Cost-Effectiveness of Vericiguat in Patients With Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction: The VICTORIA Randomized Clinical Trial.

BACKGROUND: The VICTORIA trial (Vericiguat Global Study in Subjects With Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction) demonstrated that, in patients with high-risk heart failure, vericiguat reduced the primary composite outcome of cardiovascular death or heart failure hospitalization relative to placebo. The hazard ratio for all-cause mortality was 0.95 (95% CI, 0.84-1.07). In a prespecified analysis, treatment effects varied substantially as a function of baseline NT-proBNP (N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide) levels, with survival benefit for vericiguat in the lower NT-proBNP quartiles (hazard ratio, 0.82 [95% CI, 0.69-0.97]) and no benefit in the highest NT-proBNP quartile (hazard ratio, 1.14 [95% CI, 0.95-1.38]). An economic analysis was a major secondary objective of the VICTORIA research program. METHODS: Medical resource use data were collected for all VICTORIA patients (N=5050). Costs were estimated by applying externally derived US cost weights to resource use counts. Life expectancy was projected from patient-level empirical trial survival results with the use of age-based survival modeling methods. Quality-of-life adjustments were based on prospectively collected EQ-5D-based utilities. The primary outcome was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, comparing vericiguat with placebo, assessed from the US health care sector perspective over a lifetime horizon. Cost-effectiveness was estimated using the total VICTORIA cohort, both with and without interaction between treatment and baseline NT-proBNP. RESULTS: Life expectancy modeling results varied according to whether the observed heterogeneity of treatment effect by baseline NT-proBNP values was incorporated into the modeling. Including the interaction term, the vericiguat arm had an estimated quality-adjusted life expectancy of 4.56 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) compared with 4.13 QALYs for placebo (incremental discounted QALY, 0.43). Without the treatment heterogeneity/interaction term, vericiguat had 4.50 QALYs compared with 4.33 QALYs for placebo (incremental discounted QALY, 0.17). Incremental discounted costs (vericiguat minus placebo) were $28 546 with the treatment interaction and $20 948 without it. Corresponding incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were $66 509 per QALY allowing for treatment heterogeneity and $124 512 without heterogeneity. CONCLUSIONS: Vericiguat use in the VICTORIA trial met criteria for intermediate value, but the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio estimates were sensitive to whether the analysis accounted for observed NT-proBNP treatment effect heterogeneity. The cost-effectiveness of vericiguat was driven by the projected incremental life expectancy among patients in the lowest 3 quartiles of NT-proBNP. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov; Unique identifier: NCT02861534.

Disparities in Loss to Follow-Up Among Adults With Congenital Heart Disease in North Carolina.

BACKGROUND: The AHA/ACC Adult Congenital Heart Disease guidelines recommend that most adults with congenital heart disease (CHD) follow-up with CHD cardiologists every 1 to 2 years because longer gaps in care are associated with adverse outcomes. This study aimed to determine the proportion of patients in North Carolina who did not have recommended follow-up and to explore predictors of loss to follow-up. METHODS: Patients ages ≥18 years with a healthcare encounter from 2008 to 2013 in a statewide North Carolina database with an ICD-9 code for CHD were assessed. The proportion with cardiology follow-up within 24 months following index encounter was assessed with Kaplan-Meier estimates. Cox regression was utilized to identify demographic factors associated with differences in follow-up. RESULTS: 2822 patients were identified. Median age was 35 years; 55% were female. 70% were white, 22% black, and 3% Hispanic; 36% had severe CHD. The proportion with 2-year cardiology follow-up was 61%. Those with severe CHD were more likely to have timely follow-up than those with less severe CHD (72% vs 55%, P < .01). Black patients had a lower likelihood of follow-up than white patients (56% vs 64%, P = .01). Multivariable Cox regression identified younger age, non-severe CHD, and non-white race as risk factors for a lower likelihood of follow-up by 2 years. CONCLUSION: 39% of adults with CHD in North Carolina are not meeting AHA/ACC recommendations for follow-up. Younger and minority patients and those with non-severe CHD were particularly vulnerable to inadequate follow-up; targeted efforts to retain these patients in care may be helpful.

Cost-Effectiveness of Catheter Ablation Versus Antiarrhythmic Drug Therapy in Atrial Fibrillation: The CABANA Randomized Clinical Trial.

BACKGROUND: In the CABANA trial (Catheter Ablation vs Antiarrhythmic Drug Therapy for Atrial Fibrillation), catheter ablation did not significantly reduce the primary end point of death, disabling stroke, serious bleeding, or cardiac arrest compared with drug therapy by intention-to-treat, but did improve the quality of life and freedom from atrial fibrillation recurrence. In the heart failure subgroup, ablation improved both survival and quality of life. Cost-effectiveness was a prespecified CABANA secondary end point. METHODS: Medical resource use data were collected for all CABANA patients (N=2204). Costs for hospital-based care were assigned using prospectively collected bills from US patients (n=1171); physician and medication costs were assigned using the Medicare Fee Schedule and National Average Drug Acquisition Costs, respectively. Extrapolated life expectancies were estimated using age-based survival models. Quality-of-life adjustments were based on EQ-5D-based utilities measured during the trial. The primary outcome was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, comparing ablation with drug therapy on the basis of intention-to-treat, and assessed from the US health care sector perspective. RESULTS: Costs in the first 3 months averaged $20 794±SD 1069 higher with ablation compared with drug therapy. The cumulative within-trial 5-year cost difference was $19 245 (95% CI, $11 360-$27 170) and the lifetime mean cost difference was $15 516 (95% CI, -$2963 to $35,512) higher with ablation than with drug therapy. The drug therapy arm accrued an average of 12.5 life-years (LYs) and 10.7 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). For the ablation arm, the corresponding estimates were 12.6 LYs and 11.0 QALYs. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was $57 893 per QALY gained, with 75% of bootstrap replications yielding an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio <$100 000 per QALY gained. With no quality-of-life/utility adjustments, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was $183 318 per LY gained. CONCLUSIONS: Catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation was economically attractive compared with drug therapy in the CABANA Trial overall at present benchmarks for health care value in the United States on the basis of projected incremental QALYs but not LYs alone.

Cangrelor Use Patterns and Transition to Oral P2Y12 Inhibitors Among Patients With Myocardial Infarction: Initial Results From the CAMEO Registry.

Background In clinical trials, cangrelor has been shown to reduce percutaneous coronary intervention-related ischemic complications without increasing major bleeding. This study was performed to examine cangrelor use and transition to oral P2Y12 inhibitors in routine clinical practice. Methods and Results The CAMEO (Cangrelor in Acute Myocardial Infarction: Effectiveness and Outcomes) registry is a multicenter, retrospective observational study of platelet inhibition strategies for patients with myocardial infarction undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. In phase 1, data were collected on consecutive patients with myocardial infarction (n=482) treated with any P2Y12 inhibitor to understand cangrelor use by hospital. In phase 2, data were collected in a 2:1 (cangrelor-: non-cangrelor-treated) ratio of patients with myocardial infarction (n=873). In phase 1, cangrelor use varied across hospitals (overall, 50.4% [range, 6.0%-100%]). Of patients receiving cangrelor in both phases (n=819), 3.3% received either the bolus or infusion only. Cangrelor was infused for a median of 121 (76-196) minutes; and 38.3% received an infusion for <2 hours. Most patients transitioned from cangrelor to ticagrelor (ticagrelor, 85.3%; clopidogrel, 9.5%; prasugrel, 5.2%). Many patients (16.4%) had a >1-hour gap between cangrelor cessation and oral P2Y12 inhibitor initiation; this was highest among those transitioned to clopidogrel (56.6% versus 34.5% prasugrel versus 10.8% ticagrelor; P<0.001). Only 27.3% were dosed with cangrelor and transitioned to an oral P2Y12 inhibitor in a fashion consistent with the pivotal trials and US Food and Drug Administration label. Conclusions This multicenter registry demonstrated interhospital variability in how cangrelor was administered and transitioned to an oral P2Y12 inhibitor. These findings highlight opportunities for optimization of cangrelor dosing, infusion duration, and transition of care from the catheterization laboratory to the ward setting.

Cost-Effectiveness of Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery Versus Medicine in Ischemic Cardiomyopathy: The STICH Randomized Clinical Trial.

BACKGROUND: The STICH Randomized Clinical Trial (Surgical Treatment for Ischemic Heart Failure) demonstrated that coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) reduced all-cause mortality rates out to 10 years compared with medical therapy alone (MED) in patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy and reduced left ventricular function (ejection fraction ≤35%). We examined the economic implications of these results. METHODS: We used a decision-analytic patient-level simulation model to estimate the lifetime costs and benefits of CABG and MED using patient-level resource use and clinical data collected in the STICH trial. Patient-level costs were calculated by applying externally derived US cost weights to resource use counts during trial follow-up. A 3% discount rate was applied to both future costs and benefits. The primary outcome was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio assessed from the US health care sector perspective. RESULTS: For the CABG arm, we estimated 6.53 quality-adjusted life-years (95% CI, 5.70-7.53) and a lifetime cost of $140 059 (95% CI, $106 401 to $180 992). For the MED arm, the corresponding estimates were 5.52 (95% CI, 5.06-6.09) quality-adjusted life-years and $74 894 lifetime cost (95% CI, $58 372 to $93 541). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for CABG compared with MED was $63 989 per quality-adjusted life-year gained. At a societal willingness-to-pay threshold of $100 000 per quality-adjusted life-year gained, CABG was found to be economically favorable compared with MED in 87% of microsimulations. CONCLUSIONS: In the STICH trial, in patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy and reduced left ventricular function, CABG was economically attractive relative to MED at current benchmarks for value in the United States. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov; Unique identifier: NCT00023595.

Outcomes for patients with anterior myocardial infarction and prior cardiac arrest in the home automated external defibrillator trial (HAT).

BACKGROUND: Patients with sudden cardiac arrest occurring in the acute phase of myocardial infarction (MI-SCA) are believed to be at similar risk of death after revascularization compared with MI patients without SCA (MI-no SCA). Among patients with anterior MI, we examined whether those with MI-SCA were at greater risk of all-cause mortality or sudden cardiac death (SCD) than MI-no SCA patients. METHODS: The Home Automated External Defibrillator Trial enrolled patients with anterior MI who had not received or were candidates for an implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD). Our cohort included patients with a reported SCA event, in the acute phase of an MI, prior to HAT trial enrollment. Cox proportional hazards models examined the adjusted association between MI-SCA versus MI-no SCA patients and all-cause mortality and sudden cardiac death (SCD). We also determined whether the relationship between prior SCA and outcomes changed with subsequent events (syncope, revascularization, and recurrent MI) during follow-up. RESULTS: Of 6849 patients, 650 (9.5%) had MI-SCA before trial enrollment. Approximately 48% of patients had the MI-SCA event ≤1 year prior to enrollment; 71% of SCA events were in-hospital. MI-SCA patients were younger, more frequently white, and had higher rates of prior PCI versus MI-no SCA patients. There were no differences in adjusted all-cause mortality (hazard ratio [HR 0.95; 95% CI 0.65-1.38]) or SCD (HR 1.12; 95% CI 0.68-1.83) for MI-SCA vs. MI-no SCA. After ICD implantation, MI-SCA patients experienced higher all-cause mortality risk (HR 5.01, 95% CI 1.05-23.79) versus MI-no SCA patients; there was no mortality difference between MI-SCA and MI-no SCA patients without ICD implantation (HR 0.89, 95% CI 0.60-1.31), [interaction p = 0.035]. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with MI-SCA had similar adjusted risk of all-cause mortality and SCD compared with MI-no SCA. After ICD implantation, MI-SCA patients had higher mortality compared with MI-no SCA patients.

Ascertaining Nonfatal Endpoints in Clinical Trials: Central Adjudication Versus Patient Insurance Claims.

BACKGROUND: The 21st Century Cures Act allows the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to utilize real-world data (RWD) to create real-world evidence (RWE) for new indications or post approval study requirements. We compared central adjudication with two insurance claims data sources to understand how endpoint accuracy differences impact RWE results. METHODS: We developed a decision analytic model to compare differences in efficacy (all-cause death, stroke and myocardial infarction) and safety (bleeding requiring transfusion) results for a simulated acute coronary syndrome antiplatelet therapy clinical trial. Endpoint accuracy metrics were derived from previous studies that compared centrally-adjudicated and insurance claims-based clinical trial endpoints. RESULTS: Efficacy endpoint results per 100 patients were similar for the central adjudication model (intervention event rate, 11.3; control, 13.7; difference, 2.4) and the prospective claims data collection model (intervention event rate, 11.2; control 13.6; difference, 2.3). However, the retrospective claims linking model's efficacy results were larger (intervention event rate, 14.6; control, 18.0; difference, 3.4). True positive event rate results (intervention, control and difference) for both insurance claims-based models were less than the central adjudication model due to false negative events. Differences in false positive event rates were responsible for differences in efficacy results for the two insurance claims-based models. CONCLUSION: Efficacy endpoint results differed by data source. Investigators need guidance to determine which data sources produce regulatory-grade RWE.

Long-Term Outcomes of Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator Therapy in the SCD-HeFT.

BACKGROUND: The SCD-HeFT (Sudden Cardiac Death in Heart Failure Trial) randomized 2,521 patients with moderate heart failure (HF) to amiodarone, placebo drug, or implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) therapy. Original trial follow-up ended October 31, 2003. Over a median 45.5-month follow-up, amiodarone, compared with placebo, did not affect survival, whereas randomization to an ICD significantly decreased all-cause mortality by 23%. OBJECTIVES: This study sought to describe the extended treatment group survival of the SCD-HeFT cohort. METHODS: Mortality outcomes for the 1,855 patients alive at the end of the SCD-HeFT trial were collected between 2010 and 2011. These data were combined with the 666 deaths from the original study to compare long-term outcomes overall and for key pre-specified subgroups. RESULTS: Median (25th to 75th percentiles) follow-up was 11.0 (10.0 to 12.2) years. On the basis of intention-to-treat analysis, the ICD group had overall survival benefit versus placebo drug (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.87; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.76 to 0.98; p = 0.028). When treatment benefit was examined as a function of time from randomization, attenuation of the ICD benefit was observed after 6 years (p value for the interaction = 0.0015). Subgroup analysis revealed long-term ICD benefit varied according to HF etiology and New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional class: ischemic HF HR: 0.81; 95% CI: 0.69 to 0.95; p = 0.009; nonischemic HF HR: 0.97; 95% CI: 0.79 to 1.20; p = 0.802; NYHA functional class II HR: 0.76; 95% CI: 0.65 to 0.90; p = 0.001; NYHA functional class III HR: 1.06; 95% CI: 0.86 to 1.31; p = 0.575. CONCLUSIONS: Follow-up of SCD-HeFT patients to 11 years demonstrated heterogenous treatment-related patterns of long-term survival with ICD benefit most evident at 11 years for ischemic HF patients and for those with NYHA functional class II symptoms at trial enrollment. (SCD-HeFT 10 Year Follow-up [SCD-HeFT10 Yr]; NCT01058837).

Hospital-Based Resource Use and Costs Among Patients With Idiopathic Pulmonary Fibrosis Enrolled in the Idiopathic Pulmonary Fibrosis Prospective Outcomes (IPF-PRO) Registry.

BACKGROUND: Idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) is a rare and serious condition that is associated with high health-care resource use. The goal of this study was to estimate hospital-related resource use and costs by using a national, prospective registry of patients who were diagnosed with IPF or who had their diagnosis confirmed at the enrolling center in the past 6 months in the United States. METHODS: Participants enrolled between June 5, 2014, and April 12, 2016, in the ongoing Idiopathic Pulmonary Fibrosis Prospective Outcomes Registry were included (N = 300). Time to first hospitalization was analyzed by using Kaplan-Meier methods. Annualized costs were estimated for hospitalizations, ICU admissions, and ED visits. RESULTS: At enrollment, most participants were male (75%), white (95%), commercially insured (64%), smokers (68%), had an FVC between 50% and 80% predicted (66%), and received antifibrotic drugs (55%). During the first 12 months of follow-up, participants averaged 0.11 ED visit, 0.42 hospitalization, 0.08 ICU admission, 2.18 hospital days, and 0.45 ICU day. Probability of hospitalization was 18% and 30% at 6 and 12 months, respectively, and was highest for those with FVC < 50% predicted/diffusing lung capacity for carbon monoxide < 30% predicted. Mean annual costs (95% CI) for ICU admission and inpatient care were $10,098 ($4,732-$16,662) and $13,975 ($8,482-$20,918), respectively, per patient. CONCLUSIONS: IPF is associated with a substantial economic burden incurred by patients requiring hospital care. Future research in IPF should focus on improving clinical outcomes while reducing cost of care in hospitals. TRIAL REGISTRY: ClinicalTrials.gov; No.: NCT01915511; URL: www.clinicaltrials.gov.

Index and follow-up costs of endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair from the Endurant Stent Graft System Post Approval Study (ENGAGE PAS).

OBJECTIVE: Trials for endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) report lower perioperative mortality and morbidity, but also higher costs compared with open repair. However, few studies have examined the subsequent cost of follow-up evaluations and interventions. Therefore, we present the index and 5-year follow-up costs of EVAR from the Endurant Stent Graft System Post Approval Study. METHODS: From August 2011 to June 2012, 178 patients were enrolled in the Endurant Stent Graft System Post Approval Study de novo cohort and treated with the Medtronic Endurant stent graft system (Medtronic Vascular, Santa Rosa, Calif), of whom 171 (96%) consented for inclusion in the economic analysis and 177 participated in the quality-of-life (QOL) assessment over a 5-year follow-up period. Cost data for the index and follow-up hospitalizations were tabulated directly from hospital bills and categorized by Uniform Billing codes. Surgeon costs were calculated by Current Procedural Terminology codes for each intervention. Current Procedural Terminology codes were also used to calculate imaging and clinic follow-up reimbursement as surrogate to cost based on year-specific Medicare payment rates. Additionally, we compared aneurysm-related versus nonaneurysm-related subsequent hospitalization costs and report EuroQol 5D QOL dimensions. RESULTS: The mean hospital cost per person for the index EVAR was $45,304 (interquartile range [IQR], $25,932-$44,784). The largest contributor to the overall cost was operating room supplies, which accounted for 50% of the total cost at a mean of $22,849 per person. One hundred patients had 233 additional post index admission inpatient admissions; however, only 32 readmissions (14%) were aneurysm related, with a median cost of $13,119 (IQR, $4570-$24,153) compared with a nonaneurysm-related median cost of $6609 (IQR, $1244-$26,466). Additionally, 32 patients were admitted a total of 37 times for additional procedures after index admission, of which 14 (38%) were aneurysm-related. The median cost of hospitalization for aneurysm-related subsequent intervention was $22,023 (IQR, $13,177-$47,752), compared with a median nonaneurysm-related subsequent intervention cost of $19,007 (IQR, $8708-$33,301). After the initial 30-day visit, outpatient follow-up imaging reimbursement averaged $550 per person per year ($475 for computed tomography scans, $75 for the abdomen), whereas annual office visits averaged $107 per person per year, for a total follow-up reimbursement of $657 per person per year. There were no significant differences in the five EuroQol 5D QOL dimensions at each follow-up compared with baseline. CONCLUSIONS: Costs associated with index EVAR are driven primarily by cost of operating room supplies, including graft components. Subsequent admissions are largely not aneurysm related; however, cost of aneurysm-related hospitalizations is higher than for nonaneurysm admissions. These data will serve as a baseline for comparison with open repair and other devices.

Acute and 1-Year Hospitalization Costs for Acute Myocardial Infarction Treated With Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: Results From the TRANSLATE-ACS Registry.

Background Hospitalization for acute myocardial infarction (MI) in the United States is both common and expensive, but those features alone provide little insight into cost-saving opportunities. Methods and Results To understand the cost drivers during hospitalization for acute MI and in the following year, we prospectively studied 11 969 patients with acute MI undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention at 233 US hospitals (2010-2013) from the TRANSLATE-ACS (Treatment With ADP Receptor Inhibitors: Longitudinal Assessment of Treatment Patterns and Events After Acute Coronary Syndrome) registry. Baseline costs were collected in a random subset (n=4619 patients, 54% ST-segment-elevation MI [STEMI]), while follow-up costs out to 1 year were collected for all patients. The mean index length of stay was 3.1 days (for both STEMI and non-STEMI) and mean intensive care unit length of stay was 1.2 days (1.4 days for STEMI and 1.0 days for non-STEMI). Index hospital costs averaged $18 931 ($19 327 for STEMI, $18 465 for non-STEMI), with 45% catheterization laboratory-related and 20% attributable to postprocedure hospital stay. Patient factors, including severity of illness and extent of coronary disease, and hospital characteristics, including for profit status and geographic region, identified significant variations in cost. Intensive care was used for 53% of non-STEMI and increased costs by $3282. Postdischarge 1-year costs averaged $8037, and 48% of patients were rehospitalized (half within 2 months and 57% with a cardiovascular diagnosis). Conclusions While much of the cost of patients with acute MI treated with percutaneous coronary intervention is probably not modifiable by the care team, cost reductions are still possible through quality-preserving practice efficiencies, such as need-based use rather than routine use of intensive care unit for patients with stable non-STEMI. Clinical Trial Registration URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov . Unique identifier: NCT00097591.

Relationship Between Optimism and Outcomes in Patients With Chronic Angina Pectoris.

Greater optimism regarding recovery from chronic illness is associated with improved quality of life and clinical outcomes. We performed a post-hoc analysis on the association between optimism and outcomes in Ranolazine in Patients with Incomplete Revascularization after Percutaneous Coronary Intervention (RIVER-PCI), a randomized trial in patients with chronic angina pectoris who had incomplete revascularization following percutaneous coronary intervention. At baseline, patients answered how much they agreed with the phrase, "I am optimistic about my future and returning to a normal lifestyle." We evaluated the association between baseline optimism and time to ischemia-driven hospitalization or revascularization using a Cox model, and the association between baseline optimism and change in frequency of angina pectoris using a mixed measures model. Of 2,389 patients, 782 (33.2%) were very optimistic ("strongly agree"), 1,000 (42.4%) were optimistic ("agree"), 451 (19.1%) were neutral ("undecided"), and 123 (5.2%) were not optimistic ("disagree" or "strongly disagree"). Very optimistic patients had a lower prevalence of co-morbidities and less severe angina at baseline than less optimistic patients. The rate of ischemia-driven revascularization or hospitalization was higher in neutral and not optimistic patients compared with very optimistic patients; this finding persisted after adjustment for co-morbidities and baseline angina frequency (hazard ratio 1.42, 95% confidence interval 1.14 to 1.77 for neutral vs very optimistic; hazard ratio 1.38, 95% confidence interval 0.98 to 1.94 for not optimistic vs very optimistic). Neutral and not optimistic patients also had less improvement in angina than very optimistic patients. In conclusion, in patients with angina, those with more self-reported optimism had better health status outcomes. Whether structured interventions targeting optimism improve outcomes in these patients warrants further study.

Economic and Quality-of-Life Outcomes of Natriuretic Peptide-Guided Therapy for Heart Failure.

BACKGROUND: The GUIDE-IT (GUIDing Evidence Based Therapy Using Biomarker Intensified Treatment in Heart Failure) trial prospectively compared the efficacy of an N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP)-guided heart failure treatment strategy (target NT-proBNP level <1,000 pg/ml) with optimal medical therapy alone in high-risk patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction. When the study was stopped for futility, 894 patients had been enrolled. OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to assess treatment-related quality-of-life (QOL) and economic outcomes in the GUIDE-IT trial. METHODS: The authors prospectively collected a battery of QOL instruments at baseline and 3, 6, 12, and 24 months post-randomization (collection rates 90% to 99% of those eligible). The principal pre-specified QOL measures were the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ) Overall Summary Score and the Duke Activity Status Index (DASI). Cost data were collected for 735 (97%) U.S. RESULTS: Baseline variables were well balanced in the 446 patients randomized to the NT-proBNP-guided therapy and 448 to usual care. Both the KCCQ and the DASI improved over the first 6 months, but no evidence was found for a strategy-related difference (mean difference [biomarker-guided - usual care] at 24 months of follow-up 2.0 for DASI [95% confidence interval (CI): -1.3 to 5.3] and 1.1 for KCCQ [95% CI: -3.7 to 5.9]). Total winsorized costs averaged $5,919 higher in the biomarker-guided strategy (95% CI: -$1,795, +$13,602) over 15-month median follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: A strategy of NT-proBNP-guided HF therapy had higher total costs and was not more effective than usual care in improving QOL outcomes in patients with heart failure and a reduced ejection fraction. (Guiding Evidence Based Therapy Using Biomarker Intensified Treatment [GUIDE-IT]; NCT01685840).

Accuracy of Medical Claims for Identifying Cardiovascular and Bleeding Events After Myocardial Infarction : A Secondary Analysis of the TRANSLATE-ACS Study.

Importance: Pragmatic clinical trial designs have proposed the use of medical claims data to ascertain clinical events; however, the accuracy of billed diagnoses in identifying potential events is unclear. Objectives: To compare the 1-year cumulative incidences of events when events were identified by medical claims vs by physician adjudication and to assess the accuracy of bill-identified events using physician adjudication as the criterion standard. Design, Setting, and Participants: This post hoc analysis of a clinical trial assessed the medical claims forms and records for all rehospitalizations at 233 US hospitals within 1 year of the index acute myocardial infarction (MI) of 12 365 patients enrolled in the Treatment With Adenosine Diphosphate Receptor Inhibitors: Longitudinal Assessment of Treatment Patterns and Events After Acute Coronary Syndrome (TRANSLATE-ACS) study between April 1, 2010, and October 31, 2012. Fourteen patients (0.1%) died during the index hospitalization and were excluded from analysis. Recurrent MI, stroke, and bleeding events were identified per the International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification diagnosis and procedural codes in medical bills. These events were independently adjudicated by study physicians through medical record reviews using the prespecified criteria of recurrent MI and stroke and the bleeding definition by the Global Utilization of Streptokinase and Tissue Plasminogen Activator for Occluded Coronary Arteries (GUSTO) scale. Medical claims were reported on a Uniform Bill-04 claims form; claims were collected from all hospitals visited by patients enrolled in TRANSLATE-ACS. Agreement between medical claims-identified events and physician-adjudicated events over the 12 months after discharge was assessed with the κ statistic. Data were analyzed from January 30, 2015, to March 2, 2017. Main Outcomes and Measures: Event rates within 1 year after MI. Results: Among 12 365 patients with acute MI, 8890 (71.9%) were men and mean (SD) age was 60 (11.6) years. The cumulative 1-year incidence of events identified by medical claims was 4.3% for MI, 0.9% for stroke, and 5.0% for bleeding. Incidence rates based on physician adjudication were 4.7% for MI, 0.9% for stroke, and 5.4% for bleeding. Agreement between medical claims-identified and physician-adjudicated events was modest, with a κ of 0.76 (95% CI, 0.73 to 0.79) for MI and 0.55 (95% CI, 0.41 to 0.68) for stroke events. In contrast, agreement between medical claims-identified and physician-adjudicated bleeding events was poor, with a κ of 0.24 (95% CI, 0.19 to 0.30) for any hospitalized bleeding event and 0.15 (95% CI, 0.11 to 0.20) for moderate or severe bleeding on the GUSTO scale. Conclusions and Relevance: Event rates at 1 year after MI were lower for MI, stroke, and bleeding when medical claims were used to identify events than when adjudicated by physicians. Medical claims diagnoses were only modestly accurate in identifying MI and stroke admissions but had limited accuracy for bleeding events. An alternative approach may be needed to ensure good safety surveillance in cardiovascular studies. Trial Registration: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01088503.

Economic Analysis of Apixaban Therapy for Patients With Atrial Fibrillation From a US Perspective: Results From the ARISTOTLE Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: The Apixaban for Reduction in Stroke and Other Thromboembolic Events in Atrial Fibrillation (ARISTOTLE) trial reported that apixaban therapy was superior to warfarin therapy in preventing stroke and all-cause death while causing significantly fewer major bleeds. To establish the value proposition of substituting apixiban therapy for warfarin therapy in patients with atrial fibrillation, we performed a cost-effectiveness analysis using patient-level data from the ARISTOTLE trial. Objective: To assess the cost and cost-effectiveness of apixaban therapy compared with warfarin therapy in patients with atrial fibrillation from the perspective of the US health care system. Design, Setting, and Participants: This economic analysis uses patient-level resource use and clinical data collected in the ARISTOTLE trial, a multinational randomized clinical trial that observed 18 201 patients (3417 US patients) for a median of 1.8 years between 2006 and 2011. Interventions: Apixaban therapy vs warfarin therapy. Main Outcomes and Measures: Within-trial resource use and cost were compared between treatments, using externally derived US cost weights. Life expectancies for US patients were estimated according to their baseline risk and treatment using time-based and age-based survival models developed using the overall ARISTOTLE population. Quality-of-life adjustment factors were obtained from external sources. Cost-effectiveness (incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year gained) was evaluated from a US perspective, and extensive sensitivity analyses were performed. Results: Of the 3417 US patients enrolled in ARISTOTLE, the mean (SD) age was 71 (10) years; 2329 (68.2%) were male and 3264 (95.5%) were white. After 2 years of anticoagulation therapy, health care costs (excluding the study drug) of patients treated with apixaban therapy and warfarin therapy were not statistically different (difference, -$60; 95% CI, -$2728 to $2608). Life expectancy, modeled from ARISTOTLE outcomes, was significantly longer with apixaban therapy vs warfarin therapy (7.94 vs 7.54 quality-adjusted life years). The incremental cost, including cost of anticoagulant and monitoring, of achieving these benefits was within accepted US norms ($53 925 per quality-adjusted life year, with 98% likelihood of meeting a $100 000 willingness-to-pay threshold). Results were generally consistent when model assumptions were varied, with lifetime cost-effectiveness most affected by the price of apixaban and the time horizon. Conclusions and Relevance: Apixaban therapy for ARISTOTLE-eligible patients with atrial fibrillation provides clinical benefits at an incremental cost that represents reasonable value for money judged using US benchmarks for cost-effectiveness. Trial Registration: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00412984.

Health-related quality of life outcomes with prasugrel among medically managed non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome patients: Insights from the Targeted Platelet Inhibition to Clarify the Optimal Strategy to Medically Manage Acute Coronary Syndromes (TRILOGY ACS) trial.

BACKGROUND: Few studies have assessed treatment effects on health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) treated without revascularization. The TRILOGY ACS trial randomized patients with ACS to either prasugrel or clopidogrel therapy plus aspirin. Outcomes showed a complex pattern suggestive of late benefits with respect to repeat clinical events and benefits confined to patients who underwent angiography. Here, we examine the HRQoL correlates of these patterns. METHODS: HRQoL was measured at baseline and 3, 12, and 24 months or end of study (EOS) in 7243 patients aged <75 years using the EuroQol 3-level, group 5-dimension index (EQ-5D). Linear mixed effects models for repeated measures were used to examine treatment differences in HRQoL overall, stratified by angiography status, and among patients who did and did not have non-fatal events. RESULTS: No baseline differences in HRQoL were seen between patients randomized to prasugrel (n=3620) or clopidogrel (n=3623). At 24 months, remaining patients assigned to prasugrel (n=1450) vs. clopidogrel (n=1443) had higher EQ-5D index scores (86.4 vs. 84.9, P=.01). Mixed effects models found no difference in EQ-5D scores among prasugrel and clopidogrel patients overall across subgroups stratified by angiography status. However, among patients with non-fatal clinical events, patients on clopidogrel reported a larger decrement in HRQoL than patients on prasugrel (79.5±18.1 vs. 80.6±18.0; P=.02). CONCLUSIONS: Overall, there was no difference in HRQoL outcomes among patients receiving prasugrel vs. clopidogrel. However, the differential effects of the treatments among patients with non-fatal events require further investigation.

Rationale and design of the Affordability and Real-world Antiplatelet Treatment Effectiveness after Myocardial Infarction Study (ARTEMIS): A multicenter, cluster-randomized trial of P2Y12 receptor inhibitor copayment reduction after myocardial infarction.

BACKGROUND: The use of oral P2Y12 receptor inhibitors after acute myocardial infarction (MI) can reduce risks of subsequent major adverse cardiovascular events (composite of all-cause death, recurrent MI, and stroke), yet medication persistence is suboptimal. Although copayment cost has been implicated as a factor influencing medication persistence, it remains unclear whether reducing or eliminating these costs can improve medication persistence and/or downstream clinical outcomes. DESIGN: ARTEMIS is a multicenter, cluster-randomized clinical trial designed to examine whether eliminating patient copayment for P2Y12 receptor inhibitor therapy affects medication persistence and clinical outcomes. We will enroll approximately 11,000 patients hospitalized for acute ST-elevation and non-ST-elevation MI at 300 hospitals. Choice and duration of treatment with a P2Y12 receptor inhibitor will be determined by the treating physician. Hospitals randomized to the copayment intervention will provide vouchers to cover patients' copayments for their P2Y12 receptor inhibitor for up to 1 year after discharge. The coprimary end points are 1-year P2Y12 receptor inhibitor persistence and major adverse cardiovascular events. Secondary end points include choice of P2Y12 receptor inhibitor, patient-reported outcomes, and postdischarge cost of care. CONCLUSION: ARTEMIS will be the largest randomized assessment of a medication copayment reduction intervention on medication persistence, clinical outcomes, treatment selection, and cost of care after acute MI.

Economic Outcomes With Anatomical Versus Functional Diagnostic Testing for Coronary Artery Disease.

BACKGROUND: PROMISE (PROspective Multicenter Imaging Study for Evaluation of Chest Pain) found that initial use of at least 64-slice multidetector computed tomography angiography (CTA) versus functional diagnostic testing strategies did not improve clinical outcomes in stable symptomatic patients with suspected coronary artery disease (CAD) requiring noninvasive testing. OBJECTIVE: To conduct an economic analysis for PROMISE (a major secondary aim of the study). DESIGN: Prospective economic study from the U.S. perspective. Comparisons were made according to the intention-to-treat principle, and CIs were calculated using bootstrap methods. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01174550). SETTING: 190 U.S. centers. PATIENTS: 9649 U.S. patients enrolled in PROMISE between July 2010 and September 2013. Median follow-up was 25 months. MEASUREMENTS: Technical costs of the initial (outpatient) testing strategy were estimated from Premier Research Database data. Hospital-based costs were estimated using hospital bills and Medicare cost-charge ratios. Physician fees were taken from the Medicare Physician Fee Schedule. Costs were expressed in 2014 U.S. dollars, discounted at 3% annually, and estimated out to 3 years using inverse probability weighting methods. RESULTS: The mean initial testing costs were $174 for exercise electrocardiography; $404 for CTA; $501 to $514 for pharmacologic and exercise stress echocardiography, respectively; and $946 to $1132 for exercise and pharmacologic stress nuclear testing, respectively. Mean costs at 90 days were $2494 for the CTA strategy versus $2240 for the functional strategy (mean difference, $254 [95% CI, -$634 to $906]). The difference was associated with more revascularizations and catheterizations (4.25 per 100 patients) with CTA use. After 90 days, the mean cost difference between the groups out to 3 years remained small. LIMITATION: Cost weights for test strategies were obtained from sources outside PROMISE. CONCLUSION: Computed tomography angiography and functional diagnostic testing strategies in patients with suspected CAD have similar costs through 3 years of follow-up. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute.

How Reliable are Patient-Reported Rehospitalizations? Implications for the Design of Future Practical Clinical Studies.

BACKGROUND: Longitudinal clinical investigations often rely on patient reports to screen for postdischarge adverse outcomes events, yet few studies have examined the accuracy of such patient reports. METHODS AND RESULTS: Patients with acute myocardial infarction (MI) in the TRANSLATE-ACS study were asked during structured interviews at 6 weeks, 6 months, and 12 months postdischarge to report any rehospitalizations. The accuracy of patient-reported rehospitalizations within 1 year of postdischarge was determined using claims-based medical bill validation as the reference standard. The cumulative incidence of rehospitalizations was compared when identified by patient report versus medical bills. Patients were categorized by the accuracy in reporting events (accurate, under-, or over- reporters) and characteristics were compared between groups. Among 10 643 MI patients, 4565 (43%) reported 7734 rehospitalizations. The sensitivity and positive predictive value of patient-reported rehospitalizations were low at 67% and 59%, respectively. A higher cumulative incidence of rehospitalization was observed when identified by patient report versus medical bills (43% vs 37%; P<0.001). Overall, 18% of patients over-reported and 10% under-reported the number of hospitalizations. Compared with accurate reporters, under-reporters were more likely to be older, female, African American, unemployed, or a non-high-school graduate, and had greater prevalence of clinical comorbidities such as diabetes and past cardiovascular disease. CONCLUSIONS: The accuracy of patient-reported rehospitalizations was low with patients both under- and over-reporting events. Longitudinal clinical research studies need additional mechanisms beyond patient report to accurately identify rehospitalization events. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: https://clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01088503.

Effects of Ranolazine on Angina and Quality of Life After Percutaneous Coronary Intervention With Incomplete Revascularization: Results From the Ranolazine for Incomplete Vessel Revascularization (RIVER-PCI) Trial.

BACKGROUND: Angina often persists or returns in populations following percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). We hypothesized that ranolazine would be effective in reducing angina and improving quality of life (QOL) in incomplete revascularization (ICR) post-PCI patients. METHODS AND RESULTS: In RIVER-PCI, 2604 patients with a history of chronic angina who had ICR post-PCI were randomized 1:1 to oral ranolazine versus placebo; QOL analyses included 2389 randomized subjects. Angina and QOL questionnaires were collected at baseline and months 1, 6, and 12. Ranolazine patients were more likely than placebo to discontinue study drug by month 6 (20.4% versus 14.1%, P<0.001) and 12 (27.2% versus 21.3%, P<0.001). Following qualifying index PCI, the primary QOL outcome (Seattle Angina Questionnaire [SAQ] angina frequency score) improved markedly, but similarly, in the ranolazine and placebo groups, respectively, from baseline (67.3±24.5 versus 69.7±24.0, P=0.01) to month 1 (86.6±18.1 versus 85.8±18.5, P=0.27) and month 12 (88.4±17.8 versus 88.5±17.8, P=0.94). SAQ angina frequency repeated measures did not differ in adjusted analysis between groups post baseline (mean difference 1.0; 95% CI -0.2, 2.2; P=0.11). Improvement in SAQ angina frequency was observed with ranolazine at month 6 among diabetics (mean difference 3.3; 95% CI 0.6, 6.1; P=0.02) and those with more angina (baseline SAQ angina frequency ≤60; mean difference 3.4; 95% CI 0.6, 6.2; P=0.02), but was not maintained at month 12. CONCLUSIONS: Despite ICR following PCI, there was no incremental benefit in angina or QOL measures by adding ranolazine in this angiographically-identified population. These measures markedly improved within 1 month of PCI and persisted up to 1 year in both treatment arms. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01442038.