Reduced costs with bisoprolol treatment for heart failure - An economic analysis of the second Cardiac Insufficiency Bisoprolol Study (CIBIS-II)

Background Beta-blockers, used as an adjunctive to diuretics, digoxin and angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors, improve survival in chronic heart failure. We report a prospectively planned economic analysis of the cost of adjunctive beta-blocker therapy in the second Cardiac Insufficiency BIsoprolol Study (CIBIS II). Methods Resource utilization data (drug therapy, number of hospital admissions, length of hospital stay, ward type) were collected prospectively in all patients in CIBIS . These data were used to determine the additional direct costs incurred, and savings made, with bisoprolol therapy. As well as the cost of the drug, additional costs related to bisoprolol therapy were added to cover the supervision of treatment initiation and titration (four outpatient clinic/office visits). Per them (hospital bed day) costings were carried out for France, Germany and the U.K. Diagnosis related group costings were performed for France and the U.K. Our analyses took the perspective of a third party payer in France and Germany and the National Health Service in the U.K. Results Overall, fewer patients were hospitalized in the bisoprolol group, there were fewer hospital admissions perpatient hospitalized, fewer hospital admissions overall, fewer days spent in hospital and fewer days spent in the most expensive type of ward. As a consequence the cost of care in the bisoprolol group was 5-10% less in all three countries, in the per them analysis, even taking into account the cost of bisoprolol and the extra initiation/up-titration visits. The cost per patient treated in the placebo and bisoprolol groups was FF35 009 vs FF31 762 in France, DM11 563 vs DM10 784 in Germany and pound 4987 vs pound 4722 in the U.K. The diagnosis related group analysis gave similar results. Interpretation Not only did bisoprolol increase survival and reduce hospital admissions in CIBIS II, it also cut the cost of care in so doing. This `win-win' situation of positive health benefits associated with cost savings is Favourable from the point of view of both the patient and health care systems. These findings add further support for the use of beta-blockers in chronic heart failure

Cause of Death and Predictors of All-Cause Mortality in Anticoagulated Patients With Nonvalvular Atrial Fibrillation : Data From ROCKET AF

M. Kaste on työryhmän ROCKET AF Steering Comm jäsen.Background-Atrial fibrillation is associated with higher mortality. Identification of causes of death and contemporary risk factors for all-cause mortality may guide interventions. Methods and Results-In the Rivaroxaban Once Daily Oral Direct Factor Xa Inhibition Compared with Vitamin K Antagonism for Prevention of Stroke and Embolism Trial in Atrial Fibrillation (ROCKET AF) study, patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation were randomized to rivaroxaban or dose-adjusted warfarin. Cox proportional hazards regression with backward elimination identified factors at randomization that were independently associated with all-cause mortality in the 14 171 participants in the intention-to-treat population. The median age was 73 years, and the mean CHADS(2) score was 3.5. Over 1.9 years of median follow-up, 1214 (8.6%) patients died. Kaplan-Meier mortality rates were 4.2% at 1 year and 8.9% at 2 years. The majority of classified deaths (1081) were cardiovascular (72%), whereas only 6% were nonhemorrhagic stroke or systemic embolism. No significant difference in all-cause mortality was observed between the rivaroxaban and warfarin arms (P=0.15). Heart failure (hazard ratio 1.51, 95% CI 1.33-1.70, P= 75 years (hazard ratio 1.69, 95% CI 1.51-1.90, P Conclusions-In a large population of patients anticoagulated for nonvalvular atrial fibrillation, approximate to 7 in 10 deaths were cardiovascular, whereasPeer reviewe

Effect of metoprolol CR/XL in chronic heart failure: Metoprolol CR XL Randomised Intervention Trial in Congestive Heart Failure (MERIT-HF)

BACKGROUND: Metoprolol can improve haemodynamics in chronic heart failure, but survival benefit has not been proven. We investigated whether metoprolol controlled release/extended release (CR/XL) once daily, in addition to standard therapy, would lower mortality in patients with decreased ejection fraction and symptoms of heart failure. METHODS: We enrolled 3991 patients with chronic heart failure in New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional class II-IV and with ejection fraction of 0.40 or less, stabilised with optimum standard therapy, in a double-blind randomised controlled study. Randomisation was preceded by a 2-week single-blind placebo run-in period. 1990 patients were randomly assigned metoprolol CR/XL 12.5 mg (NYHA III-IV) or 25.0 mg once daily (NYHA II) and 2001 were assigned placebo. The target dose was 200 mg once daily and doses were up-titrated over 8 weeks. Our primary endpoint was all-cause mortality, analysed by intention to treat. FINDINGS: The study was stopped early on the recommendation of the independent safety committee. Mean follow-up time was 1 year. All-cause mortality was lower in the metoprolol CR/XL group than in the placebo group (145 [7.2%, per patient-year of follow-up]) vs 217 deaths [11.0%], relative risk 0.66 [95% CI 0.53-0.81]; p=0.00009 or adjusted for interim analyses p=0.0062). There were fewer sudden deaths in the metoprolol CR/XL group than in the placebo group (79 vs 132, 0.59 [0.45-0.78]; p=0.0002) and deaths from worsening heart failure (30 vs 58, 0.51 [0.33-0.79]; p=0.0023). INTERPRETATION: Metoprolol CR/XL once daily in addition to optimum standard therapy improved survival. The drug was well tolerated

the European trial on Reduction of Cardiac Events with Perindopril in Stable Coronary Artery Disease Investigators. Efficacy of perindopril in reduction of cardiovascular events among patients with stable coronary artery disease: randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicentre trial (the EUROPA trial).

Background Treatment with angiotensin-converting-enzyme (ACE) inhibitors reduces the rate of cardiovascular events among patients with left-ventricular dysfunction and those at high risk of such events. We assessed whether the ACE inhibitor perindopril reduced cardiovascular risk in a low-risk population with stable coronary heart disease and no apparent heart failure. Methods We recruited patients from October, 1997, to June, 2000. 13 655 patients were registered with previous myocardial infarction (64%), angiographic evidence of coronary artery disease (61%), coronary revascularisation (55%), or a positive stress test only (5%). After a run-in period of 4 weeks, in which all patients received perindopril, 12 218 patients were randomly assigned perindopril 8 mg once daily (n=6110), or matching placebo (n=6108). The mean follow-up was 4·2 years, and the primary endpoint was cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or cardiac arrest. Analysis was by intention to treat. Findings Mean age of patients was 60 years (SD 9), 85% were male, 92% were taking platelet inhibitors, 62% blockers, and 58% lipid-lowering therapy. 603 (10%) placebo and 488 (8%) perindopril patients experienced the primary endpoint, which yields a 20% relative risk reduction (95% CI 9–29, p=0·0003) with perindopril. These benefits were consistent in all predefined subgroups and secondary endpoints. Perindopril was well tolerated. Interpretation Among patients with stable coronary heart disease without apparent heart failure, perindopril can significantly improve outcome. About 50 patients need to be treated for a period of 4 years to prevent one major cardiovascular event. Treatment with perindopril, on top of other preventive medications, should be considered in all patients with coronary heart disease

The Cardiac Insufficiency Bisoprolol Study II (CIBIS-II): a randomised trial

Background: In patients with heart failure, beta-blochade has improved morbidity and left-ventricular function, but the impact on survival is uncertain. We investigated the efficacy of bisoprolol, a beta(1) selective adrenoceptor blocker in decreasing all-cause mortality in chronic heart failure. Methods: In a multicentre double-blind randomised placebo-controlled trial in Europe, we enrolled 2647 symptomatic patients in New York Heart Association class III or IV, with left-ventricular ejection fraction of 35% or less receiving standard therapy with diuretics and inhibitors of angiotensin-converting enzyme. We randomly assigned patients bisoprolol 1.25 mg (n=1327) or placebo (n=1320) daily, the drug being progressively increased to a maximum of 10 mg per day. Patients were followed up for a mean of 1.3 years. Analysis was by intention to treat. Findings: CIBIS-II was stopped early, after the second interim analysis, because bisoprolol showed a significant mortality benefit. All-cause mortality was significantly lower with bisoprolol than on placebo (156 [11.8%] vs 228 [17.3%] deaths with a hazard ratio of 0.66 (95% CI 0.54-0.81, p<0.0001). There were significantly fewer sudden deaths among patients on bisoprolol than in those on placebo (48 [3.6%] vs 83 [6.3%] deaths), with a hazard ratio of 0.56 (0.39-0.80, p=0.0011). Treatment effects were independent of the severity or cause of heart failure. Interpretation: beta-blocker therapy had benefits for survival in stable heart-failure patients. Results should not, however, be extrapolated to patients with severe class IV symptoms and recent instability because safety and efficacy has not been established in these patients