Reduced heart failure-related healthcare costs with Furoscix versus in-hospital intravenous diuresis in heart failure patients: the FREEDOM-HF study.

Aim: Compare heart failure (HF) costs of Furoscix use at home compared with inpatient intravenous (IV) diuresis. Patients & methods: Prospective, case control study of chronic HF patients presenting to emergency department (ED) with worsening congestion discharged to receive Furoscix 80 mg/10 ml 5-h subcutaneous infusion for ≤7 days. 30-day HF-related costs in Furoscix group derived from commercial claims database compared with matched historical patients hospitalized for <72 h. Results: Of 24 Furoscix patients, 1 (4.2%) was hospitalized in 30-day period. 66 control patients identified and were well-matched for age, sex, ejection fraction (EF), renal function and other comorbidities. Furoscix patients had reduced mean per patient HF-related healthcare cost of $16,995 (p < 0.001). Conclusion: Furoscix use was associated with significant reductions in 30-day HF-related healthcare costs versus matched hospitalized controls.

What is this article about? In heart failure (HF), the heart cannot pump as well as it should. This causes blood to back up in the vessels that return blood to the heart. Fluid leaks from these vessels and collects in vital organs such as the lungs. This fluid build-up is called congestion. Congestion causes symptoms such as shortness of breath, tiredness and leg swelling. Furoscix is a prescription medicine, a diuretic, that treats congestion. Diuretics help get rid of extra fluid by increasing urination. Congestion is usually managed with oral diuretics, but sometimes congestion cannot be controlled by oral diuretics and patients may have to spend several days at a clinic or hospital to receive diuretics given through a vein (intravenous or iv.). Furoscix is a new formulation of furosemide, a common diuretic, and is delivered into the skin (subcutaneous) by a self-administered pump instead of through an iv. Our investigation aimed to answer two questions Can Furoscix be given to patients at home instead of in the hospital with iv. diuretics? Is there a cost savings to using Furoscix? Instead of being admitted to the hospital for iv. diuretics, HF patients with worsening congestion who came to the emergency department were sent home to receive Furoscix 80 mg/10 ml 5-h subcutaneous infusion for ≤7 days. 30-day costs related to HF in these patients were compared with costs from similar group of patients previously hospitalized for iv. diuretics. What were the results & what do they mean? In patients who needed to be admitted to the hospital for iv. diuretics, Furoscix given at home instead reduced congestion and resulted in significant cost savings. Patients with heart failure, who are not getting relief with oral diuretics, can be treated with Furoscix at home without having to be admitted to the hospital for iv. diuretics. Use of Furoscix instead of iv. furosemide can save money to the healthcare system.

Descriptive Epidemiology and Outcomes of Patients with Short Stay Hospitalizations for the Treatment of Congestive Heart Failure in the US.

Background: Congestive heart failure (CHF) hospitalizations cost the US $35 billion annually. Two-thirds of these admissions, generally requiring 3 days (long, LLOS) in a cross-sectional multicenter analysis within the 2018 National Inpatient Sample. We applied complex survey methods to calculate nationally representative results. Results: Among 4,979,350 discharges with any CHF code, 1,177,910 (23.7%) had CHF-PD, of whom 511,555 (43.4%) had SLOS. Patients with SLOS were younger (>/=65 years: 68.3% vs 71.9%), less likely covered by Medicare (71.9% vs 75.4%), and had a lower comorbidity burden (Charlson: 3.9 [2.1] vs 4.5 [2.2) than patients with LLOS; they less frequently developed acute kidney injury (0.4% vs 2.9%) or a need for mechanical ventilation (0.7% vs 2.8%). A higher proportion with SLOS than with LLOS underwent no procedures (70.4% vs 48.4%). Mean LOS (2.2 [0.8] vs 7.7 [6.5]), direct hospital costs ($6150 [$4413]) vs $17,127 [$26,936]), and aggregate annual hospital costs $3,131,560,372 vs $11,359,002,072) were all lower with SLOS than LLOS. All comparisons reached alpha = 0.001. Conclusion: Among patients admitted for CHF, nearly ½ have LOS

From Oral to Subcutaneous Furosemide: The Road to Novel Opportunities to Manage Congestion.

The steadily rising prevalence of heart failure (HF) and the associated increase in health care expenditures represent a significant burden for patients, caregivers, and society. Ambulatory management of worsening congestion is a complex undertaking that requires diuretic escalation, yet clinical success is often hindered by the progressively declining bioavailability of oral agents. Once beyond a threshold, patients with acute on chronic HF often require hospital admission for intravenous diuresis. A novel, pH neutral formulation of furosemide that is administered by a biphasic drug delivery profile (80 mg total over 5 â€‹hours) via an automated, on-body infusor was designed to overcome these limitations. Early studies have shown that it has equivalent bioavailability with comparable diuresis and natriuresis to the intravenous formulation, leads to significant decongestion, and improvement in quality of life. It was shown to be safe and is well tolerated by patients. Although there is one ongoing clinical trial, available data have demonstrated the potential to shift hospital-administered, intravenous diuresis to the outpatient setting. Reduction in the need for recurrent hospital admissions would be highly desirable by most patients with chronic HF and would lead to a significant reduction in health care expenditures. In this article, we describe the rationale and evolution of this novel PH neutral formulation of furosemide administered subcutaneously, summarize its pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic profiles, and review emerging clinical trials demonstrating its clinical safety, efficacy, and potential to reduce health care expenditures.

Thienopyridines in Acute Coronary Syndrome.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the safety and efficacy of the thienopyridines in order to identify their current place in therapy for the treatment of acute coronary syndrome (ACS). DATA SOURCES: Literature was accessed through MEDLINE (1966-October 2010 week 1), EMBASE (1980-2010 week 40), and a bibliographic review of published articles using the search terms acute coronary syndrome, clopidogrel, and prasugrel. Articles were limited to clinical trials conducted in humans and published in the English language. STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION: Head-to-head clinical trials evaluating the safety and efficacy of the thienopyridines in patients with ACS were critically reviewed. Trials evaluating ticlopidine were excluded due to its limited clinical use. DATA SYNTHESIS: Thienopyridines are an integral part of the treatment of ACS. Prior to the approval of prasugrel, clopidogrel was considered the agent of choice due to safety concerns associated with ticlopidine. A randomized controlled trial comparing prasugrel and clopidogrel has demonstrated superior efficacy with prasugrel, and post hoc analyses suggest additional benefit with prasugrel is derived in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction and patients with diabetes. However, safety concerns exist linking prasugrel with an increased risk of bleeding, which diminishes its advantage in elderly patients, underweight patients, and those with a history of stroke. Pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic studies discussing differences in response variability, platelet inhibition, interactions with proton pump inhibitors, and genetic factors between the thienopyridines are numerous, although more clinical data are needed to determine clinical implications. CONCLUSIONS: Clinical trial data have suggested prasugrel is superior to clopidogrel at preventing ischemic events in patients with ACS undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. However, this coincides with an increased risk of bleeding. Clinicians must carefully interpret the current evidence, including limitations in study design and pharmacologic differences between agents, in order to balance the risks and benefits as new data become available.