Why the study?
Is adding ivabradine to background therapy cost-effective for heart failure patients with heart rate ≥70 bpm in sinus rhythm in the US?
Is adding ivabradine to background therapy cost-effective for heart failure patients with heart rate ≥70 bpm in sinus rhythm in the US?
Adding ivabradine to background therapy for eligible heart failure patients is cost-saving in commercial populations and highly cost-effective in Medicare Advantage populations in the US.
May support ivabradine coverage decisions in US HF; leaves open need for prospective validation beyond modeled cohorts.
BACKGROUND: Ivabradine is a heart rate-lowering agent approved to reduce the risk of hospitalization for worsening heart failure. This study assessed the cost-effectiveness of adding ivabradine to background therapy in the United States from the perspective of a commercial or Medicare Advantage payer. METHODS AND RESULTS: A cost-effectiveness, cohort-based Markov model using a state transition approach tracked a cohort of heart failure patients with heart rate ≥70 beats per minute in sinus rhythm who were treated with ivabradine+background therapy or background therapy alone. Model inputs, including adjusted hazard ratios, rates of hospitalization and mortality, adverse events, and utility-regression equations, were derived from a large US claims database and SHIFT (Systolic Heart failure treatment with the If inhibitor ivabradine Trial). In the commercial population, ivabradine+background therapy was associated with a cost savings of $8594 versus the cost of background therapy alone over a 10-year time horizon, primarily because of reduced hospitalization. Ivabradine was associated with an incremental benefit of 0.24 quality-adjusted life years over a 10-year time horizon. In the Medicare Advantage population, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for ivabradine was estimated to be $24 920/quality-adjusted life years. CONCLUSIONS: The cost-effectiveness model suggests that for a commercial population, the addition of ivabradine to background therapy was associated with cost savings and improved clinical outcomes. For a Medicare Advantage population, the analysis indicates that the clinical benefit of ivabradine can be achieved at a reasonable cost.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Cowie et al. (2016) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: