Thirty years of evidence on the efficacy of drug treatments for chronic heart failure with reduced ejection fraction: A network meta-analysis

Treatments that reduce mortality and morbidity in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, including angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEI), angiotensin receptor blockers (ARB), β-blockers (BB), mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRA), and angiotensin receptor–neprilysin inhibitors (ARNI), have not been studied in a head-to-head fashion. This network meta-analysis aimed to compare the efficacy of these drugs and their combinations regarding all-cause mortality in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction

Cost-effectiveness analysis of sacubitril/valsartan vs enalapril in patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction

Importance  The angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor sacubitril/valsartan was associated with a reduction in cardiovascular mortality, all-cause mortality, and hospitalizations compared with enalapril. Sacubitril/valsartan has been approved for use in heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction in the United States and cost has been suggested as 1 factor that will influence the use of this agent. Objective  To estimate the cost-effectiveness of sacubitril/valsartan vs enalapril in the United States. Design, Setting, and Participants  Data from US adults (mean [SD] age, 63.8 [11.5] years) with HF with reduced ejection fraction and characteristics similar to those in the PARADIGM-HF trial were used as inputs for a 2-state Markov model simulated HF. Risks of all-cause mortality and hospitalization from HF or other reasons were estimated with a 30-year time horizon. Quality of life was based on trial EQ-5D scores. Hospital costs combined Medicare and private insurance reimbursement rates; medication costs included the wholesale acquisition cost for sacubitril/valsartan and enalapril. A discount rate of 3% was used. Sensitivity analyses were performed on key inputs including: hospital costs, mortality benefit, hazard ratio for hospitalization reduction, drug costs, and quality-of-life estimates. Main Outcomes and Measures  Hospitalizations, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), costs, and incremental costs per QALY gained. Results  The 2-state Markov model of US adult patients (mean age, 63.8 years) calculated that there would be 220 fewer hospital admissions per 1000 patients with HF treated with sacubitril/valsartan vs enalapril over 30 years. The incremental costs and QALYs gained with sacubitril/valsartan treatment were estimated at $35 512 and 0.78, respectively, compared with enalapril, equating to an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of$45 017 per QALY for the base-case. Sensitivity analyses demonstrated ICERs ranging from $35 357 to$75 301 per QALY. Conclusions and Relevance  For eligible patients with HF with reduced ejection fraction, the Markov model calculated that sacubitril/valsartan would increase life expectancy at an ICER consistent with other high-value accepted cardiovascular interventions. Sensitivity analyses demonstrated sacubitril/valsartan would remain cost-effective vs enalapril

Adv Ther

Purpose To compare visual outcomes and treatment burden between intravitreally administered aflibercept (IVT-AFL) and ranibizumab (RBZ) treat-and-extend (T&E) regimens in patients with wet age-related macular degeneration (wAMD) at 2 years. Methods A systematic literature review was carried out in Medline, EMBASE, and CENTRAL in October 2018. Matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC) and/or individual patient data meta-regression was used to connect ALTAIR (assessing IVT-AFL T&E) with other studies, adjusting for between-trial differences in baseline visual acuity and age or baseline visual acuity, age, and polypoidal choroidal vasculopathy (PCV) status. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to test the robustness of the results, including direct MAIC between IVT-AFL T&E (ALTAIR) and RBZ T&E (CANTREAT and TREX-AMD trials). Results Six randomized controlled trials (RCTs) (ALTAIR, VIEW 1 and 2, CATT, CANTREAT, and TREX) were included in the analysis. IVT-AFL T&E was assessed in one study, ALTAIR (n = 255), while RBZ T&E was assessed in two trials (n = 327). At 2 years, the median difference (95% credibility interval) between IVT-AFL T&E and RBZ T&E regarding the numbers of Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) letters gained was not significant (M1: − 2.29 [− 8.10, 3.58]; M2: − 0.55 [− 6.34, 5.29]). IVT-AFL T&E was associated with significantly fewer injections than RBZ-T&E (M1: − 6.12 [− 7.60, − 4.65]; M2: − 5.93 [− 7.42, − 4.45]). Results of the sensitivity analyses were consistent with the main scenarios. Conclusion Patients with wAMD receiving an IVT-AFL T&E regimen achieved and maintained improvement in visual acuity with fewer injections over 2 years compared with RBZ T&E. IVT-AFL T&E may therefore serve as the optimal therapy for wAMD, as it was associated with clinical efficacy and minimized treatment burden

Cost-effectiveness of sacubitril/valsartan in the treatment of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction.

OBJECTIVE: Chronic heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HF-REF) represents a major public health issue and is associated with considerable morbidity and mortality. We evaluated the cost-effectiveness of sacubitril/valsartan (formerly LCZ696) compared with an ACE inhibitor (ACEI) (enalapril) in the treatment of HF-REF from the perspective of healthcare providers in the UK, Denmark and Colombia. METHODS: A cost-utility analysis was performed based on data from a multinational, Phase III randomised controlled trial. A decision-analytic model was developed based on a series of regression models, which extrapolated health-related quality of life, hospitalisation rates and survival over a lifetime horizon. The primary outcome was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). RESULTS: In the UK, the cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained for sacubitril/valsartan (using cardiovascular mortality) was £17 100 (€20 400) versus enalapril. In Denmark, the ICER for sacubitril/valsartan was Kr 174 000 (€22 600). In Colombia, the ICER was COP$39.5 million (€11 200) per QALY gained. Deterministic sensitivity analysis showed that results were most sensitive to the extrapolation of mortality, duration of treatment effect and time horizon, but were robust to other structural changes, with most scenarios associated with ICERs below the willingness-to-pay threshold for all three country settings. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis suggested the probability that sacubitril/valsartan was cost-effective at conventional willingness-to-pay thresholds was 68%-94% in the UK, 84% in Denmark and 95% in Colombia. CONCLUSIONS: Our analysis suggests that, in all three countries, sacubitril/valsartan is likely to be cost-effective compared with an ACEI (the current standard of care) in patients with HF-REF

Cost-effectiveness of sacubitril/valsartan in chronic heart-failure patients with reduced ejection fraction

We aimed to assess the cost effectiveness of sacubitril/valsartan compared to angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) for the treatment of individuals with chronic heart failure and reduced-ejection fraction (HFrEF) from the perspective of the Swiss health care system.; The cost-effectiveness analysis was implemented as a lifelong regression-based cohort model. We compared sacubitril/valsartan with enalapril in chronic heart failure patients with HFrEF and New York-Heart Association Functional Classification II-IV symptoms. Regression models based on the randomised clinical phase III PARADIGM-HF trials were used to predict events (all-cause mortality, hospitalisations, adverse events and quality of life) for each treatment strategy modelled over the lifetime horizon, with adjustments for patient characteristics. Unit costs were obtained from Swiss public sources for the year 2014, and costs and effects were discounted by 3%. The main outcome of interest was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), expressed as cost per quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained. Deterministic sensitivity analysis (DSA) and scenario and probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) were performed.; In the base-case analysis, the sacubitril/valsartan strategy showed a decrease in the number of hospitalisations (6.0% per year absolute reduction) and lifetime hospital costs by 8.0% (discounted) when compared with enalapril. Sacubitril/valsartan was predicted to improve overall and quality-adjusted survival by 0.50 years and 0.42 QALYs, respectively. Additional net-total costs were CHF 10 926. This led to an ICER of CHF 25 684. In PSA, the probability of sacubitril/valsartan being cost-effective at thresholds of CHF 50 000 was 99.0%.; The treatment of HFrEF patients with sacubitril/valsartan versus enalapril is cost effective, if a willingness-to-pay threshold of CHF 50 000 per QALY gained ratio is assumed

The Caregiver Burden Questionnaire for Heart Failure (CBQ-HF) : face and content validity

Background A new caregiver burden questionnaire for heart failure (CBQ-HF v1.0) was developed based on previously conducted qualitative interviews with HF caregivers and with input from HF clinical experts. Version 1.0 of the CBQ-HF included 41 items measuring the burden associated with caregiving in the following domains: physical, emotional/psychological, social, and impact on caregiver’s life. Following initial development, the next stage was to evaluate caregivers’ understanding of the questionnaire items and their conceptual relevance. Methods To evaluate the face and content validity of the new questionnaire, cognitive interviews were conducted with caregivers of heart failure patients. The cognitive interviews included a “think aloud” exercise as the patient completed the CBQ-HF, followed by more specific probing questions to better understand caregivers’ understanding, interpretation and the relevance of the instructions, items, response scales and recall period. Results Eighteen caregivers of heart failure patients were recruited. The mean age of the caregivers was 50 years (SD = 10.2). Eighty-three percent of caregivers were female and most commonly the patient was either a spouse (44%) or a parent (28%). Among the patients 55% were NYHA Class 2 and 45% were NYHA Class 3 or 4. The caregiver cognitive interviews demonstrated that the CBQ-HF was well understood, relevant and consistently interpreted. From the initial 41 item questionnaire, fifteen items were deleted due to conceptual overlap and/or item redundancy. The final 26-item CBQ-HF (v3.0) uses a 5-point Likert severity scale, assessing 4 domains of physical, emotional/psychological, social and lifestyle burdens using a 4-week recall period. Conclusions The CBQ-HF (v3.0) is a comprehensive and relevant measure of subjective caregiver burden with strong content validity. This study has established that the CBQ-HF (v3.0) has strong face and content validity and should be valuable as an outcomes measure to help understand and monitor the relationship between patient heart failure severity and caregiver burden. A Translatability AssessmentSM of the measure has since been performed confirming the cultural appropriateness of the measure and psychometric validation is planned for the future to further explore the reliability, and validity of the new questionnaire in a larger caregiver sample

The Caregiver Burden Questionnaire for Heart Failure (CBQ-HF) : face and content validity

Background A new caregiver burden questionnaire for heart failure (CBQ-HF v1.0) was developed based on previously conducted qualitative interviews with HF caregivers and with input from HF clinical experts. Version 1.0 of the CBQ-HF included 41 items measuring the burden associated with caregiving in the following domains: physical, emotional/psychological, social, and impact on caregiver’s life. Following initial development, the next stage was to evaluate caregivers’ understanding of the questionnaire items and their conceptual relevance. Methods To evaluate the face and content validity of the new questionnaire, cognitive interviews were conducted with caregivers of heart failure patients. The cognitive interviews included a “think aloud” exercise as the patient completed the CBQ-HF, followed by more specific probing questions to better understand caregivers’ understanding, interpretation and the relevance of the instructions, items, response scales and recall period. Results Eighteen caregivers of heart failure patients were recruited. The mean age of the caregivers was 50 years (SD = 10.2). Eighty-three percent of caregivers were female and most commonly the patient was either a spouse (44%) or a parent (28%). Among the patients 55% were NYHA Class 2 and 45% were NYHA Class 3 or 4. The caregiver cognitive interviews demonstrated that the CBQ-HF was well understood, relevant and consistently interpreted. From the initial 41 item questionnaire, fifteen items were deleted due to conceptual overlap and/or item redundancy. The final 26-item CBQ-HF (v3.0) uses a 5-point Likert severity scale, assessing 4 domains of physical, emotional/psychological, social and lifestyle burdens using a 4-week recall period. Conclusions The CBQ-HF (v3.0) is a comprehensive and relevant measure of subjective caregiver burden with strong content validity. This study has established that the CBQ-HF (v3.0) has strong face and content validity and should be valuable as an outcomes measure to help understand and monitor the relationship between patient heart failure severity and caregiver burden. A Translatability AssessmentSM of the measure has since been performed confirming the cultural appropriateness of the measure and psychometric validation is planned for the future to further explore the reliability, and validity of the new questionnaire in a larger caregiver sample

Psychometric validation of the heart failure caregiver questionnaire (HF-CQ)

Background: The Heart Failure Caregiver Questionnaire (HF-CQ®) was developed to assess subjective outcomes of heart failure caregivers. The HF-CQ® comprises 21 questions on three domains, namely physical, emotional/psychological and lifestyle. The objective of this study was to evaluate the psychometric properties of the HF-CQ®. Methods: Patients (n = 150) with heart failure and their primary caregivers (n = 150) were recruited from 11 sites in USA. Caregivers completed the HF-CQ® and additional questionnaires, namely Caregiver Reaction Assessment, Work Productivity and Activity Impairment questionnaire, EuroQol-5 domain, and the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale. Patient-completed Global Impression of Severity, construct validity, concurrent validity, reliability and responsiveness of the HF-CQ® were also assessed. Results: In the physical and lifestyle domains, all items showed acceptable validity. No high correlations between HF-CQ® scores and other caregiver-completed instruments, including the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, Work Productivity and Activity Impairment questionnaire, EuroQol-5 domain or Caregiver Reaction Assessment, were reported. The intra-class correlation coefficient exceeded the threshold for reliability ( > 0.7) across the physical well-being (0.785), emotional/psychological (0.797), lifestyle (0.787) and total scores (0.850), indicating acceptable reliability. Internal consistency results using Cronbach’s alpha showed the total aggregate score of 0.942 to be reliable. In the responsiveness analyses, each of the three scales and the total score showed responsiveness to changes defined by the Caregiver Global Impression of Severity. The overall caregiver burden score increased with increased severity of illness in the cared-for patients. Conclusions: The study provides initial evidence for the acceptable validity of the HF-CQ® as an instrument to measure heart failure caregiver burden