Quality improvement collaborative to optimize heart failure care in patients from a network of clinics in Argentina during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Heart failure (HF) is a major clinical and public health problem associated with significant mortality, morbidity, and health-care costs. Despite the existence of evidence-based guidelines for the optimal treatment of HF, the quality of care remains suboptimal. Our aim was to increase the use a care bundle in 50% of enrolled subjects during their hospitalization and discharge and to reduce their readmission for HF causes by 10%. We conducted an uncontrolled before-after study in eight hospitals in Argentina to evaluate the effect of a quality improvement intervention on the use of an HF care bundle in patients with HF New York Heart Association (NYHA) Class II-III. The HF bundle of care included medication, continuum of care, lifestyle habits, and predischarge examinations. Training and follow-up of multidisciplinary teams in each center were performed through learning sessions and plan-do-study-act improvement cycles. Data collectors reviewed bundle compliance in the health records of recruited patients after their hospital discharge and verified readmissions through phone calls to patients within 30-40 days after discharge. We recruited 200 patients (83 before and 127 during the intervention phase), and bundle compliance increased from 9.6% to 28.3% [odds ratio 3.71, 95% confidence interval (8.46; 1.63); P = .002]. Despite a slow improvement during the first months, bundle compliance gained momentum near the end of the intervention surpassing 80%. We observed a non-significant decreased readmission rate within 30 days of discharge due to HF in the postintervention period [8.4% vs. 5.5%, odds ratio 0.63, 95% CI (1.88; 0.21); P = .410]. Qualitative analysis showed that members of the intervention teams acknowledged the improvement of work organization and standardization of care, teamwork, shared mental model, and health record completeness as well as the utility of training fellows. Despite the challenges related to the pandemic, better care of patients with HF NYHA Class II-III was possible through simple interventions and collaborative work. Graphical abstract.

Cost-effectiveness in unstable economies: the case of sacubitril/valsartan in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction in Argentina.

BACKGROUND: Sacubitril/valsartan (an Angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor-ARNI) is one of the cornerstones in the management of patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) having demonstrated significant reductions in both mortality and hospitalisations as compared with enalapril. It proved to be a cost-effective treatment in many countries with stable economies. In Argentina, a country with chronic financial instability and a fragmented health care system, the estimation of its cost-effectiveness requires to consider local financial data. OBJECTIVES: To estimate the cost-effectiveness of sacubitril/valsartan in HFrEF in Argentina. METHODS: We populated an Excel-based cost-effectiveness model, previously validated, using inputs from the pivotal phase-3 PARADIGM-HF trial and from local sources. As the main problem to consider was the financial instability, we adopted a differential approach to cost discounting based on the opportunity cost of capital. Thus, a discount rate for costs were set at 31.6%, using the BADLAR rate published by the Central Bank of Argentina. Discount for effects were set at 5% as is the current practice. Costs were expressed in Argentinian pesos (ARS). We used the perspective for both the social security and private payers at a 30-year horizon. The primary analysis was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) versus enalapril, the previous standard of care. Alternative scenarios performed included a 5% cost discount rate and 3 a 5-year horizon (as is usually used). RESULTS: In Argentina the cost-per quality adjusted life-year (QALY) gained for sacubitril/valsartan versus enalapril was 391,158 ARS and 376,665 ARS for a social security and a private payer, respectively, at a 30- year horizon. These ICERs were under the cost- effectiveness threshold of 520,405.79 ARS (1 Gross domestic product (GDP) per capita) suggested by Argentinian health technology assessment bodies. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed an acceptability of sacubitril/valsartan as a cost-effective alternative of 86.40% and 88.25% for social security and private payers, respectively. CONCLUSION: Sacubitril/valsartan is a cost-effective treatment in HFrEF using local inputs that considered the financial instability. For both payers considered the cost per QALY gained are under the cost-effectiveness threshold considered.