life expectancy gains based on external sources. PCI-CURE involved 2658 patients who underwent PCI between 1998 and 2000 after being randomized in the CURE trial to clopidogrel (n = 1313) or placebo (n = 1345). Roughly two thirds (clopidogrel n = 821, placebo n = 909) underwent PCI during the initial hospitalization (early PCI). Costs were applied to hospitalizations according to diagnosis-related group. Clopidogrel was assigned the average wholesale price of 3.22 dollars per day. Life expectancy gains resulting from the prevention of major clinical events were estimated using external sources. Average total costs were higher with clopidogrel (difference [based on costing method] 253 dollars-423 dollars). For patients who underwent PCI during the initial hospitalization, the difference ranged from 155 dollars lower to 90 dollars higher with clopidogrel. The estimated life expectancy gain with clopidogrel was 0.0885 years, whereas it was 0.0962 years for the early PCI subgroup. Incremental cost per year of life gained with clopidogrel ranges from 2856 dollars to 4775 dollars overall and from dominant (life expectancy benefit with cost savings) to 935 dollars for the early PCI subgroup. Clopidogrel given for up to 1 year in patients undergoing PCI after presentation with acute coronary syndromes is a highly cost-effective treatment strategy.American heart journal 02/2006; 151(1):219-27. · 4.65 Impact Factor
- [show abstract] [hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: In the Treat Angina with Aggrastat and Determine Cost of Therapy with an Invasive or Conservative Strategy (TACTICS)-Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction (TIMI) 18 trial, patients with either unstable angina or non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (UA/NSTEMI) treated with the platelet glycoprotein (Gp IIb/IIIa) inhibitor tirofiban had a significantly reduced rate of major cardiac events at 6 months with an early invasive vs a conservative strategy. To examine total 6-month costs and long-term cost-effectiveness of an invasive vs a conservative strategy. Randomized controlled trial including a priori economic end points. Hospitalization for UA/NSTEMI with 6-month follow-up period. A total of 2220 patients with UA/NSTEMI; economic data from 1722 patients at US-non-VA hospitals. Early invasive strategy with routine catheterization and revascularization as appropriate vs a conservative strategy with catheterization performed only for recurrent ischemia or a positive stress test. Total 6-month costs and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio. The average initial hospitalization costs among those in the invasive strategy group were $15714 vs $14047 among those in the conservative strategy group, a difference of $1667 (95% confidence interval [CI], $387-3091). The in-hospital costs were offset significantly at the 6-month follow-up, with an average cost in the invasive group of $6098 vs $7180 in the conservative group, a difference of $1082 (95% CI, -$2051 to $76). The average total costs at 6 months, including productivity costs, for the invasive group was $21 813 vs $21 227 for the conservative group, a $586 difference (95% CI, -$1087 to $2486). The average 6-month costs excluding productivity costs in the invasive group was $19 780 vs $19 111 in the conservative group, a difference of $670, 95% CI; (-$1035 to $2321). Estimated cost per year of life gained for the invasive strategy, based on projected life expectancy, was $12739 for the base case, and ranged from $8371 to $25769, based on model assumptions. In patients with UA/NSTEMI treated with the Gp IIb/IIIa inhibitor tirofiban, the clinical benefit of an early invasive strategy was achieved with a small increase in cost, yielding favorable projected estimates of cost per year of life gained. These results support the broader use of an early invasive strategy in these patients.JAMA The Journal of the American Medical Association 11/2002; 288(15):1851-8. · 29.98 Impact Factor