The Cost-Effectiveness of Rivaroxaban Plus Aspirin Compared with Aspirin Alone in the COMPASS Trial: A US Perspective.

BACKGROUND: Rivaroxaban 2.5 mg twice daily with aspirin 100 mg daily was shown to be better than aspirin 100 mg daily for preventing cardiovascular (CV) death, stroke or myocardial infarction in patients with either stable coronary artery disease (CAD) or peripheral artery disease (PAD). The cost-effectiveness of this regimen in this population is essential for decision-makers to know. METHODS: US direct healthcare system costs (in USD) were applied to hospitalized events, procedures and study drugs utilized by all patients. We determined the mean cost per participant for the full duration of the trial (mean follow-up of 23 months) plus quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) over a lifetime using a two-state Markov model with 1-year cycle length. Sensitivity analyses were performed on the price of rivaroxaban and the annual discontinuation rate. RESULTS: The costs of events and procedures were reduced for Cardiovascular Outcomes for People Using Anticoagulation Strategies (COMPASS) patients who received rivaroxaban 2.5 mg orally (BID) plus acetylsalicylic acid (ASA) compared with ASA alone. Total costs were higher for the combination group ($7426 versus $4173) after considering acquisition costs of the study drug. Over a lifetime, patients receiving rivaroxaban plus ASA incurred $27,255 more and gained 1.17 QALYs compared with those receiving ASA alone resulting in an ICER of $23,295/QALY. ICERs for PAD only and polyvascular disease subgroups were lower. CONCLUSION: Rivaroxaban 2.5 mg BID plus ASA compared with ASA alone was cost-effective (high value) in the USA. COMPASS ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01776424.

Mortality and morbidity during and after the Antihypertensive and Lipid-Lowering Treatment to Prevent Heart Attack Trial.

A randomized, double-blind, active-controlled, multicenter trial assigned 32,804 participants aged 55 years and older with hypertension and ≥ 1 other coronary heart disease risk factors to receive chlorthalidone (n=15,002), amlodipine (n=8898), or lisinopril (n=8904) for 4 to 8 years, when double-blinded therapy was discontinued. Passive surveillance continued for a total follow-up of 8 to 13 years using national administrative databases to ascertain deaths and hospitalizations. During the post-trial period, fatal outcomes and nonfatal outcomes were available for 98% and 65% of participants, respectively, due to lack of access to administrative databases for the remainder. This paper assesses whether mortality and morbidity differences persisted or new differences developed during the extended follow-up. Primary outcome was cardiovascular mortality and secondary outcomes were mortality, stroke, coronary heart disease, heart failure, cardiovascular disease, and end-stage renal disease. For the post-trial period, data are not available on medications or blood pressure levels. No significant differences (P<.05) appeared in cardiovascular mortality for amlodipine (hazard ratio [HR], 1.00; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.93-1.06) or lisinopril (HR, 0.97; CI, 0.90-1.03), each compared with chlorthalidone. The only significant differences in secondary outcomes were for heart failure, which was higher with amlodipine (HR, 1.12; CI, 1.02-1.22), and stroke mortality, which was higher with lisinopril (HR, 1.20; CI, 1.01-1.41), each compared with chlorthalidone. Similar to the previously reported in-trial result, there was a significant treatment-by-race interaction for cardiovascular disease for lisinopril vs chlorthalidone. Black participants had higher risk than non-black participants taking lisinopril compared with chlorthalidone. After accounting for multiple comparisons, none of these results were significant. These findings suggest that neither calcium channel blockers nor angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors are superior to diuretics for the long-term prevention of major cardiovascular complications of hypertension.

Recent Trends in Adherence to Secondary Prevention Guidelines for Patients Undergoing Coronary Revascularization in Washington State: An Analysis of the Clinical Outcomes Assessment Program (COAP) Registry.

BACKGROUND: Previous studies indicated that patients undergoing coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery are less likely to receive guideline-based secondary prevention therapy than are those undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) after an acute myocardial infarction. We aimed to evaluate whether these differences have persisted after the implementation of public reporting of hospital metrics. METHODS AND RESULTS: The Clinical Outcomes Assessment Program (COAP) database was analyzed retrospectively to evaluate adherence to secondary prevention guidelines at discharge in patients who underwent coronary revascularization after an acute ST-elevation myocardial infarction in Washington State. From 2004 to 2007, 9260 patients received PCI and 692 underwent CABG for this indication. Measures evaluated included prescription of aspirin, ß-blockers, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin II receptor blockers, or lipid-lowering medications; cardiac rehabilitation referral; and smoking-cessation counseling. Composite adherence was lower for CABG than for PCI patients during the period studied (79.6% versus 89.7%, P<0.01). Compared to patients who underwent CABG, patients who underwent PCI were more likely to receive each of the pharmacological therapies. There was no statistical difference in smoking-cessation counseling (91.7% versus 90.3%, P=0.63), and CABG patients were more likely to receive referral for cardiac rehabilitation (70.9% versus 48.3%, P<0.01). Adherence rates improved over time among both groups, with no significant difference in composite adherence in 2006 (85.6% versus 87.6%, P=0.36). CONCLUSIONS: Rates of guideline-based secondary prevention adherence in patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction who underwent CABG surgery have been improving steadily in Washington State. The improvement possibly is associated with the implementation of public reporting of quality measures.

Erectile dysfunction predicts cardiovascular events in high-risk patients receiving telmisartan, ramipril, or both: The ONgoing Telmisartan Alone and in combination with Ramipril Global Endpoint Trial/Telmisartan Randomized AssessmeNt Study in ACE iNtolerant subjects with cardiovascular Disease (ONTARGET/TRANSCEND) Trials.

BACKGROUND: Although erectile dysfunction (ED) is associated with cardiovascular risk factors and atherosclerosis, it is not known whether the presence of ED is predictive of future events in individuals with cardiovascular disease. We evaluated whether ED is predictive of mortality and cardiovascular outcomes, and because inhibition of the renin-angiotensin system in high-risk patients reduces cardiovascular events, we also tested the effects on ED of randomized treatments with telmisartan, ramipril, and the combination of the 2 drugs (ONTARGET), as well as with telmisartan or placebo in patients who were intolerant of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (TRANSCEND). METHODS AND RESULTS: In a prespecified substudy, 1549 patients underwent double-blind randomization, with 400 participants assigned to receive ramipril, 395 telmisartan, and 381 the combination thereof (ONTARGET), as well as 171 participants assigned to receive telmisartan and 202 placebo (TRANSCEND). ED was evaluated at baseline, at 2-year follow-up, and at the penultimate visit before closeout. ED was predictive of all-cause death (hazard ratio [HR] 1.84, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.21 to 2.81, P=0.005) and the composite primary outcome (HR 1.42, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.94, P=0.029), which consisted of cardiovascular death (HR 1.93, 95% CI 1.13 to 3.29, P=0.016), myocardial infarction (HR 2.02, 95% CI 1.13 to 3.58, P=0.017), hospitalization for heart failure (HR 1.2, 95% CI 0.64 to 2.26, P=0.563), and stroke (HR 1.1, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.9, P=0.742). The study medications did not influence the course or development of ED. CONCLUSIONS: ED is a potent predictor of all-cause death and the composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, stroke, and heart failure in men with cardiovascular disease. Trial treatment did not significantly improve or worsen ED. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT 00153101.

NIH consensus development conference draft statement on vaginal birth after cesarean: new insights.

OBJECTIVE: To provide health care providers, patients, and the general public with a responsible assessment of currently available data on vaginal birth after cesarean (VBAC). PARTICIPANTS: A non-DHHS, nonadvocate 15-member panel representing the fields of obstetrics and gynecology, urogynecology, maternal and fetal medicine, pediatrics, midwifery, clinical pharmacology, medical ethics, internal medicine, family medicine, perinatal and reproductive psychiatry, anesthesiology, nursing, biostatistics, epidemiology, health care regulation, risk management, and a public representative, and a public representative. In addition, 21 experts from pertinent fields presented data to the panel and conference audience. EVIDENCE: Presentations by experts and a systematic review of the literature prepared by the Oregon Evidence-based Practice Center, through the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Scientific evidence was given precedence over anecdotal experience. CONFERENCE PROCESS: The panel drafted its statement based on scientific evidence presented in open forum and on published scientific literature. The draft statement was presented on the final day of the conference and circulated to the audience for comment. The panel released a revised statement later that day at http://consensus.nih.gov. This statement is an independent report of the panel and is not a policy statement of the NIH or the Federal Government. CONCLUSIONS: Given the available evidence, trial of labor is a reasonable option for many pregnant women with one prior low transverse uterine incision. The data reviewed in this report show that both trial of labor and elective repeat cesarean delivery for a pregnant woman with one prior transverse uterine incision have important risks and benefits and that these risks and benefits differ for the woman and her fetus. This poses a profound ethical dilemma for the woman, as well as her caregivers, because benefit for the woman may come at the price of increased risk for the fetus and vice versa. This conundrum is worsened by the general paucity of high-level evidence about both medical and nonmedical factors, which prevents the precise quantification of risks and benefits that might help to make an informed decision about trial of labor compared with elective repeat cesarean delivery. The panel was mindful of these clinical and ethical uncertainties in making the following conclusions and recommendations. One of the panel's major goals is to support pregnant women with one prior transverse uterine incision to make informed decisions about trial of labor compared with elective repeat cesarean delivery. The panel recommends that clinicians and other maternity care providers use the responses to the six questions, especially questions 3 and 4, to incorporate an evidence-based approach into the decisionmaking process. Information, including risk assessment, should be shared with the woman at a level and pace that she can understand. When trial of labor and elective repeat cesarean delivery are medically equivalent options, a shared decisionmaking process should be adopted and, whenever possible, the woman's preference should be honored. The panel is concerned about the barriers that women face in gaining access to clinicians and facilities that are able and willing to offer trial of labor. Given the low level of evidence for the requirement for "immediately available" surgical and anesthesia personnel in current guidelines, the panel recommends that the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the American Society of Anesthesiologists reassess this requirement with specific reference to other obstetric complications of comparable risk, risk stratification, and in light of limited physician and nursing resources. Healthcare organizations, physicians, and other clinicians should consider making public their trial of labor policies and VBAC rates, as well as their plans for responding to obstetric emergencies. The panel recommends that hospitals, maternity care providers, healthcare and professional liability insurers, consumers, and policymakers collaborate on the development of integrated services that could mitigate or even eliminate current barriers to trial of labor. The panel is concerned that medical-legal considerations add to, and in many instances exacerbate, these barriers to trial of labor. Policymakers, providers, and other stakeholders must collaborate in developing and implementing appropriate strategies to mitigate the chilling effect the medical-legal environment has on access to care. High-quality research is needed in many areas. The panel has identified areas that need attention in response to question 6. Research in these areas should be given appropriate priority and should be adequately funded--especially studies that would help to characterize more precisely the short-term and long-term maternal, fetal, and neonatal outcomes of trial of labor and elective repeat cesarean delivery.

Impact of supplemental site grants to increase African American accrual for the Selenium and Vitamin E Cancer Prevention Trial.

BACKGROUND: African American accrual to prevention trials at rates representative of the disease burden experienced by this population requires additional resources and focused efforts. PURPOSE: To describe the rationale, context, and criteria for selection of sites that received Minority Recruitment Enhancement Grants (MREGs) to increase African American recruitment to the Selenium and Vitamin E Cancer Prevention Trial (SELECT). To determine if African American accrual was higher among the 15 MREG sites when compared with similar nonawarded sites. METHODS: Changes in African American accrual at sites that received MREGs are compared with changes in a group of 15, frequency-matched, nonawarded sites using a quasi-experimental, post hoc analysis. Successful and unsuccessful recruitment strategies reported by the MREG sites are described. RESULTS: The increased number of African American participants accrued per month at MREG sites post-funding was higher than the change at comparison sites by a factor of 3.38 (p = 0.004, 95% CI: 1.51-7.57). An estimated 602 additional African American participants were recruited at MREG sites due to MREG funding, contributing to the overall 14.9% African American recruitment. Successful recruitment strategies most reported by MREG sites included increasing staff, transportation resources, recruiting through the media, mailings, and prostate cancer screening clinics during off-hours. LIMITATIONS: Comparison sites were chosen retrospectively, not by randomization. Although comparison sites were selected to be similar to MREG sites with regard to potential confounding factors, it is possible that unknown factors could have biased results. Cost-effective analyses were not conducted. CONCLUSIONS: MREG sites increased African American accrual in the post-funding period more than comparison sites, indicating MREG funding enhanced the sites' abilities to accrue African American participants. Targeted grants early in the accrual period may be a useful multi-site intervention to increase African American accrual for a prevention study where adequate African American representation is essential.

Effects of telmisartan, ramipril, and their combination on left ventricular hypertrophy in individuals at high vascular risk in the Ongoing Telmisartan Alone and in Combination With Ramipril Global End Point Trial and the Telmisartan Randomized Assessment Study in ACE Intolerant Subjects With Cardiovascular Disease.

BACKGROUND: Angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers reduce left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH). The effect of these drugs on LVH in high-risk patients without heart failure is unknown. METHODS AND RESULTS: In the Ongoing Telmisartan Alone and in Combination With Ramipril Global End Point Trial (ONTARGET), patients at high vascular risk and tolerant of ACE inhibitors were randomly assigned to ramipril, telmisartan, or their combination (n=23 165). In the Telmisartan Randomized Assessment Study in ACE Intolerant Subjects With Cardiovascular Disease (TRANSCEND), patients intolerant of ACE inhibitors were randomized to telmisartan or placebo (n=5343). Prevalence of LVH at entry in TRANSCEND was 12.7%. It was reduced by telmisartan (10.5% and 9.9% after 2 and 5 years) compared with placebo (12.7% and 12.8% after 2 and 5 years) (overall odds ratio, 0.79; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.68 to 0.91; P=0.0017). New-onset LVH occurred less frequently with telmisartan compared with placebo (overall odds ratio, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.51 to 0.79; P=0.0001). LVH regression was similar in the 2 groups. In ONTARGET, prevalence of LVH at entry was 12.4%. At follow-up, it occurred slightly less frequently with telmisartan (odds ratio, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.83 to 1.01; P=0.07) and the combination (odds ratio, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.84 to 1.02; P=0.12) than with ramipril, but differences between the groups were not significant. New-onset LVH was associated with a higher risk of primary outcome during follow-up (hazard ratio, 1.77; 95% CI, 1.50 to 2.07). CONCLUSIONS: In patients at high vascular risk, telmisartan is more effective than placebo in reducing LVH. New-onset LVH is reduced by 37%. The effect of combination of the 2 drugs on LVH is similar to that of ramipril alone.

Sexual function, satisfaction, and association of erectile dysfunction with cardiovascular disease and risk factors in cardiovascular high-risk patients: substudy of the ONgoing Telmisartan Alone and in Combination with Ramipril Global Endpoint Trial/Telmisartan Randomized AssessmeNT Study in ACE-INtolerant Subjects with Cardiovascular Disease (ONTARGET/TRANSCEND).

BACKGROUND: Erectile dysfunction (ED) is a common disorder in middle-aged men and is significantly influenced by cardiovascular risk factors (CVRFs) and cardiovascular disease. The substudy of the ONTARGET/TRANSCEND trials evaluates the relationship of erectile function to baseline characteristics and current treatment in cardiovascular high-risk patients who have been enrolled in these trials. The effects of treatment with telmisartan and ramipril, alone or in combination, including a telmisartan versus placebo arm will be determined prospectively during a follow-up of 4 years. METHODS: One thousand three hundred fifty-seven patients were evaluated in 13 countries at baseline, 2 years, and 4 years, with ED determined using the ED score of the Cologne Male Survey (Kölner [Cologne] Evaluation of Erectile Dysfunction) and the 5-item International Index of Erectile Function. Erectile dysfunction scores were related to CVRF and the use of cardiovascular drugs. RESULTS: Prevalence of ED was 50.7% (Kölner [Cologne] Evaluation of Erectile Dysfunction) and 54.3% (5-item International Index of Erectile Function), respectively, with a decline of sexual activity after the diagnosis of cardiovascular disease. In multivariate analysis, diabetes mellitus (P < .00001), stroke (P = .00026), pelvic surgery (P = .025), and age of >65 years (P < .00001) correlated with the degree of ED. No significant associations were observed for cholesterol levels, hypertension, and smoking status as well as current treatment with angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, angiotensin I antagonists, diuretics, beta-blockers, or calcium-channel blockers. CONCLUSIONS: The ONTARGET/TRANSCEND-ED substudy shows a significant influence of cardiovascular disease on erectile function. In contrast to prior smaller studies, drug therapy and CVRF seem to play a minor role in cardiovascular high-risk patients. Follow-up data will provide information whether angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, angiotensin I antagonists, or a combination thereof are able to improve erectile function.

Patient perception of the effect of treatment with candesartan in heart failure. Results of the candesartan in heart failure: assessment of reduction in mortality and morbidity (CHARM) programme.

AIMS: To evaluate the effect of the angiotensin receptor blocker candesartan on patients' perception of symptoms, using the McMaster Overall treatment evaluation (OTE), in a broad spectrum of patients with chronic heart failure (CHF). METHODS AND RESULTS: Patients with symptomatic CHF, randomised in the CHARM Programme in North America (n=2498), were studied. OTE was assessed at baseline, at 6, 14 and 26 months and the patient's final or closing visit. Patient's status was classified as "improved (score +1 to +7)", "unchanged (score 0)" or "deteriorated (score -1 to -7)" at the end of the study compared to baseline. Both a simple "last visit carried forward" (LVCF) analysis and "worst rank carried forward" (WRCF) analysis (where patients who died were allocated the worst OTE score) were used. In the LVCF analysis, compared to placebo, more candesartan patients improved (37.7% versus 33.5%) and fewer worsened (10.8% versus 12.0%) in OTE (p=0.017). The WRCF analysis also showed better overall OTE scores with candesartan compared to placebo (p=0.029). There was no heterogeneity in the response to candesartan between the CHARM component trials or across four exploratory sub-groups (age, sex, NYHA class and beta-blocker). CONCLUSIONS: Candesartan was shown to be better than placebo, when using the McMaster OTE to measure patient perception of treatment. More patients treated with candesartan reported improvement and fewer reported deterioration. This benefit was obtained when candesartan was added to extensive background therapy and is consistent with the benefits of candesartan on NYHA class, hospital admission for worsening heart failure and mortality.

How cost-effective are new preventive strategies for cardiovascular disease?

Costs of providing a particular medical service can be measured, but it is more difficult to assess whether the service provides good value for the money spent. Rigorous trials have demonstrated the health benefits connected with interventions for treatment and prevention of cardiovascular disease (CVD), and in-depth analyses of the costs associated with many of those interventions have been performed. Careful use of terminology clearly differentiating among cost-minimization (relative costs of proved equivalent therapeutics), cost-effectiveness (lives saved or years of life added), and cost-benefit (total net effect in monetary terms) analyses is warranted. Although trials commonly assess clinical effectiveness as reductions in mortality or CVD-specific outcomes, improvement in quality of life may be equally important and is expressed in quality-adjusted life-years. Comparisons between therapies can be assessed as a cost-effectiveness ratio. Extensive cost-effectiveness studies have been conducted on many important cardiovascular therapies: (1) beta-blockers and diuretics for multiple CVD outcomes, mortality, and prevention of recurrent myocardial infarction (MI); (2) statins for both primary and secondary prevention of CVD; (3) enalapril for prevention and treatment of congestive heart failure; (4) tissue plasminogen activator treatment of acute MI; (5) coronary artery bypass graft for left main, single-, and 2-vessel coronary artery disease, or severe angina; (6) physician counseling for smoking; and (7) radiofrequency ablation therapy for Wolff-Parkinson-White syndrome. Therapies considered economically attractive include (1) secondary prevention with statins in hyperlipidemia, (2) smoking cessation programs, (3) primary prevention in treatment of high blood pressure with diuretics and beta-blockers, (4) primary prevention with regular exercise programs, (5) secondary prevention with cardiac rehabilitation, and (6) postinfarction treatment with beta-blockers and angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors. A recent cost-minimization analysis has been performed showing aspirin to be a "best buy" therapy for secondary prevention of CVD. The Ongoing Telmisartan Alone and in Combination with Ramipril Global Endpoint Trial (ONTARGET) and Telmisartan Randomized Assessment Study in ACE-I Intolerant Patients with Cardiovascular Disease (TRANSCEND) program provide potential opportunities for both cost-minimization and cost-effectiveness analyses.