Cost-Utility of Catheter Ablation for Atrial Fibrillation in Patients with Heart Failure: An Economic Evaluation.

Background Recent trials comparing catheter ablation to medical therapy in patients with heart failure (HF) with symptomatic atrial fibrillation despite first-line management have demonstrated a reduction in adverse outcomes. We performed an economic evaluation to estimate the cost-utility of catheter ablation as second line therapy in patients with HF with reduced ejection fraction. Methods and Results A Markov model with health states of alive, dead, and alive with amiodarone toxicity was constructed, using the perspective of the Canadian healthcare payer. Patients in the alive states were at risk of HF and non-HF hospitalizations. Parameters were obtained from randomized trials and Alberta health system data for costs and outcomes. A lifetime time horizon was adopted, with discounting at 3.0% annually. Probabilistic and 1-way sensitivity analyses were performed. Costs are reported in 2018 Canadian dollars. A patient treated with catheter ablation experienced lifetime costs of $64 960 and 5.63 quality-adjusted life-years (QALY), compared with $49 865 and 5.18 QALYs for medical treatment. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was $35 360/QALY (95% CI, $21 518-77 419), with a 90% chance of being cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $50 000/QALY. A minimum mortality reduction of 28%, or a minimum duration of benefit of >1 to 2 years was required for catheter ablation to be attractive at this threshold. Conclusions Catheter ablation is likely to be cost-effective as a second line intervention for patients with HF with symptomatic atrial fibrillation, with incremental cost-effectiveness ratio $35 360/QALY, as long as over half of the relative mortality benefit observed in extant trials is borne out in future studies.

Cost-Based Price Calculation of Mexiletine for Nondystrophic Myotonia.

OBJECTIVES: Mexiletine is a long-known drug used for the treatment of arrhythmias and repurposed in the 1980s for patients with nondystrophic myotonia (NDM). Recently, the price of mexiletine in Europe increased significantly after registration as an orphan drug for NDM. This led to international discussions on affordability and willingness to reimburse mexiletine in the absence of background information that would justify such a price. Our objective was to calculate a cost-based price for mexiletine for adult patients with NDM based on detailed information on development costs. METHODS: We calculated a fair price based on a cost-based pricing model for commercial mexiletine to treat adults with NDM using a recent European drug-pricing model as a framework to include actual costs incurred. Three scenarios were applied: 1 with minimum estimated costs, 1 with maximum estimated costs, and 1 with costs as if mexiletine was innovative. RESULTS: The calculated fair price of mexiletine per patient per year (PPPY) is €452 for the minimum scenario and €1996 for the maximum scenario. By using hypothetical R&D costs used for innovative drugs, the price would be €6685 PPPY. In Europe, the list price of mexiletine ranges from €30 707-60 730 PPPY, based on 600 mg daily. CONCLUSIONS: The current list price for mexiletine in Europe is manifold higher than any scenario of the cost-based models. Accounting for the reduced costs for clinical development in a repurposing scenario, the cost-based pricing model provides a fair commercial price range, which can be used as benchmark for pricing negotiations and/or reimbursement decisions.

Economic Evaluation of Catheter Ablation of Atrial Fibrillation in Patients with Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction.

BACKGROUND: Randomized clinical trials have demonstrated that catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction may improve survival and other cardiovascular outcomes. METHODS: We constructed a decision-analytic Markov model to estimate the costs and benefits of catheter ablation and medical management in patients with symptomatic heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (left ventricular ejection fraction ≤35%) and atrial fibrillation over a lifetime horizon. Evidence from the published literature informed the model inputs, including clinical effectiveness data from meta-analyses. Probabilistic and deterministic sensitivity analyses were performed. A 3% discount rate was applied to both future costs and benefits. The primary outcome was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio assessed from the US health care sector perspective. RESULTS: Catheter ablation was associated with 6.47 (95% CI, 5.89-6.93) quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and a total cost of $105 657 (95% CI, $55 311-$191 934; 2018 US dollars), compared with 5.30 (95% CI, 5.20-5.39) QALYs and $63 040 (95% CI, $37 624-$102 260) for medical management. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for catheter ablation compared with medical management was $38 496 (95% CI, $5583-$117 510) per QALY gained. Model inputs with the greatest variation on incremental cost-effectiveness ratio estimates were the cost of ablation and the effect of catheter ablation on mortality reduction. When assuming a more conservative estimate of the treatment effect of catheter ablation on mortality (hazard ratio of 0.86), the estimated incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was $74 403 per QALY gained. At a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100 000 per QALY gained, atrial fibrillation ablation was found to be economically favorable compared with medical management in 95% of simulations. CONCLUSIONS: Catheter ablation in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction patients and atrial fibrillation may be considered economically attractive at current benchmarks for societal willingness-to-pay in the United States.

Cost-effectiveness of ablation of ventricular tachycardia in ischaemic cardiomyopathy: limitations in the trial evidence base.

Objective: Catheter ablation is an important treatment for ventricular tachycardia (VT) that reduces the frequency of episodes of VT. We sought to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of catheter ablation versus antiarrhythmic drug (AAD) therapy. Methods: A decision-analytic Markov model was used to calculate the costs and health outcomes of catheter ablation or AAD treatment of VT for a hypothetical cohort of patients with ischaemic cardiomyopathy and an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator. The health states and input parameters of the model were informed by patient-reported health-related quality of life (HRQL) data using randomised clinical trial (RCT)-level evidence wherever possible. Costs were calculated from a 2018 UK perspective. Results: Catheter ablation versus AAD therapy had an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of £144 150 (€161 448) per quality-adjusted life-year gained, over a 5-year time horizon. This ICER was driven by small differences in patient-reported HRQL between AAD therapy and catheter ablation. However, only three of six RCTs had measured patient-reported HRQL, and when this was done, it was assessed infrequently. Using probabilistic sensitivity analyses, the likelihood of catheter ablation being cost-effective was only 11%, assuming a willingness-to-pay threshold of £30 000 used by the UK's National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Conclusion: Catheter ablation of VT is unlikely to be cost-effective compared with AAD therapy based on the current randomised trial evidence. However, better designed studies incorporating detailed and more frequent quality of life assessments are needed to provide more robust and informed cost-effectiveness analyses.

Cost-Effectiveness of Rate- and Rhythm-Control Drugs for Treating Atrial Fibrillation in Korea.

PURPOSE: Although the economic and mortality burden of atrial fibrillation (AF) is substantial, it remains unclear which treatment strategies for rate and rhythm control are most cost-effective. Consequently, economic factors can play an adjunctive role in guiding treatment selection. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We built a Markov chain Monte Carlo model using the Korean Health Insurance Review & Assessment Service database. Drugs for rate control and rhythm control in AF were analyzed. Cost-effective therapies were selected using a cost-effectiveness ratio, calculated by net cost and quality-adjusted life years (QALY). RESULTS: In the National Health Insurance Service data, 268149 patients with prevalent AF (age ≥18 years) were identified between January 1, 2013 and December 31, 2015. Among them, 212459 and 55690 patients were taking drugs for rate and rhythm control, respectively. Atenolol cost $714/QALY. Among the rate-control medications, the cost of propranolol was lowest at $487/QALY, while that of carvedilol was highest at $1363/QALY. Among the rhythm-control medications, the cost of pilsicainide was lowest at $638/QALY, while that of amiodarone was highest at $986/QALY. Flecainide and propafenone cost $834 and $830/QALY, respectively. The cost-effectiveness threshold of all drugs was lower than $30000/QALY. Compared with atenolol, the rate-control drugs propranolol, betaxolol, bevantolol, bisoprolol, diltiazem, and verapamil, as well as the rhythm-control drugs sotalol, pilsicainide, flecainide, propafenone, and dronedarone, showed better incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. CONCLUSION: Propranolol and pilsicainide appear to be cost-effective in patients with AF in Korea assuming that drug usage or compliance is the same.

A Long-Term Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Comparing Radiofrequency Catheter Ablation with Antiarrhythmic Drugs in Treatment of Chinese Patients with Atrial Fibrillation.

INTRODUCTION: Radiofrequency catheter ablation (RFCA) is widely used to treat atrial fibrillation (AF) in China. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to determine the long-term cost effectiveness of RFCA versus antiarrhythmic drugs (AADs) in treating AF from the perspective of third-party payers. METHODS: The model was structured as a 12-month decision tree leading to a Markov model that simulated the follow-up treatment outcomes and costs with time horizons of 8, 15, and 20 years. Comparators were standard-of-care AADs. Clinical parameters captured normal sinus rhythm, AF, stroke, post-stroke, intracranial hemorrhage (ICH), gastrointestinal bleeding, post-ICH, and death. The risk of operative death, procedural complications, and adverse drug toxicity were also considered. The model output was quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and incremental cost per QALY gained. RESULTS: RFCA incurred more costs than the AADs but resulted in more QALYs gained than did AADs. The incremental cost per QALY gained with RFCA versus AADs was ¥66,764, ¥36,280, and ¥29,359 at 8, 15, and 20 years, respectively. The sensitivity analyses showed that the results were most sensitive to the changes in RFCA cost and CHADS2 score (clinical prediction rule for assessing the risk of stroke in patients with non-rheumatic AF). CONCLUSION: Compared with AADs, RFCA significantly improves clinical outcomes and QALYs among patients with paroxysmal or persistent AF. From the Chinese payer's perspective, RFCA is a cost-effective therapy over long-term horizons.

Cost Effectiveness of Ventricular Tachycardia Ablation Versus Escalation of Antiarrhythmic Drug Therapy: The VANISH Trial.

OBJECTIVES: This analysis uses the data from the randomized controlled trial to assess the cost effectiveness of catheter ablation (n = 132) versus escalated antiarrhythmic therapy (n = 127). BACKGROUND: For survivors of myocardial infarction with implantable cardioverter-defibrillator shocks despite antiarrhythmic drugs, the VANISH (Ventricular Tachycardia Ablation Versus Escalated Antiarrhythmic Drug Therapy in Ischemic Heart Disease) trial demonstrated improved clinical outcomes with catheter ablation compared with more aggressive antiarrhythmic pharmacotherapy. METHODS: Health care resource use and quality-of-life data were used to determine the cost effectiveness of catheter ablation. Published references were used to estimate costs (in 2015 Canadian dollars). The analysis was over 3 years, with a 5% discount rate. Adjustment was made for censoring and baseline utilities. RESULTS: Ablation resulted in greater quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) than escalated drug therapy did (1.63 vs. 1.49; difference: 0.14; 95% confidence interval [CI]: -0.20 to 0.46) and higher cost ($65,126 vs. $60,269; difference: $4,857; 95% CI: -$19,757 to $27,106); with an incremental cost per QALY gained for ablation versus escalated drug therapy of $34,057 primarily due to the initial costs of ablation, which were partially offset by the costs of subsequent ablations and adverse outcomes in the escalated drug therapy arm. For patients with amiodarone-refractory ventricular tachycardia, ablation dominated escalated drug therapy, with greater QALYs (1.48 vs. 1.26; difference: 0.22; 95% CI: -0.19 to 0.59) and lower costs ($67,614 vs. $68,383; difference: -$769; 95% CI: -$35,330 to $27,092). For those with sotalol-refractory ventricular tachycardia, ablation resulted in similar QALYs (1.90 vs. 1.90; difference: -0.00; 95% CI: -0.59 to 0.62) and higher costs ($60,455 vs. $45,033; difference: $15,422; 95% CI: -$10,968 to $48,555). CONCLUSIONS: For the total trial population, results are suggestive that ablation is cost effective compared with escalation of drug therapy. This result was only manifest for the subgroup of patients whose qualifying arrhythmia occurred despite amiodarone.

Cost-effectiveness of digoxin, pacing, and direct current cardioversion for conversion of atrial flutter in neonates.

IntroductionNewborn atrial flutter can be treated by medications, pacing, or direct current cardioversion. The purpose is to compare the cost-effectiveness of digoxin, pacing, and direct current cardioversion for the treatment of atrial flutter in neonates.Materials and methodsA decision tree model was developed comparing the efficacy and cost of digoxin, pacing, and direct current cardioversion based on a meta-analysis of published studies of success rates of cardioversion of neonatal atrial flutter (age<2 months). Patients who failed initial attempt at cardioversion progressed to the next methodology until successful. Data were analysed to assess the cost-effectiveness of these methods with cost estimates obtained from 2015 Medicare reimbursement rates. RESULTS: The cost analysis for cardioversion of atrial flutter found the most efficient method to be direct current cardioversion at a cost of $10 304, pacing was next at $11 086, and the least cost-effective was digoxin at $14 374. The majority of additional cost, regardless of method, was from additional neonatal ICU day either owing to digoxin loading or failure to covert. Direct current cardioversion remains the most cost-effective strategy by sensitivity analyses performed on pacing conversion rate and the cost of the neonatal ICU/day. Direct current cardioversion remains cost-effective until the assumed conversion rate is below 64.6%. CONCLUSION: The most cost-efficient method of cardioverting a neonate with atrial flutter is direct current cardioversion. It has the highest success rates based on the meta-analysis, shorter length of stay in the neonatal ICU owing to its success, and results in cost-savings ranging from $800 to $4000 when compared with alternative approaches.

Cost effectiveness of focal impulse and rotor modulation guided ablation added to pulmonary vein isolation for atrial fibrillation.

BACKGROUND: Although ablation with focal impulse and rotor modulation (FIRM), as an adjunct to pulmonary vein isolation (PVI), has been shown to decrease atrial fibrillation (AF) recurrence, cost-effectiveness has not been assessed. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to evaluate the cost effectiveness of FIRM-guided ablation when added to PVI in a mixed AF population. METHODS AND RESULTS: We used a Markov model to estimate the costs, quality-adjusted survival, and cost effectiveness of adding FIRM ablation to PVI. AF recurrence rates were based on 3-year data from the CONFIRM trial. Model inputs for event probabilities and utilities were obtained from literature review. Costs were based on Medicare reimbursement, wholesale acquisition costs, and literature review. Three-year total costs FIRM+PVI versus PVI alone were $27,686 versus $26,924. QALYs were 2.338 versus 2.316, respectively, resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $34,452 per QALY gained. Most of the cost (65-81%) was related to the index ablation procedure. Lower AF recurrence generated cost offsets of $4,266, primarily due to a reduced need for medications and repeat ablation. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis demonstrated ICER below $100,000/QALY in 74% of simulations. CONCLUSION: Based on data from the CONFIRM study, the addition of FIRM to PVI does have the potential to be cost-effective due to higher quality-adjusted life years and lower follow-up costs. Value is sensitive to the incremental reduction in AF recurrence, and FIRM may have the greatest economic value in patients with greater AF symptom severity. Results from ongoing randomized trials will provide further clarity.

Ablation of paroxysmal atrial fibrillation using a second-generation cryoballoon catheter or contact-force sensing radiofrequency ablation catheter: A comparison of costs and long-term clinical outcomes.

INTRODUCTION: Although noninferiority of cryoballoon ablation (CBA) and radiofrequency catheter ablation for antral pulmonary vein isolation (APVI) has been reported in patients with paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (PAF), it is not clear whether contact force sensing (CF-RFA) and CBA with the second-generation catheter have similar procedural costs and long-term outcomes. The objective of this study is to compare the long-term efficacy and cost implications of CBA and CF-RFA in patients with PAF. METHODS AND RESULTS: A first APVI was performed in 146 consecutive patients (age: 63 ± 10 years, men: 95 [65%], left atrial diameter: 42 ± 6 mm) with PAF using CBA (71) or CF-RFA (75). Clinical outcomes and procedural costs were compared. The mean procedure time was significantly shorter with CBA than with CF-RFA (98 ± 39 vs. 158 ± 47 minutes, P < 0.0001). Despite a higher equipment cost in the CBA than the CF-RFA group, the total procedure cost was similar between the two groups (P = 0.26), primarily driven by a shorter procedure duration that resulted in a lower anesthesia cost. At 25 ± 5 months after a single ablation procedure, 51 patients (72%) in the CBA, and 55 patients (73%) in the CF-RFA groups remained free from atrial arrhythmias without antiarrhythmic drug therapy (P = 0.84). CONCLUSIONS: The procedure duration was approximately 60 minutes shorter with CBA than CF-RFA. The procedural costs were similar with both approaches. At 2 years after a single procedure, CBA and CF-RFA have similar single-procedure efficacies of 72-73%.

Evaluation of Deprescribing Amiodarone After New-Onset Atrial Fibrillation in Critical Illness.

BACKGROUND: Recent studies have shed light on the continued prescription of inpatient medications upon hospital discharge, despite the original intent of short-term inpatient therapy. Amiodarone, an antiarrhythmic associated with significant adverse effects with long-term use, is commonly used for new-onset atrial fibrillation in critical illness (NAFCI). Although it is often preferred in this setting of hemodynamic instability, a prescription for long-term use should be carefully considered, preferably by a cardiologist. This study was conducted to evaluate the incidence of patients discharged on amiodarone without a cardiology consult or referral after being initiated on amiodarone for NAFCI. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective review of all patients newly prescribed amiodarone for NAFCI over a 2-year period. The primary outcome was the percentage of patients who were continued on amiodarone upon hospital discharge without review by or outpatient referral to a cardiologist. RESULTS: Of the 100 patients who met inclusion criteria, 59 patients were prescribed amiodarone upon hospital discharge. Of these, 48 patients (81.4%) had converted to normal sinus rhythm with the resolution of critical illness. Of 100 patients, 23 received prescriptions for amiodarone upon discharge without a cardiology consult or referral. CONCLUSION: Amiodarone was frequently continued upon discharge without referral to a cardiologist in patients initiated on this therapy for NAFCI. This may contribute to unnecessary long-term therapy, thereby increasing the risk for significant side effects, drug interactions, and increased healthcare costs. This study suggests that careful medication reconciliation through all transitions of care, including discharge, is essential.

Cost-Effectiveness and Clinical Effectiveness of the Risk Factor Management Clinic in Atrial Fibrillation: The CENT Study.

BACKGROUND: Atrial fibrillation (AF) imposes a substantial cost burden on the healthcare system. Weight and risk factor management (RFM) reduces AF burden and improves the outcomes of AF ablation. OBJECTIVES: This study sought to evaluate the cost and clinical effectiveness of integrating RFM into the overall management of AF. METHODS: Of 1,415 consecutive patients with symptomatic AF, 825 patients had body mass index ≥27 kg/m2. After screening for exclusion criteria, the final cohort comprised 355 patients: 208 patients who opted for RFM and 147 control subjects and were followed by 3 to 6 monthly clinic review, 7-day Holter monitoring, and AF Symptom Score. A decision analytical model calculated the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of cost per unit of global well-being gained and unit of AF burden reduced. RESULTS: There were no differences in baseline characteristics or follow-up duration (p = NS). Arrhythmia-free survival was better in the RFM compared with control subjects (Kaplan-Meier: 79% vs. 44%; p < 0.001). At follow-up, RFM group had less unplanned specialist visits (0.19 ± 0.40 vs. 1.94 ± 2.00; p < 0.001), hospitalizations (0.74 ± 1.3 vs. 1.05 ± 1.60; p = 0.03), cardioversions (0.89 ± 1.50 vs. 1.51 ± 2.30; p = 0.002), emergency presentations (0.18 ± 0.50 vs. 0.76 ± 1.20; p < 0.001), and ablation procedures (0.60 ± 0.69 vs. 0.72 ± 0.86; p = 0.03). Antihypertensive (0.53 ± 0.70 vs. 0.78 ± 0.60; p = 0.04) and antiarrhythmic (0.26 ± 0.50 vs. 0.91 ± 0.60; p = 0.003) use declined in RFM. The RFM group had an increase of 0.1930 quality-adjusted life years and a cost saving of $12,094 (incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of $62,653 saved per quality-adjusted life years gained). CONCLUSIONS: A structured physician-directed RFM program is clinically effective and cost saving.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of left atrial appendage occlusion compared with pharmacological strategies for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation.

BACKGROUND: Transcatheter left atrial appendage occlusion (LAAO) is a promising therapy for stroke prophylaxis in non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) but its cost-effectiveness remains understudied. This study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of LAAO for stroke prophylaxis in NVAF. METHODS: A Markov decision analytic model was used to compare the cost-effectiveness of LAAO with 7 pharmacological strategies: aspirin alone, clopidogrel plus aspirin, warfarin, dabigatran 110 mg, dabigatran 150 mg, apixaban, and rivaroxaban. Outcome measures included quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), lifetime costs and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). Base-case data were derived from ACTIVE, RE-LY, ARISTOTLE, ROCKET-AF, PROTECT-AF and PREVAIL trials. One-way sensitivity analysis varied by CHADS2 score, HAS-BLED score, time horizons, and LAAO costs; and probabilistic sensitivity analysis using 10,000 Monte Carlo simulations was conducted to assess parameter uncertainty. RESULTS: LAAO was considered cost-effective compared with aspirin, clopidogrel plus aspirin, and warfarin, with ICER of US$5,115, $2,447, and $6,298 per QALY gained, respectively. LAAO was dominant (i.e. less costly but more effective) compared to other strategies. Sensitivity analysis demonstrated favorable ICERs of LAAO against other strategies in varied CHADS2 score, HAS-BLED score, time horizons (5 to 15 years) and LAAO costs. LAAO was cost-effective in 86.24 % of 10,000 simulations using a threshold of US$50,000/QALY. CONCLUSIONS: Transcatheter LAAO is cost-effective for prevention of stroke in NVAF compared with 7 pharmacological strategies. The transcatheter left atrial appendage occlusion (LAAO) is considered cost-effective against the standard 7 oral pharmacological strategies including acetylsalicylic acid (ASA) alone, clopidogrel plus ASA, warfarin, dabigatran 110 mg, dabigatran 150 mg, apixaban, and rivaroxaban for stroke prophylaxis in non-valvular atrial fibrillation management.

Design, Challenges, and Implications of Quality Improvement Projects Using the Electronic Medical Record: Case Study: A Protocol to Reduce the Burden of Postoperative Atrial Fibrillation.

Postoperative atrial fibrillation (POAF) is a frequent complication of cardiac surgery, which results in increased morbidity, mortality, length of stay, and hospital costs. We developed and followed a process map to implement a protocol to decrease POAF: (1) identify stakeholders and form a working committee, (2) formal literature and guideline review, (3) retrospective analysis of current institutional data, (4) data modeling to determine expected effects of change, (4) protocol development and implementation into the electronic medical record, and (5) ongoing review of data and protocol adjustment. Retrospective analysis demonstrated that POAF occurred in 29.8% of all cardiovascular surgery cases. Median length of stay was 2 days longer (P<0.001), and median total variable costs $2495 higher (P<0.001) in POAF patients. Modeling predicted that up to 60 cases of POAF and >$200 000 annually could be saved. A clinically based electronic medical record tool was implemented into the electronic medical record to aid preoperative clinic providers in identifying patients eligible for prophylactic amiodarone. Initial results during the 9-month period after implementation demonstrated a reduction in POAF in patients using the protocol, compared with those who qualified but did not receive amiodarone and those not evaluated (11.1% versus 38.7% and 38.8%; P=0.022); however, only 17.3% of patients used the protocol. A standardized methodological approach to quality improvement and electronic medical record integration has potential to significantly decrease the incidence of POAF, length of stay, and total variable cost in patients undergoing elective coronary artery bypass graft and valve surgeries. This framework for quality improvement interventions may be adapted to similar clinical problems beyond POAF.

Switching among Equivalents in Chronic Cardiovascular Therapies: 'Real World' Data from Italy.

Since August 2012, Italian general practitioners are required to prescribe the generic name of medicines, except for refill of chronic therapy. We evaluated the extent of switching among equivalents in chronic cardiovascular therapies, the influence of the 2012 regulatory intervention and of patient-related or drug-related factors. Prescriptions of off-patent anti-arrhythmics, oral antidiabetics and ACE inhibitors dispensed from August 2011 to August 2013 within the Bologna Local Health Authority (870,000 inhabitants) was collected. The rate of actual switching among equivalents was evaluated monthly. The effect of the regulatory intervention was estimated by interrupted-time-series analysis. Adjusted odds ratios (aORs) of switching were calculated for the following: age, gender, number of different equivalents available for each drug and change in dispensing pharmacy between subsequent refills. The average monthly rates of switches were 9.6%, 16.3% and 16.3% for anti-arrhythmics, antidiabetics and ACE inhibitors, respectively. Values significantly increased soon after the regulatory intervention for ACE inhibitors (+1.81%, p < 0.01), anti-arrhythmics (+1.46%, p = 0.01) and antidiabetics (+1.09%, p = 0.01), and no significant decreasing trends were observed in the following 12 months. For all drug classes, odd of switching was higher in case of change in dispensing pharmacy (up to aOR = 4.31, 95 CI = 4.26-4.35 for ACE inhibitors) and availability of ≥5 different equivalents (up to aOR = 7.82, 95 CI = 7.39-8.28 for antidiabetics). Switching was lower for age ≥65 for antidiabetics and ACE inhibitors (aOR = 0.92, 95 CI = 0.90-0.93; 0.87, 0.86-0.88, respectively). The Italian regulatory intervention generated an immediate increase, not sustained in time, in switching among equivalents of cardiovascular therapies. Young age, high number of available equivalents and changes in dispensing pharmacy between subsequent refills were associated with switching.

Analysis of the cost-effectiveness of dronedarone versus amiodarone, propafenone, and sotalol in patients with atrial fibrillation: results for Serbia.

BACKGROUND: Recent studies have shown that dronedarone is associated with significantly fewer adverse effects and treatment discontinuations, and a trend toward reduced all-cause mortality, compared with amiodarone. Introduction of dronedarone in clinical practice is limited by its higher cost than amiodarone, propafenone, and sotalol. AIM: To estimate cost-effectiveness of dronedarone versus amiodarone, propafenone, and sotalol in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). METHODS: We constructed a Markov model, which was then simulated by Monte Carlo simulation using 1,000 virtual patients. Costs and outcomes were estimated from the societal perspective and discounted at 3% annually. A lifetime horizon and three-month cycle length were used. The main outcome measurement was the number of years spent without stroke. Values of transition probabilities and therapy outcomes were estimated from available literature. The prices of health services and drugs were obtained from the Republic Institute for Health Insurance Tariff Book and Drug List A and from the drug developer. RESULTS: Cost-effectiveness shows that the dronedarone treatment option has the most advantageous relationship, where, for one year without a stroke, the total cost is €1,779.23. In the case of the amiodarone therapy option, for one year without a stroke €3,845.10 is needed, for propafenone €4,674.20, while for sotalol the sum is €14,973.89. Estimated annual costs for patients with first-detected AF in Serbia were €610. CONCLUSIONS: The results of our model indicate that dronedarone is a cost-effective therapy compared with amiodarone, propafenone, and sotalol in patients with AF, if the outcome measurement is the number of years spent without stroke.

The cost-effectiveness of radiofrequency catheter ablation as first-line treatment for paroxysmal atrial fibrillation: results from a MANTRA-PAF substudy.

AIM: The aim of this prospective substudy was to estimate the cost-effectiveness of treating paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (AF) with radiofrequency catheter ablation (RFA) compared with antiarrhythmic drugs (AADs) as first-line treatment. METHODS AND RESULTS: A decision-analytic Markov model, based on MANTRA-PAF (Medical Antiarrhythmic Treatment or Radiofrequency Ablation in Paroxysmal Atrial Fibrillation) study data, was developed to study long-term effects and costs of RFA compared with AADs as first-line treatment. Positive clinical effects were found in the overall population, a gain of an average 0.06 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) to an incremental cost of €3033, resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of €50 570/QALY. However, the result of the subgroup analyses showed that RFA was less costly and more effective in younger patients. This implied an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of €3434/QALY in ≤50-year-old patients respectively €108 937/QALY in >50-year-old patients. CONCLUSION: Radiofrequency catheter ablation as first-line treatment is a cost-effective strategy for younger patients with paroxysmal AF. However, the cost-effectiveness of using RFA as first-line therapy in older patients is uncertain, and in most of these AADs should be attempted before RFA (MANTRA-PAF ClinicalTrials.gov number; NCT00133211).

Pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic profile of dronedarone , a new antiarrhythmic agent for the treatment of atrial fibrillation.

INTRODUCTION: Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most common arrhythmia and is associated with increased morbidity and mortality. Dronedarone is a recent antiarrhythmic drug that has been developed for treatment of AF, with electrophysiological properties similar to amiodarone but with a lower incidence of side effects. AREAS COVERED: This review evaluates the efficacy, safety, tolerability and side effects of dronedarone in the treatment of AF. In particular, the review includes studies comparing: dronedarone and placebo (ANDROMEDA, ATHENA, DAFNE, ERATO, EURIDIS/ADONIS, HESTIA, PALLAS trials), dronedarone and amiodarone (DIONYSOS trial), ranolazine and dronedarone given alone and in combination (HARMONY trial). EXPERT OPINION: Dronedarone is an interesting antiarrhythmic agent in well-selected groups of patients. It also has several other pleiotropic effects that may potentially be beneficial in clinical practice, such as the reduction of the risk of stroke and acute coronary syndromes. In addition, combination therapies such as those with dronedarone and ranolazine, currently being investigated in the HARMONY trial, may provide another interesting approach to increase the antiarrhythmic efficacy and further reduce the incidence of side effects. A better understanding of the mechanisms underlying dronedarone's pleiotropic actions is expected to facilitate the selection of patients benefiting from dronedarone, as well as the development of novel antiarrhythmic drugs for AF.

Update on ranolazine in the management of angina.

Mortality rates attributable to coronary heart disease have declined in recent years, possibly related to changes in clinical presentation patterns and use of proven secondary prevention strategies. Chronic stable angina (CSA) remains prevalent, and the goal of treatment is control of symptoms and reduction in cardiovascular events. Ranolazine is a selective inhibitor of the late sodium current in myocytes with anti-ischemic and metabolic properties. It was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration in 2006 for use in patients with CSA. Multiple, randomized, placebo-controlled trials have shown that ranolazine improves functional capacity and decreases anginal episodes in CSA patients, despite a lack of a significant hemodynamic effect. Ranolazine did not improve cardiovascular mortality or affect incidence of myocardial infarction in the MERLIN (Metabolic Efficiency with Ranolazine for Less Ischemia in Non-ST-Elevation Acute Coronary Syndrome)-TIMI (Thrombolysis In Myocardial Infarction) 36 trial, but significantly decreased the incidence of recurrent angina. More recently, ranolazine has been shown to have beneficial and potent antiarrhythmic effects, both on supraventricular and ventricular tachyarrhythmias, largely due to its inhibition of the late sodium current. Randomized controlled trials testing these effects are underway. Lastly, ranolazine appears to be cost-effective due to its ability to decrease angina-related hospitalizations and improve quality of life.