COST-UTILITY ANALYSIS OF NT-PROBNP-GUIDED MULTIDISCIPLINARY CARE IN CHRONIC HEART FAILURE

Elements Characterising Multicomponent Interventions Used to Improve Disease Management Models and Clinical Pathways in Acute and Chronic Heart Failure: A Scoping Review

This study aimed to summarise different interventions used to improve clinical models and pathways in the management of chronic and acute heart failure (HF). A scoping review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) statement. MEDLINE (via PubMed), Embase, The Cochrane Library, and CINAHL were searched for systematic reviews (SR) published in the period from 2014 to 2019 in the English language. Primary articles cited in SR that fulfil inclusion and exclusion criteria were extracted and examined using narrative synthesis. Interventions were classified based on five chosen elements of the Chronic Care Model (CCM) framework (self-management support, decision support, community resources and policies, delivery system, and clinical information system). Out of 155 SRs retrieved, 7 were considered for the extraction of 166 primary articles. The prevailing setting was the patient's home. Only 46 studies specified the severity of HF by reporting the level of left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) impairment in a heterogeneous manner. However, most studies targeted the populations with LVEF ≤ 45% and LVEF < 40%. Self-management and delivery systems were the most evaluated CCM elements. Interventions related to community resources and policy and advising/reminding systems for providers were rarely evaluated. No studies addressed the implementation of a disease registry. A multidisciplinary team was available with similarly low frequency in each setting. Although HF care should be a multi-component model, most studies did not analyse the role of some important components, such as the decision support tools to disseminate guidelines and program planning that includes measurable targets.

Cost-effectiveness of NT-proBNP-supported screening of chronic heart failure in patients with or without type 2 diabetes in Austria and Switzerland

BACKGROUND

Heart failure (HF) is a clinical syndrome with a global burden. Signs and symptoms of HF are nonspecific and often shared with other conditions. The N-terminal prohormone of brain natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) serves as a useful biomarker for the diagnosis of HF not only in patients with acute symptoms but also in outpatients with an ambiguous clinical presentation. The aim of the analysis is to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of implementing NT-proBNP in the diagnostic algorithm in patients with/without type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), compared with a diagnosis based primarily on clinical signs or symptoms from the perspective of the Austrian and Swiss healthcare system.

METHODS

A time-discrete Markov model was developed to simulate the effect/improvement (lifetime-costs, quality-adjusted life-years [QALYs], and life-years [LYs]) due to an NT-proBNP screening in undetected HF patients. Undetected HF patients are included in the model according to a distribution of New York Heart Association (NYHA) classes. The model considers disease progression by transition of NYHA classes. Undetected patients may remain undetected or be detected with the help of NT-proBNP or symptoms. Patients with known HF exhibit a slower disease progression. The probability of dying is influenced by the respective NYHA class. Direct costs (2021 € or CHF) were derived from published sources. QALYs, LYs, and costs were discounted (3% p.a.).

RESULTS

In the per-patient analysis (at age 60 over lifetime), the incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR)/QALY of NT-proBNP vs. no screening was €3,042 for HF patients in Austria. Considering the total cohort of undetected HF patients (n = 9,377) with the corresponding age structure over a lifetime, the ICUR increases to €4,356. In Switzerland, the per-patient results show an ICUR of CHF 897. Considering the total cohort of undetected HF patients (n = 6,826) the ICUR amounts to CHF 4,513. If indirect costs are considered, NT-proBNP screening becomes the dominant strategy in both countries.

CONCLUSION

Overall, the analysis concludes that screening with NT-proBNP is a highly cost-effective or cost-saving diagnostic option for patients with HF, and a sensitivity analysis confirmed these findings.

Brain natriuretic peptide and N-terminal brain natriuretic peptide for the diagnosis of haemodynamically significant patent ductus arteriosus in preterm neonates

BACKGROUND

Echocardiogram is the reference standard for the diagnosis of haemodynamically significant patent ductus arteriosus (hsPDA) in preterm infants. A simple blood assay for brain natriuretic peptide (BNP) or amino-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) may be useful in the diagnosis and management of hsPDA, but a summary of the diagnostic accuracy has not been reviewed recently.

OBJECTIVES

Primary objective: To determine the diagnostic accuracy of the cardiac biomarkers BNP and NT-proBNP for diagnosis of haemodynamically significant patent ductus arteriosus (hsPDA) in preterm neonates. Our secondary objectives were: to compare the accuracy of BNP and NT-proBNP; and to explore possible sources of heterogeneity among studies evaluating BNP and NT-proBNP, including type of commercial assay, chronological age of the infant at testing, gestational age at birth, whether used to initiate medical or surgical treatment, test threshold, and criteria of the reference standard (type of echocardiographic parameter used for diagnosis, clinical symptoms or physical signs if data were available).

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following databases in September 2021: MEDLINE, Embase, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) and Web of Science. We also searched clinical trial registries and conference abstracts. We checked references of included studies and conducted cited reference searches of included studies. We did not apply any language or date restrictions to the electronic searches or use methodological filters, so as to maximise sensitivity.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included prospective or retrospective, cohort or cross-sectional studies, which evaluated BNP or NT-proBNP (index tests) in preterm infants (participants) with suspected hsPDA (target condition) in comparison with echocardiogram (reference standard).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently screened title/abstracts and full-texts, resolving any inclusion disagreements through discussion or with a third reviewer. We extracted data from included studies to create 2 × 2 tables. Two independent assessors performed quality assessment using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic-Accuracy Studies-2 (QUADAS 2) tool. We excluded studies that did not report data in sufficient detail to construct 2 × 2 tables, and where this information was not available from the primary investigators. We used bivariate and hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic (HSROC) random-effects models for meta-analysis and generated summary receiver operating characteristic space (ROC) curves. Since both BNP and NTproBNP are continuous variables, sensitivity and specificity were reported at multiple thresholds. We dealt with the threshold effect by reporting summary ROC curves without summary points.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 34 studies: 13 evaluated BNP and 21 evaluated NT-proBNP in the diagnosis of hsPDA. Studies varied by methodological quality, type of commercial assay, thresholds, age at testing, gestational age and whether the assay was used to initiate medical or surgical therapy. We noted some variability in the definition of hsPDA among the included studies. For BNP, the summary curve is reported in the ROC space (13 studies, 768 infants, low-certainty evidence). The estimated specificities from the ROC curve at fixed values of sensitivities at median (83%), lower and upper quartiles (79% and 92%) were 93.6% (95% confidence interval (CI) 77.8 to 98.4), 95.5% (95% CI 83.6 to 98.9) and 81.1% (95% CI 50.6 to 94.7), respectively. Subgroup comparisons revealed differences by type of assay and better diagnostic accuracy at lower threshold cut-offs (< 250 pg/ml compared to ≥ 250 pg/ml), testing at gestational age < 30 weeks and chronological age at testing at one to three days. Data were insufficient for subgroup analysis of whether the BNP testing was indicated for medical or surgical management of PDA. For NT-proBNP, the summary ROC curve is reported in the ROC space (21 studies, 1459 infants, low-certainty evidence). The estimated specificities from the ROC curve at fixed values of sensitivities at median (92%), lower and upper quartiles (85% and 94%) were 83.6% (95% CI 73.3 to 90.5), 90.6% (95% CI 83.8 to 94.7) and 79.4% (95% CI 67.5 to 87.8), respectively. Subgroup analyses by threshold (< 6000 pg/ml and ≥ 6000 pg/ml) did not reveal any differences. Subgroup analysis by mean gestational age (< 30 weeks vs 30 weeks and above) showed better accuracy with < 30 weeks, and chronological age at testing (days one to three vs over three) showed testing at days one to three had better diagnostic accuracy. Data were insufficient for subgroup analysis of whether the NTproBNP testing was indicated for medical or surgical management of PDA. We performed meta-regression for BNP and NT-proBNP using the covariates: assay type, threshold, mean gestational age and chronological age; none of the covariates significantly affected summary sensitivity and specificity.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Low-certainty evidence suggests that BNP and NT-proBNP have moderate accuracy in diagnosing hsPDA and may work best as a triage test to select infants for echocardiography. The studies evaluating the diagnostic accuracy of BNP and NT-proBNP for hsPDA varied considerably by assay characteristics (assay kit and threshold) and infant characteristics (gestational and chronological age); hence, generalisability between centres is not possible. We recommend that BNP or NT-proBNP assays be locally validated for specific populations and outcomes, to initiate therapy or follow response to therapy.

Coenzyme Q10 to manage chronic heart failure with a reduced ejection fraction: a systematic review and economic evaluation

BACKGROUND

Chronic heart failure is a debilitating condition that accounts for an annual NHS spend of £2.3B. Low levels of endogenous coenzyme Q10 may exacerbate chronic heart failure. Coenzyme Q10 supplements might improve symptoms and slow progression. As statins are thought to block the production of coenzyme Q10, supplementation might be particularly beneficial for patients taking statins.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of coenzyme Q10 in managing chronic heart failure with a reduced ejection fraction.

METHODS

A systematic review that included randomised trials comparing coenzyme Q10 plus standard care with standard care alone in chronic heart failure. Trials restricted to chronic heart failure with a preserved ejection fraction were excluded. Databases including MEDLINE, EMBASE and CENTRAL were searched up to March 2020. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool (version 5.2). A planned individual participant data meta-analysis was not possible and meta-analyses were mostly based on aggregate data from publications. Potential effect modification was examined using meta-regression. A Markov model used treatment effects from the meta-analysis and baseline mortality and hospitalisation from an observational UK cohort. Costs were evaluated from an NHS and Personal Social Services perspective and expressed in Great British pounds at a 2019/20 price base. Outcomes were expressed in quality-adjusted life-years. Both costs and outcomes were discounted at a 3.5% annual rate.

RESULTS

A total of 26 trials, comprising 2250 participants, were included in the systematic review. Many trials were reported poorly and were rated as having a high or unclear risk of bias in at least one domain. Meta-analysis suggested a possible benefit of coenzyme Q10 on all-cause mortality (seven trials, 1371 participants; relative risk 0.68, 95% confidence interval 0.45 to 1.03). The results for short-term functional outcomes were more modest or unclear. There was no indication of increased adverse events with coenzyme Q10. Meta-regression found no evidence of treatment interaction with statins. The base-case cost-effectiveness analysis produced incremental costs of £4878, incremental quality-adjusted life-years of 1.34 and an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £3650. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses showed that at thresholds of £20,000 and £30,000 per quality-adjusted life-year coenzyme Q10 had a high probability (95.2% and 95.8%, respectively) of being more cost-effective than standard care alone. Scenario analyses in which the population and other model assumptions were varied all found coenzyme Q10 to be cost-effective. The expected value of perfect information suggested that a new trial could be valuable.

LIMITATIONS

For most outcomes, data were available from few trials and different trials contributed to different outcomes. There were concerns about risk of bias and whether or not the results from included trials were applicable to a typical UK population. A lack of individual participant data meant that planned detailed analyses of effect modifiers were not possible.

CONCLUSIONS

Available evidence suggested that, if prescribed, coenzyme Q10 has the potential to be clinically effective and cost-effective for heart failure with a reduced ejection fraction. However, given important concerns about risk of bias, plausibility of effect sizes and applicability of the evidence base, establishing whether or not coenzyme Q10 is genuinely effective in a typical UK population is important, particularly as coenzyme Q10 has not been subject to the scrutiny of drug-licensing processes. Stronger evidence is needed before considering its prescription in the NHS.

FUTURE WORK

A new independent, well-designed clinical trial of coenzyme Q10 in a typical UK heart failure with a reduced ejection fraction population may be warranted.

STUDY REGISTRATION

This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42018106189.

FUNDING

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 26, No. 4. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

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.

Long-term monitoring in primary care for chronic kidney disease and chronic heart failure: a multi-method research programme

Background

Long-term monitoring is important in chronic condition management. Despite considerable costs of monitoring, there is no or poor evidence on how, what and when to monitor. The aim of this study was to improve understanding, methods, evidence base and practice of clinical monitoring in primary care, focusing on two areas: chronic kidney disease and chronic heart failure.

Objectives

The research questions were as follows: does the choice of test affect better care while being affordable to the NHS? Can the number of tests used to manage individuals with early-stage kidney disease, and hence the costs, be reduced? Is it possible to monitor heart failure using a simple blood test? Can this be done using a rapid test in a general practitioner consultation? Would changes in the management of these conditions be acceptable to patients and carers?

Design

Various study designs were employed, including cohort, feasibility study, Clinical Practice Research Datalink analysis, seven systematic reviews, two qualitative studies, one cost-effectiveness analysis and one cost recommendation.

Setting

This study was set in UK primary care.

Data sources

Data were collected from study participants and sourced from UK general practice and hospital electronic health records, and worldwide literature.

Participants

The participants were NHS patients (Clinical Practice Research Datalink: 4.5 million patients), chronic kidney disease and chronic heart failure patients managed in primary care (including 750 participants in the cohort study) and primary care health professionals.

Interventions

The interventions were monitoring with blood and urine tests (for chronic kidney disease) and monitoring with blood tests and weight measurement (for chronic heart failure).

Main outcome measures

The main outcomes were the frequency, accuracy, utility, acceptability, costs and cost-effectiveness of monitoring.

Results

Chronic kidney disease: serum creatinine testing has increased steadily since 1997, with most results being normal (83% in 2013). Increases in tests of creatinine and proteinuria correspond to their introduction as indicators in the Quality and Outcomes Framework. The Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration equation had 2.7% greater accuracy (95% confidence interval 1.6% to 3.8%) than the Modification of Diet in Renal Disease equation for estimating glomerular filtration rate. Estimated annual transition rates to the next chronic kidney disease stage are ≈ 2% for people with normal urine albumin, 3–5% for people with microalbuminuria (3–30 mg/mmol) and 3–12% for people with macroalbuminuria (> 30 mg/mmol). Variability in estimated glomerular filtration rate-creatinine leads to misclassification of chronic kidney disease stage in 12–15% of tests in primary care. Glycaemic-control and lipid-modifying drugs are associated with a 6% (95% confidence interval 2% to 10%) and 4% (95% confidence interval 0% to 8%) improvement in renal function, respectively. Neither estimated glomerular filtration rate-creatinine nor estimated glomerular filtration rate-Cystatin C have utility in predicting rate of kidney function change. Patients viewed phrases such as ‘kidney damage’ or ‘kidney failure’ as frightening, and the term ‘chronic’ was misinterpreted as serious. Diagnosis of asymptomatic conditions (chronic kidney disease) was difficult to understand, and primary care professionals often did not use ‘chronic kidney disease’ when managing patients at early stages. General practitioners relied on Clinical Commissioning Group or Quality and Outcomes Framework alerts rather than National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidance for information. Cost-effectiveness modelling did not demonstrate a tangible benefit of monitoring kidney function to guide preventative treatments, except for individuals with an estimated glomerular filtration rate of 60–90 ml/minute/1.73 m2, aged < 70 years and without cardiovascular disease, where monitoring every 3–4 years to guide cardiovascular prevention may be cost-effective. Chronic heart failure: natriuretic peptide-guided treatment could reduce all-cause mortality by 13% and heart failure admission by 20%. Implementing natriuretic peptide-guided treatment is likely to require predefined protocols, stringent natriuretic peptide targets, relative targets and being located in a specialist heart failure setting. Remote monitoring can reduce all-cause mortality and heart failure hospitalisation, and could improve quality of life. Diagnostic accuracy of point-of-care N-terminal prohormone of B-type natriuretic peptide (sensitivity, 0.99; specificity, 0.60) was better than point-of-care B-type natriuretic peptide (sensitivity, 0.95; specificity, 0.57). Within-person variation estimates for B-type natriuretic peptide and weight were as follows: coefficient of variation, 46% and coefficient of variation, 1.2%, respectively. Point-of-care N-terminal prohormone of B-type natriuretic peptide within-person variability over 12 months was 881 pg/ml (95% confidence interval 380 to 1382 pg/ml), whereas between-person variability was 1972 pg/ml (95% confidence interval 1525 to 2791 pg/ml). For individuals, monitoring provided reassurance; future changes, such as increased testing, would be acceptable. Point-of-care testing in general practice surgeries was perceived positively, reducing waiting time and anxiety. Community heart failure nurses had greater knowledge of National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidance than general practitioners and practice nurses. Health-care professionals believed that the cost of natriuretic peptide tests in routine monitoring would outweigh potential benefits. The review of cost-effectiveness studies suggests that natriuretic peptide-guided treatment is cost-effective in specialist settings, but with no evidence for its value in primary care settings.

Limitations

No randomised controlled trial evidence was generated. The pathways to the benefit of monitoring chronic kidney disease were unclear.

Conclusions

It is difficult to ascribe quantifiable benefits to monitoring chronic kidney disease, because monitoring is unlikely to change treatment, especially in chronic kidney disease stages G3 and G4. New approaches to monitoring chronic heart failure, such as point-of-care natriuretic peptide tests in general practice, show promise if high within-test variability can be overcome.

Future work

The following future work is recommended: improve general practitioner–patient communication of early-stage renal function decline, and identify strategies to reduce the variability of natriuretic peptide.

Study registration

This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42015017501, CRD42019134922 and CRD42016046902.

Funding

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Programme Grants for Applied Research programme and will be published in full in Programme Grants for Applied Research; Vol. 9, No. 10. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Are Unit Costs the Same? A Case Study Comparing Different Valuation Methods for Unit Cost Calculation of General Practitioner Consultations

OBJECTIVES

To inform allocation decisions in any healthcare system, robust cost data are indispensable. Nevertheless, recommendations on the most appropriate valuation approaches vary or are nonexistent, and no internationally accepted gold standard exists. This costing analysis exercise aims to assess the impact and implications of different calculation methods and sources based on the unit cost of general practitioner (GP) consultations in Austria.

METHODS

Six costing methods for unit cost calculation were explored, following 3 Austrian methodological approaches (AT-1, AT-2, AT-3) and 3 approaches applied in 3 other European countries (Germany, The Netherlands, United Kingdom). Drawing on Austrian data, mean unit costs per GP consultation were calculated in euros for 2015.

RESULTS

Mean unit costs ranged from €15.6 to €42.6 based on the German top-down costing approach (DE) and the Austrian Physicians' Chamber's price recommendations (AT-3), respectively. The mean unit cost was estimated at €18.9 based on Austrian economic evaluations (AT-1) and €17.9 based on health insurance payment tariffs (AT-2). The Dutch top-down (NL) and the UK bottom-up approaches (UK) yielded higher estimates (NL: €25.3, UK: €29.8). Overall variation reached 173%.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study is the first to systematically investigate the impact of differing calculation methods on unit cost estimates. It shows large variations with potential impact on the conclusions in an economic evaluation. Although different methodological choices may be justified by the adopted study perspective, different costing approaches introduce variation in cross-study/cross-country cost estimates, leading to decreased confidence in data quality in economic evaluations.

Valuing health-related quality of life in heart failure: a systematic review of methods to derive quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) in trial-based cost-utility analyses

The accurate measurement of health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and the value of improving it for patients are essential for deriving quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) to inform treatment choice and resource allocation. The objective of this review was to identify and describe the approaches used to measure and value change in HRQoL in trial-based economic evaluations of heart failure interventions which derive QALYs as an outcome. Three databases (PubMed, CINAHL, Cochrane) were systematically searched. Twenty studies reporting economic evaluations based on 18 individual trials were identified. Most studies (n = 17) utilised generic preference-based measures to describe HRQoL and derive QALYs, commonly the EQ-5D-3L. Of these, three studies (from the same trial) also used mapping from a condition-specific to a generic measure. The remaining three studies used patients’ direct valuation of their own health or physician-reported outcomes to derive QALYs. Only 7 of the 20 studies reported significant incremental QALY gains. Most interventions were reported as being likely to be cost-effective at specified willingness to pay thresholds. The substantial variation in the approach applied to derive QALYs in the measurement of and value attributed to HRQoL in heart failure requires further investigation.

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

Measuring the level of B-type natriuretic peptide (BNP), as a guide to pharmacotherapy, can increase the survival of patients with heart failure. This study is aimed at systematically reviewing the studies conducted on the cost-effectiveness of BNP-guided care in patients with heart failure. Using the systematic review method, we reviewed the published studies on the cost-effectiveness of BNP-guided care in patients with heart failure during the years 2004 to 2017. The results showed that all studies clearly stated the time horizon of the study and included direct medical costs in their analysis. In addition, most of the studies used the Markov model. The quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) 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 ($32,748) and the lowest ratio was observed in Canada ($6251). 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 results of the present study, it seems that the use of BNP or N-terminal pro-BNP (NT-pro-BNP) in patients with heart failure may reduce cost compared to the symptom-based clinical care and increase QALY. In this regard, these studies were designed and conducted in high-income countries; thus, the application of these results in low- and middle-income countries will be limited.

Disease management interventions for heart failure

BACKGROUND

Despite advances in treatment, the increasing and ageing population makes heart failure an important cause of morbidity and death worldwide. It is associated with high healthcare costs, partly driven by frequent hospital readmissions. Disease management interventions may help to manage people with heart failure in a more proactive, preventative way than drug therapy alone. This is the second update of a review published in 2005 and updated in 2012.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the effects of different disease management interventions for heart failure (which are not purely educational in focus), with usual care, in terms of death, hospital readmissions, quality of life and cost-related outcomes.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and CINAHL for this review update on 9 January 2018 and two clinical trials registries on 4 July 2018. We applied no language restrictions.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with at least six months' follow-up, comparing disease management interventions to usual care for adults who had been admitted to hospital at least once with a diagnosis of heart failure. There were three main types of intervention: case management; clinic-based interventions; multidisciplinary interventions.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Outcomes of interest were mortality due to heart failure, mortality due to any cause, hospital readmission for heart failure, hospital readmission for any cause, adverse effects, quality of life, costs and cost-effectiveness.

MAIN RESULTS

We found 22 new RCTs, so now include 47 RCTs (10,869 participants). Twenty-eight were case management interventions, seven were clinic-based models, nine were multidisciplinary interventions, and three could not be categorised as any of these. The included studies were predominantly in an older population, with most studies reporting a mean age of between 67 and 80 years. Seven RCTs were in upper-middle-income countries, the rest were in high-income countries.Only two multidisciplinary-intervention RCTs reported mortality due to heart failure. Pooled analysis gave a risk ratio (RR) of 0.46 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.23 to 0.95), but the very low-quality evidence means we are uncertain of the effect on mortality due to heart failure. Based on this limited evidence, the number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) is 12 (95% CI 9 to 126).Twenty-six case management RCTs reported all-cause mortality, with low-quality evidence indicating that these may reduce all-cause mortality (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.68 to 0.90; NNTB 25, 95% CI 17 to 54). We pooled all seven clinic-based studies, with low-quality evidence suggesting they may make little to no difference to all-cause mortality. Pooled analysis of eight multidisciplinary studies gave moderate-quality evidence that these probably reduce all-cause mortality (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.54 to 0.83; NNTB 17, 95% CI 12 to 32).We pooled data on heart failure readmissions from 12 case management studies. Moderate-quality evidence suggests that they probably reduce heart failure readmissions (RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.53 to 0.78; NNTB 8, 95% CI 6 to 13). We were able to pool only two clinic-based studies, and the moderate-quality evidence suggested that there is probably little or no difference in heart failure readmissions between clinic-based interventions and usual care (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.18). Pooled analysis of five multidisciplinary interventions gave low-quality evidence that these may reduce the risk of heart failure readmissions (RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.50 to 0.92; NNTB 11, 95% CI 7 to 44).Meta-analysis of 14 RCTs gave moderate-quality evidence that case management probably slightly reduces all-cause readmissions (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.01); a decrease from 491 to 451 in 1000 people (95% CI 407 to 495). Pooling four clinic-based RCTs gave low-quality and somewhat heterogeneous evidence that these may result in little or no difference in all-cause readmissions (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.12). Low-quality evidence from five RCTs indicated that multidisciplinary interventions may slightly reduce all-cause readmissions (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.01); a decrease from 450 to 383 in 1000 people (95% CI 320 to 455).Neither case management nor clinic-based intervention RCTs reported adverse effects. Two multidisciplinary interventions reported that no adverse events occurred. GRADE assessment of moderate quality suggested that there may be little or no difference in adverse effects between multidisciplinary interventions and usual care.Quality of life was generally poorly reported, with high attrition. Low-quality evidence means we are uncertain about the effect of case management and multidisciplinary interventions on quality of life. Four clinic-based studies reported quality of life but we could not pool them due to differences in reporting. Low-quality evidence indicates that clinic-based interventions may result in little or no difference in quality of life.Four case management programmes had cost-effectiveness analyses, and seven reported cost data. Low-quality evidence indicates that these may reduce costs and may be cost-effective. Two clinic-based studies reported cost savings. Low-quality evidence indicates that clinic-based interventions may reduce costs slightly. Low-quality data from one multidisciplinary intervention suggested this may be cost-effective from a societal perspective but less so from a health-services perspective.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found limited evidence for the effect of disease management programmes on mortality due to heart failure, with few studies reporting this outcome. Case management may reduce all-cause mortality, and multidisciplinary interventions probably also reduce all-cause mortality, but clinic-based interventions had little or no effect on all-cause mortality. Readmissions due to heart failure or any cause were probably reduced by case-management interventions. Clinic-based interventions probably make little or no difference to heart failure readmissions and may result in little or no difference in readmissions for any cause. Multidisciplinary interventions may reduce the risk of readmission for heart failure or for any cause. There was a lack of evidence for adverse effects, and conclusions on quality of life remain uncertain due to poor-quality data. Variations in study location and time of occurrence hamper attempts to review costs and cost-effectiveness.The potential to improve quality of life is an important consideration but remains poorly reported. Improved reporting in future trials would strengthen the evidence for this patient-relevant outcome.

Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of serum B-type natriuretic peptide testing and monitoring in patients with heart failure in primary and secondary care: an evidence synthesis, cohort study and cost-effectiveness model

BACKGROUND

Heart failure (HF) affects around 500,000 people in the UK. HF medications are frequently underprescribed and B-type natriuretic peptide (BNP)-guided therapy may help to optimise treatment.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of BNP-guided therapy compared with symptom-guided therapy in HF patients.

DESIGN

Systematic review, cohort study and cost-effectiveness model.

SETTING

A literature review and usual care in the NHS.

PARTICIPANTS

(a) HF patients in randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of BNP-guided therapy; and (b) patients having usual care for HF in the NHS.

INTERVENTIONS

Systematic review: BNP-guided therapy or symptom-guided therapy in primary or secondary care. Cohort study: BNP monitored (≥ 6 months' follow-up and three or more BNP tests and two or more tests per year), BNP tested (≥ 1 tests but not BNP monitored) or never tested. Cost-effectiveness model: BNP-guided therapy in specialist clinics.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Mortality, hospital admission (all cause and HF related) and adverse events; and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) for the cost-effectiveness model.

DATA SOURCES

Systematic review: Individual participant or aggregate data from eligible RCTs. Cohort study: The Clinical Practice Research Datalink, Hospital Episode Statistics and National Heart Failure Audit (NHFA).

REVIEW METHODS

A systematic literature search (five databases, trial registries, grey literature and reference lists of publications) for published and unpublished RCTs.

RESULTS

Five RCTs contributed individual participant data (IPD) and eight RCTs contributed aggregate data (1536 participants were randomised to BNP-guided therapy and 1538 participants were randomised to symptom-guided therapy). For all-cause mortality, the hazard ratio (HR) for BNP-guided therapy was 0.87 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.73 to 1.04]. Patients who were aged < 75 years or who had heart failure with a reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) received the most benefit [interactions (p = 0.03): < 75 years vs. ≥ 75 years: HR 0.70 (95% CI 0.53 to 0.92) vs. 1.07 (95% CI 0.84 to 1.37); HFrEF vs. heart failure with a preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF): HR 0.83 (95% CI 0.68 to 1.01) vs. 1.33 (95% CI 0.83 to 2.11)]. In the cohort study, incident HF patients (1 April 2005-31 March 2013) were never tested (n = 13,632), BNP tested (n = 3392) or BNP monitored (n = 71). Median survival was 5 years; all-cause mortality was 141.5 out of 1000 person-years (95% CI 138.5 to 144.6 person-years). All-cause mortality and hospital admission rate were highest in the BNP-monitored group, and median survival among 130,433 NHFA patients (1 January 2007-1 March 2013) was 2.2 years. The admission rate was 1.1 patients per year (interquartile range 0.5-3.5 patients). In the cost-effectiveness model, in patients aged < 75 years with HFrEF or HFpEF, BNP-guided therapy improves median survival (7.98 vs. 6.46 years) with a small QALY gain (5.68 vs. 5.02) but higher lifetime costs (£64,777 vs. £58,139). BNP-guided therapy is cost-effective at a threshold of £20,000 per QALY.

LIMITATIONS

The limitations of the trial were a lack of IPD for most RCTs and heterogeneous interventions; the inability to identify BNP monitoring confidently, to determine medication doses or to distinguish between HFrEF and HFpEF; the use of a simplified two-state Markov model; a focus on health service costs and a paucity of data on HFpEF patients aged < 75 years and HFrEF patients aged ≥ 75 years.

CONCLUSIONS

The efficacy of BNP-guided therapy in specialist HF clinics is uncertain. If efficacious, it would be cost-effective for patients aged < 75 years with HFrEF. The evidence reviewed may not apply in the UK because care is delivered differently.

FUTURE WORK

Identify an optimal BNP-monitoring strategy and how to optimise HF management in accordance with guidelines; update the IPD meta-analysis to include the Guiding Evidence Based Therapy Using Biomarker Intensified Treatment (GUIDE-IT) RCT; collect routine long-term outcome data for completed and ongoing RCTs.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN37248047 and PROSPERO CRD42013005335.

FUNDING

This project was funded by the NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 21, No. 40. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information. The British Heart Foundation paid for Chris A Rogers' and Maria Pufulete's time contributing to the study. Syed Mohiuddin's time is supported by the NIHR Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care West at University Hospitals Bristol NHS Foundation Trust. Rachel Maishman contributed to the study when she was in receipt of a NIHR Methodology Research Fellowship.

Early warning systems for the management of chronic heart failure: a systematic literature review of cost-effectiveness models

INTRODUCTION

Describing the general and methodological characteristics of decision-analytical models used in the economic evaluation of early warning systems for the management of chronic heart failure patients and performing a quality assessment of their methodological characteristics is expected to provide concise and useful insight to inform the future development of decision-analytical models in the field of heart failure management.

AREAS COVERED

The literature on decision-analytical models for the economic evaluation of early warning systems for the management of chronic heart failure patients was systematically reviewed. Nine electronic databases were searched through the combination of synonyms for heart failure and sensitive filters for cost-effectiveness and early warning systems.

EXPERT COMMENTARY

The retrieved models show some variability with regards to their general study characteristics. Overall, they display satisfactory methodological quality, even though some points could be improved, namely on the consideration and discussion of any competing theories regarding model structure and disease progression, identification of key parameters and the use of expert opinion, and uncertainty analyses. A comprehensive definition of early warning systems and further research under this label should be pursued. To improve the transparency of economic evaluation publications, authors should make available detailed technical information regarding the published models.

Long-term cost-effectiveness of home versus clinic-based management of chronic heart failure: the WHICH? study

BACKGROUND

The cost-effectiveness of a heart failure management intervention can be further informed by incorporating the expected benefits and costs of future survival.

METHODS

This study compared the long-term costs per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained from home-based (HBI) vs specialist clinic-based intervention (CBI) among elderly patients (mean age = 71 years) with heart failure discharged home (mean intervention duration = 12 months). Cost-utility analysis was conducted from a government-funded health system perspective. A Markov cohort model was used to simulate disease progression over 15 years based on initial data from a randomized clinical trial (the WHICH? study). Time-dependent hazard functions were modeled using the Weibull function, and this was compared against an alternative model where the hazard was assumed to be constant over time. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted to identify the key drivers of cost-effectiveness and quantify uncertainty in the results.

RESULTS

During the trial, mortality was the highest within 30 days of discharge and decreased thereafter in both groups, although the declining rate of mortality was slower in CBI than HBI. At 15 years (extrapolated), HBI was associated with slightly better health outcomes (mean of 0.59 QALYs gained) and mean additional costs of AU$13,876 per patient. The incremental cost-utility ratio and the incremental net monetary benefit (vs CBI) were AU$23,352 per QALY gained and AU$15,835, respectively. The uncertainty was driven by variability in the costs and probabilities of readmissions. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed HBI had a 68% probability of being cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of AU$50,000 per QALY.

CONCLUSION

Compared with CBI (outpatient specialized HF clinic-based intervention), HBI (home-based predominantly, but not exclusively) could potentially be cost-effective over the long-term in elderly patients with heart failure at a willingness-to-pay threshold of AU$50,000/QALY, albeit with large uncertainty.

Model-based cost-effectiveness analysis of B-type natriuretic peptide-guided care in patients with heart failure

OBJECTIVE

Monitoring B-type natriuretic peptide (BNP) to guide pharmacotherapy might improve survival in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) or preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). However, the cost-effectiveness of BNP-guided care is uncertain and guidelines do not uniformly recommend it. We assessed the cost-effectiveness of BNP-guided care in patient subgroups defined by age and ejection fraction.

METHODS

We used a Markov model with a 3-month cycle length to estimate the lifetime health service costs, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and incremental net monetary benefits (iNMBs) of BNP-guided versus clinically guided care in 3 patient subgroups: (1) HFrEF patients <75 years; (2) HFpEF patients <75 years; and (3) HFrEF patients ≥75 years. There is no evidence of benefit in patients with HFpEF aged ≥75 years. We used individual patient data meta-analyses and linked primary care, hospital and mortality data to inform the key model parameters. We performed probabilistic analysis to assess the uncertainty in model results.

RESULTS

In younger patients (<75 years) with HFrEF, the mean QALYs (5.57 vs 5.02) and costs (£63 527 vs £58 139) were higher with BNP-guided care. At the willingness-to-pay threshold of £20 000 per QALY, the positive iNMB (£5424 (95% CI £987 to £9469)) indicates that BNP-guided care is cost-effective in this subgroup. The evidence of cost-effectiveness of BNP-guided care is less strong for younger patients with HFpEF (£3155 (-£10 307 to £11 613)) and older patients (≥75 years) with HFrEF (£2267 (-£1524 to £6074)). BNP-guided care remained cost-effective in the sensitivity analyses, albeit the results were sensitive to assumptions on its sustained effect.

CONCLUSIONS

We found strong evidence that BNP-guided care is a cost-effective alternative to clinically guided care in younger patients with HFrEF. It is potentially cost-effective in younger patients with HFpEF and older patients with HFrEF, but more evidence is required, particularly with respect to the frequency, duration and BNP target for monitoring. Cost-effectiveness results from trials in specialist settings cannot be generalised to primary care.

Economic Evaluations of Multicomponent Disease Management Programs with Markov Models: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Disease management programs (DMPs) for chronic diseases are being increasingly implemented worldwide.

OBJECTIVES

To present a systematic overview of the economic effects of DMPs with Markov models. The quality of the models is assessed, the method by which the DMP intervention is incorporated into the model is examined, and the differences in the structure and data used in the models are considered.

METHODS

A literature search was conducted; the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement was followed to ensure systematic selection of the articles. Study characteristics e.g. results, the intensity of the DMP and usual care, model design, time horizon, discount rates, utility measures, and cost-of-illness were extracted from the reviewed studies. Model quality was assessed by two researchers with two different appraisals: one proposed by Philips et al. (Good practice guidelines for decision-analytic modelling in health technology assessment: a review and consolidation of quality asessment. Pharmacoeconomics 2006;24:355-71) and the other proposed by Caro et al. (Questionnaire to assess relevance and credibility of modeling studies for informing health care decision making: an ISPOR-AMCP-NPC Good Practice Task Force report. Value Health 2014;17:174-82).

RESULTS

A total of 16 studies (9 on chronic heart disease, 2 on asthma, and 5 on diabetes) met the inclusion criteria. Five studies reported cost savings and 11 studies reported additional costs. In the quality, the overall score of the models ranged from 39% to 65%, it ranged from 34% to 52%. Eleven models integrated effectiveness derived from a clinical trial or a meta-analysis of complete DMPs and only five models combined intervention effects from different sources into a DMP. The main limitations of the models are bad reporting practice and the variation in the selection of input parameters.

CONCLUSIONS

Eleven of the 14 studies reported cost-effectiveness results of less than $30,000 per quality-adjusted life-year and the remaining two studies less than $30,000 per life-year gained. Nevertheless, if the reporting and selection of data problems are addressed, then Markov models should provide more reliable information for decision makers, because understanding under what circumstances a DMP is cost-effective is an important determinant of efficient resource allocation.

How peptide technology has improved costs and outcomes in patients with heart failure

INTRODUCTION

Heart failure (HF) is characterized by substantial health and economic burden, mainly attributed to increased hospitalizations and readmissions. Its diagnosis remains challenging due to the non-specific nature of the initial symptoms of the disease. Recently, scientific evidence has highlighted the potential of natriuretic peptides (NP) in improving the diagnosis and prognosis of HF and, by extension, in restraining healthcare costs. The present review aimed at providing evidence of their optimal use in terms of economic and health outcomes.

AREAS COVERED

Systematic literature research limited to studies published from February 2006 to February 2016 was performed with the aim of identifying and analyzing all cost-effectiveness and other economic evaluation studies that investigated the economic and health outcomes of NPs use as screening and management tools for HF. Expert commentary: NP testing either added in the standard of care, or substituting frequently used diagnostic procedures for the diagnosis and management of HF, regardless of the healthcare setting of interest, was proved to be a valid tool for clinical decision-making. Moreover it was associated with improved patient outcomes and important cost-savings mainly attributed to lower admission and readmission rates, shorter hospitalization length and improved health-related quality of life.

Assessing the value of cardiac biomarkers: going beyond diagnostic accuracy?

In this era of scrutinized resource utilization, providers and payers are focused on the value of healthcare interventions more than ever. Cost-effectiveness evaluations are required by some health authorities and requested by others in order to guide budget allocation decisions. In the past, these evaluations did not methodologically consider laboratory diagnostics. We set out to explore the current requirements of health technology agencies that include laboratory diagnostics and describe, through a review of the literature, alternative methods for establishing the value of a biomarker or labroatory diagnostic beyond assay specifications and performance. The aim of this study was to evaluate the current use of a linked evidence approach in cost-effectiveness studies for cardiac laboratory tests in the last 5 years.

Diagnosing significant PDA using natriuretic peptides in preterm neonates: a systematic review

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Echocardiogram is the gold standard for the diagnosis of hemodynamically significant patent ductus arteriosus (hsPDA) in preterm neonates. A simple blood assay for brain natriuretic peptide (BNP) or amino-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) may be useful in the diagnosis and management of hsPDA. Our objectives were to determine the diagnostic accuracy of BNP and NT-proBNP for hsPDA in preterm neonates and to explore heterogeneity by analyzing subgroups.

METHODS

The systematic review was performed as recommended by the Cochrane Diagnostic Test Accuracy Working Group. Electronic databases, conference abstracts, and cross-references were searched. We included studies that evaluated BNP or NT-proBNP (index test) in preterm neonates with suspected hsPDA (participants) in comparison with echocardiogram (reference standard). A bivariate random effects model was used for meta-analysis, and summary receiver operating characteristic curves were generated.

RESULTS

Ten BNP and 11 NT-proBNP studies were included. Studies varied by methodological quality, type of commercial assay, thresholds, age at testing, gestational age, and whether the assay was used to initiate medical or surgical therapy. Sensitivity and specificity for BNP at summary point were 88% and 92%, respectively, and for NT-proBNP they were 90% and 84%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The studies evaluating the diagnostic accuracy of BNP and NT-proBNP for hsPDA varied widely by assay characteristics (assay kit and threshold) and patient characteristics (gestational and chronological age); therefore, generalizability between centers is not possible. We recommend that BNP or NT-proBNP assays be locally validated for specific patient population and outcomes, to initiate therapy or follow response to therapy.

Associations between seattle heart failure model scores and medical resource use and costs: findings from HF-ACTION

BACKGROUND

Prognostic models, such as the Seattle Heart Failure Model (SHFM), have been developed to predict patient survival. The extent to which they predict medical resource use and costs has not been explored. In this study, we evaluated relationships between baseline SHFM scores and 1-year resource use and costs using data from a clinical trial.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We applied generalized linear models to examine the relative impact of a 1-unit increase in SHFM scores on counts of medical resource use and direct medical costs at 1 year of follow-up. Of 2331 randomized patients, 2288 (98%) had a rounded integer SHFM score between -1 and 2, consistent with predicted 1-year survival of 98% and 74%, respectively. At baseline, median age was 59 years, 28% of patients were women, and nearly two-thirds of the cohort had New York Heart Association class II heart failure and one-third had class III heart failure. Higher SHFM scores were associated with more hospitalizations (rate ratio per 1-unit increase, 1.86; P < .001), more inpatient days (2.30; P < .001), and higher inpatient costs (2.28; P < .001), outpatient costs (1.54; P < .001), and total medical costs (2.13; P < .001).

CONCLUSION

Although developed to predict all-cause mortality, SHFM scores also predict medical resource use and costs.