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.

Regional differences in outcomes with ablation versus drug therapy for atrial fibrillation: Results from the CABANA trial.

BACKGROUND: The finding of unexpected variations in treatment benefits by geographic region in international clinical trials raises complex questions about the interpretation and generalizability of trial findings. We observed such geographical variations in outcome and in the effectiveness of atrial fibrillation (AF) ablation versus drug therapy in the Catheter Ablation vs Antiarrhythmic Drug Therapy for Atrial Fibrillation (CABANA) trial. This paper describes these differences and investigates potential causes. METHODS: The examination of treatment effects by geographic region was a prespecified analysis. CABANA enrolled patients from 10 countries, with 1,285 patients at 85 North American (NA) sites and 919 at 41 non-NA sites. The primary endpoint was a composite of death, disabling stroke, serious bleeding, or cardiac arrest. Death and first atrial fibrillation recurrence were secondary endpoints. RESULTS: At least 1 primary endpoint event occurred in 157 patients (12.2%) from NA and 33 (3.6%) from non-NA sites over a median 54.9 and 40.5 months of follow-up, respectively (NA/non-NA adjusted hazard ratio (HR) 2.18, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.48-3.21, P < .001). In NA patients, 78 events occurred in the ablation and 79 in the drug arm, (HR 0.91, 95% CI 0.66, 1.24) while 11 and 22 events occurred in non-NA patients (HR 0.51, 95% CI 0.25,1.05, interaction P = .154). Death occurred in 53 ablation and 51 drug therapy patients in the NA group (HR 0.96, 95% CI 0.65,1.42) and in 5 ablation and 16 drug therapy patients in the non-NA group (HR 0.32, 95% CI 0.12,0.86, interaction P = .044). Adjusting for baseline regional differences or prognostic risk variables did not account for the regional differences in treatment effects. Atrial fibrillation recurrence was reduced by ablation in both regions (NA: HR 0.54, 95% CI 0.46, 0.63; non-NA: HR 0.44, 95% CI 0.30, 0.64, interaction P = .322). CONCLUSIONS: In CABANA, primary outcome events occurred significantly more often in the NA group but assignment to ablation significantly reduced all-cause mortality in the non-NA group only. These differences were not explained by regional variations in procedure effectiveness, safety, or patient characteristics. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT0091150; https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT00911508.

Comprehensive Quality-of-Life Outcomes With Invasive Versus Conservative Management of Chronic Coronary Disease in ISCHEMIA.

BACKGROUND: ISCHEMIA (International Study of Comparative Health Effectiveness with Medical and Invasive Approaches) compared an initial invasive treatment strategy (INV) with an initial conservative strategy in 5179 participants with chronic coronary disease and moderate or severe ischemia. The ISCHEMIA research program included a comprehensive quality-of-life (QOL) substudy. METHODS: In 1819 participants (907 INV, 912 conservative strategy), we collected a battery of disease-specific and generic QOL instruments by structured interviews at baseline; at 3, 12, 24, and 36 months postrandomization; and at study closeout. Assessments included angina-related QOL (19-item Seattle Angina Questionnaire), generic health status (EQ-5D), depressive symptoms (Patient Health Questionnaire-8), and, for North American patients, cardiac functional status (Duke Activity Status Index). RESULTS: Median age was 67 years, 19.2% were female, and 15.9% were non-White. The estimated mean difference for the 19-item Seattle Angina Questionnaire Summary score favored INV (1.4 points [95% CI, 0.2-2.5] over all follow-up). No differences were observed in patients with rare/absent baseline angina (SAQ Angina Frequency score >80). Among patients with more frequent angina at baseline (SAQ Angina Frequency score <80, 744 patients, 41%), those randomly assigned to INV had a mean 3.7-point higher 19-item Seattle Angina Questionnaire Summary score than conservative strategy (95% CI, 1.6-5.8) with consistent effects across SAQ subscales: Physical Limitations 3.2 points (95% CI, 0.2-6.1), Angina Frequency 3.2 points (95% CI, 1.2-5.1), Quality of Life/Health Perceptions 5.3 points (95% CI, 2.8-7.8). For the Duke Activity Status Index, no difference was estimated overall by treatment, but in patients with baseline SAQ Angina Frequency scores <80, Duke Activity Status Index scores were higher for INV (3.2 points [95% CI, 0.6-5.7]), whereas patients with rare/absent baseline angina showed no treatment-related differences. Moderate to severe depression was infrequent at randomization (11.5%-12.8%) and was unaffected by treatment assignment. CONCLUSIONS: In the ISCHEMIA comprehensive QOL substudy, patients with more frequent baseline angina reported greater improvements in the symptom, physical functioning, and psychological well-being dimensions of QOL when treated with an invasive strategy, whereas patients who had rare/absent angina at baseline reported no consistent treatment-related QOL differences. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov; Unique identifier: NCT01471522.

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.

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.

Influence of atrial fibrillation type on outcomes of ablation vs. drug therapy: results from CABANA.

AIMS: Influence of atrial fibrillation (AF) type on outcomes seen with catheter ablation vs. drug therapy is incompletely understood. This study assesses the impact of AF type on treatment outcomes in the Catheter Ablation vs. Antiarrhythmic Drug Therapy for Atrial Fibrillation Trial (CABANA). METHODS AND RESULTS: CABANA randomized 2204 patients ≥65 years old or <65 with at least one risk factor for stroke to catheter ablation or drug therapy. Of these, 946 (42.9%) had paroxysmal AF (PAF), 1042 (47.3%) had persistent AF (PersAF), and 215 (9.8%) had long-standing persistent AF (LSPAF) at baseline. The primary endpoint was a composite of death, disabling stroke, serious bleeding, or cardiac arrest. Symptoms were measured with the Mayo AF-Specific Symptom Inventory (MAFSI), and quality of life was measured with the Atrial Fibrillation Effect on Quality of Life (AFEQT). Comparisons are reported by intention to treat. Compared with drug therapy alone, catheter ablation produced a 19% relative risk reduction in the primary endpoint for PAF {adjusted hazard ratio [aHR]: 0.81 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.50, 1.30]}, and a 17% relative reduction for PersAF (aHR: 0.83, 95% CI: 0.56, 1.22). For LSPAF, the ablation relative effect was a 7% reduction (aHR: 0.93, 95% CI: 0.36, 2.44). Ablation was more effective than drug therapy at reducing first AF recurrence in all AF types: by 51% for PAF (aHR: 0.49, 95% CI: 0.39, 0.62), by 47% for PersAF (aHR: 0.53, 95% CI: 0.43,0.65), and by 36% for LSPAF (aHR 0.64, 95% CI 0.41,1.00). Ablation was associated with greater improvement in symptoms, with the mean difference between groups in the MAFSI frequency score favouring ablation over 5 years of follow-up in all subgroups: PAF had a clinically significant -1.9-point difference (95% CI: -1.2 to -2.6); PersAF a -0.9 difference (95% CI: -0.2 to -1.6); LSPAF a clinically significant difference of -1.6 points (95% CI: -0.1 to -3.1). Ablation was also associated with greater improvement in quality of life in all subgroups, with the AFEQT overall score in PAF patients showing a clinically significant 5.3-point improvement (95% CI: 3.3 to 7.3) over drug therapy alone over 5 years of follow-up, PersAF a 1.7-point difference (95% CI: 0.0 to 3.7), and LSPAF a 3.1-point difference (95% CI: -1.6 to 7.8). CONCLUSION: Prognostic treatment effects of catheter ablation compared with drug therapy on the primary and major secondary clinical endpoints did not differ consequentially by AF subtype. With regard to decreases in AF recurrence and improving quality of life, ablation was more effective than drug therapy in all three AF type subgroups. CLINICALTRIALS.GOV IDENTIFIER: NCT00911508.

Effect of Catheter Ablation vs Medical Therapy on Quality of Life Among Patients With Atrial Fibrillation: The CABANA Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Catheter ablation is more effective than drug therapy in restoring sinus rhythm in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF), but its incremental effect on long-term quality of life (QOL) is uncertain. Objective: To determine whether catheter ablation is more beneficial than conventional drug therapy for improving QOL in patients with AF. Design, Setting, and Participants: An open-label randomized clinical trial of catheter ablation vs drug therapy in 2204 symptomatic patients with AF older than 65 years or 65 years or younger with at least 1 risk factor for stroke. Patients were enrolled from November 2009 to April 2016 from 126 centers in 10 countries. Follow-up ended in December 2017. Interventions: Pulmonary vein isolation, with additional ablation procedures at the discretion of the investigators, for the catheter ablation group (n = 1108) and standard rhythm and/or rate-control drugs selected and managed by investigators for the drug therapy group (n = 1096). Main Outcomes and Measures: Prespecified co-primary QOL end points at 12 months, including the Atrial Fibrillation Effect on Quality of Life (AFEQT) summary score (range, 0-100; 0 indicates complete disability and 100 indicates no disability; patient-level clinically important difference, ≥5 points) and the Mayo AF-Specific Symptom Inventory (MAFSI) frequency score (range, 0-40; 0 indicates no symptoms and 40 indicates the most severe symptoms; patient-level clinically important difference, ≤-1.6 points) and severity score (range, 0-30; 0 indicates no symptoms and 30 indicates the most severe symptoms; patient-level clinically important difference, ≤-1.3 points). Results: Among 2204 randomized patients (median age, 68 years; 1385 patients [63%] were men, 946 [43%] had paroxysmal AF, and 1256 [57%] had persistent AF), the median follow-up was 48.5 months, and 1968 (89%) completed the trial. The mean AFEQT summary score was more favorable in the catheter ablation group than the drug therapy group at 12 months (86.4 points vs 80.9 points) (adjusted difference, 5.3 points [95% CI, 3.7-6.9]; P < .001). The mean MAFSI frequency score was more favorable for the catheter ablation group than the drug therapy group at 12 months (6.4 points vs 8.1 points) (adjusted difference, -1.7 points [95% CI, -2.3 to -1.2]; P < .001) and the mean MAFSI severity score was more favorable for the catheter ablation group than the drug therapy group at 12 months (5.0 points vs 6.5 points) (adjusted difference, -1.5 points [95% CI, -2.0 to -1.1]; P < .001). Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients with symptomatic atrial fibrillation, catheter ablation, compared with medical therapy, led to clinically important and significant improvements in quality of life at 12 months. These findings can help guide decisions regarding management of atrial fibrillation. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT00911508.

Quality-of-Life Outcomes With Anatomic Versus Functional Diagnostic Testing Strategies in Symptomatic Patients With Suspected Coronary Artery Disease: Results From the PROMISE Randomized Trial.

BACKGROUND: The Prospective Multicenter Imaging Study for Evaluation of Chest Pain (PROMISE) trial found that initial use of ≥64 detector-row computed tomography angiography versus standard functional testing strategies (exercise ECG, stress nuclear methods, or stress echocardiography) did not improve clinical outcomes in 10 003 stable symptomatic patients with suspected coronary artery disease requiring noninvasive testing. Symptom burden and quality of life (QOL) were major secondary outcomes. METHODS AND RESULTS: We prospectively collected a battery of QOL instruments in 5985 patients at baseline and 6, 12, and 24 months postrandomization. The prespecified primary QOL measures were the Duke Activity Status Index and the Seattle Angina Questionnaire frequency and QOL scales. All comparisons were made as randomized. Baseline variables were well balanced in the 2982 patients randomly assigned to computed tomography angiography testing and the 3003 patients randomly assigned to functional testing. The Duke Activity Status Index improved substantially in both groups over the first 6 months following testing, but we found no evidence for a strategy-related difference (mean difference [anatomic - functional] at 24 months of follow-up, 0.1 [95% confidence interval, -0.9 to 1.1]). Similar results were seen for the Seattle Angina Questionnaire frequency scale (mean difference at 24 months, -0.2; 95% confidence interval, -0.8 to 0.4) and QOL scale (mean difference at 24 months, -0.2; 95% confidence interval, -1.3 to 0.9). None of the secondary QOL measures showed a consistent strategy-related difference. CONCLUSIONS: In symptomatic patients with suspected coronary artery disease who required noninvasive testing, symptoms and QOL improved significantly. However, a strategy of initial anatomic testing, in comparison with functional testing, did not provide an incremental benefit for QOL over 2 years of follow-up. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01174550.

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.

Prognostic Impact of Sinus Rhythm in Atrial Fibrillation Patients: Separating Rhythm Outcomes From Randomized Strategy Findings From the CABANA Trial.

BACKGROUND: Clinically detected atrial fibrillation (AF) is associated with a significant increase in mortality and other adverse cardiovascular events. Since the advent of effective methods for AF rhythm control, investigators have attempted to determine how much these adverse prognostic AF effects could be mitigated by the restoration of sinus rhythm (SR) and whether the method used mattered. METHODS: The CABANA trial (Catheter Ablation versus Antiarrhythmic Drug Therapy for Atrial Fibrillation) randomized 2204 AF patients to ablation versus drug therapy, of which 1240 patients were monitored in follow-up using the CABANA ECG rhythm monitoring system. To assess the prognostic benefits of SR, we performed a prespecified analysis using Cox survival modeling with heart rhythm as a time-dependent variable and randomized treatment group as a stratification factor. RESULTS: In the 1240 patient study cohort, 883 (71.2%) had documented AF at some point during their postblanking follow-up. Among the 883 patients, 671 (76.0%) experienced AF within the first year of postblanking follow-up, and 212 (24.0%) experienced their first AF after ≥1 year of postblanking follow-up. The primary CABANA end point (death, disabling stroke, serious bleeding, or cardiac arrest) occurred in 95 (10.8%) of the 883 patients with documented AF and in 29 (8.1%) of the 357 patients with no AF recorded during follow-up. In multivariable time-dependent analysis, the presence of SR (compared with non-SR) was associated with a significantly reduced risk of the primary end point (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.57 [95% CI, 0.38-0.85]; P=0.006; independent of treatment strategy [ablation versus drugs]). Corresponding results for all-cause mortality were adjusted hazard ratio of 0.59 [95% CI, 0.35-1.01]; P=0.053). CONCLUSIONS: In patients in the CABANA trial with detailed long-term rhythm follow-up, increased time in SR was associated with a clinically consequential decrease in mortality and other adverse prognostic events. The predictive value of SR was independent of the therapeutic approach responsible for reducing the burden of detectable AF. REGISTRATION: URL: https://clinicaltrials.gov; Unique Identifier: NCT00911508.

Effects of Ablation Versus Drug Therapy on Quality of Life by Sex in Atrial Fibrillation: Results From the CABANA Trial.

Background Women with atrial fibrillation (AF) demonstrate more AF-related symptoms and worse quality of life (QOL). Whether increased use of ablation in women reduces sex-related QOL differences is unknown. Sex-related outcomes for ablation versus drug therapy was a prespecified analysis in the CABANA (Catheter Ablation Versus Antiarrhythmic Drug Therapy for Atrial Fibrillation) trial. Methods and Results Symptoms were assessed periodically over 60 months with the Mayo AF-Specific Symptom Inventory (MAFSI) frequency score, and QOL was assessed with the Atrial Fibrillation Effect on Quality of Life (AFEQT) summary and component scores. Women had lower baseline QOL scores than men (mean AFEQT scores 55.9 and 65.6, respectively). Ablation patients improved more than drug therapy patients with similar treatment effect by sex: AFEQT 12-month mean adjusted treatment difference in women 6.1 points (95% CI, 3.5-8.6) and men 4.9 points (95% CI, 3.0-6.9). Participants with baseline AFEQT summary scores <70 had greater QOL improvement, with a mean treatment difference at 12 months of 7.6 points for women (95% CI, 4.3-10.9) and 6.4 points for men (95% CI, 3.3-9.4). The mean adjusted difference in MAFSI frequency score between women randomized to ablation versus drug therapy at 12 months was -2.5 (95% CI, -3.4 to -1.6); for men, the difference was -1.3 (95% CI, -2.0 to -0.6). Conclusions Compared with drug therapy for AF, ablation resulted in more QOL improvement in both sexes, primarily driven by improvements in those with lower baseline QOL. Ablation did not eliminate the AF-related QOL gap between women and men. Registration URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT00911508.

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).