Economic evaluation of ivabradine in the treatment of chronic heart failure in Greece

BMC Health Services Research

Nikos Maniadakis⁵  Neil Branscombe³  Charalambos Milonas⁵  Alexandra Beletsi²  Apostolos Karavidas⁶  John Parissis⁴  Georgia Kourlaba¹ 

[1] The Stavros Niarchos Foundation-Collaborative Center for Clinical Epidemiology and Outcomes Research (CLEO), National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, School of Medicine, Athens, Greece;Servier Hellas Pharmaceuticals Ltd, Athens, Greece;Servier Laboratories Ltd, Suresnes, France;Department of Cardiology, Attikon University Hospital, Athens, Greece;Department of Health Services Organization & Management, National School of Public Health, Athens, Greece;Department of Cardiology, Athens General Hospital “Georgios Genimmatas”, Athens, Greece

关键词: Cost-utility;    Ivabradine;    Heart failure;    Cost-effectiveness;   

Others  :  1090090
DOI  :  10.1186/s12913-014-0631-0

 received in 2014-04-23, accepted in 2014-12-02,  发布年份 2014

【 摘 要 】

Background

The objective of our study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of ivabradine plus standard care (SoC) in chronic heart failure (CHF) patients with sinus rhythm and a baseline heart rate ≥ 75 b.p.m. in Greece, in comparison with current SoC alone.

Methods

An existing cost-effectiveness model consisting of two health states, was adapted to the Greek health care setting. All clinical inputs of the model (i.e. mortality rates, hospitalization rates, NYHA class distribution and utility values) were estimated from SHIFT trial data. All costing data used in the model reflects the year 2013 (in €). An incremental cost effectiveness ratio (ICER) per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained was calculated. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSA) were conducted. The horizon of analysis was over patient life time and both cost and outcomes were discounted at 3.5% per year. The analysis was conducted from a Greek third party-payer perspective.

Results

The Markov analysis revealed that the discounted quality-adjusted survival was 4.27 and 3.99 QALYs in the ivabradine plus SoC and SoC alone treatment arms, respectively. The cumulative lifetime total cost per patient was €8,665 and €5,873, for ivabradine plus SoC and SoC alone, respectively. The ICER for ivabradine plus SoC versus SoC alone was estimated as €9,986 per QALY gained. The PSA showed that the likelihood of ivabradine plus SoC being cost-effective at a threshold of €36,000/QALY was found to be 95%.

Conclusions

Ivabradine plus SoC may be regarded as a cost-effective option for the treatment in CHF patients in Greece.

【 授权许可】

   
2014 Kourlaba et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

Figure 2.

Figure 3.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Krum H, Stewart S: Chronic heart failure: time to recognize this major public health problem. Med J Australia 2006, 184:147-148.
• [2]Mosterd A, Hoes AW: Clinical epidemiology of heart failure. Heart 2007, 93:1137-1146.
• [3]Cowie MR, Wood DA, Coats AJ, Thompson SG, Suresh V, Poole-Wilson PA, Sutton GC: Survival of patients with a new diagnosis of heart failure: a population based study. Heart 2000, 83:505-510.
• [4]The Criteria Committee of the New York Heart Association: Nomenclature and Criteria for Diagnosis of Diseases of the Heart and Great Vessels. 9th edition. Mass: Little, Brown & Co, Boston; 1994.
• [5]McMurray JJ, Adamopoulos S, Anker SD, Auricchio A, Bohm M, Dickstein K, Falk V, Filippatos G, Fonseca C, Gomez-Sanchez MA, Jaarsma T, Kober L, Lip GY, Maggioni AP, Parkhomenko A, Pieske BM, Popescu BA, Ronnevik PK, Rutten FH, Schwitter J, Seferovic P, Stepinska J, Trindade PT, Voors AA, Zannad F, Zeiher A: Guidelines ESCCfP: ESC Guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of acute and chronic heart failure 2012: The Task Force for the Diagnosis and Treatment of Acute and Chronic Heart Failure 2012 of the European Society of Cardiology. Developed in collaboration with the Heart Failure Association (HFA) of the ESC. Eur Heart J 2012, 33:1787-1847.
• [6]Liao L, Allen LA, Whellan DJ: Economic burden of heart failure in the elderly. Pharmacoeconomics 2008, 26:447-462.
• [7]Kaye DM, Krum H: Drug discovery for heart failure: a new era or the end of the pipeline? Nat Rev Drug Discov 2007, 6:127-139.
• [8]Ivabradine for chronic heart failure?Drug Ther Bull 2012, 50:117–120.
• [9]Swedberg K, Komajda M, Bohm M, Borer JS, Ford I, Dubost-Brama A, Lerebours G, Tavazzi L, Investigators S: Ivabradine and outcomes in chronic heart failure (SHIFT): a randomised placebo-controlled study. Lancet 2010, 376:875-885.
• [10]Briggs A, Claxton K, Sculpher M: Decision modelling for health economic evaluation. Oxford University Press Inc, New York; 2006.
• [11]Griffiths A, Paracha N, Davies A, Branscombe N, Cowie MR, Sculpher M: The cost effectiveness of ivabradine in the treatment of chronic heart failure from the UK National Health Service perspective.Heart 2014.
• [12]National Institute of Health and Care Excellence (NICE). Guide to the methods of technology appraisal 2013.Process and methods guides. [http://www.nice.org.uk/article/pmg9/resources/non-guidance-guide-to-the-methods-of-technology-appraisal-2013-pdf]
• [13]Kind P, Hardman G, Macran S: UK Population norms for the EQ-5D.York Centre for Health Economics Discussion Paper 1999, 172.
• [14]Greek Ministry of Health.s Diagnostic Related Groups. [http://www.yyka.gov.gr/articles/health/domes-kai-draseis-gia-thn-ygeia/kwdikopoihseis/709-kleista-enopoihmena-noshlia-1]
• [15]Greek Ministry of Health.s Drug price bulletin. [http://www.yyka.gov.gr/]
• [16]Government Gazzette: Presidential Decree 81/88, FEK 36/29-2-88 vol.A, “Costing of Medical Visits & Operations”. Athens, Greece; 1988.
• [17]Eichler HG, Kong SX, Gerth WC, Mavros P, Jonsson B: Use of cost-effectiveness analysis in health-care resource allocation decision-making: how are cost-effectiveness thresholds expected to emerge? Value Health: J Int Soc Pharm Outcomes Res 2004, 7:518-528.
• [18]Devlin N, Parkin D: Does NICE have a cost-effectiveness threshold and what other factors influence its decisions? A binary choice analysis. Health Econ 2004, 13:437-452.
• [19]World Health Organization.: WHO Commission on Macroeconomics and Health: Macroeconomics and Health: Investing in Health for Economic Development. Report of the Commission on Macroeconomics and Health. In Book WHO Commission on Macroeconomics and Health: Macroeconomics and Health: Investing in Health for Economic Development. Report of the Commission on Macroeconomics and Health. City; 2001.
• [20]WHO: Choosing interventions that are Cost Effective WHO-CHOICE, Cost-effectiveness thresholds.Available athttp://www.who.int/choice/costs/CER_thresholds/en/index.html, 2013.
• [21]IMF, 2012. International Monetary Fund, World Economic Outlook Database, October 2012. Available at http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2012/02/weodata/index.aspx.
• [22]Briggs A, Claxton K, Sculpher M: Desicion modelling for health economic evaluation. Oxford University Press, Oxford; 2006.
• [23]Fenwick E, O’Brien BJ, Briggs A: Cost-effectiveness acceptability curves–facts, fallacies and frequently asked questions. Health Econ 2004, 13:405-415.