Health-related quality of life and healthcare costs of symptoms and cardiovascular disease events in patients with atrial fibrillation: a longitudinal analysis of 27 countries from the EURObservational Research Programme on Atrial Fibrillation general long-term registry.

AIMS: We examine the effects of symptoms and cardiovascular disease (CVD) events on health-related quality of life (HRQOL) and healthcare costs in a European population with atrial fibrillation (AF). METHODS AND RESULTS: In the EURObservational Research Programme on AF long-term general registry, AF patients from 250 centres in 27 European countries were enrolled and followed for 2 years. We used fixed effects models to estimate the association of symptoms and CVD events on HRQOL and annual healthcare costs. We found significant decrements in HRQOL in AF patients in whom ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) [-0.075 (95% confidence interval -0.144, -0.006)], angina or non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) [-0.037 (-0.071, -0.003)], new-onset/worsening heart failure [-0.064 (-0.088, -0.039)], bleeding events [-0.031 (-0.059, -0.003)], thromboembolic events [-0.071 (-0.115, -0.027)], mild symptoms [0.037 (-0.048, -0.026)], or severe/disabling symptoms [-0.090 (-0.108, -0.072)] occurred during the follow-up. During follow-up, annual healthcare costs were associated with an increase of €11 718 (€8497, €14 939) in patients with STEMI, €5823 (€4757, €6889) in patients with angina/NSTEMI, €3689 (€3219, €4158) in patients with new-onset or worsening heart failure, €3792 (€3315, €4270) in patients with bleeding events, and €3182 (€2483, €3881) in patients with thromboembolic events, compared with AF patients without these events. Healthcare costs were primarily driven by inpatient costs. There were no significant differences in HRQOL or healthcare resource use between EU regions or by sex. CONCLUSION: Symptoms and CVD events are associated with a high burden on AF patients and healthcare systems throughout Europe.

Characteristics, management, and outcomes in women and men with congestive heart failure in 40 countries at different economic levels: an analysis from the Global Congestive Heart Failure (G-CHF) registry.

BACKGROUND: There is a paucity of data on the clinical characteristics, management, and outcomes of women compared with men with heart failure in low-income and middle-income countries compared with high-income countries. We examined sex differences in risk factors, clinical characteristics, and treatments, and prospectively assessed the risk of heart failure hospitalisation and mortality in patients with heart failure in 40 high-income, middle-income, and low-income countries. METHODS: Participants aged 18 years or older with heart failure were enrolled from Dec 20, 2016, to Sept 9, 2020 in the prospective Global Congestive Heart Failure (G-CHF) study from 257 centres in 40 high-income, middle-income, and low-income countries. Participants were followed up until May 25, 2023. We recorded the demographic characteristics, medical history, and treatments of participants. We prospectively recorded data on heart failure hospitalisation and mortality by sex in the overall study, according to country economic status, and according to level of left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). FINDINGS: 23 341 participants (9119 [39·1%] women and 14 222 [60·1%] men) were recruited and followed up for a mean of 2·6 years (SD 1·4). The mean age of women in the study was 62 years (SD 17) compared with 64 years (14) in men. Fewer women than men had an LVEF of 40% or lower (51·7% women vs 66·2% men). By contrast, more women than men had an LVEF of 50% or higher (33·2% women vs 18·6% men). Hypertensive heart failure was the most common aetiology in women (25·5% women vs 16·8% men), whereas ischaemic heart failure was the most common aetiology in men (45·6% men vs 26·6% women). Signs and symptoms of congestion were more common in women than men: 42·6% of women had a New York Heart Association functional class of III or IV compared with 37·9% of men. The use of heart failure medications and cardiac tests did not differ systematically between the sexes, although implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) implantation was lower among women than men (8·7% women vs 17·2% men). The adjusted risk of heart failure hospitalisation was similar in women and men (women-to-men adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 0·99 [95% CI 0·92-1·05]). This pattern was consistent within groups of countries categorised by economic status, geographical region, and by LVEF level. However, women had a lower adjusted risk of mortality (women-to-men adjusted HR 0·79 [95% CI 0·75-0·84]) despite adjustments for prognostic factors-a pattern which was consistently observed across groups of countries irrespective of economic status, geography, and LVEF levels of patients. INTERPRETATION: The underlying cause of heart failure and ejection fraction phenotype differ between women and men, as do the severity of symptoms. Heart failure treatments (except ICD use) were not consistently in favour of one sex. Paradoxically, while the rates of hospitalisations were similar among women and men, the risk of death was lower among women. These patterns were consistent regardless of the economic status of the countries. The higher mortality among men is unexplained and warrants further study. FUNDING: Bayer.

Economic burden of cardiovascular diseases in the European Union: a population-based cost study.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Cardiovascular disease (CVD) impacts significantly health and social care systems as well as society through premature mortality and disability, with patients requiring care from relatives. Previous pan-European estimates of the economic burden of CVD are now outdated. This study aims to provide novel, up-to-date evidence on the economic burden across the 27 European Union (EU) countries in 2021. METHODS: Aggregate country-specific resource use data on morbidity, mortality, and health, social and informal care were obtained from international sources, such as the Statistical Office of the European Communities, enhanced by data from the European Society of Cardiology Atlas programme and patient-level data from the Survey of Health, Ageing and Retirement in Europe. Country-specific unit costs were used, with cost estimates reported on a per capita basis, after adjustment for price differentials. RESULTS: CVD is estimated to cost the EU €282 billion annually, with health and long-term care accounting for €155 billion (55%), equalling 11% of EU-health expenditure. Productivity losses accounted for 17% (€48 billion), whereas informal care costs were €79 billion (28%). CVD represented a cost of €630 per person, ranging from €381 in Cyprus to €903 in Germany. Coronary heart disease accounted for 27% (€77 billion) and cerebrovascular diseases for 27% (€76 billion) of CVD costs. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides contemporary estimates of the wide-ranging impact of CVD on all aspects of the economy. The data help inform evidence-based policies to reduce the impact of CVD, promoting care access and better health outcomes and economic sustainability.

Comparing estimates of household expenditures between pictorial diaries and surveys in three low- and middle-income countries.

In most low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), household out-of-pocket (OOP) health spending constitutes a major source of healthcare financing. Household surveys are commonly used to monitor OOP health spending, but are prone to recall bias and unable to capture seasonal variation, and may underestimate expenditure-particularly among households with long-term chronic health conditions. Household expenditure diaries have been developed as an alternative to overcome the limitations of surveys, and pictorial diaries have been proposed where literacy levels may render traditional diary approaches inappropriate. This study compares estimates for general household and chronic healthcare expenditure in South Africa, Tanzania and Zimbabwe derived using survey and pictorial diary approaches. We selected a random sub-sample of 900 households across urban and rural communities participating in the Prospective Urban and Rural Epidemiology study. For a range of general and health-specific categories, OOP expenditure estimates use cross-sectional survey data collected via standardised questionnaire, and data from these same households collected via two-week pictorial diaries repeated four times over 2016-2019. In all countries, average monthly per capita expenditure on food, non-food/non-health items, health, and consequently, total household expenditure reported by pictorial diaries was consistently higher than that reported by surveys (each p<0.001). Differences were greatest for health expenditure. The share of total household expenditure allocated to health also differed by method, accounting for 2% in each country when using survey data, and from 8-20% when using diary data. Our findings suggest that the choice of data collection method may have significant implications for estimating OOP health spending and the burden it places on households. Despite several practical challenges to their implementation, pictorial diaries offer a method to assess potential bias in surveys or triangulate data from multiple sources. We offer some practical guidance when considering the use of pictorial diaries for estimating household expenditure.

When the technical is also normative: a critical assessment of measuring health inequalities using the concentration index-based indices.

BACKGROUND: Concentration index-based measures are one of the most popular tools for estimating socioeconomic-status-related health inequalities. In recent years, several variants of the concentration index have been developed that are designed to correct for deficiencies of the standard concentration index and which are increasingly being used. These variants, which include the Wagstaff index and the Erreygers index, have important technical and normative differences. MAIN BODY: In this study, we provide a non-technical review and critical assessment of these indices. We (i) discuss the difficulties that arise when measurement tools intended for income are applied in a health context, (ii) describe and illustrate the interrelationship between the technical and normative properties of these indices, (iii) discuss challenges that arise when determining whether index estimates are large or of policy significance, and (iv) evaluate the alignment of research practice with the properties of the indices used. Issues discussed in parts (i) and (ii) include the different conceptions of inequality that underpin the indices, the types of changes to a distribution which leave inequality unchanged and the importance of the measurement scale and range of the outcome variable. These concepts are illustrated using hypothetical examples. For parts (iii) and (iv), we reviewed 44 empirical studies published between 2015 and 2017 and find that researchers often fail to provide meaningful interpretations of the index estimates. CONCLUSION: We propose a series of questions to facilitate further sensitivity analyses and provide a better understanding of the index estimates. We also provide a guide for researchers and policy analysts to facilitate the critical assessment of studies using these indices, while helping applied researchers to choose inequality measures that have the normative properties they seek.

Variations in the financial impact of the COVID-19 pandemic across 5 continents: A cross-sectional, individual level analysis.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 has caused profound socio-economic changes worldwide. However, internationally comparative data regarding the financial impact on individuals is sparse. Therefore, we conducted a survey of the financial impact of the pandemic on individuals, using an international cohort that has been well-characterized prior to the pandemic. METHODS: Between August 2020 and September 2021, we surveyed 24,506 community-dwelling participants from the Prospective Urban-Rural Epidemiology (PURE) study across high (HIC), upper middle (UMIC)-and lower middle (LMIC)-income countries. We collected information regarding the impact of the pandemic on their self-reported personal finances and sources of income. FINDINGS: Overall, 32.4% of participants had suffered an adverse financial impact, defined as job loss, inability to meet financial obligations or essential needs, or using savings to meet financial obligations. 8.4% of participants had lost a job (temporarily or permanently); 14.6% of participants were unable to meet financial obligations or essential needs at the time of the survey and 16.3% were using their savings to meet financial obligations. Participants with a post-secondary education were least likely to be adversely impacted (19.6%), compared with 33.4% of those with secondary education and 33.5% of those with pre-secondary education. Similarly, those in the highest wealth tertile were least likely to be financially impacted (26.7%), compared with 32.5% in the middle tertile and 30.4% in the bottom tertile participants. Compared with HICs, financial impact was greater in UMIC [odds ratio of 2.09 (1.88-2.33)] and greatest in LMIC [odds ratio of 16.88 (14.69-19.39)]. HIC participants with the lowest educational attainment suffered less financial impact (15.1% of participants affected) than those with the highest education in UMIC (22.0% of participants affected). Similarly, participants with the lowest education in UMIC experienced less financial impact (28.3%) than those with the highest education in LMIC (45.9%). A similar gradient was seen across country income categories when compared by pre-pandemic wealth status. INTERPRETATION: The financial impact of the pandemic differs more between HIC, UMIC, and LMIC than between socio-economic categories within a country income level. The most disadvantaged socio-economic subgroups in HIC had a lower financial impact from the pandemic than the most advantaged subgroup in UMIC, with a similar disparity seen between UMIC and LMIC. Continued high levels of infection will exacerbate financial inequity between countries and hinder progress towards the sustainable development goals, emphasising the importance of effective measures to control COVID-19 and, especially, ensuring high vaccine coverage in all countries. FUNDING: Funding for this study was provided by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and the International Development Research Centre.

The cost implications of a polypill for primary prevention in the TIPS-3 trial.

AIMS: The International Polycap Study 3 (TIPS-3) trial demonstrated that a polypill containing cholesterol- and multiple blood-pressure-lowering drugs reduces cardiovascular events by 20% compared with placebo in people without cardiovascular disease. The polypill plus aspirin led to a 31% relative risk reduction in cardiovascular disease events compared with double placebo. We report regional variations in costs and affordability of a polypill based on the TIPS-3 trial. METHODS AND RESULTS: Countries were categorized using World Bank economic groups: lower-middle-income, upper-middle-income, and high-income countries. Country-specific costs were obtained for hospitalization events, procedures, and non-study medications (2019 US dollars). Polypill price was based on the cheapest equivalent substitute (CES) for each component. For the polypill vs. placebo, the difference in cost over the 4.6 years of the trial was $291 [95% confidence interval (CI): $243-339] per participant in lower-middle-income countries, $1068 (95% CI: $992-1144) in upper-middle-income countries, and $48 (95% CI: -$271 to $367) in high-income countries. Results were similar for the polypill plus aspirin vs. a double placebo. In both cases, the polypill was affordable in all groups using monthly household capacity to pay or a threshold of 4% of the gross national income per capita. CONCLUSION: The use of a polypill (CES) in TIPS-3 increases costs in lower-middle-income countries and upper-middle-income countries but is affordable in countries at various economic levels and is cost neutral (dominant) in high-income countries.

The household economic burden of non-communicable diseases in 18 countries.

Background: Non-communicable diseases (NCDs) are the leading cause of death globally. In 2014, the United Nations committed to reducing premature mortality from NCDs, including by reducing the burden of healthcare costs. Since 2014, the Prospective Urban and Rural Epidemiology (PURE) Study has been collecting health expenditure data from households with NCDs in 18 countries. Methods: Using data from the PURE Study, we estimated risk of catastrophic health spending and impoverishment among households with at least one person with NCDs (cardiovascular disease, diabetes, kidney disease, cancer and respiratory diseases; n=17 435), with hypertension only (a leading risk factor for NCDs; n=11 831) or with neither (n=22 654) by country income group: high-income countries (Canada and Sweden), upper middle income countries (UMICs: Brazil, Chile, Malaysia, Poland, South Africa and Turkey), lower middle income countries (LMICs: the Philippines, Colombia, India, Iran and the Occupied Palestinian Territory) and low-income countries (LICs: Bangladesh, Pakistan, Zimbabwe and Tanzania) and China. Results: The prevalence of catastrophic spending and impoverishment is highest among households with NCDs in LMICs and China. After adjusting for covariates that might drive health expenditure, the absolute risk of catastrophic spending is higher in households with NCDs compared with no NCDs in LMICs (risk difference=1.71%; 95% CI 0.75 to 2.67), UMICs (0.82%; 95% CI 0.37 to 1.27) and China (7.52%; 95% CI 5.88 to 9.16). A similar pattern is observed in UMICs and China for impoverishment. A high proportion of those with NCDs in LICs, especially women (38.7% compared with 12.6% in men), reported not taking medication due to costs. Conclusions: Our findings show that financial protection from healthcare costs for people with NCDs is inadequate, particularly in LMICs and China. While the burden of NCD care may appear greatest in LMICs and China, the burden in LICs may be masked by care foregone due to costs. The high proportion of women reporting foregone care due to cost may in part explain gender inequality in treatment of NCDs.

Inequality aversion in income, health, and income-related health.

Based on a survey of a sample of the general public, we estimate inequality aversion across income, health, and bivariate income-health. Inequality aversion is domain specific: mean inequality aversion is greater for income than for health, but the underlying distributions of aversion attitudes differ, with a highly bi-modal distribution of inequality-aversion values for health in which nearly half the participants display very low aversion and nearly half display very high aversion. Aversion to income-related health inequality is greater than that to income or health alone. Consistent with previous literature, we find only weak associations between aversion attitudes and individual characteristics. The magnitude of the estimates implies potentially large gains in welfare from reducing inequality in these domains.

Cost-effectiveness of prophylaxis treatment strategies for febrile neutropenia in patients with recurrent ovarian cancer.

OBJECTIVE: Evaluate the cost-effectiveness of primary prophylaxis (PP) or secondary prophylaxis (SP) with pegfilgrastim, filgrastim (6-day and 11-day), or no prophylaxis to reduce the risk of febrile neutropenia (FN) in patients with recurrent ovarian cancer receiving docetaxel or topotecan. METHODS: A Markov model was used to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of PP vs SP from a US payer perspective. Model inputs, including the efficacy of each strategy (relative risk of FN with prophylaxis compared to no prophylaxis) and mortality, costs, and utility values were estimated from public sources and peer-reviewed publications. Incremental cost-effectiveness was evaluated in terms of net cost per FN event avoided, incremental cost per life-year saved (LYS), and incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained over a lifetime horizon. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (DSA and PSA) were conducted. RESULTS: For patients receiving docetaxel, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for PP vs SP with pegfilgrastim was $7900 per QALY gained, and PP with pegfilgrastim dominated all other comparators. For patients receiving topotecan, PP with pegfilgrastim dominated all comparators. Model results were most sensitive to baseline FN risk. PP vs SP with pegfilgrastim was cost effective in 68% and 83% of simulations for docetaxel and in >99% of simulations for topotecan at willingness-to-pay thresholds of $50,000 and $100,000 per QALY. CONCLUSIONS: PP with pegfilgrastim should be considered cost effective compared to other prophylaxis strategies in patients with recurrent ovarian cancer receiving docetaxel or topotecan with a high risk of FN.