Cost-Based Price Calculation of Mexiletine for Nondystrophic Myotonia

OBJECTIVES

Mexiletine is a long-known drug used for the treatment of arrhythmias and repurposed in the 1980s for patients with nondystrophic myotonia (NDM). Recently, the price of mexiletine in Europe increased significantly after registration as an orphan drug for NDM. This led to international discussions on affordability and willingness to reimburse mexiletine in the absence of background information that would justify such a price. Our objective was to calculate a cost-based price for mexiletine for adult patients with NDM based on detailed information on development costs.

METHODS

We calculated a fair price based on a cost-based pricing model for commercial mexiletine to treat adults with NDM using a recent European drug-pricing model as a framework to include actual costs incurred. Three scenarios were applied: 1 with minimum estimated costs, 1 with maximum estimated costs, and 1 with costs as if mexiletine was innovative.

RESULTS

The calculated fair price of mexiletine per patient per year (PPPY) is €452 for the minimum scenario and €1996 for the maximum scenario. By using hypothetical R&D costs used for innovative drugs, the price would be €6685 PPPY. In Europe, the list price of mexiletine ranges from €30 707-60 730 PPPY, based on 600 mg daily.

CONCLUSIONS

The current list price for mexiletine in Europe is manifold higher than any scenario of the cost-based models. Accounting for the reduced costs for clinical development in a repurposing scenario, the cost-based pricing model provides a fair commercial price range, which can be used as benchmark for pricing negotiations and/or reimbursement decisions.

Cost-Effectiveness of Rate- and Rhythm-Control Drugs for Treating Atrial Fibrillation in Korea

PURPOSE

Although the economic and mortality burden of atrial fibrillation (AF) is substantial, it remains unclear which treatment strategies for rate and rhythm control are most cost-effective. Consequently, economic factors can play an adjunctive role in guiding treatment selection.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We built a Markov chain Monte Carlo model using the Korean Health Insurance Review & Assessment Service database. Drugs for rate control and rhythm control in AF were analyzed. Cost-effective therapies were selected using a cost-effectiveness ratio, calculated by net cost and quality-adjusted life years (QALY).

RESULTS

In the National Health Insurance Service data, 268149 patients with prevalent AF (age ≥18 years) were identified between January 1, 2013 and December 31, 2015. Among them, 212459 and 55690 patients were taking drugs for rate and rhythm control, respectively. Atenolol cost $714/QALY. Among the rate-control medications, the cost of propranolol was lowest at $487/QALY, while that of carvedilol was highest at $1363/QALY. Among the rhythm-control medications, the cost of pilsicainide was lowest at $638/QALY, while that of amiodarone was highest at $986/QALY. Flecainide and propafenone cost $834 and $830/QALY, respectively. The cost-effectiveness threshold of all drugs was lower than $30000/QALY. Compared with atenolol, the rate-control drugs propranolol, betaxolol, bevantolol, bisoprolol, diltiazem, and verapamil, as well as the rhythm-control drugs sotalol, pilsicainide, flecainide, propafenone, and dronedarone, showed better incremental cost-effectiveness ratios.

CONCLUSION

Propranolol and pilsicainide appear to be cost-effective in patients with AF in Korea assuming that drug usage or compliance is the same.

A Long-Term Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Comparing Radiofrequency Catheter Ablation with Antiarrhythmic Drugs in Treatment of Chinese Patients with Atrial Fibrillation

INTRODUCTION

Radiofrequency catheter ablation (RFCA) is widely used to treat atrial fibrillation (AF) in China.

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to determine the long-term cost effectiveness of RFCA versus antiarrhythmic drugs (AADs) in treating AF from the perspective of third-party payers.

METHODS

The model was structured as a 12-month decision tree leading to a Markov model that simulated the follow-up treatment outcomes and costs with time horizons of 8, 15, and 20 years. Comparators were standard-of-care AADs. Clinical parameters captured normal sinus rhythm, AF, stroke, post-stroke, intracranial hemorrhage (ICH), gastrointestinal bleeding, post-ICH, and death. The risk of operative death, procedural complications, and adverse drug toxicity were also considered. The model output was quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and incremental cost per QALY gained.

RESULTS

RFCA incurred more costs than the AADs but resulted in more QALYs gained than did AADs. The incremental cost per QALY gained with RFCA versus AADs was ¥66,764, ¥36,280, and ¥29,359 at 8, 15, and 20 years, respectively. The sensitivity analyses showed that the results were most sensitive to the changes in RFCA cost and CHADS₂ score (clinical prediction rule for assessing the risk of stroke in patients with non-rheumatic AF).

CONCLUSION

Compared with AADs, RFCA significantly improves clinical outcomes and QALYs among patients with paroxysmal or persistent AF. From the Chinese payer's perspective, RFCA is a cost-effective therapy over long-term horizons.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of left atrial appendage occlusion compared with pharmacological strategies for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation

BACKGROUND

Transcatheter left atrial appendage occlusion (LAAO) is a promising therapy for stroke prophylaxis in non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) but its cost-effectiveness remains understudied. This study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of LAAO for stroke prophylaxis in NVAF.

METHODS

A Markov decision analytic model was used to compare the cost-effectiveness of LAAO with 7 pharmacological strategies: aspirin alone, clopidogrel plus aspirin, warfarin, dabigatran 110 mg, dabigatran 150 mg, apixaban, and rivaroxaban. Outcome measures included quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), lifetime costs and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). Base-case data were derived from ACTIVE, RE-LY, ARISTOTLE, ROCKET-AF, PROTECT-AF and PREVAIL trials. One-way sensitivity analysis varied by CHADS2 score, HAS-BLED score, time horizons, and LAAO costs; and probabilistic sensitivity analysis using 10,000 Monte Carlo simulations was conducted to assess parameter uncertainty.

RESULTS

LAAO was considered cost-effective compared with aspirin, clopidogrel plus aspirin, and warfarin, with ICER of US$5,115, $2,447, and $6,298 per QALY gained, respectively. LAAO was dominant (i.e. less costly but more effective) compared to other strategies. Sensitivity analysis demonstrated favorable ICERs of LAAO against other strategies in varied CHADS2 score, HAS-BLED score, time horizons (5 to 15 years) and LAAO costs. LAAO was cost-effective in 86.24 % of 10,000 simulations using a threshold of US$50,000/QALY.

CONCLUSIONS

Transcatheter LAAO is cost-effective for prevention of stroke in NVAF compared with 7 pharmacological strategies. The transcatheter left atrial appendage occlusion (LAAO) is considered cost-effective against the standard 7 oral pharmacological strategies including acetylsalicylic acid (ASA) alone, clopidogrel plus ASA, warfarin, dabigatran 110 mg, dabigatran 150 mg, apixaban, and rivaroxaban for stroke prophylaxis in non-valvular atrial fibrillation management.

Update on ranolazine in the management of angina

Mortality rates attributable to coronary heart disease have declined in recent years, possibly related to changes in clinical presentation patterns and use of proven secondary prevention strategies. Chronic stable angina (CSA) remains prevalent, and the goal of treatment is control of symptoms and reduction in cardiovascular events. Ranolazine is a selective inhibitor of the late sodium current in myocytes with anti-ischemic and metabolic properties. It was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration in 2006 for use in patients with CSA. Multiple, randomized, placebo-controlled trials have shown that ranolazine improves functional capacity and decreases anginal episodes in CSA patients, despite a lack of a significant hemodynamic effect. Ranolazine did not improve cardiovascular mortality or affect incidence of myocardial infarction in the MERLIN (Metabolic Efficiency with Ranolazine for Less Ischemia in Non-ST-Elevation Acute Coronary Syndrome)-TIMI (Thrombolysis In Myocardial Infarction) 36 trial, but significantly decreased the incidence of recurrent angina. More recently, ranolazine has been shown to have beneficial and potent antiarrhythmic effects, both on supraventricular and ventricular tachyarrhythmias, largely due to its inhibition of the late sodium current. Randomized controlled trials testing these effects are underway. Lastly, ranolazine appears to be cost-effective due to its ability to decrease angina-related hospitalizations and improve quality of life.

Economic burden and disparities in healthcare resource use among adult patients with cardiac arrhythmia

BACKGROUND

As of 2012, approximately 4.3 million Americans experience some form of cardiac arrhythmia (CA). Assessment of economic burden and healthcare resource use on the overall CA population is limited.

OBJECTIVES

To assess healthcare expenditure and disparities in healthcare resource use in patients with all forms of CA in the US.

METHODS

Data from the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey were analyzed between 2004 and 2009. Patients aged≥18 years with any form of CA (identified via International Classification of Disorders Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification [ICD-9-CM] codes) were included. Primary independent variables included age, gender, race/ethnicity, and pharmacotherapy use. Outcomes of interest included total annual healthcare and prescription expenditures (inflation adjusted to 2011), use of anti-arrhythmic agents associated with CA, and inpatient, outpatient, or emergency room visits. Generalized linear models were used to assess the disparities across patient subgroups related to the outcomes.

RESULTS

Annually, 5,750,440 individuals experienced CA in the US. Total direct annual healthcare cost of CA summed up to $US67.4 billion. Non-Hispanic whites and older adult patients had higher expenditures and use of healthcare resources (p<0.05). Female patients had significantly higher prescribed medication expenditures and a lower proportion of inpatient and emergency room visits related to arrhythmia (p<0.05). Patients taking anti-arrhythmic agents had significantly higher expenditure and a lower proportion of emergency department visits related to arrhythmia (p<0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

CA represents a substantial economic burden in the US, especially for the older adult population. Patients other than non-Hispanic whites may not have adequate access to healthcare treatment for arrhythmia.

The cost effectiveness of implantable cardioverter defibrillators: a systematic review of economic evaluations

BACKGROUND

Sudden cardiac death (SCD) is the most common cause of death in developed countries, with more than 3 million people dying yearly. Implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) are considered to be an effective treatment in the primary and secondary prevention of SCD; however, their cost is considerable and this poses questions regarding whether they are worth the investment relative to less expensive pharmacotherapy.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this systematic review is to investigate existing evidence regarding the cost effectiveness of ICD therapy and to identify the key drivers of cost effectiveness, for the purpose of informing interested policy and decision makers.

METHODOLOGY

A systematic review of the literature concerning the cost effectiveness of ICDs was undertaken. Electronic databases, including PubMed, Cochrane and Health Economic Evaluations Database were searched based on appropriate terms and their combinations. Economic evaluation studies that examined the cost effectiveness of ICDs were selected and 34 were included for evaluation.

RESULTS

Findings from the present analysis show that ICD therapy, in properly selected patients who are at high risk of sudden cardiac death, is associated with similar or better cost-effectiveness ratios compared with other well accepted conventional treatments. The cost effectiveness of ICDs is influenced by several factors, including ICD efficacy and safety, impact on patient quality of life, device original implantation cost, frequency and cost of battery replacement, patient demographics and risk profile and analysis time horizon.

CONCLUSION

ICDs may represent a cost-effective option relative to pharmacotherapy in appropriately selected patient groups. The cost-effectiveness ratios appear to be at acceptable and comparable levels to other established treatments in cardiovascular and non-cardiovascular diseases. However, cost effectiveness is highly related to several factors and hence economic efficiency is highly dependent on conditions that need to be fulfilled for each individual case in medical practice. The aforementioned factors and technological advances imply that to ensure cost-effective use of ICD therapy, continuous research is needed.

The cost-utility of catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation: a systematic review and critical appraisal of economic evaluations

BACKGROUND

A health technology assessment (HTA) of catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation (CA-AF) was commissioned by the Belgian government and performed by the Belgian Health Care Knowledge Centre (KCE). In this context, a systematic review of the economic literature was performed to assess the procedure's value for money.

METHODS

A systematic search for economic literature about the cost-effectiveness of CA-AF was performed by consulting various databases: CRD (Centre for Reviews and Dissemination) HTA and CDSR (Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews) Technology Assessment, websites of HTA institutes, NHS EED (NHS Economic Evaluation Database), Medline (OVID), EMBASE and EconLit. No time or language restrictions were imposed and pre-defined selection criteria were used. The two-step selection procedure was performed by two persons. References of the selected studies were checked for additional relevant citations.

RESULTS

Out of 697 references, seven relevant studies were selected. Based on current evidence and economic considerations, the rationale to support catheter ablation as first-line treatment was lacking.The economic evaluations for second-line catheter ablation included several assumptions that make the results rather optimistic or subject to large uncertainty. First, overall AAD (antiarrhythmic drugs) use after ablation was higher in reality than assumed in the economic evaluations, which had its impact on costs and effects. Second, several models focused on the impact of ablation on preventing stroke. This was questionable because there was no direct hard evidence from RCTs to support this assumption. An indirect impact through stroke on mortality should also be regarded with caution. Furthermore, all models included an impact on quality of life (QoL)/utility and assumed a long-term impact. Unfortunately, none of the RCTs measured QoL with a generic utility instrument and information on the long-term impact on both mortality and QoL was lacking.

CONCLUSIONS

Catheter ablation is associated with high initial costs and may lead to life-threatening complications. Its cost-effectiveness depends on the belief one places on the impact on utility and/or preventing stroke, and the duration of these effects. Having no hard evidence for these important variables is rather troublesome. Although the technique is widely spread, the scientific evidence is insufficient for drawing conclusions about the intervention's cost-effectiveness.

[Lone atrial fibrillation--relevance for medical underwriting]

Atrial fibrillation is a common and multifaceted cardiac arrhythmia. At present rhythm and rate control can be considered equal regarding morbidity and mortality. Following scientific findings in the past years new therapeutic strategies and treatment options were developed. Therefore, a decision must be made not only between rate and rhythm control but also between the different antithrombotic drug regimes. Oral thrombin and factor X inhibitors herald a new era in antithrombotic therapy. The lack of necessity for routine INR monitoring certainly constitutes one of the greatest advantages of these novel agents in everyday clinical practice. Pulmonary vein isolation is a catheter-based treatment option for atrial fibrillation enabling the cure of arrhythmias for many patients--despite the high rate of recurrence. Many of these new therapeutical options lack long-term findings and previous successes are to be regarded with certain prudence.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of dronedarone versus other anti-arrhythmic drugs for the treatment of atrial fibrillation--results for Canada, Italy, Sweden and Switzerland

The ATHENA clinical trial enrolled 4,628 patients in 37 countries and evaluated the efficacy of dronedarone 400 mg twice daily versus placebo for the prevention of cardiovascular hospitalisation or death from any cause in patients with paroxysmal or persistent atrial fibrillation or atrial flutter. The trial showed a statistically significant 24% reduction in the primary endpoint cardiovascular hospitalisations or all-cause death. In the current paper, parameters that drive the cost-effectiveness of dronedarone on top of standard therapy versus likely comparators, i.e. amiodarone, sotalol and flecainide, were investigated by means of a health economic model based on the ATHENA clinical trial. Dronedarone is cost-effective, and ICERs are low versus amiodarone with €5,340; €4,620; €3,850 and €5,630 per QALY gained for Canada, Italy, Sweden and Switzerland, respectively. The most significant driving factor for the cost-effectiveness of dronedarone is the increased survival rate for patients on dronedarone.

Cost effectiveness of antiarrhythmic medications in patients suffering from atrial fibrillation

Atrial fibrillation (AF), a supraventricular tachycardia disorder, is the most common sustained cardiac arrhythmia affecting 1-2 % of the general population. Prevalence is highly related to age, with every fourth individual older than 40 years old developing AF during his lifetime. Due to an aging population, the prevalence of AF is estimated to at least double within the next 50 years. This article presents AF-related cost-of-illness studies and reviews 19 cost-effectiveness studies and six cost studies published roughly over the past decade, which have compared different antiarrhythmic medications for AF. A systematic literature search for studies published between June 2000 and December 2011 was conducted in PubMed using the combination of keywords ((atrial fibrillation OR atrial flutter) AND cost). Current cost-effectiveness analyses of dronedarone and the pill-in-the-pocket strategy are subject to substantial uncertainties with regard to clinical benefit. Comparing rate control with rhythm control, a cost-effectiveness advantage for rate control was shown in several but not all studies. Within antiarrhythmic drug treatments, magnesium added onto ibutilide was shown to be more cost effective than ibutilide alone. Comparing chemical and electrical cardioversion, the latter was recommended as more cost effective from the healthcare system perspective in all reviewed studies but one. Catheter ablation appeared more cost effective than antiarrhythmic drugs in the medium to long run after 3.2-63.9 years. Admissions to hospital, inpatient care and interventional procedures as well as mortality benefit are key drivers for the cost effectiveness of AF medications. No clear cost-effectiveness advantage emerged for one specific antiarrhythmic drug from the studies that compared antiarrhythmic agents. Rate control as well as catheter ablation appear more cost effective than rhythm control in the treatment of AF. Rate control treatment also seems more cost effective than electrical cardioversion in AF patients.

Cost of atrial fibrillation: invasive vs non-invasive management in 2012

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most common sustained cardiac arrhythmia. It places an enormous burden on the patients, caregivers and the society at large. As a chronic illness, AF accrues significant costs related to clinical presentation, complications and loss of productivity. Novel invasive approaches to AF promise a cure in some patients and a significant reduction in AF burden in others, but are very expensive. This paper will address the cost of conventional and invasive strategies in AF care and will review the evidence on the comparative cost effectiveness of these approaches.

Resource utilization and outcomes in patients with atrial fibrillation: a case control study

BACKGROUND

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most common sustained disorder of cardiac rhythm. Various new anticoagulation and antiarrythmic treatments are being investigated for the treatment of AF. Before novel treatments can be used widely in actual clinical practice, the cost effectiveness of such novel treatments may need to be determined.

OBJECTIVE

The objectives of the study were to describe resource utilization for AF and control patients, and estimate the incidence of mortality.

METHODS

This case control study evaluated 6 months of primary and secondary care resource utilization and mortality rates for patients within the period 01 April 2001 to 31 March 2006. Cases included 15 373 adults with a record of AF in the General Practice Research Database (GPRD) within the study period. The index date was randomly selected between 6 months after the AF record and end of data collection. Cases were matched to controls by age, gender, general practice and time.

RESULTS

AF patients had significantly higher resource utilization than controls. Resource utilization increased with greater National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) stroke risk strata (graded as low, moderate or high based on associated risk factors). Both current warfarin and aspirin users had higher resource utilization than control patients. Resource utilization remained high amongst AF patients who discontinued therapy. The mortality rate was significantly higher in AF patients than controls, deaths due to circulatory system disease were increased 4-fold and cancer deaths were doubled. All-cause and circulatory mortality rates, as well as rates of clinical outcomes, were related to the NICE stroke risk schema.

CONCLUSIONS

There was large heterogeneity in resource utilization between AF patients, although overall, this was still higher than controls without AF. Higher resource utilization was evident in patients at higher risk of stroke, and remained where antithrombotic therapy was discontinued. The mortality risk in AF was increased substantially, both for cardiovascular and non-cardiovascular causes of death, indicating a large unmet medical need.

Dronedarone for the treatment of atrial fibrillation: a NICE single technology appraisal

The National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) invited the manufacturer of dronedarone (Multaq®, Sanofi-Aventis Limited, UK) to submit evidence on the clinical and cost effectiveness of the anti-arrhythmic drug (AAD) for the treatment of atrial fibrillation (AF) and atrial flutter, as part of the Institute's single technology appraisal (STA) process. The Centre for Reviews and Dissemination and the Centre for Health Economics, both at the University of York, were commissioned to act as the independent Evidence Review Group (ERG). This article provides a description of the company submission, the ERG review and NICE's subsequent decisions regarding the use of dronedarone within the UK NHS. The ERG review comprised a critique of the submitted evidence on the clinical effectiveness and cost effectiveness of dronedarone. The ERG examined the search strategy used to obtain relevant evidence, the selection of studies included in the assessment, outcome measures chosen and statistical methods employed. The ERG also validated the manufacturer's decision analytic model and used it to explore the robustness of the cost-effectiveness results to key assumptions. The main clinical effectiveness evidence supporting the use of dronedarone as a treatment for AF came from four randomized controlled trials. These trials were compared with a broader set of trials examining the effectiveness of other AADs for AF: amiodarone, sotalol and class 1c agents (flecainide and propafenone). The evidence suggested that all AADs decreased the recurrence of AF but dronedarone had the smallest effect. A mixed treatment comparison analysis of the trials showed that dronedarone was associated with a lower risk of all-cause mortality than other AADs, but this was highly uncertain. There was limited evidence to assess the effect of dronedarone on stroke, and no statistically significant differences between dronedarone and other AADs were found for treatment discontinuation. From the evidence presented by the manufacturer, dronedarone appeared highly cost effective in each of the population groups examined compared with using standard baseline therapy alone as first-line treatment, or compared with sotalol or amiodarone as first-line AAD, with incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) well below £20,000 per QALY gained. The ICER for dronedarone relative to class 1c agents was around £19,000 per QALY. Although the evidence presented by the manufacturer indicated that dronedarone was cost effective, the estimates of treatment effect relative to other AADs and safety in the longer term were highly uncertain. The NICE Appraisal Committee in its preliminary guidance did not recommend the use of dronedarone for AF. However, following the response from a large number of consultees and commentators, NICE revised its preliminary guidance to allow the use of the drug in a specific subgroup of AF patients with additional cardiovascular risk factors.

Evaluation of a pharmacist-managed amiodarone monitoring program

BACKGROUND

Because of the potential for serious adverse effects, patients treated with amiodarone must be carefully screened and routinely monitored for potential liver, thyroid, and pulmonary toxicity. However, laboratory and pulmonary monitoring rates have been found to be substantially lower than recommended in guidelines, including those of the North American Society of Pacing and Electrophysiology (NASPE, 2007).

OBJECTIVE

To (a) assess rates of laboratory monitoring of liver, thyroid, and pulmonary function and adverse events in a pharmacist-managed amiodarone monitoring program compared with usual care in an integrated health care system and (b) estimate return on investment (ROI) from this intervention.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study used clinic and enrollment data to identify those patients in the pharmacist-managed program and usual care who received at least 100 days of amiodarone therapy with the first prescription for amiodarone (index) from June 1, 2007, through May 31, 2009 (index date). Laboratory test monitoring was recorded at baseline (up to 6 months before the index date), from 1-6 months after the index date, 7-12 months after the index date, and at any time during the year (months 1-12). Alanine aminotransferase (ALT) was evaluated for liver function. Thyroid-stimulating hormone (TSH) and, for patients with abnormal TSH ( less than 0.4 micro international units [uIU] per mL or greater than 4.0 uIU per mL), free thyroxine (T4) were evaluated for thyroid function. Rates of pulmonary function testing (PFT) were measured by the diffusion capacity of carbon monoxide tests (DLCO) and annual chest x-rays (CXR); electrocardiograms were not counted. Monitoring rates were compared using Pearson chi-square tests, and logistic regression was used to compare the odds of testing (ALT, TSH, T4, CXR, PFT) between the 2 groups at any time during the year after the index date. Concomitant uses of amiodarone with high-dose statins and of amiodarone with digoxin were compared using Pearson chi-square tests. Hospitalizations and emergency room (ER) visits during the 12-month follow-up period were counted for (a) interstitial lung disease; (b) rhabdomyolysis for patients who received amiodarone with high-dose statins (either lovastatin greater than 40 mg per day or greater than 20 mg per day of simvastatin or atorvastatin); and (c) for patients with abnormal digoxin, ALT, TSH, or T4 levels, if the hospitalization occurred within 2 days of the abnormal laboratory value.

RESULTS

There were 2,292 patients who received at least 100 days of amiodarone therapy and met the other inclusion criteria, of whom 181 patients (7.9%) were in the pharmacist-managed group and 2,111 received usual care. There were 90 (49.7%) new amiodarone users in the pharmacist-managed group and 990 (46.9%) in usual care. The 2 groups had similar demographic characteristics except race, with more whites and fewer African Americans, Asians, and Hispanics in usual care. Laboratory monitoring rates for ALT, TSH, and T4 were significantly higher in the pharmacist-managed group than usual care at the first and second 6 months and at baseline for ALT and TSH but not T4. Baseline CXR rates were significantly higher for the pharmacist-managed group than usual care (59.1% vs. 49.3%; P=0.011). Few patients in either group received PFT tests at baseline, 6.6% versus 3.6% (P=0.042). After controlling for covariates (age, gender, race, new vs. continuing use, and comorbidities), pharmacist-managed patients were significantly more likely to have at least 1 ALT test within the year after the index prescription (odds ratio [OR]=3.13, 95% CI=1.12-8.71), as well as a TSH test (OR=8.13, 95% CI=3.27-20.21) and T4 (OR=2.51, 95% CI=1.67-3.75). PFTs were also more likely to be given to these patients (OR=5.89, 95% CI=3.86-8.99). A higher percentage of patients in the pharmacist-managed group than in usual care were taking a high-dose statin during the 12-month follow-up period (47.5% vs. 36.2%, P=0.003), but of those patients, a greater proportion were switched to another statin (14.0% [n=12] vs. 7.5% [n=57], P=0.037) or a lower dose (9.3% [n=8] vs. 3.9% [n=30], P=0.022). Six patients in the usual care group (0.79% of patients on high-dose statins) developed rhabdomyolysis, and 5 (0.24% of all patients in usual care) had an admission for interstitial lung disease. The proportions of patients using amiodarone and digoxin concomitantly were similar in the 2 groups (35.9% vs. 31.3%, P=0.197). Among patients with abnormal laboratory results for ALT, TSH, and T4, or digoxin, there were 2 all-cause hospitalizations and 1 ER visit in the pharmacist-managed group and 34 all-cause hospitalizations and 18 ER visits in the usual care group during the follow-up year. Assuming that all hospitalizations and ER visits incurred in the usual care group were avoid- able, approximately $2.14 could be saved for every dollar spent on the pharmacist-managed amiodarone monitoring program.

CONCLUSIONS

Pharmacist management of patients treated with amiodarone was associated with improved monitoring of recommended laboratory tests and PFTs.

Incidence and economic burden of suspected adverse events and adverse event monitoring during AF therapy

OBJECTIVE

Rhythm- and rate-control therapies are an essential part of atrial fibrillation (AF) management; however, the use of existing agents is often limited by the occurrence of adverse events. The aim of this study was to evaluate suspected adverse events and adverse event monitoring, and associated medical costs, in patients receiving AF rhythm-control and/or rate-control therapy.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

This retrospective cohort study used claims data from the Integrated Healthcare Information Systems National Managed Care Benchmark Database from 2002-2006. Patients hospitalized for AF (primary diagnosis), and who had at least 365 days' enrollment before and after the initial (index) AF hospitalization, were included in the analysis. Suspected AF therapy-related adverse events and function tests for adverse event monitoring were identified according to pre-specified diagnosis codes/procedures, and examined over the 12 months following discharge from the index hospitalization. Events/function tests had to have occurred within 90 days of a claim for AF therapy to be considered a suspected adverse event/adverse event monitoring.

RESULTS

Of 4174 AF patients meeting the study criteria, 3323 received AF drugs; 428 received rhythm-control only (12.9%), 2130 rate-control only (64.1%), and 765 combined rhythm/rate-control therapy (23.0%). Overall, 50.1% of treated patients had a suspected adverse event and/or function test for adverse event monitoring (45.5% with rate-control, 53.5% with rhythm-control, and 61.2% with combined rhythm/rate-control). Suspected cardiovascular adverse events were the most common events (occurring in 36.1% of patients), followed by pulmonary (6.1%), and endocrine events (5.9%). Overall, suspected adverse events/function tests were associated with mean annual per-patient costs of $3089 ($1750 with rhythm-control, $2041 with rate control, and $6755 with combined rhythm/rate-control).

LIMITATIONS

As a retrospective analysis, the study is subject to potential selection bias, while its reliance on diagnostic codes for identification of AF and suspected adverse events is a source of potential investigator error. A direct cause-effect relationship between suspected adverse events/function tests and AF therapy cannot be confirmed based on the claims data available.

CONCLUSIONS

The incidence of suspected adverse events and adverse event monitoring during AF rhythm-control and/or rate-control therapy is high. Costs associated with adverse events and adverse event monitoring are likely to add considerably to the overall burden of AF management.

Cost-effectiveness of radiofrequency catheter ablation compared with antiarrhythmic drug therapy for paroxysmal atrial fibrillation

BACKGROUND

Radiofrequency catheter ablation (RFA) has emerged as an important treatment strategy for atrial fibrillation (AF). The potential cost-effectiveness of RFA for AF, relative to antiarrhythmic drug (AAD) therapy, has not been fully explored from a US perspective.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We constructed a Markov disease simulation model for a hypothetical cohort of patients with drug-refractory paroxysmal AF, treated either with RFA with/without AAD or AAD alone. Costs and quality-adjusted life-years were projected over 5 years. Model inputs were drawn from published clinical trial and registry data, from new registry and trial data analysis, and from data prospectively collected from patients with AF treated with RFA at our institution. We assumed no benefit from ablation on stroke, heart failure or death, but did estimate changes in quality-adjusted life expectancy using data from several AF cohorts. In the base case scenario, cumulative costs with the RFA and AAD strategies were $26,584 and $19,898, respectively. Over 5 years, quality-adjusted life expectancy was 3.51 quality-adjusted life-years with RFA versus 3.38 for the AAD group. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for RFA versus AAD was thus $51,431 per quality-adjusted life-year. Model results were most sensitive to time horizon, the relative utility weights of successful ablation versus unsuccessful drug therapy, and to the cost of an ablation procedure.

CONCLUSIONS

RFA with/without AAD for symptomatic, drug-refractory paroxysmal AF appears to be reasonably cost-effective compared with AAD therapy alone from the perspective of the US health care system, based on improved quality of life and avoidance of future health care costs.

Improving cost-effectiveness of and outcomes from drug therapy in patients with atrial fibrillation in managed care: role of the pharmacist

BACKGROUND

The medical care costs for procedures, medications, and testing associated with atrial fibrillation (AF) in the United States are high and projected to increase markedly in the future as the number of Americans affected grows. The burden on patient quality of life, the health care system, and society are pharmacoeconomic considerations in managing AF.

OBJECTIVES

To identify key pharmacoeconomic considerations in managing AF and describe ways in which managed care pharmacists can improve the cost-effectiveness of and outcomes from drug therapy for AF.

SUMMARY

The high medical care costs of AF are largely the result of the high cost of hospitalization and inpatient procedures. Recurrence of AF dramatically increases costs, especially for hospital care. Managed care pharmacists have many opportunities to provide cost-effective care to and improve outcomes in patients with AF. Policy and process review, population management, and case management are key strategies for improving outcomes in patients with AF. Pharmacist input into policy and process review, including pharmacy benefits design, formulary management, and the use of information technology, can help ensure that the use of drug therapy for AF is cost-effective. Population management strategies, such as development of clinical pathways and patient registries, seek to improve the quality, consistency, and cost-effectiveness of care and the likelihood that desired therapeutic outcomes are achieved through targeted interventions. Case management strategies focus on longitudinal care for individuals in order to improve quality. Pharmacist-managed anticoagulation services and antiarrhythmic drug monitoring are the 2 most widely known case management strategies for patients with AF. Managed care pharmacists can screen patients with AF for the use of anticoagulation, which is needed to prevent embolic stroke but is under-used, even though recommended by evidence-based guidelines. The clinical efficacy and cost-effectiveness of pharmacist-managed anticoagulation services for patients with AF are well documented. Pharmacist-managed antiarrhythmic drug monitoring is a less well-known case management strategy that facilitates early detection and intervention to minimize toxicity.

CONCLUSIONS

Managed care pharmacists can play an instrumental role in implementing strategies to improve the cost-effectiveness of and outcomes from drug therapy for AF.

The costs of care in atrial fibrillation and the effect of treatment modalities in Germany

OBJECTIVE

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is an increasing burden on health-care systems because of an aging population. This study aimed to estimate health-care resource use and costs of treating AF in Germany.

METHOD

A 6-month multicenter prospective observational cohort study with additional 3-month retrospective clinical data collection was performed in physician practices. AF-related resource use was documented by 3-month retrospective and 6-month prospective clinical data from physician charts and prospectively by patient questionnaires at 3 and 6 months. Cost calculation was from the health-care payer perspective.

RESULTS

A total of 361 patients (mean age 71 +/- 9 years, 61% male) were recruited from 45 physician practices. Of 311 (86.1%) patients with complete data, 75% had persistent AF; oral anticoagulation and/or aspirin were prescribed in 98%. A rhythm-control strategy was applied in 27%, rate control in 58%, and 15% received neither antiarrhythmic medication nor cardioversion. A higher proportion of rhythm-control patients had paroxysmal AF (P < 0.001). Mean annual AF-related per-patient cost was 827 Euro +/- 1476 (median 386 Euro). 50% of total costs were incurred by 11% of patients, driven by AF-related hospitalizations (44%). Antiarrhythmics and stroke prophylaxis accounted for 20% and 15% of expenditures, respectively. Mean annualized costs were higher for rhythm-control patients than for rate-control patients or those without antiarrhythmic treatment (1572 vs. 780 vs. 544 Euro, P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

This evaluation provides an overview of current treatment modalities and cost of AF management in Germany. Efforts to reduce the economic burden of AF should focus on avoidance of AF hospital admissions and optimization of stroke prevention and rhythm control.

Assessing the impact of censoring of costs and effects on health-care decision-making: an example using the Atrial Fibrillation Follow-up Investigation of Rhythm Management (AFFIRM) study

OBJECTIVES

Losses to follow-up and administrative censoring can cloud the interpretation of trial-based economic evaluations. A number of investigators have examined the impact of different levels of adjustment for censoring, including nonadjustment, adjustment of effects only, and adjustment for both costs and effects. Nevertheless, there is a lack of research on the impact of censoring on decision-making. The objective of this study was to estimate the impact of adjustment for censoring on the interpretation of cost-effectiveness results and expected value of perfect information (EVPI), using a trial-based analysis that compared rate- and rhythm-control treatments for persons with atrial fibrillation.

METHODS

Three different levels of adjustment for censoring were examined: no censoring of cost and effects, censoring of effects only, and censoring of both costs and effects. In each case, bootstrapping was used to estimate the uncertainty incosts and effects, and the EVPI was calculated to determine the potential worth of further research.

RESULTS

Censoring did not impact the adoption decision. Nevertheless, this was not the case for the decision uncertainty or the EVPI. For a threshold of $50,000 per life-year, the EVPI varied between $626,000 (partial censoring) to $117 million (full censoring) for the eligible US population.

CONCLUSIONS

The level of adjustment for censoring in trial-based cost-effectiveness analyses can impact on the decisions to fund a new technology and to devote resources for further research. Only when censoring is taken into account for both costs and effects are these decisions appropriately addressed.

Cost Comparison of Catheter Ablation and Medical Therapy in Atrial Fibrillation

INTRODUCTION

There is emerging evidence for clinical superiority of catheter ablation over rate and rhythm control strategies in paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (PAF). The objective of this study was to compare costs related to medical therapy versus catheter ablation for PAF in Ontario (Canada).

METHODS

Costs related to medical therapy in the analysis included the cost of anticoagulation, rate and rhythm control medications, noninvasive testing, physician follow-up visits, and hospital admissions, as well as the cost of complications related to this management strategy. Costs related to catheter ablation were assumed to include the cost of the ablation tools (electroanatomic mapping or intracardiac echocardiography-guided pulmonary vein ablation), hospital and physician billings, and costs related to periprocedural medical care and complications. Costs related to these various elements were obtained from the Canadian Registry of Atrial Fibrillation (CARAF), government fee schedules, and published data. Sensitivity analyses looking at a range of initial success rates (50-75%) and late attrition rates (1-5%), prevalence of congestive heart failure (CHF) (20-60%), as well as discounting varying from 3% to 5% per year were performed.

RESULTS

The cost of catheter ablation ranged from $16,278 to $21,294, with an annual cost of $1,597 to $2,132. The annual cost of medical therapy ranged from $4,176 to $5,060. Costs of ongoing medical therapy and catheter ablation for PAF equalized at 3.2-8.4 years of follow-up.

CONCLUSION

Catheter ablation is a fiscally sensible alternative to medical therapy in PAF with cost equivalence after 4 years.

The cost comparison of rhythm and rate control strategies in persistent atrial fibrillation

Our sub study was designed to analyze the cost effectiveness of two alternative treatment strategies with a view to improved allocation of the limited therapeutic resources. To that effect we conducted detailed analysis of the related costs and other relevant data collected in the course of the HOT CAFE study.

METHODS

The prospective costs related to 205 patients randomly assigned to rhythm or rate control were traced over a 12 month period. Since, both strategies produced similar clinical outcomes a cost minimization analysis was undertaken. The cost of diagnostic and treatment procedures, including hospitalization, outpatient visits, drugs and physicians consultations were estimated for both groups.

RESULTS

The study population comprised 205 patients (mean age 60.8 year; 35% females). A hundred and one patients were randomly assigned to the rate control group with the pharmacological heart rate frequency optimization treatment combined with Holter monitoring. A hundred and four patients were randomized to sinus rhythm (SR) restoration with its subsequent maintenance with sequential antiarrhythmic drug treatment. There was no significant difference in the composite primary end-point (all-cause mortality, number of thromboembolic and major bleeding events). The hospital admissions rate was significantly higher in the rhythm control than the rate control arm (202 vs. 5, respectively). The conservative strategy involving pharmacological ventricular rate control proved to be less costly than rhythm control (1225 euros vs. 2526 euros; p<0.001). The main cost driver behind the established difference was the cardioversion related hospitalization.

CONCLUSIONS

The cost effectiveness appraisal seems to have supported the rate control strategy as less costly due to the lower hospitalization rate as a major cost carrier.

A clinical and health-economic evaluation of pulmonary vein encircling ablation compared with antiarrhythmic drug treatment in patients with persistent atrial fibrillation (Catheter Ablation for the Cure of Atrial Fibrillation-2 study)

AIMS

Catheter Ablation for the Cure of Atrial Fibrillation 2 study is a prospective, randomized trial aimed to demonstrate the efficacy of catheter ablation with combined lesions in the right and left atria, in preventing atrial fibrillation (AF) recurrences among patients with recurrent persistent AF refractory to one antiarrhythmic drug, in comparison with the best pharmacological therapy.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Enrolment is limited to patients aged between 18 and 70 years who have experienced at least one documented relapse of persistent AF during antiarrhythmic drug therapy. One hundred and twenty-six patients will be randomized to ablation or antiarrhythmic drug therapy in a 2 : 1 manner. In the ablation group, the patients will undergo right and left atrial linear ablation. Control group patients will be treated with the best antiarrhythmic drug. After an initial blanking period of 2 months patients will be followed for 24 months. Primary endpoint of the study is the absence of documented persistent atrial tachyarrhythmias relapse during the first 24 months after the blanking period. Enrolment is scheduled in 14 centres in Italy, UK, Austria, and Finland. Seventy-two patients have currently been enrolled.

CONCLUSION

This study will provide important data about the efficacy of catheter ablation in comparison with antiarrhythmic drugs for the treatment of persistent AF.

Rate Control vs. Rhythm Control in the Management of Atrial Fibrillation in Elderly Persons

Antiarrhythmic medications used to maintain sinus rhythm have long been the treatment of choice in atrial fibrillation. The results of five prospective randomized trials comparing the efficacy and safety of rhythm-control to rate-control strategies are now available. Reflecting the epidemiology of atrial fibrillation in the real world, most subjects enrolled in these investigations were elderly persons at increased risk of stroke or death. All of these trials have had similar results; these studies have failed to demonstrate a clear advantage of one treatment strategy over the other. A prespecified subgroup analysis among 3091 elderly patients in the Atrial Fibrillation Follow-up Investigation of Rhythm Management (AFFIRM) study revealed that rhythm control was associated with a higher risk of death than rate control. This review examines developments leading to and the implications and limitations of these trials and discusses recently issued practice guidelines and the justification for ongoing efforts to develop nonpharmacologic approaches to rhythm management in atrial fibrillation.

Cost-benefit analysis of preventing sudden cardiac deaths with an implantable cardioverter defibrillator versus amiodarone

OBJECTIVES

To conduct a cost-benefit assessment of prevention of sudden cardiac deaths with an implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) versus amiodarone from the perspective of the health-care systems in the UK and France.

METHODS

Course after implantation with an ICD or taking amiodarone was modeled using discrete event simulation; 1000 pairs of identical patients were simulated 100 times for each analysis. Rates of life-threatening arrhythmia and death from other causes were assumed identical, but the case fatality of arrhythmia and hospitalization differ between treatments. Rates were based on published data, primarily from the Sudden Cardiac Death in Heart Failure Trial (SCD-HeFT). Direct medical costs (in 2004 Euros) and lives saved were estimated over 5 years. The monetary value of a life (UK euro2.1 million, France euro2.0 million) was applied to this benefit and examined relative to the net investment required.

RESULTS

ICDs decreased deaths during the 5 years from 37.0% to 29.7% at a net cost of euro26,222 to euro20,008 per patient, yielding cost-benefit ratios of 0.17 (UK) and 0.14 (France)-more than a 5 to 1 return on investment. Sensitivity analyses showed ICDs represent value for money whenever a life is valued at least at euro274,000.

CONCLUSION

In these European countries where society values a life at more than euro2 million, ICDs are a worthwhile investment compared with amiodarone for primary prevention of sudden cardiac deaths in patients with heart failure.

Risk-Stratified Evaluation of Amiodarone to Prevent Atrial Fibrillation After Cardiac Surgery

BACKGROUND

Amiodarone prophylaxis (AMP) reduces the prevalence of postoperative atrial fibrillation (POAF) after cardiac surgery. We investigated the impact of AMP on the frequency and duration of POAF, the intensive care unit and hospital length of stay, and its cost-effectiveness in a risk-stratified cohort.

METHODS

A retrospective, observational analysis of 509 patients who underwent cardiac surgery in 2003 was performed. Data sources included The Society of Thoracic Surgeons national database; medical and medication administration records; and the activity-based cost data from our institution. Risk stratification for POAF was determined using a validated risk index. Cost-effectiveness was determined from the hospital's perspective.

RESULTS

The mean patient age was 63 years, 27% were female, 80% underwent coronary artery bypass grafting, and 29% underwent valve surgery. When a risk-stratified evaluation was made, 50% of patients were at an elevated risk for having POAF develop. When compared with nonprophylaxed patients, those receiving AMP (59%) experienced less POAF (31% vs 22%; p = 0.027) and shorter durations of POAF (4.7 vs 2.7 days; p = 0.025). In the elevated-risk group, AMP clinically (but not significantly) reduced length of stay in the intensive care unit (101 vs 68 hours; p > 0.05) and post-procedural hospital length of stay (9.7 vs. 7.9 days, p > 0.05). In the elevated-risk group, AMP was robustly cost-effective in reducing POAF.

CONCLUSIONS

Amiodarone prophylaxis reduced the prevalence and duration of POAF. Baseline risk for POAF was a major determinant of the overall cost-effectiveness of AMP. The greatest cost savings with AMP was seen in patients at an elevated risk for POAF. These findings suggest the need for risk stratification when prescribing AMP.

Radiofrequency catheter ablation of supraventricular tachycardia in children and adolescents : feasibility and cost-effectiveness in a low-income country

The objective of this study is to provide results and costs of catheter ablation in children and adolescents in a low-income country. Reports from first-world countries have demonstrated the cost-effectiveness of radiofrequency catheter ablation (RFCA) compared to medical treatment of supraventricular tachycardia (SVT). The study included 28 patients younger than 18 years of age with SVT in a pediatric cardiology unit in Guatemala. All patients underwent RFCA. Clinical outcome and cost-effectiveness of RFCA compared to continued medical treatment were the end points. Twenty-four patients had successful ablation (85.7%). Mean age at RFCA was 11.42 +/- 3.49 years. Three patients underwent a second ablation, increasing the success rate to 96.4%. One remaining patient is awaiting a second procedure. At a mean follow-up of 13.69 +/- 7.16 months, all 27 patients who had a successful ablation remained in sinus rhythm. Mean cost per procedure was 4.9 times higher than that of medical treatment. However, the estimated cost of catheter ablation equal that of medical therapy after 5.1 years and is 3.4 times less after 20 years. Radiofrequency catheter ablation of SVT in children and adolescents is safe and cost-effective compared to medical therapy. Resources must be judiciously allocated, especially in low-income countries, to treat the largest number of pediatric patients.

Using and interpreting cost-effectiveness acceptability curves: an example using data from a trial of management strategies for atrial fibrillation

Background

The cost-effectiveness acceptability curve (CEAC) is a method for summarizing the uncertainty in estimates of cost-effectiveness. The CEAC, derived from the joint distribution of costs and effects, illustrates the (Bayesian) probability that the data are consistent with a true cost-effectiveness ratio falling below a specified ceiling ratio. The objective of the paper is to illustrate how to construct and interpret a CEAC.

Methods

A retrospective cost-effectiveness analysis of the Atrial Fibrillation Follow-up Investigation of Rhythm Management (AFFIRM) randomized controlled trial with 4060 patients followed for 3.5 years. The target population was patients with atrial fibrillation who were 65 years of age or had other risk factors for stroke or death similar to those enrolled in AFFIRM. The intervention involved the management of patients with atrial fibrillation with antiarrhythmic drugs (rhythm-control) compared with drugs that control heart rate (rate-control). Measurements of mean survival, mean costs and incremental cost-effectiveness were made. The uncertainty surrounding the estimates of cost-effectiveness was illustrated through a cost-effectiveness acceptability curve.

Results

The base case point estimate for the difference in effects and costs between rate and rhythm-control is 0.08 years (95% CI: -0.1 years to 0.24 years) and -US$5,077 (95% CI: -$1,100 to -$11,006). The CEAC shows that the decision uncertainty surrounding the adoption of rate-control strategies is less than 1.7% regardless of the maximum acceptable ceiling ratio. Thus, there is very little uncertainty surrounding the decision to adopt rate-control compared to rhythm-control for patients with atrial fibrillation from a resource point of view.

Conclusion

The CEAC is straightforward to calculate, construct and interpret. The CEAC is useful to a decision maker faced with the choice of whether or not to adopt a technology because it provides a measure of the decision uncertainty surrounding the choice.

Rate versus rhythm control in the management of patients with atrial fibrillation

The management of patients with atrial fibrillation involves three main areas: anticoagulation, rate control and rhythm control. Importantly, these are not mutually exclusive of each other. Anticoagulation is necessary for patients who are at a high risk of stroke; for example, those who are older than 75 years, or those who have hypertension, severe left ventricular dysfunction, previous cerebrovascular events, or diabetes. It is now clear that patients who are at a high risk of stroke require long-term anticoagulation with warfarin regardless of whether a rate-control or rhythm-control strategy is chosen. One possible exception might be patients who are apparently cured with catheter ablation. Several published trials comparing rate-control and rhythm-control strategies for the treatment of patients with atrial fibrillation have shown no difference in mortality between these approaches. The patients enrolled in these studies were typically over 65 years of age. Data comparing rate and rhythm strategies in patients who are younger than 60 years of age are limited. For more elderly patients, it seems reasonable to consider rate control as a primary treatment option and to reserve rhythm control for those who do not respond to rate control. For younger patients, we prefer to start with a rhythm-control approach and to reserve rate-control approaches for patients in whom antiarrhythmic drugs, ablation, or both, do not ameliorate the symptoms.

Effect of Prophylactic Amiodarone on Clinical and Economic Outcomes After Cardiothoracic Surgery: A Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND:

Two previous meta-analyses of amiodarone for prevention of postoperative atrial fibrillation (POAF) after cardiothoracic surgery did not evaluate total hospital cost, concluded that data on stroke are incomplete, and did not evaluate the effect of clinical heterogeneity between trials.

OBJECTIVE:

To conduct a meta-analysis examining amiodarone's prophylactic impact on cardiothoracic surgery POAF, length of stay (LOS), stroke, and total costs.

METHODS:

Three reviewers conducted a systematic literature search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and the Cochrane Library (1966–September 2004%). Studies were included if they met the following criteria: (1%) randomized controlled trial versus placebo/routine treatment, (2%) coronary artery bypass graft and/or valvular surgery, (3%) Jadad score ≥3, (4%) reported data on incidence of POAF or stroke, LOS, or total costs, (5%) used electrocardiographic/Holter monitoring, and (6%) monitored subjects for ≥2 days. A random-effects model was utilized. Subgroup and sensitivity analyses were conducted.

RESULTS:

Fifteen trials were identified, including 1512 and 1429 patients in the amiodarone and control groups, respectively. Amiodarone reduced POAF (OR 0.50; 95% CI 0.42 to 0.60%) and decreased stroke (n = 8 studies), LOS (n = 10%), and total costs (n = 6%) (OR 0.47; 95% CI 0.23 to 0.96; −0.73 days, 95% CI −0.95 to −0.51; and –$1619, 95% CI −3395 to 156, respectively). Surgery type, β-blocker use, route of administration, use of a fixed-effects model, or exclusion of unblinded/unpublished studies did not affect the overall results. No statistical heterogeneity was observed for any endpoint evaluated (p > 0.22 for all comparisons).

CONCLUSIONS:

Prophylactic treatment with amiodarone decreases patients' risk of POAF and stroke while reducing LOS.

Pharmacological management of atrial fibrillation following cardiac surgery

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most common complication following coronary artery bypass graft surgery (CABG). Post-CABG AF occurs most commonly on the second postoperative day and declines in incidence thereafter. A number of risk factors have been found to be associated with a higher frequency of post-CABG AF. These risk factors include advanced age, a prior history of AF, hypertension, and heart failure. Postoperative complications--including low cardiac output, use of an intra-aortic balloon pump, pneumonia, and prolonged mechanical ventilation--are also associated with higher rates of post-CABG AF. Post-CABG AF increases the risk of stroke, and the length and cost of hospitalization. Prophylactic administration of conventional beta-adrenoceptor antagonists (beta-blockers) or sotalol produces a consistent and significant reduction in the incidence of post-CABG AF; however, results with prophylactic amiodarone or magnesium are less consistent. Termination of post-CABG AF, once it occurs, can be accomplished with a number of antiarrhythmic agents. Ibutilide has been the most widely studied agent for this indication. Sotalol is not indicated for cardioversion of AF and has not been studied in the post-CABG setting. Electrical cardioversion and biatrial pacing have also been used to terminate post-CABG AF. Ventricular rate is best controlled with beta-blockers and calcium channel antagonists. Esmolol has a rapid onset of action and is easily titrated to effect. Digoxin can control the ventricular rate, but has a slow onset of action. There are limited data available to guide decisions regarding the optimal management of post-CABG AF.

Rate control versus rhythm control

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The results of five randomized clinical trials comparing rate control with rhythm control in the management of atrial fibrillation have been published recently. The purpose of this report is to review their main results and selected subanalyses and other related data to offer practical recommendations regarding the treatment of patients with this common arrhythmia.

RECENT FINDINGS

In the aggregate, the five trials enrolled a total of 5175 subjects and accumulated 16,186 patient-years of follow-up. All these trials have had similar results in that each of them failed to demonstrate a clear advantage of the rhythm control approach over that of rate control. The largest of the studies, the Atrial Fibrillation Follow-Up Investigation of Rhythm Management (AFFIRM) study, enrolled 79% of all the cases in the five trials and accounts for 88% of the cumulative follow-up experience and for 92% of all deaths. Among AFFIRM participants, antiarrhythmic drug use did not improve survival, stroke risk, quality of life, or functional capacity but was associated with increased resource use. In several of the trials, however, the presence of sinus rhythm was associated with improved outcomes.

SUMMARY

The evidence is now overwhelming that for most patients with atrial fibrillation, rhythm control using currently available antiarrhythmic drugs is more expensive but not more effective than the rate control strategy in the prevention of major adverse events. Further research is needed to determine whether maintaining sinus rhythm by other means can improve outcomes.

Cost-effectiveness of rhythm versus rate control in atrial fibrillation

BACKGROUND

Atrial fibrillation is the most common type of sustained cardiac arrhythmia, but recent trials have identified no clear advantage of rhythm control over rate control. Consequently, economic factors often play a role in guiding treatment selection.

OBJECTIVE

To estimate the cost-effectiveness of rhythm-control versus rate-control strategies for atrial fibrillation in the Atrial Fibrillation Follow-up Investigation of Rhythm Management (AFFIRM).

DESIGN

Retrospective economic evaluation. Nonparametric bootstrapping was used to estimate the distribution of incremental costs and effects on the cost-effectiveness plane.

DATA SOURCES

Data on survival and use of health care resources were obtained for all 4060 AFFIRM participants. Unit costs were estimated from various U.S. databases.

TARGET POPULATION

Patients with atrial fibrillation who were 65 years of age or who had other risk factors for stroke or death, similar to those enrolled in AFFIRM.

TIME HORIZON

Mean follow-up of 3.5 years.

PERSPECTIVE

Third-party payer.

INTERVENTIONS

Management of patients with atrial fibrillation with antiarrhythmic drugs (rhythm control) compared with drugs that control heart rate (rate control).

OUTCOME MEASURES

Mean survival, resource use, costs, and cost-effectiveness.

RESULTS OF BASE-CASE ANALYSIS

A mean survival gain of 0.08 year (P = 0.10) was observed for rate control. Patients in the rate-control group used fewer resources (hospital days, pacemaker procedures, cardioversions, and short-stay and emergency department visits). Rate control costs 5077 dollars less per person than rhythm control.

RESULTS OF SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS

Cost savings ranged from 2189 dollars o 5481 dollars per person. Rhythm control was more costly and less effective than rate control in 95% of the bootstrap replicates over a wide range of cost assumptions.

LIMITATIONS

Resource use was limited to key items collected in AFFIRM, and the results are generalizable only to similar patient populations with atrial fibrillation.

CONCLUSION

Rate control is a cost-effective approach to the management of atrial fibrillation compared with maintenance of sinus rhythm in patients with atrial fibrillation similar to those enrolled in AFFIRM.

Giving IV and Oral Amiodarone Perioperatively for the Prevention of Postoperative Atrial Fibrillation in Patients Undergoing Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery

PURPOSES

We studied the use of perioperative IV and oral administration of amiodarone for the prevention of postoperative atrial fibrillation in patients undergoing coronary artery bypass graft surgery (CABG).

BACKGROUND

In the United States, > 500,000 patients undergo CABG each year. Numerous studies to date have suggested that postoperative atrial fibrillation occurs in 30 to 50% of patients, leading to significant morbidity, including hypotension, heart failure, thromboembolic complications, prolonged hospital stay, and increased hospital costs. The objective of this study was to assess the use of IV amiodarone in combination with oral amiodarone to reduce the incidence of postoperative atrial fibrillation.

METHOD

From January 1999 to October 1999, 51 patients scheduled for CABG were randomly selected for participation in the amiodarone administration trial. IV amiodarone, 0.73 mg/min, was administered on call to the operating room for 48 h, followed by oral amiodarone, 400 mg q12h, for the next 3 days. The amiodarone group was case-control matched to the incidence of postoperative atrial fibrillation in 92 patients undergoing CABG using conventional medical therapy during the same period. The primary end point of this study was the incidence of postoperative atrial fibrillation, length of hospital stay, and hospital costs, compared to the control group undergoing CABG during the same time.

RESULTS

Atrial fibrillation occurred in 3 of 51 patients (5.88%) in the amiodarone group, compared to 24 of 92 patients (26.08%) in the control group. Length of hospital stay in the amiodarone group was less than in the control group (5.3 days vs 6.7 days), with a trend toward decrease in hospital costs.

CONCLUSION

The administration of IV amiodarone in conjunction with oral amiodarone for a total dose of 4,500 mg over 5 days appears to be a hemodynamically well-tolerated, safe, and effective treatment in decreasing the incidence of postoperative atrial fibrillation, shortening length of stay, and a trend toward lowering hospital costs, even in patients with significantly reduced left ventricular function (< 30%). A large multicenter study using IV and oral amiodarone should be pursued prior to deciding whether its use should become standard therapy in all patients undergoing CABG in order to decrease the incidence of postoperative atrial fibrillation.

Flecainide versus ibutilide for immediate cardioversion of atrial fibrillation of recent onset

AIMS

This study compared the efficacy and safety of intravenous flecainide and ibutilide for immediate cardioversion of atrial fibrillation (AF).

METHODS AND RESULTS

We conducted a prospective, randomised trial, including 207 patients with AF of recent onset (< or = 48 h). Flecainide was given over 20 min at a dose of 2 mg/kg body weight (maximum 200 mg), ibutilide was infused at a dose of 1 mg (or 0.01 mg/kg if less than 60 kg) over 10 min, followed by a 10 min observation period and an identical second dose if AF did not convert to sinus rhythm (SR). Treatment was considered successful if SR occurred within 90 min of starting medication. The conversion rates were 56.4% in patients given flecainide and 50.0% in patients given ibutilide (P=0.34). Multivariate analysis revealed that a lower age for women independently increased the probability of conversion. None of the other variables, including left atrial size, left ventricular systolic function, presence of left ventricular hypertrophy, plasma levels of potassium or magnesium at baseline, or concomitant use of digoxin, beta-blocker, diltiazem or verapamil were predictors of conversion. The frequency of adverse events was comparable in the two treatment groups.

CONCLUSIONS

There was no significant difference in the cardioversion efficacy or in the risk of adverse events between flecainide and ibutilide in patients with AF of recent onset. In patients without contraindications to both medications, the physician's choice has to be governed by other factors.

Economic Analysis of Intravenous Plus Oral Amiodarone, Atrial Septal Pacing, and Both Strategies to Prevent Atrial Fibrillation After Open Heart Surgery

STUDY OBJECTIVES

To compare the cost-effectiveness of intravenous plus oral amiodarone, atrial septal pacing, and both strategies combined to prevent atrial fibrillation after open heart surgery. Secondary objectives were to compare the cost-effectiveness of amiodarone versus no amiodarone and of pacing versus no pacing, and to compare hospitalization costs of the various strategies.

DESIGN

Piggyback cost analysis of a randomized, 2 x 2 factorial trial.

SETTING

Urban academic hospital.

PATIENTS

One hundred and sixty patients with coronary artery and/or valvular disease.

INTERVENTION

Patients were randomized to receive amiodarone or matching placebo and then further randomized to receive atrial septal pacing or no pacing.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

The economic analysis was conducted from a hospital perspective. Charges were converted to costs using cost:charge ratios. For the cost-effectiveness analysis, a joint distribution of costs and effectiveness was performed using the nonparametric bootstrap method. Amiodarone plus pacing significantly decreased the frequency of atrial fibrillation after open heart surgery, compared with amiodarone alone, pacing alone, and placebo. Total costs (mean+/-SD) were $27,026+/-30,226 for the placebo group, $22,725+/-17,661 for the amiodarone group, $33,868+/-60,309 for the pacing group, and $18,697+/-8174 for the amiodarone plus pacing group (p=0.27). In the joint distribution cost-effectiveness analysis, when compared with placebo, the probability of lower cost but higher effect (superiority) was 67% for amiodarone, 15% for pacing, and 97% for amiodarone plus pacing. In the multivariate analysis, preoperative beta-blockers and amiodarone were negatively associated with hospital costs (p<0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Data suggest that both amiodarone alone and the combination of amiodarone plus pacing are cost-effective compared with placebo. Additional comparative studies of these strategies are warranted to confirm these findings.

Long-Term Comparison of the Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator Versus Amiodarone

Background— The implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) is superior to amiodarone for secondary prophylaxis of sudden cardiac death. However, the magnitude of this benefit over long-term follow-up is not known. Thus, our objective was to evaluate the long-term consequences of using amiodarone versus an ICD as first-line monotherapy in patients with a prior history of sustained ventricular tachycardia/ventricular fibrillation or cardiac arrest.

Methods and Results— A total of 120 patients were enrolled at St Michael’s Hospital in the Canadian Implantable Defibrillator Study (CIDS) and were randomly assigned to receive either amiodarone (n=60) or an ICD (n=60). The treatment strategy was not altered after the end of CIDS unless the initial assigned therapy was not effective or was associated with serious side effects. After a mean follow-up of 5.6±2.6 years, there were 28 deaths (47%) in the amiodarone group, compared with 16 deaths (27%) in the ICD group ( P =0.0213). Total mortality was 5.5% per year in the amiodarone group versus 2.8% per year in the ICD group (hazard ratio of amiodarone: ICD, 2.011; 95% confidence interval, 1.087 to 3.721; P =0.0261). In the amiodarone group, 49 patients (82% of all patients) had side effects related to amiodarone, of which 30 patients (50% of all patients) required discontinuation or dose reduction; 19 patients crossed over to ICD because of amiodarone failure (n=7) or side effects (n=12).

Conclusions— In a subset of CIDS, the benefit of the ICD over amiodarone increases with time; most amiodarone-treated patients eventually develop side effects, have arrhythmia recurrences, or die.

Health care and medication costs and use among older adults with heart failure

BACKGROUND

Heart failure disproportionately affects older adults for whom multiple medications are prescribed to prevent exacerbations and hospitalization. To target interventions effectively, it is important to understand the association of medication acquisition with health care utilization and costs.

METHODS

We used electronic medical records from an urban public health care system to identify patients aged >/=50 years who had a diagnosis of heart failure. We assessed the association between inappropriate or appropriate medication supplies and hospitalization and costs using multivariable analyses that adjusted for demographic characteristics, prior health care use, health status, and insurance status.

RESULTS

Total health care costs for treating 1554 patients with heart failure from 1996 to 2000 were 36.6 million dollars (in 2000 dollars). Less than a third of patients received appropriate medication supplies (between 90% and 110% of the supplies needed) annually. Compared with patients with appropriate supplies, the odds of hospitalization were greater among those with undersupplies (odds ratio [OR] = 3.1; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.3 to 4.2; P <0.0001) or oversupplies (OR = 2.0; 95% CI: 1.7 to 2.4; P <0.0001). Total costs were 25% higher for patients with undersupplies (95% CI: 8% to 46%; P = 0.004) and 18% higher for those with oversupplies (95% CI: 7% to 30%; P = 0.0009) than for those with appropriate supplies.

CONCLUSION

Among adults with heart failure, inappropriate medication supplies were associated with increased hospitalization and higher costs. Monitoring medication supplies from electronic medical records may be a useful component of programs aiming to improve care while managing costs.

Novel approaches to identifying antiarrhythmic drugs

Currently, device therapy with implantable cardioverter-defibrillators is the only proven effective therapy for sudden cardiac death. However, new insights into the mechanisms of ventricular fibrillation, particularly the role of dynamic factors that cause wave instability, are providing conceptual advances toward developing effective new pharmacotherapy.

Cost effectiveness of ibutilide with prophylactic magnesium in the treatment of atrial fibrillation

BACKGROUND

In the Treatment with Ibutilide and Magnesium Evaluation (TIME) study, a retrospective multicentre cohort trial, prophylactic magnesium was found to improve the antiarrhythmic efficacy of ibutilide as demonstrated by an increase in the rate of successful chemical conversion and reduction in the need for direct current cardioversion (DCC).

OBJECTIVE

The primary objective of this piggyback cost-effectiveness analysis of the TIME study was to compare the cost per successful conversion of atrial fibrillation (AF) for ibutilide in the presence and absence of magnesium prophylaxis. A secondary objective was to determine whether specific factors predict costs in the conversion of AF.

METHOD

The study was conducted from the US hospital-payer perspective. Direct medical costs (USD, 2002 values) including drugs, intravenous admixture and administration, DCC, electrocardiographs and physicians' fees were obtained directly from the provider. Nonparametric bootstrapping was conducted to calculate confidence intervals for the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. One-way sensitivity analysis was conducted varying efficacy, and drug, hospital and physician costs. Multivariate analysis was conducted to determine whether specific baseline factors were predictors of total cost.

RESULTS

Total costs per patient were lower in the ibutilide plus magnesium group compared with ibutilide alone (USD1075 vs USD1201); however, the difference was not statistically significant (p = 0.116). Patients receiving ibutilide plus magnesium had lower DCC costs compared with those receiving ibutilide alone (USD261 vs USD399; p = 0.036), but higher magnesium-associated costs (USD0.50 vs USD0; p < 0.001). Bootstrapping revealed that the ibutilide plus magnesium strategy would result in lower costs and greater efficacy 93.4% of the time. These results remained robust to changes in both cost and efficacy. No baseline factors were found to be independent predictors of total costs.

CONCLUSION

Our data suggest that adding prophylactic magnesium to ibutilide may be cost effective, from a US hospital-payer perspective, for the acute conversion of patients in AF or flutter compared with ibutilide alone.