Pediatric Heart Network Trial of Losartan vs. Atenolol in Children and Young Adults with Marfan Syndrome: Impact on Prescription Practices.

The Pediatric Heart Network (PHN) trial showed similar efficacy of ß-blockers (BB) and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARB) for aortic root dilation in Marfan syndrome, but the impact on prescription practices is unknown. We hypothesized BB and ARB prescriptions would increase after the trial results were published (2014). Prescription data (2007-2016) were obtained from outpatient encounters (IBM Marketscan) for Marfan syndrome patients (6 months-25 years old). Excluding 2014 as a washout period, we analyzed two intervals: 2007-2013 and 2015-2016. Medication categories included BB, ARB, angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEI), combination (BB/ARB and/or BB/ACEI), and no drug. Interrupted time-series analysis assessed immediate level change after publication and change in slope for the trend pre- and post-publication. Odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals from logistic regressions and generalized estimating equation methods accounted for correlation of prescriptions within patients. In 1499 patients (age 14.1 ± 6.1 years, 59% female) seen 2007-2013, BB trended lower [OR 0.91 (0.89, 0.93), p < 0.001] and ARB trended higher [OR 1.12 (1.07, 1.18), p < 0.001], while combination, ACEI, and no drug remained stable. This trend persisted, but was not significant, for BB [OR 0.54 (0.27, 1.08), p = 0.37] and ARB [OR 1.91 (0.55, 6.69), p = 0.31] in 2015-2016. Combination, ACEI, and no drug remained similar. In short term follow-up, changes in prescription practices following publication of the PHN trial were not statistically significant. This may be due to a change seen prior to publication with early adoption of ARBs that was maintained after confirmation of their effectiveness.

Cost-Effectiveness of Transitional Care Services After Hospitalization With Heart Failure.

Background: Patients with heart failure (HF) discharged from the hospital are at high risk for death and rehospitalization. Transitional care service interventions attempt to mitigate these risks. Objective: To assess the cost-effectiveness of 3 types of postdischarge HF transitional care services and standard care. Design: Decision analytic microsimulation model. Data Sources: Randomized controlled trials, clinical registries, cohort studies, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention life tables, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services data, and National Inpatient Sample (Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project) data. Target Population: Patients with HF who were aged 75 years at hospital discharge. Time Horizon: Lifetime. Perspective: Health care sector. Intervention: Disease management clinics, nurse home visits (NHVs), and nurse case management. Outcome Measures: Quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), costs, net monetary benefits, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). Results of Base-Case Analysis: All 3 transitional care interventions examined were more costly and effective than standard care, with NHVs dominating the other 2 interventions. Compared with standard care, NHVs increased QALYs (2.49 vs. 2.25) and costs ($81 327 vs. $76 705), resulting in an ICER of $19 570 per QALY gained. Results of Sensitivity Analysis: Results were largely insensitive to variations in in-hospital mortality, age at baseline, or costs of rehospitalization. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis confirmed that transitional care services were preferred over standard care in nearly all 10 000 samples, at willingness-to-pay thresholds of $50 000 or more per QALY gained. Limitation: Transitional care service designs and implementations are heterogeneous, leading to uncertainty about intervention effectiveness and costs when applied in particular settings. Conclusion: In older patients with HF, transitional care services are economically attractive, with NHVs being the most cost-effective strategy in many situations. Transitional care services should become the standard of care for postdischarge management of patients with HF. Primary Funding Source: Swiss National Science Foundation, Research Council of Norway, and an Intermountain-Stanford collaboration.