Financial burden of heart failure in Malaysia: A perspective from the public healthcare system.

BACKGROUND: Estimating and evaluating the economic burden of HF and its impact on the public healthcare system is necessary for devising improved treatment plans in the future. The present study aimed to determine the economic impact of HF on the public healthcare system. METHOD: The annual cost of HF per patient was estimated using unweighted average and inverse probability weighting (IPW). Unweight average estimated the annual cost by considering all observed cases regardless of the availability of all the cost data, while IPW calculated the cost by weighting against inverse probability. The economic burden of HF was estimated for different HF phenotypes and age categories at the population level from the public healthcare system perspective. RESULTS: The mean (standard deviation) annual costs per patient calculated using unweighted average and IPW were USD 5,123 (USD 3,262) and USD 5,217 (USD 3,317), respectively. The cost of HF estimated using two different approaches did not differ significantly (p = 0.865). The estimated cost burden of HF in Malaysia was USD 481.9 million (range: USD 31.7 million- 1,213.2 million) per year, which accounts for 1.05% (range: 0.07%-2.66%) of total health expenditure in 2021. The cost of managing patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) accounted for 61.1% of the total financial burden of HF in Malaysia. The annual cost burden increased from USD 2.8 million for patients aged 20-29 to USD 142.1 million for those aged 60-69. The cost of managing HF in patients aged 50-79 years contributed 74.1% of the total financial burden of HF in Malaysia. CONCLUSION: A large portion of the financial burden of HF in Malaysia is driven by inpatient costs and HFrEF patients. Long-term survival of HF patients leads to an increase in the prevalence of HF, inevitably increasing the financial burden of HF.

Cost-effectiveness of adding empagliflozin to the standard of care for patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction from the perspective of healthcare system in Malaysia.

Objective: The aim of this study was to determine the cost-effectiveness of adding empagliflozin to the standard of care versus SoC alone for the treatment of patients with heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) from the perspective of the Ministry of Health of Malaysia. Methods: A cohort-based transition-state model, with health states defined as Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire Clinical Summary Score (KCCQ-CSS) quartiles and death, was used to determine the lifetime direct medical costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) for both treatment groups. The risks of all-cause death, cardiovascular death, and health state utilities were estimated from the EMPEROR-Reduced trial. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was assessed against the cost-effectiveness threshold (CET) as defined by the country's gross domestic product per capita (RM 47,439 per QALY) to determine cost-effectiveness. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess the key model parameters' uncertainty in respect to the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio. A scenario analysis was performed using health states as defined by the New York Heart Association classes. Results: Compared to SoC alone, empagliflozin + SoC for the treatment of HFrEF was more expensive (RM 25,333 vs. RM 21,675) but gained more health utilities (3.64 vs. 3.46), resulting in an ICER of RM 20,400 per QALY in the KCCQ-CSS model. A NYHA-based scenario analysis generated an ICER of RM 36,682 per QALY. A deterministic sensitivity analysis confirmed the robustness of the model in identifying the empagliflozin cost as the main driver of cost-effectiveness. The ICER was reduced to RM 6,621 when the government medication purchasing prices were used. A probabilistic sensitivity analysis with a CET of 1xGDP per capita reached 72.9% probability for empagliflozin + SoC against SoC being cost-effective. Conclusion: Empagliflozin + SoC compared to SoC alone for the treatment of HFrEF patients was cost-effective from the perspective of the MoH of Malaysia.

Cost analysis of chronic heart failure management in Malaysia: A multi-centred retrospective study.

Background: Estimation of the economic burden of heart failure (HF) through a complete evaluation is essential for improved treatment planning in the future. This estimation also helps in reimbursement decisions for newer HF treatments. This study aims to estimate the cost of HF treatment in Malaysia from the Ministry of Health's perspective. Materials and methods: A prevalence-based, bottom-up cost analysis study was conducted in three tertiary hospitals in Malaysia. Chronic HF patients who received treatment between 1 January 2016 and 31 December 2018 were included in the study. The direct cost of HF was estimated from the patients' healthcare resource utilisation throughout a one-year follow-up period extracted from patients' medical records. The total costs consisted of outpatient, hospitalisation, medications, laboratory tests and procedure costs, categorised according to ejection fraction (EF) and the New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional classification. Results: A total of 329 patients were included in the study. The mean ± standard deviation of total cost per HF patient per-year (PPPY) was USD 1,971 ± USD 1,255, of which inpatient cost accounted for 74.7% of the total cost. Medication costs (42.0%) and procedure cost (40.8%) contributed to the largest proportion of outpatient and inpatient costs. HF patients with preserved EF had the highest mean total cost of PPPY, at USD 2,410 ± USD 1,226. The mean cost PPPY of NYHA class II was USD 2,044 ± USD 1,528, the highest among all the functional classes. Patients with underlying coronary artery disease had the highest mean total cost, at USD 2,438 ± USD 1,456, compared to other comorbidities. HF patients receiving angiotensin-receptor neprilysin-inhibitor (ARNi) had significantly higher total cost of HF PPPY in comparison to patients without ARNi consumption (USD 2,439 vs. USD 1,933, p < 0.001). Hospitalisation, percutaneous coronary intervention, coronary angiogram, and comorbidities were the cost predictors of HF. Conclusion: Inpatient cost was the main driver of healthcare cost for HF. Efficient strategies for preventing HF-related hospitalisation and improving HF management may potentially reduce the healthcare cost for HF treatment in Malaysia.