Economic consequences of investing in anti-HCV antiviral treatment from the Italian NHS perspective : a real-world-based analysis of PITER data

OBJECTIVE: We estimated the cost consequence of Italian National Health System (NHS) investment in direct-acting antiviral (DAA) therapy according to hepatitis C virus (HCV) treatment access policies in Italy. METHODS: A multistate, 20-year time horizon Markov model of HCV liver disease progression was developed. Fibrosis stage, age and genotype distributions were derived from the Italian Platform for the Study of Viral Hepatitis Therapies (PITER) cohort. The treatment efficacy, disease progression probabilities and direct costs in each health state were obtained from the literature. The break-even point in time (BPT) was defined as the period of time required for the cumulative costs saved to recover the Italian NHS investment in DAA treatment. Three different PITER enrolment periods, which covered the full DAA access evolution in Italy, were considered. RESULTS: The disease stages of 2657 patients who consecutively underwent DAA therapy from January 2015 to December 2017 at 30 PITER clinical centres were standardized for 1000 patients. The investment in DAAs was considered to equal €25 million, €15 million, and €9 million in 2015, 2016, and 2017, respectively. For patients treated in 2015, the BPT was not achieved, because of the disease severity of the treated patients and high DAA prices. For 2016 and 2017, the estimated BPTs were 6.6 and 6.2 years, respectively. The total cost savings after 20 years were €50.13 and €55.50 million for 1000 patients treated in 2016 and 2017, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: This study may be a useful tool for public decision makers to understand how HCV clinical and epidemiological profiles influence the economic burden of HCV

L'Italia come modello per l'Europa e per il mondo nelle politiche sanitarie per il trattamento dell'epatite cronica da HCV

The World Health Organization foresees the elimination of HCV infection by 2030. In light of this and the curre nt, nearly worldwide, restriction in direct-acting agents (DAA) accessibility due to their high price, we aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of two alternative DAA treatment policies: Policy 1 (universal): treat all patients, regardless of the fibrosis stage; Policy 2 (prioritized): treat only priori tized patients and delay treatment of the remaining patients until reaching stage F3. T he model was based on patient’s data from the PITER cohort. We demonstrated that extending HC V treatment of patients in any fibrosis stage improves health outcomes and is cost-effective

Prognostic impact of the updated 2018 HFA-ESC definition of advanced heart failure: results from the HELP-HF registry

Aims The Heart Failure Association of the European Society of Cardiology (HFA-ESC) proposed a definition of advanced heart failure (HF) that has not been validated, yet. We assessed its prognostic impact in a consecutive series of patients with high-risk HF. Methods and results The HELP-HF registry enrolled consecutive patients with HF and at least one high-risk 'I NEED HELP' marker, evaluated at four Italian centres between 1(st) January 2020 and 30(th) November 2021. Patients meeting the HFA-ESC advanced HF definition were compared to patients not meeting this definition. The primary endpoint was the composite of all-cause mortality or first HF hospitalization. Out of 4753 patients with HF screened, 1149 (24.3%) patients with at least one high-risk 'I NEED HELP' marker were included (mean age 75.1 +/- 11.5 years, 67.3% male, median left ventricular ejection fraction [LVEF] 35% [interquartile range 25%-50%]). Among them, 193 (16.8%) patients met the HFA-ESC advanced HF definition. As compared to others, these patients were younger, had lower LVEF, higher natriuretic peptides and a worse clinical profile. The 1-year rate of the primary endpoint was 69.3% in patients with advanced HF according to the HFA-ESC definition versus 41.8% in the others (hazard ratio [HR] 2.23, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.82-2.74, p < 0.001). The prognostic impact of the HFA-ESC advanced HF definition was confirmed after multivariable adjustment for relevant covariates (adjusted HR 1.98, 95% CI 1.57-2.50, p < 0.001). Conclusions The HFA-ESC advanced HF definition had a strong prognostic impact in a contemporary, real-world, multicentre high-risk cohort of patients with HF

Clinical burden and predictors of non-cardiovascular mortality and morbidity in advanced heart failure

Background: The changing demographic of heart failure (HF) increases the exposure to non-cardiovascular (non-CV) events. We investigated the distribution of non-CV mortality/morbidity and the characteristics associated with higher risk of non-CV events in patients with advanced HF. Methods: Patients from the HELP-HF registry were stratified according to the number of 2018 HFA-ESC criteria for advanced HF. Endpoints were non-CV mortality and non-CV hospitalization. Competing risk analyses were performed assessing the association between HFA-ESC criteria and study outcomes and the additional predictors of non-CV endpoints. Results: 1149 patients were included (median age 77 years -IQR 69-83). At 6, 12, 18 and 22 months, cumulative incidence of CV vs non-CV mortality was 13% vs 5%, 17% vs 8%, 20% vs 12%, 23% vs 12%, and of CV vs non-CV hospitalization was 26% vs 11%, 38% vs 17%, 45% vs 20%, 50% vs 21%. HFA-ESC criteria were associated with increasing adjusted risk of CV death, whereas no association was observed for CV hospitalization, non-CV death and non-CV hospitalization. Predictors of non-CV death were age, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, dementia, preserved ejection fraction, >1 HF hospitalization and hemoglobin. Conclusions: Patients with advanced HF are exposed to high, even though not predominant, burden of non-CV outcomes. HFA-ESC criteria aid to stratify the risk of CV death, but are not associated with lower competing risk of non-CV outcomes. Alternative factors can be useful to define the patients with advanced HF at risk of non-CV events in order to better select patients for treatments specifically reducing CV risk

Role of ejection fraction in patients at risk for advanced heart failure: insights from the HELP-HF registry

Aims: Patients with heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction (EF) (HFrEF), mildly reduced EF (HFmrEF), and preserved EF (HFpEF) may all progress to advanced HF, but the impact of EF in the advanced setting is not well established. Our aim was to assess the prognostic impact of EF in patients with at least one 'I NEED HELP' marker for advanced HF.Methods and results: Patients with HF and at least one high-risk 'I NEED HELP' criterion from four centres were included in this analysis. Outcomes were assessed in patients with HFrEF (EF = 50%) and with EF analysed as a continuous variable. The prognostic impact of medical therapy for HF in patients with EF 50% was also evaluated. All-cause death was the primary endpoint, and cardiovascular death was a secondary endpoint. Among 1149 patients enrolled [mean age 75.1 +/- 11.5 years, 67.3% males, 67.6% hospitalized, median follow-up 260 days (inter-quartile range 105-390 days)], HFrEF, HFmrEF, and HFpEF were observed in 699 (60.8%), 122 (10.6%), and 328 (28.6%) patients, and 1 year mortality was 28.3%, 26.2%, and 20.1, respectively (log-rank P = 0.036). As compared with HFrEF patients, HFpEF patients had a lower risk of all-cause death [adjusted hazard ratio (HRadj ) 0.67, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.48-0.94, P = 0.022], whereas no difference was noted for HFmrEF patients. After multivariable adjustment, a lower risk of all-cause death (HRadj for 5% increase 0.94, 95% CI 0.89-0.99, P = 0.017) and cardiovascular death (HRadj for 5% increase 0.94, 95% CI 0.88-1.00, P = 0.049) was observed at higher EF values. Beta-blockers and renin-angiotensin system inhibitors or sacubitril/valsartan were associated with lower mortality in both EF = 50% groups.Conclusions: Among patients with HF and at least one 'I NEED HELP' marker for advanced HF, left ventricular EF is still of prognostic value

Ischemic Etiology in Advanced Heart Failure: Insight from the HELP-HF Registry

: In patients with advanced heart failure (HF), defined according to the presence of at least one I-NEED-HELP criterium, the updated 2018 Heart Failure Association of the European Society of Cardiology (HFA-ESC) criteria for advanced HF identify a subgroup of patients with HF with worse prognosis, but whether ischemic etiology has a relevant prognostic impact in this very high-risk cohort is unknown. Patients from the HELP-HF registry were stratified according to ischemic etiology and presence of advanced HF based on 2018 HFA-ESC criteria. The primary end point was a composite of all-cause death and HF hospitalization at 1 year. Secondary end points were all-cause death, HF hospitalization, and cardiovascular death at 1 year. Ischemic etiology was a leading cause of HF, in both patients with advanced and nonadvanced HF (46.1% and 42.4%, respectively, p = 0.337). The risk of the primary end point (hazard ratio [HR] 1.31, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.09 to 1.58) and all-cause mortality (HR 1.37, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.76) was increased in ischemic as compared with nonischemic patients. The risk of the primary end point was consistently higher in ischemic patients in both patients with advanced and nonadvanced HF (advanced HF, HR 1.50 95% CI 1.04 to 2.16; nonadvanced HF, HR 1.25 95% CI 1.01 to 1.56, pinteraction = 0.333), driven by an increased risk of mortality, mainly because of cardiovascular causes. In conclusion, ischemic etiology is the most common cause of HF in patients with at least one I-NEED-HELP marker and with or without advanced HF as defined by the 2018 HFA-ESC definition. In both patients with advanced and not-advanced HF, ischemic etiology carried an increased risk of worse prognosis

Guideline-directed medical therapy in severe heart failure with reduced ejection fraction: an analysis from the HELP-HF registry

Aim: Persistent symptoms despite guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) and poor tolerance of GDMT are hallmarks of patients with advanced heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). However, real-world data on GDMT use, dose, and prognostic implications are lacking. Methods and results: We included 699 consecutive patients with HFrEF and at least one 'I NEED HELP' marker for advanced HF enrolled in a multicentre registry. Beta-blockers (BB) were administered to 574 (82%) patients, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, angiotensin receptor blockers or angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitors (ACEi/ARB/ARNI) were administered to 381 (55%) patients and 416 (60%) received mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRA). Overall, ≥50% of target doses were reached in 41%, 22%, and 56% of the patients on BB, ACEi/ARB/ARNI and MRA, respectively. Hypotension, bradycardia, kidney dysfunction and hyperkalaemia were the main causes of underprescription and/or underdosing, but up to a half of the patients did not receive target doses for unknown causes (51%, 41%, and 55% for BB, ACEi/ARB/ARNI and MRA, respectively). The proportions of patients receiving BB and ACEi/ARB/ARNI were lower among those fulfilling the 2018 HFA-ESC criteria for advanced HF. Treatment with BB and ACEi/ARB/ARNI were associated with a lower risk of death or HF hospitalizations (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 0.63, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.48-0.84, and HR 0.74, 95% CI 0.58-0.95, respectively). Conclusions: In a large, real-world, contemporary cohort of patients with severe HFrEF, with at least one marker for advanced HF, prescription and uptitration of GDMT remained limited. A significant proportion of patients were undertreated due to unknown reasons suggesting a potential role of clinical inertia either by the prescribing healthcare professional or by the patient. Treatment with BB and ACEi/ARB/ARNI was associated with lower mortality/morbidity

Detailed Assessment of the "I Need Help" Criteria in Patients With Heart Failure: Insights From the HELP-HF Registry

Background: The "I Need Help" markers have been proposed to identify patients with advanced heart failure (HF). We evaluated the prognostic impact of these markers on clinical outcomes in a real-world, contemporary, multicenter HF population. Methods: We included consecutive patients with HF and at least 1 high-risk "I Need Help" marker from 4 centers. The impact of the cumulative number of "I Need Help" criteria and that of each individual "I Need Help" criterion was evaluated. The primary end point was the composite of all-cause mortality or first HF hospitalization. Results: Among 1149 patients enrolled, the majority had 2 (30.9%) or 3 (22.6%) "I Need Help" criteria. A higher cumulative number of "I Need Help" criteria was independently associated with a higher risk of the primary end point (adjusted hazard ratio for each criterion increase, 1.19 [95% CI, 1.11-1.27]; P5 criteria had the worst prognosis. Need of inotropes, persistently high New York Heart Association classes III and IV or natriuretic peptides, end-organ dysfunction, >1 HF hospitalization in the last year, persisting fluid overload or escalating diuretics, and low blood pressure were the individual criteria independently associated with a higher risk of the primary end point. Conclusions: In our HF population, a higher number of "I Need Help" criteria was associated with a worse prognosis. The individual criteria with an independent impact on mortality or HF hospitalization were need of inotropes, New York Heart Association class or natriuretic peptides, end-organ dysfunction, multiple HF hospitalizations, persisting edema or escalating diuretics, and low blood pressure

[Italian Society of Cardiology-Italian Society of Nephrology Consensus document: The cardio-renal interaction in the prevention and treatment of cardiovascular diseases - Part II: From preventive strategies to treatment of patients with cardio-renal damage]

Chronic kidney disease and cardiovascular disease are strictly connected each other with a bidirectional interaction. Thus, the prevention of cardio-renal damage, as its appropriate treatment, are essential steps for a correct management of long-term patients' prognosis. Several preventive and therapeutic strategies, pharmacological and not, are now available for cardio-renal damage prevention and treatment, and for the management of its complications. The second part of this consensus document focuses on the management and treatment of cardio-renal damage, directing the attention on the correct use of drugs that may slow renal disease progression, on the application of preventive strategies in case of invasive cardiac procedures with the use of contrast agents, and on the accurate use of cardiological drugs in patients with chronic kidney disease

[Italian Society of Cardiology-Italian Society of Nephrology Consensus document: The cardio-renal interaction in the prevention and treatment of cardiovascular diseases - Part I: From cardiovascular risk factors to the mechanisms of cardio-renal syndrome]

Chronic kidney disease (CKD) and cardiovascular (CV) disease are highly prevalent conditions in the general population and are strictly connected to each other with a bidirectional interaction. In patients affected by CKD, the leading cause of morbidity and mortality is represented by CV disease, since CKD promotes the atherosclerotic process increasing inflammation, and modifying lipid and bone mineral metabolism. On the other side, a strict relationship exists between CKD and CV risk factors, which are prevalent in nephropathic patients and impose a stringent assessment of the risk of CV events in this population together with an optimized pharmacological approach, complicated by the coexistence of the two pathological conditions. The first part of this consensus document focuses on the mechanisms of cardio-renal damage and on the impact, as well as the management, of the main CV risk factors in the context of CKD