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.

Disease burden in people with cystic fibrosis heterozygous for F508del and a minimal function mutation.

BACKGROUND: People with cystic fibrosis (CF) heterozygous for F508del-CFTR and a minimal function CFTR mutation (F/MF) that results in no CFTR protein or results in CFTR protein that is not responsive to tezacaftor, ivacaftor, and tezacaftor/ivacaftor in vitro comprise a sizeable percentage of the US CF population. This retrospective, cross-sectional, observational study aimed to characterize CF burden in this subpopulation. METHODS: People ≥2 years of age in the US CF Foundation Patient Registry with a CF diagnosis, F/MF genotype, and ≥1 encounters in 2017 were included. Descriptive analyses assessed lung function, nutritional parameters, microbiology, hospitalization and pulmonary exacerbation rates, and CF-related complications. Results were stratified by age group; select characteristics were summarized by percent predicted FEV1 (ppFEV1) and ethnicity. RESULTS: 5348 people met inclusion criteria. Rates of positive bacterial cultures, pulmonary exacerbations, and hospitalizations were generally higher in older age groups. Prevalence of prescribed symptomatic CF therapies was substantial and also generally higher in older age groups. ppFEV1 was lower in older age groups. A greater percentage of adolescents and adults reported complications, including cirrhosis, osteoporosis, osteopenia, and sinus disease, than younger age groups. Increased prevalence of cultured Pseudomonas aeruginosa and prescribed chronic therapy was seen with decreasing ppFEV1. In each age group, ppFEV1 was slightly higher in the non-Hispanic cohort than in the Hispanic cohort. CONCLUSIONS: People with F/MF genotypes have substantial disease burden that worsened in older age groups consistent with the progressive nature of CF, indicating need for additional treatment options in this subpopulation.

Assessment of safety and efficacy of long-term treatment with combination lumacaftor and ivacaftor therapy in patients with cystic fibrosis homozygous for the F508del-CFTR mutation (PROGRESS): a phase 3, extension study.

BACKGROUND: The 24-week safety and efficacy of lumacaftor/ivacaftor combination therapy was shown in two randomised controlled trials (RCTs)-TRAFFIC and TRANSPORT-in patients with cystic fibrosis who were aged 12 years or older and homozygous for the F508del-CFTR mutation. We aimed to assess the long-term safety and efficacy of extended lumacaftor/ivacaftor therapy in this group of patients in PROGRESS, the long-term extension of TRAFFIC and TRANSPORT. METHODS: PROGRESS was a phase 3, parallel-group, multicentre, 96-week study of patients who completed TRAFFIC or TRANSPORT in 191 sites in 15 countries. Patients were eligible if they were at least 12 years old with cystic fibrosis and homozygous for the F508del-CFTR mutation. Exclusion criteria included any comorbidity or laboratory abnormality that, in the opinion of the investigator, might confound the results of the study or pose an additional risk in administering the study drug to the participant, history of drug intolerance, and history of poor compliance with the study drug. Patients who previously received active treatment in TRANSPORT or TRAFFIC remained on the same dose in PROGRESS. Patients who had received placebo in TRANSPORT or TRAFFIC were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive lumacaftor (400 mg every 12 h)/ivacaftor (250 mg every 12 h) or lumacaftor (600 mg once daily)/ivacaftor (250 mg every 12 h). The primary outcome was to assess the long-term safety of combined therapy. The estimated annual rate of decline in percent predicted FEV1 (ppFEV1) in treated patients was compared with that of a matched registry cohort. Efficacy analyses were based on modified intention-to-treat, such that data were included for all patients who were randomly assigned and received at least one dose of study drug. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01931839. FINDINGS: Between Oct 24, 2013, and April 7, 2016, 1030 patients from the TRANSPORT and TRAFFIC studies enrolled in PROGRESS, and 1029 received at least one dose of study drug. 340 patients continued treatment with lumacaftor 400 mg every 12 h/ivacaftor 250 mg every 12 h; 176 patients who had received placebo in the TRANSPORT or TRAFFIC studies initiated treatment with lumacaftor 400 mg every 12 h/ivacaftor 250 mg every 12 h, the commercially available dose, for which data are presented. The most common adverse events were infective pulmonary exacerbations, cough, increased sputum, and haemoptysis. Modest blood pressure increases seen in TRAFFIC and TRANSPORT were also observed in PROGRESS. For patients continuing treatment, the mean change from baseline in ppFEV1 was 0·5 (95% CI -0·4 to 1·5) at extension week 72 and 0·5 (-0·7 to 1·6) at extension week 96; change in BMI was 0·69 (0·56 to 0·81) at extension week 72 and 0·96 (0·81 to 1·11) at extension week 96. The annualised pulmonary exacerbation rate in patients continuing treatment through extension week 96 (0·65, 0·56 to 0·75) remained lower than the placebo rate in TRAFFIC and TRANSPORT. The annualised rate of ppFEV1 decline was reduced in lumacaftor/ivacaftor-treated patients compared with matched controls (-1·33, -1·80 to -0·85 vs -2·29, -2·56 to -2·03). The efficacy and safety profile of the lumacaftor 600 mg once daily/ivacaftor 250 mg every 12 h groups was generally similar to that of the lumacaftor 400 mg every 12 h/ivacaftor 250 mg every 12 h groups. INTERPRETATION: The long-term safety profile of lumacaftor/ivacaftor combination therapy was consistent with previous RCTs. Benefits continued to be observed with longer-term treatment, and lumacaftor/ivacaftor was associated with a 42% slower rate of ppFEV1 decline than in matched registry controls. FUNDING: Vertex Pharmaceuticals Incorporated.

Socioeconomic status and the likelihood of antibiotic treatment for signs and symptoms of pulmonary exacerbation in children with cystic fibrosis.

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether socioeconomic status (SES) influences the likelihood of antibiotic treatment of pulmonary exacerbations in patients with cystic fibrosis (CF). STUDY DESIGN: We used data on 9895 patients ≤ 18 years old from the Epidemiologic Study of CF. After establishing an individual baseline of clinical signs and symptoms, we ascertained whether antibiotics were prescribed when new signs/symptoms suggested a pulmonary exacerbation, adjusting for sex, presence of Pseudomonas aeruginosa, the number of new signs/symptoms, and baseline disease severity. RESULTS: In a 12-month period, 20.0% of patients <6 years of age, 33.8% of patients 6 to 12 years of age, and 41.4% of patients 13 to 18 years of age were treated with any (oral, intravenous (IV), or inhaled) antibiotics; the percentage receiving IV antibiotics was 7.3%, 15.2%, and 20.9%, respectively. SES had little effect on treatment for pulmonary exacerbation with any antibiotics, but IV antibiotics were prescribed more frequently for patients with lower SES. CONCLUSIONS: SES-related disparities in CF health outcomes do not appear to be explained by differential treatment of pulmonary exacerbations.