Cost-effectiveness of B-type natriuretic peptide-guided care in patients with heart failure: a systematic review

Cost-utility analysis of valsartan, enalapril, and candesartan in patients with heart failure in Iran

BACKGROUND

Today, heart failure is one of the leading causes of death and disability in most developed and developing countries. By 2030, more than 23.3 million people are projected to die of cardiovascular diseases each year, and the prevalence of heart failure is expected to increase by 25%. One of the preventive interventions is pharmacological interventions which can be used to reduce the complications of cardiovascular diseases such as heart failure. One of the most important pharmacological interventions in patients with heart failure is the use of antihypertensive drugs such as candesartan, enalapril, and valsartan. This study aimed to compare the cost-utility of candesartan, enalapril, and valsartan in patients with heart failure using the Markov model in Iran in 2020.

METHODS

In the present study, a four-state Markov model was designed to compare the cost-utility of candesartan, enalapril, and valsartan for a hypothetical cohort of 10,000 heart failure patients older than 24 years. The payers' perspective was used to calculate the costs. The Markov states included outpatients with heart failure, patients with heart failure admitted to general hospital wards, patients with heart failure admitted to the intensive care units (ICUs), and death. The effectiveness measure in this study was the quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). The one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were used to determine the robustness of the results. The TreeAge Pro 2011 software was used for data analysis.

RESULTS

The results showed that the average expected costs and QALYs were 119645.45 USD and 16.15 for valsartan, 113,019.68 USD and 15.16 for enalapril, and 113,093.37 USD and 15.06 for candesartan, respectively. Candesartan was recognized as the dominated option. Because the calculated incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) value (6,692.69 USD) was less than the threshold value (7,256 USD), valsartan was cost-effective compared to enalapril. The results of the cost-effectiveness acceptability curve showed that at the threshold of 7,256 USD, valsartan had a 60% chance of being cost-effective compared to enalapril. The results of one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses confirmed the robustness of the results. Moreover, the results showed that ICU (1,112 USD) had the highest cost among cost items.

CONCLUSION

According to the results, it is recommended that health policymakers consider the use of valsartan by cardiologists when designing clinical guidelines for the treatment of patients with heart failure.

Economic evaluation of strategies against coronavirus: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

The COVID-19 outbreak was defined as a pandemic on 11 March 2020 by the World Health Organization. After that, COVID-19 has enormously influenced health systems around the world, and it has claimed more than 4.2 million deaths until July 2021. The pandemic has led to global health, social and economic costs. This situation has prompted a crucial search for beneficial interventions and treatments, but little is known about their monetary value. This study is aimed at systematically reviewing the articles conducted on the economic evaluation of preventive, control and treatment strategies against COVID-19.

MATERIAL AND METHOD

We searched PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar from December 2019 to October 2021 to find applicable literature to the economic evaluation of strategies against COVID-19. Two researchers screened potentially eligible titles and abstracts. The Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) checklist was used to quality assessment of studies.

RESULTS

Thirty-six studies were included in this review, and the average CHEERS score was 72. Cost-effectiveness analysis was the most common type of economic evaluation, used in 21 studies. And the quality-adjusted life year (QALY) was the main outcome applied to measure the effectiveness of interventions, which was used in 19 studies. In addition, articles were reported a wide range of incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), and the lowest cost per QALY ($321.14) was related to the use of vaccines.

CONCLUSION

Based on the results of this systematic review, it seems that all strategies are likely to be more cost-effective against COVID-19 than no intervention and vaccination was the most cost-effective strategy. This research provides insight for decision makers in choosing optimal interventions against the next waves of the current pandemic and possible future pandemics.

Cost effectiveness analyses of pharmacological treatments in heart failure

In a rapidly growing and aging population, heart failure (HF) has become recognised as a public health concern that imposes high economic and societal costs worldwide. HF management stems from the use of highly cost-effective angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEi) and β-blockers to the use of newer drugs such as sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors (SGLT2i), ivabradine, and vericiguat. Modelling studies of pharmacological treatments that report on cost effectiveness in HF is important in order to guide clinical decision making. Multiple cost-effectiveness analysis of dapagliflozin for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) suggests that it is not only cost-effective and has the potential to improve long-term clinical outcomes, but is also likely to meet conventional cost-effectiveness thresholds in many countries. Similar promising results have also been shown for vericiguat while a cost effectiveness analysis (CEA) of empagliflozin has shown cost effectiveness in HF patients with Type 2 diabetes. Despite the recent FDA approval of dapagliflozin and empagliflozin in HF, it might take time for these SGLT2i to be widely used in real-world practice. A recent economic evaluation of vericiguat found it to be cost effective at a higher cost per QALY threshold than SGLT2i. However, there is a lack of clinical or real-world data regarding whether vericiguat would be prescribed on top of newer treatments or in lieu of them. Sacubitril/valsartan has been commonly compared to enalapril in cost effectiveness analysis and has been found to be similar to that of SGLT2i but was not considered a cost-effective treatment for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction in Thailand and Singapore with the current economic evaluation evidences. In order for more precise analysis on cost effectiveness analysis, it is necessary to take into account the income level of various countries as it is certainly easier to allocate more financial resources for the intervention, with greater effectiveness, in high- and middle-income countries than in low-income countries. This review aims to evaluate evidence and cost effectiveness studies in more recent HF drugs i.e., SGLT2i, ARNi, ivabradine, vericiguat and omecamtiv, and gaps in current literature on pharmacoeconomic studies in HF.

The cost-effectiveness of B-type natriuretic peptide-guided care in compared to standard clinical assessment in outpatients with heart failure in Tehran, Iran

BACKGROUND

B-type natriuretic peptide (BNP) is commonly used as a diagnostic method for patients with heart failure. This study was designed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of BNP compared to standard clinical assessment in outpatients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) in Tehran, Iran.

METHODS

This study was a cost-effectiveness analysis carried on 400 HFrEF outpatients > 45 years who were admitted to Rasoul Akram General Hospital of Tehran, Iran. A Markov model with a lifetime horizon was developed to evaluate economic and clinical outcomes for BNP and standard clinical assessment. Quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), direct, and indirect costs collected from the patients.

RESULTS

The results of this study indicated that mean QALYs and cost were estimated to be 2.18 QALYs and $1835 for BNP and 2.07 and $2376 for standard clinical assessment, respectively. In terms of reducing costs and increasing QALYs, BNP was dominant compared to standard clinical assessment. Also, BNP had an 85% probability of being cost-effective versus standard clinical assessment if the willingness to pay threshold is higher than $20,800/QALY gained.

CONCLUSION

Based on the results of the present study, measuring BNP levels represents good value for money, decreasing costs and increasing QALYs compared to standard clinical assessment. It is suggested that the costs of the BNP test be covered by insurance in Iran. The result of the current study has important implications for policymakers in developing clinical guidelines for the diagnosis of heart failure.

Cost-effectiveness of cardiac resynchronization therapy plus an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator in patients with heart failure: a systematic review

INTRODUCTION

Heart failure (HF) is an unusual heart function that causes reduction in cardiac or pulmonary output. Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) is a mechanical device that helps to recover ventricular dysfunction by pacing the ventricles. This study planned to systematically review cost-effectiveness of CRT combined with an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) versus ICD in patients with HF.

METHODS

We used five databases (NHS Economic Evaluation Database, Cochrane Library, Medline, PubMed, and Scopus) to systematically reviewed studies published in the English language on the cost-effectiveness of CRT with defibrillator (CRT-D) Vs. ICD in patients with HF over 2000 to 2020. Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) checklist was applied to assess the quality of the selected studies.

RESULTS

Five studies reporting the cost-effectiveness of CRT-D vs ICD were finally identified. The results revealed that time horizon, direct medical costs, type of model, discount rate, and sensitivity analysis obviously mentioned in almost all studies. All studies used quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) as an effectiveness measurement. The highest and the lowest Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) were reported in the USA ($138,649per QALY) and the UK ($41,787per QALY), respectively.

CONCLUSION

Result of the study showed that CRT-D compared to ICD alone was the most cost-effective treatment in patients with HF.

Who Conducts Health Economic Evaluations of Laboratory Tests? A Scoping Review

Background

Health economic evaluations (HEEs) are effectively used to inform decision making in healthcare. We sought to assess the level of involvement of laboratory professionals (LPs) in HEEs of laboratory tests.

Methods

A systematic literature search was conducted in Medline (2013 to November 28, 2018) for original articles reporting HEEs of medical laboratory tests. Eligible studies were characterized by indication, utilization, region, setting, study design, primary outcome measures, and sponsorship. Authors were classified based on stated affiliation as clinician, scientist, public health expert, or LP.

Results

In total, 140 HEEs were included in the study, of which 24 (17.1%) had contributions from LPs. Studies were primarily focused on infectious disease (n = 68), oncology (n = 23), and cardiovascular disease (n = 16). Cost-utility or cost-effectiveness analyses (n = 117) were the most frequent study types, with effectiveness measured mainly in terms of quality-adjusted life-years (n = 57) and detected cases (n = 41). Overall, 76% of HEEs followed a social or health system perspective, whereas 15% took a hospital viewpoint. Partial or full funding was received from public health organizations or industry in 39% and 16% of studies, respectively. The involvement of LPs was associated with test utilization, secondary care, analytic perspective, and an immediate time horizon (all P < 0.05). Quality of studies was found to be lower in HEEs coauthored by LPs.

Conclusion

Multidisciplinary collaboration is essential to understanding the complexity of clinical pathways. HEEs are used effectively to inform healthcare decision making. The involvement of LPs in HEEs is low. This implies that laboratory expertise is frequently not considered in decision processes.

Cardiovascular Risk Assessment for Noncardiac Surgery: Are We Ready for Biomarkers?

Biomarkers aided perioperative cardiac assessment is a relatively new concept. Cardiac biomarkers with historical significance (aspartate transaminase, dehydrogenase, creatinine kinase and myoglobin) have paved the way for traditional biomarkers (cardiac troponin, C-reactive protein, lipoprotein). Contemporary biomarkers like natriuretic peptides (BNP and ProBNP) are validated risk markers in both acute and chronic cardiac diseases and are showing remarkable promise in predicting serious cardiovascular complications after non-cardiac surgery. This review is intended to provide a critical overview of traditional and contemporary biomarkers for perioperative cardiovascular assessment and management. This review also discusses the potential utility of newer biomarkers like galectin-3, sST-2, GDF-15, TNF-alpha, MiRNAs and many others that can predict inflammation, cardiac remodeling, injury and endogenous stress and need further investigations to establish their clinical utility. Though promising, biomarker led perioperative care is still in infancy and it has not been determined that it can improve clinical outcomes.

Cost-effectiveness of coronary artery bypass graft and percutaneous coronary intervention compared to medical therapy in patients with coronary artery disease: a systematic review

Coronary artery disease (CAD) has significant social and economic implications. It is necessary to create tools to identify the most cost-effectiveness treatments, which can assist clinicians in their therapeutic decisions so that the maximum possible benefit is reached with the lowest possible cost. Effectiveness must be measured by final treatment goals in which the most effective interventions are those with the lowest costs. This study is aimed to systematically review and compare the studies conducted on the cost-effectiveness of the three coronary artery disease treatment strategies (medical treatment, percutaneous coronary intervention, and coronary artery bypass graft). In this systematic review, the databases NHS Economic Evaluation Database, Embase, MEDLINE, Science Direct, and Scopus were searched for studies on the cost-effectiveness of coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) compared to medical therapy (MT) in patients with coronary artery disease between 1 January 2004 to 30 September 2018. The quality appraisal of the included studies was examined using the Consolidated Health Economics Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement. Out of 186 unique retrievals, 8 studies were included. The results showed that the all studies clearly stated the time horizon of the study and included direct medical costs in their analysis. In addition, in most of the studies, quality-adjusted life years (QALY) were the main outcome used for measuring the effectiveness. The studies reported various ranges of the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER); accordingly, the highest ratio was observed in the USA ($212,800) for PCI v MT and the lowest ratio was observed in Brazil ($4403) for CABG v MT. Although the results of the studies were different in terms of a number of aspects, such as the viewpoint of the study, the study horizons, and the costs of expenditure items, they reached similar results. Based on the result of the present study, it seems that each three treatment strategies for CAD yielded improvements in QALY.