The State of the University of Connecticut Health Center

Academic medical centers represent the integration of education, namely schools of medicine and dental medicine, research, often through a biomedical sciences graduate program, and a clinical experience, often supplied with an onsite hospital. These medical centers involve an intricate mix of individuals and personalities, making their operation a difficult and sometimes daunting task. The University of Connecticut Health Center (UCHC) financial struggles have created a new opportunity, an affiliation with Hartford Healthcare, which will equip the UCHC with a major tertiary care University Hospital. This thesis intends to provide an analysis of the challenges and potential benefits of such a partnership. It is focused on the impact to the medical school’s academic mission and involves a comprehensive look at John Dempsey Hospital (JDH) finances, governance, and employee matters. The research concludes that such an affiliation is necessary to change the healthcare landscape of the region and transform the UCHC into a top medical driver of the Connecticut economy. It intends to show how the status quo is no longer an acceptable option

Cost and value in contemporary heart failure clinical guidance documents

OBJECTIVES: This study sought to evaluate the frequency and nature of cost/value statements in contemporary heart failure (HF) clinical guidance documents (CGDs). BACKGROUND: In an era of rising health care costs and expanding therapeutic options, there is an increasing need for formal consideration of cost and value in the development of HF CGDs. METHODS: HF CGDs published by major professional cardiovascular organizations between January 2010 and February 2021 were reviewed for the inclusion of cost/value statements. RESULTS: Overall, 33 documents were identified, including 5 (15%) appropriate use criteria, 7 (21%) clinical practice guidelines, and 21 (64%) expert consensus documents. Most CGDs (27 of 33; 82%) included at least 1 cost/value statement, and 20 (61%) CGDs included at least 1 cost/value-related citation. Most of these statements were found in expert consensus documents (77.7%). Three (9%) documents reported estimated costs of recommended interventions, but only 1 estimated out-of-pocket cost. Of 179 cost/value-related statements observed, 116 (64.8%) highlighted the economic impact of HF or HF-related care, 6 (3.4%) advocated for cost/value issues, 15 (8.4%) reported gaps in cost/value evidence, and 42 (23.5%) supported clinical guidance recommendations. Over time, patterns of inclusion of statements and citations of cost/value have been largely stable. CONCLUSIONS: Although most contemporary HF CGDs contain at least 1 cost/value statement, most CGDs focus on the high economic impact of HF and its related care; explicit inclusion of cost/value to support clinical guidance recommendations remains infrequent. These results highlight key opportunities for the integration of formalized cost/value considerations in future HF-focused CGDs

Cost effectiveness of dapagliflozin for heart failure across the spectrum of ejection fraction: an economic evaluation based on pooled, individual participant data from the DELIVER and DAPA-HF trials

Background The sodium glucose cotransporter‐2 inhibitors are guideline‐recommended to treat heart failure across the spectrum of left ventricular ejection fraction; however, economic evaluations of adding sodium glucose cotransporter‐2 inhibitors to standard of care in chronic heart failure across a broad left ventricular ejection fraction range are lacking. Methods and Results We conducted a US‐based cost‐effectiveness analysis of dapagliflozin added to standard of care in a chronic heart failure population using pooled, participant data from the DAPA‐HF (Dapagliflozin and Prevention of Adverse Outcomes in Heart Failure) and DELIVER (Dapagliflozin Evaluation to Improve the Lives of Patients With Preserved Ejection Fraction Heart Failure) trials. The 3‐state Markov model used estimates of transitional probabilities, effectiveness of dapagliflozin, and utilities from the pooled trials. Costs estimates were obtained from published sources, including published rebates in dapagliflozin cost. Adding dapagliflozin to standard of care was estimated to produce an additional 0.53 quality‐adjusted life years (QALYs) compared with standard of care alone. Incremental cost effectiveness ratios were $85 554/QALY when using the publicly reported full (undiscounted) Medicare cost ($515/month) and $40 081/QALY, at a published nearly 50$263/month). The addition of dapagliflozin to standard of care would be of at least intermediate value (&lt;150 000/QALY) at a cost of <872.58/month, of high value (&lt;50 000/QALY) at <317.66/month, and cost saving at &lt;$40.25/month. Dapagliflozin was of at least intermediate value in 92% of simulations when using the full (undiscounted) Medicare list cost in probabilistic sensitivity analyses. Cost effectiveness was most sensitive to the dapagliflozin cost and the effect on cardiovascular death. Conclusions The addition of dapagliflozin to standard of care in patients with heart failure across the spectrum of ejection fraction was at least of intermediate value at the undiscounted Medicare cost and may be potentially of higher value on the basis of the level of discount, rebates, and price negotiations offered

Incidence and outcomes of pneumonia in patients with heart failure

Background: The incidence of pneumonia and subsequent outcomes has not been compared in patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). Objectives: This study aimed to examine the rate and impact of pneumonia in the PARADIGM-HF (Prospective Comparison of Angiotensin Receptor-Neprilysin Inhibitor With Angiotensin Converting Enzyme Inhibitor to Determine Impact on Global Mortality and Morbidity in Heart Failure) and PARAGON-HF (Prospective Comparison of ARNI with ARB Global Outcomes in Heart Failure with Preserved Ejection Fraction) trials. Methods: The authors analyzed the incidence of investigator-reported pneumonia and the rates of HF hospitalization, cardiovascular death, and all-cause death before and after the occurrence of pneumonia, and estimated risk after the first occurrence of pneumonia in unadjusted and adjusted analyses (the latter including N-terminal pro–B-type natriuretic peptide). Results: In PARADIGM-HF, 528 patients (6.3%) developed pneumonia after randomization, giving an incidence rate of 29 (95% CI: 27 to 32) per 1,000 patient-years. In PARAGON-HF, 510 patients (10.6%) developed pneumonia, giving an incidence rate of 39 (95% CI: 36 to 42) per 1,000 patient-years. The subsequent risk of all trial outcomes was elevated after the occurrence of pneumonia. In PARADIGM-HF, the adjusted hazard ratio (HR) for the risk of death from any cause was 4.34 (95% CI: 3.73 to 5.05). The corresponding adjusted HR in PARAGON-HF was 3.76 (95% CI: 3.09 to 4.58). Conclusions: The incidence of pneumonia was high in patients with HF, especially HFpEF, at around 3 times the expected rate. A first episode of pneumonia was associated with 4-fold higher mortality. (Prospective Comparison of Angiotensin Receptor–Neprilysin Inhibitor With Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitor to Determine Impact on Global Mortality and Morbidity in Heart Failure [PARADIGM-HF], NCT01035255; Prospective Comparison of ARNI [Angiotensin Receptor–Neprilysin Inhibitor] With ARB [Angiotensin Receptor Blocker] Global Outcomes in Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction [PARAGON-HF], NCT01920711

Conduct of clinical trials in the era of COVID-19: JACC scientific expert panel

The coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has profoundly changed clinical care and research, including the conduct of clinical trials, and the clinical research ecosystem will need to adapt to this transformed environment. The Heart Failure Academic Research Consortium is a partnership between the Heart Failure Collaboratory and the Academic Research Consortium, composed of academic investigators from the United States and Europe, patients, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, the National Institutes of Health, and industry members. A series of meetings were convened to address the challenges caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, review options for maintaining or altering best practices, and establish key recommendations for the conduct and analysis of clinical trials for cardiovascular disease and heart failure. This paper summarizes the discussions and expert consensus recommendations

Treatment effects of sacubitril/valsartan compared with valsartan in patients with recent hospitalization

No abstract available

Potential implications of expanded US Food and Drug Administration labeling for sacubitril/valsartan in the US

Importance: The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) expanded labeling for sacubitril/valsartan for use in individuals with chronic heart failure (HF) with left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) lower than normal. The population-level implications of implementation of sacubitril/valsartan at higher LVEF ranges is unknown. While the Prospective Comparison of ARNI With ARB Global Outcomes in HF With Preserved Ejection Fraction (PARAGON-HF) trial did not meet its primary end point, the trial may provide useful information in projecting expected clinical events among treated individuals. Objective: To quantify newly eligible treatment candidates for sacubitril/valsartan under the expanded FDA labeling and to apply treatment effects and the number needed to treat (NNT) to prevent 1 worsening HF event derived from subgroups of the PARAGON-HF trial who fall under the revised FDA label. Design, Setting, and Participants: Newly eligible treatment candidates were estimated by mapping the LVEF distribution from 559 520 adult patients hospitalized between 2014 and 2019 in the Get With The Guidelines–Heart Failure registry to adults self-identifying with HF in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (2015 to 2018). The NNT with 3 years of treatment for 3 end points of interest (total HF hospitalizations, total HF hospitalizations and cardiovascular death, and total HF hospitalizations and urgent HF visits and cardiovascular death) were estimated from the PARAGON-HF trial. Data were analyzed from February to June 2021. Main Outcomes and Measures: Number of worsening HF events prevented or postponed if eligible patients were treated with sacubitril/valsartan for 3 years. Results: Of an estimated 4 682 098 adults, the mean (SE) age was 66.3 (0.8) years, 1 995 037 (42.6%) were women, and 748 045 (16.0%) were Black. The potential number of adults projected to be newly eligible varied by the definition of FDA labeling of lower than normal LVEF from 643 161 (95% CI, 534 433-751 888; LVEF of 41% to 50%) to 1 838 756 (95% CI, 1 527 911-2 149 601; LVEF of 41% to 60%). In the PARAGON-HF trial, the NNT to prevent a worsening HF event (range, 7 to 12 patients) was consistent irrespective of specific LVEF range selected. Comprehensive implementation of sacubitril/valsartan among newly eligible patients was empirically estimated to prevent up to 69 268 (95% CI, 57 558-80 978) worsening HF events (LVEF of 41% to 50%) to 182 592 (95% CI, 151 725-213 460) worsening HF events (LVEF of 41% to 60%). Conclusions and Relevance: The expanded FDA labeling is positioned to substantially increase the potential HF population eligible for sacubitril/valsartan by up to 1.8 million individuals and has the potential to prevent or postpone as many as 180 000 worsening HF events, depending on the definition of normal LVEF

Health and economic evaluation of sacubitril-valsartan for heart failure management

Importance: The US Food and Drug Administration expanded labeling of sacubitril-valsartan from the treatment of patients with chronic heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction (EF) to all patients with HF, noting the greatest benefits in those with below-normal EF. However, the upper bound of below normal is not clearly defined, and value determinations across a broader EF range are unknown. Objective: To estimate the cost-effectiveness of sacubitril-valsartan vs renin-angiotensin system inhibitors (RASis) across various upper-level cutoffs of EF. Design, Setting, and Participants: This economic evaluation included participant-level data from the PARADIGM-HF (Prospective Comparison of ARNI With ACEI to Determine Impact on Global Mortality and Morbidity in Heart Failure) and the PARAGON-HF (Prospective Comparison of ARNi with ARB Global Outcomes in HF With Preserved Ejection Fraction) trials. PARADIGM-HF was conducted between 2009 and 2014, PARAGON-HF was conducted between 2014 and 2019, and this analysis was conducted between 2021 and 2023. Main Outcomes and Measures: A 5-state Markov model used risk reductions for all-cause mortality and HF hospitalization from PARADIGM-HF and PARAGON-HF. Quality-of-life differences were estimated from EuroQol-5D scores. Hospitalization and medication costs were obtained from published national sources; the wholesale acquisition cost of sacubitril-valsartan was $7092 per year. Risk estimates and treatment effects were generated in consecutive 5 Results: Among 13 264 total patients whose data were analyzed, for those with EFs of 60$40 892 compared with RASi, yielding an ICER of $76 852 per QALY. In a probabilistic sensitivity analysis, 95$71 516 and $82 970 per QALY. Among patients with chronic HF and an EF of 60$180 000 per QALY) at a sacubitril-valsartan cost of 10 242 or less per year, of high economic value (ICER <60 000 per QALY) at a cost of $3673 or less per year, and cost-saving at a cost of$338 or less per year. The ICERs were $67 331 per QALY,$59 614 per QALY, and $56 786 per QALY at EFs of 55$127 172 per QALY gained; treatment was more cost-effective in those at the lower end of this range (ICER of $100 388 per QALY gained for those with EFs of 45$84 291 per QALY gained for those with EFs of 45%-50%). Conclusions and Relevance: Cost-effectiveness modeling provided an ICER for treatment with sacubitril-valsartan vs RASis consistent with high economic value for patients with reduced and mildly reduced EFs (≤50%) and at least intermediate value at the current undiscounted wholesale acquisition cost price at an EF of 60% or less. Treatment was more cost-effective at lower EF ranges. These findings may have implications for coverage decisions and value assessments in contemporary clinical practice guidelines

Effect of Dapagliflozin on Health Status in Patients With Preserved or Mildly Reduced Ejection Fraction

Background: Patients with heart failure with mildly reduced ejection fraction (HFmrEF) and heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) experience a high burden of symptoms, physical limitations, and poor quality of life; improving health status is a key goal of management. Objectives: In a prespecified analysis of the DELIVER (Dapagliflozin Evaluation to Improve the Lives of Patients With Preserved Ejection Fraction Heart Failure) trial, we examine effects of dapagliflozin on health status using the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ). Methods: The DELIVER trial randomized patients with symptomatic HFmrEF/HFpEF to dapagliflozin 10 mg or placebo. KCCQ was evaluated at randomization, 1, 4, and 8 months; KCCQ Total Symptom Score (TSS) was a key secondary endpoint. Patients were stratified by KCCQ-TSS tertiles; Cox models examined effects of dapagliflozin on clinical outcomes. We evaluated the effects of dapagliflozin on KCCQ-TSS, Physical Limitations (PLS), Clinical Summary (CSS), and Overall Summary (OSS) domains. Responder analyses compared proportions of dapagliflozin vs placebo-treated patients with clinically meaningful changes in KCCQ. Results: A total of 5,795 patients had baseline KCCQ (median KCCQ-TSS 72.9). The effects of dapagliflozin on reducing cardiovascular death/worsening HF appeared more pronounced in patients with greater baseline symptom burden (lowest-to-highest KCCQ-TSS tertile: HR: 0.70 [95% CI: 0.58-0.84]; 0.81 [95% CI: 0.65-1.01]; 1.07 [95% CI: 0.83-1.37]; Pinteraction = 0.026). Dapagliflozin improved KCCQ-TSS, -PLS, -CSS, and -OSS at 8 months (2.4, 1.9, 2.3, and 2.1 points higher vs placebo; P &lt; 0.001 for all). Dapagliflozin-treated patients experienced improvements in KCCQ-TSS regardless of EF (Pinteraction = 0.85). Fewer dapagliflozin-treated patients had deterioration, and more had improvements in all KCCQ domains at 8 months. Conclusions: The clinical benefits of dapagliflozin in HFmrEF/HFpEF appear especially pronounced in those with greater baseline symptom impairment. Dapagliflozin improved all KCCQ domains and the proportion of patients experiencing clinically meaningful changes in health status.</p