Pharmacoeconomic Modeling of Nesiritide versus Dobutamine for Decompensated Heart Failure

Evaluating Cost-Effectiveness Models for Pharmacologic Interventions in Adults with Heart Failure: A Systematic Literature Review

BACKGROUND

Heart failure (HF) is a well-recognized public health concern and imposes high economic and societal costs. Decision analytic models exist for evaluating the economic ramifications associated with HF. Despite this, studies that appraise these modelling approaches for augmenting best-practice decisions remain scarce.

OBJECTIVE

Our objective was to conduct a systematic literature review (SLR) of published economic models for the management of HF and describe their general and methodological features.

METHODS

This SLR employed a combination of relevant search terms associated with HF, which were used in a number of databases, including MEDLINE, Embase, the National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database, Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Registry, ScHARR Health Utilities Database and Cochrane Library Database. A number of model features (i.e. model structure, specification, outcomes assessed, scenario and sensitivity analysis, key model drivers) were extracted and subsequently summarized.

RESULTS

Of 64 publications retained, a selection of modelling approaches were identified, including Markov (n = 28), trial-based analytic (n = 22), discrete-event simulation (n = 6), survival analytic (n = 7) and decision-tree modelling (n = 1) approaches. The bulk of publications employed either a cost-utility (n = 27) or cost-effectiveness (n = 36) analysis and evaluated more than one study outcome, which typically included overall costs (n = 59), incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (n = 55), life-years gained (n = 48) and willingness-to-pay thresholds (n = 37). Most publications focused on patients with chronic HF (n = 40) and used New York Heart Association (NYHA) disease classifications to categorize patients and determine disease severity. Few (n = 19) publications documented the use of hospitalization states for modelling patient outcomes and associated costs. A quality assessment of the included publications revealed most articles demonstrated reasonable methodological value.

CONCLUSIONS

We identified numerous decision analytic modelling approaches for evaluating the cost effectiveness of pharmacologic treatments in HF. A Markov cohort model approach was most commonly used, and most models relied on NYHA classes as a proxy of HF severity, disease progression and prognosis.

Nesiritide Therapy Is Associated With Better Clinical Outcomes Than Dobutamine Therapy in Heart Failure

To evaluate the therapeutic effects of dobutamine and nesiritide in the treatment of heart failure (HF), a meta-analysis of published studies was conducted. Computerized bibliographic databases in Chinese and English languages were carefully searched to identify the relevant literature. A total of 6 cohort studies were enrolled in current meta-analysis for statistical analyses. The effect of dobutamine and nesiritide in patients with HF was estimated by odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence interval (CI). Our results revealed a significantly higher survival rate in nesiritide-treated patients, compared with those treated with dobutamine (OR = 1.97; 95% CI, 1.43-2.71; P < 0.001). In addition, a lower readmission rate was also associated with the nesiritide-treated group in comparison with the dobutamine-treated group (OR = 1.96; 95% CI, 1.39-2.78; P < 0.001). A stratified analysis revealed that the subgroup of patients with HF treated with nesiritide showed higher survival outcomes than those patients with HF treated with dobutamine when follow-up period was greater than 6 months (OR = 1.70; 95% CI, 1.21-2.38; P = 0.002) but not under 6 months (P > 0.05). This indicated that nesiritide treatment had longer term benefits as well. Interestingly, based on the reason for readmission, a subgroup analysis of the HF subgroup and the "all-cause" subgroup showed that higher readmission rates were associated with dobutamine treatment in both subgroups (HF: OR = 2.71; 95% CI, = 1.51-4.83; P = 0.001; all-cause: OR = 1.64; 95% CI, 1.06-2.53; P = 0.026; respectively). Our results suggest that nesiritide therapy is associated with a lower in-hospital mortality rates and decreased readmission rates compared with dobutamine treatment in patients with HF.

Dobutamine Therapy is Associated with Worse Clinical Outcomes Compared with Nesiritide Therapy for Acute Decompensated Heart Failure: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Inotropes and natriuretic peptides are essential components of current therapeutic options for acute decompensated heart failure (ADHF). This systematic review examines the therapeutic effectiveness of dobutamine and brain natriuretic peptide, nesiritide, in reducing mortality and readmission rates for ADHF treatment.

METHODS

Published studies related to dobutamine and nesiritide therapy in ADHF were identified via an exhaustive search of scientific literature databases. The identified studies, published between 2002 and 2012, were carefully screened based on our predefined inclusion criteria. Selected studies were pooled, and odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) for each outcome were calculated. Subgroup analysis was conducted to assess the influence of ethnicity on the study outcome.

RESULTS

Seven cohort studies were selected for this meta-analysis. These seven studies included 959 ADHF patients who underwent nesiritide treatment and 1748 ADHF patients who received dobutamine therapy. Our meta-analysis revealed a significantly lower survival rate in dobutamine-treated patients compared with nesiritide-treated patients (OR 0.48, 95% CI 0.36-0.63, P < 0.001). Additionally, a markedly higher readmission rate was associated with dobutamine treatment compared with nesiritide treatment (OR 0.52, 95% CI 0.36-0.73, P < 0.001). A stratified analysis based on ethnicity revealed a significantly lower survival in dobutamine-treated ADHF patients in Caucasian and mixed populations compared with nesiritide treatment (Caucasian: OR 0.60, 95% CI 0.38-0.94, P = 0.024; Mixed: OR 0.38, 95% CI 0.26-0.56, P < 0.001). However, a similar association was not detected in Asian populations (P = 0.738). Further, dobutamine-treated ADHF patients displayed higher readmission rates than did nesiritide-treated patients in both Caucasian and mixed-race populations (all P < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Our study suggests that dobutamine therapy is associated with poorer outcomes, with higher in-hospital mortality rates and increased readmission rates compared with nesiritide therapy in ADHF patients. Thus, current treatment strategies need to be redesigned for better outcomes.

Retraction. rhBNP therapy can improve clinical outcomes and reduce in-hospital mortality compared with dobutamine in heart failure patients: a meta-analysis

AIMS

A meta-analysis was performed to compare the therapeutic outcomes in patients treated for heart failure (HF) with recombinant human brain natriuretic peptide (rhBNP) and dobutamine.

METHODS

PubMed, Embase and the Chinese Biomedical Database were exhaustively searched to identify studies relevant to this meta-analysis. Eight cohort studies were found suitable for inclusion. Data regarding trial validity, methodological processes and clinical outcomes were extracted.

RESULTS

Patients treated with rhBNP showed statistically significant reduction of in-hospital mortality and re-admission rates compared with the dobutamine treated patient group (both P < 0.05). Further, the rhBNP treated patient group showed higher survival outcomes, compared with dobutamine treated patients, when the post-treatment follow-up period was longer than 6 months (P < 0.05). Stratified analysis based on ethnicity showed a dramatic decrease of in-hospital mortality among mixed race HF patients receiving rhBNP treatment (P < 0.05), but such decreases were not statistically significant in Asian and Caucasian populations (both P > 0.05). On the other hand, re-admission rates were significantly lower in rhBNP treated Caucasian and mixed race populations (both P < 0.05). Notably, in rhBNP treated group, dose levels of 0.015 and 0.03 incrementally lowered the re-admission rates, displaying dose effect, and the re-admission rates at both rhBNP doses were significantly lower than the dobutamine treated group (both P < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Our meta-analysis results suggested that rhBNP therapy is associated with lower in-hospital mortality and re-admission rates in HF patients compared to the dobutamine regimen. Nevertheless, large scale prospective, randomized trials are necessary to confirm these findings.

Nesiritide: Harmful or Harmless?

Nesiritide is the recombinant form of human B-type (brain) natriuretic peptide (BNP), and its amino acid sequence is identical to that of endogenous human BNP. Administration of nesiritide results in venous and arterial vasodilation, as well as enhanced diuresis. Given the many limitations of therapies previously available for the treatment of acute decompensated heart failure, the anticipation was that nesiritide would offer a safer and more effective therapeutic option. Recently, two meta-analyses raised the question of safety with nesiritide therapy, specifically an increased risk of renal dysfunction and mortality. Although several studies generated information regarding the potential role of nesiritide in various settings, the questions raised by the meta-analyses are concerning. Our hope is that future clinical trials will address the concerns raised and provide a better understanding of the role of nesiritide in the management of acute decompensated heart failure. Until these data are available, nesiritide use should be limited.

Contemporary Issues in the Pharmacologic Management of Acute Heart Failure

Acute heart failure is an evolving syndrome that continues to be defined by ongoing studies and registries. It is associated with significant morbidity and mortality and places a huge economic burden on health care systems. Improved understanding of the underlying pathophysiologic processes has prompted interest into understanding the implications of current and future pharmacologic management strategies beyond hemodynamics. Diuretics, vasodilators, and inotropes remain the mainstays of therapy with several new classes of agents on the horizon. Clinicians should understand the rationale for use and limitations of each therapy to maximize benefit and cost-effectiveness, while minimizing the potential for adverse outcomes.