Rationale and design of Ferinject assessment in patients with IRon deficiency and chronic Heart Failure (FAIR-HF) study: a randomized, placebo-controlled study of intravenous iron supplementation in patients with and without anaemia.

AIMS: Iron deficiency (ID) and anaemia are common in patients with chronic heart failure (CHF). The presence of anaemia is associated with increased morbidity and mortality in CHF, and ID is a major reason for the development of anaemia. Preliminary studies using intravenous (i.v.) iron supplementation alone in patients with CHF and ID have shown improvements in symptom status. FAIR-HF (Clinical Trials.gov NCT00520780) was designed to determine the effect of i.v. iron repletion therapy using ferric carboxymaltose on self-reported patient global assessment (PGA) and New York Heart Association (NYHA) in patients with CHF and ID. METHODS AND RESULTS: This is a multi-centre, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study recruiting ambulatory patients with symptomatic CHF with LVEF < or = 40% (NYHA II) or < or =45% (NYHA III), ID [ferritin <100 ng/mL or ferritin 100-300 ng/mL when transferrin saturation (TSAT) < 20%], and haemoglobin 9.5-13.5 g/dL. Patients were randomized in a 2:1 ratio to receive ferric carboxymaltose (Ferinject((R))) 200 mg iron i.v. or saline i.v. weekly until iron repletion (correction phase), then monthly until Week 24 (maintenance phase). Primary endpoints are (i) self-reported PGA at Week 24 and (ii) NYHA class at Week 24, adjusted for baseline NYHA class. CONCLUSION: This study will provide evidence on the efficacy and safety of iron repletion with ferric carboxymaltose in CHF patients with ID with and without anaemia.

Long-term cost-effectiveness analysis of nebivolol compared with standard care in elderly patients with heart failure: an individual patient-based simulation model.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: The SENIORS trial demonstrated that nebivolol is effective in the treatment of heart failure in elderly patients (e.g. > or = 70 years). This analysis evaluates the cost effectiveness of nebivolol compared with standard treatment. METHODS: An individual patient-simulation model based on a Markov modelling framework was developed to compare costs and outcomes for nebivolol and standard care in patients with heart failure starting treatment at the age of 70 years. Health states were defined by New York Heart Association (NYHA) class and death. At a given NYHA class and a given cycle, patients could die, be hospitalized for cardiovascular disease or remain stable. Risks for these events were derived from individual patient data from the SENIORS trial. The risk of each event in a given cycle was based on the subject's baseline characteristics and time in the current health state. The economic analysis was conducted from the UK NHS perspective with a lifetime horizon. The costs (euro; year 2006 values) considered were drug costs for nebivolol and other cardiac drugs, costs of GP visits, outpatient specialist visits and cardiovascular-related hospitalizations. Univariate and probabilistic sensitivity analysis was conducted. RESULTS: In the baseline analysis, the total cost per patient was euro6740 and euro9288, and QALYs were 5.194 and 5.843 for patients aged 70 years at the start of treatment for the standard treatment and nebivolol groups, respectively. The probabilistic sensitivity analysis provided an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of euro3926 (95% CI 3731, 4159) per QALY. CONCLUSIONS: This analysis indicates that nebivolol appears to be a cost-effective treatment for elderly patients with heart failure compared with standard care.

Resource utilization implications of treatment were able to be assessed from appropriately reported clinical trial data.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Published clinical trial data rarely allow assessment of the health care resource utilization implications of treatment. We give an example of how these can be assessed given appropriate tabulation of data. METHODS: Data from a trial comparing long-acting nifedipine gastrointestinal therapeutic system to placebo in 7,665 patients with stable angina pectoris was analyzed. RESULTS: Relative to placebo, nifedipine significantly increased mean cardiovascular (CV) event-free survival by 41 days but had no effect on mean survival. Per 100 years of follow-up, 78.1 patient-years of double-blind nifedipine administration reduced use of another calcium antagonist, an angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor, an angiotensin receptor blocker, a diuretic and a cardiac glycoside by 1.54, 3.73, 2.63, 2.23, and 0.64 years, respectively, whereas 0.21 less hospitalization for overt heart failure, 0.47 less hospitalization for any stroke or transient ischemic attack, 0.8 less coronary angiogram, 0.38 less coronary bypass procedure, and 0.13 additional orthopedic procedure was required. Combining resource utilization with cost data for one particular hospital showed that one additional year of CV event-free survival costs an average additional euro 3,036 in the setting considered. CONCLUSION: Appropriately tabulated clinical trial data allows clinicians to judge the resource utilization implications and economic effect of treatment decisions.

Predictive value of local and core laboratory echocardiographic assessment of cardiac function in patients with chronic stable angina: The ACTION study.

AIMS: To evaluate the relationship between echocardiographic cardiac function and outcome in patients with stable symptomatic angina. METHODS: Baseline echo left ventricular ejection fraction and volume data measured in a central laboratory was available for 7016 patients (92% of the total) participating in the ACTION trial (A Coronary disease Trial Investigating Outcome with Nifedipine GITS). Ejection fraction was also measured by investigators. Evaluation of the different echocardiographic variables was based on adjusted hazard ratios comparing the unfavourable limit of the 90% range of the variable concerned to the favourable limit. RESULTS: The centrally measured ejection fraction was the most powerful predictor of all-cause death (adjusted hazard ratio=2.5), myocardial infarction, any stroke or transient ischaemic attack and overt heart failure (adjusted hazard ratio=4.5). The addition of either end systolic volume or end diastolic volume to ejection fraction did not materially affect the power of prediction. Compared to the central ejection fraction measurement, the investigator-measured ejection fraction was a less powerful predictor for all outcomes considered. CONCLUSION: Routine echocardiography carefully analysed by standardised methods provides useful prognostic information in patients with stable angina, including for total mortality.

High- versus low-dose angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor therapy in the treatment of heart failure: an economic analysis of the Assessment of Treatment with Lisinopril and Survival (ATLAS) trial.

BACKGROUND: Angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors reduce heart failure death and hospitalization. Prescribed doses often are lower than randomized clinical trial (RCT) targets and practice guideline recommendations. OBJECTIVE: To assess the cost-effectiveness of high- versus low-dose ACE inhibitor therapy in the ATLAS trial. STUDY DESIGN: A 19-nation RCT of high-dose (32.5-35.0 mg/day) versus low-dose (2.5-5.0 mg/day) lisinopril in 3164 patients with class II-IV heart failure and left ventricular ejection fraction < or = 30%. METHODS: Data on clinical outcomes and major cost events (hospitalizations and drug utilization) were collected prospectively. Hospital costs were estimated using Medicare and representative managed care diagnosis-related group reimbursement rates. ACE inhibitor drug costs were estimated using US average wholesale prices. Costs were discounted at 3% annually. RESULTS: Patients in the high-dose lisinopril group had fewer hospitalizations (1.98 vs 2.22, P = .014) and hospital days (18.28 vs 22.22, P = .002), especially heart failure hospitalizations (0.64 vs 0.80, P = .006) and heart failure hospital days (6.02 vs 7.45, P = .028) compared with the low-dose group. The high-dose lisinopril group also had lower heart failure hospital costs (dollars 5114 vs dollars 6361, P = .006) but higher ACE inhibitor drug costs (dollars 1368 vs dollars 855, P = .0001). Total hospital and drug costs were similar between high- and low-dose lisinopril groups (mean difference dollars -875, 95% CI dollars -2613 to dollars 884). Sensitivity analyses confirmed these findings. CONCLUSIONS: Cost savings from fewer heart failure hospitalizations offset higher ACE inhibitor costs in the high-dose group. The improved clinical outcomes were achieved without increased treatment costs.