The costs of treating acute heart failure: an economic analysis of the SURVIVE trial.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the incremental cost per life year gained with levosimendan relative to dobutamine in treatment of acute heart failure based on the Survival of Patients with Acute Heart Failure in Need of Intravenous Inotropic Support (SURVIVE) trial. METHODS: SURVIVE enrolled 1,327 patients (levosimendan 664, dobutamine 663) from nine nations with 180-day survival from date of randomisation as the primary endpoint. Hospital resource utilisation was determined via clinical case reports. Unit costs were derived from hospital payment schedules for France, Germany and the UK, and represent a third-party payer perspective. Cost-effectiveness analysis was performed for a subset of the SURVIVE patient population selected in accordance with current levosimendan labeling. RESULTS: Mortality in the levosimendan group was 26 versus 28% for dobutamine (hazard ratio 0.91, 95% confidence interval 0.74-1.13, p=0.40). Initial hospitalisation length of stay was identical (levosimendan 14.4, dobutamine 14.5, p=0.98). Slightly lower rates of readmission were observed for levosimendan relative to dobutamine at 31 (p=0.13) and 180 days (p=0.23). Mean costs excluding study drug were equivalent for the index admission (levosimendan euro5,060, dobutamine euro4,952; p=0.91) and complete episode (levosimendan euro5,396, dobutamine euro5,275; p=0.93). CONCLUSION: At an acquisition cost of euro600 per vial, there is at least 50% likelihood that levosimendan is cost effective relative to dobutamine if willingness to pay is equal to or greater than euro15,000 per life year gained.

Hospital costs for treatment of acute heart failure: economic analysis of the REVIVE II study.

BACKGROUND: Acute heart failure (AHF) is the leading cause of hospital admission among older Americans. The Randomized EValuation of Intravenous Levosimendan Efficacy (REVIVE II) trial compared patients randomly assigned to a single infusion of levosimendan (levo) or placebo (SOC), each in addition to local standard treatments for AHF. We report an economic analysis of REVIVE II from the hospital perspective. METHODS: REVIVE II enrolled patients (N = 600) hospitalized for treatment of acute decompensated heart failure (ADHF) who remained dyspneic at rest despite treatment with intravenous diuretics. Case report forms documented index hospital treatment (drug administration, procedures, days of treatment by care unit), as well as subsequent hospital and emergency department admissions during follow-up ending 90 days from date of randomization. These data were used to impute cost of admission based on an econometric cost function derived from >100,000 ADHF hospital billing records selected per REVIVE II inclusion criteria. RESULTS: Index admission mean length of stay (LOS) was shorter for the levo group compared with standard of care (SOC) (7.03 vs 8.96 days, P = 0.008) although intensive care unit (ICU)/cardiac care unit (CCU) days were similar (levo 2.88, SOC 3.22, P = 0.63). Excluding cost for levo, predicted mean (median) cost for the index admission was levo US $13,590 (9,458), SOC $19,021 (10,692) with a difference of $5,431 (1,234) favoring levo (P = 0.04). During follow-up through end of study day 90, no significant differences were observed in numbers of hospital admissions (P = 0.67), inpatient days (P = 0.81) or emergency department visits (P = 0.41). Cost-effectiveness was performed with a REVIVE-II sub-set conforming to current labeling, which excluded patients with low baseline blood pressure. Assuming an average price for levo in countries where currently approved, there was better than 50% likelihood that levo was both cost-saving and improved survival. Likelihood that levo would be cost-effective for willingness-to-pay below $50,000 per year of life gained was about 65%. CONCLUSIONS: In the REVIVE II trial, patients treated with levo had shorter LOS and lower cost for the initial hospital admission relative to patients treated with SOC. Based on sub-group analysis of patients administered per the current label, levo appears cost-effective relative to SOC.