Key result
Ivabradine is not cost-effective overall but proves cost-effective in patients with heart rate ≥77 bpm.
Why the study?
Ivabradine reduces cardiovascular death and HF hospitalization in HFrEF, but its cost-effectiveness when added to standard treatment required evaluation.
Is ivabradine plus standard treatment cost-effective compared to standard treatment alone in patients with HFrEF?
Is ivabradine plus standard treatment cost-effective compared to standard treatment alone in patients with HFrEF?
Effect estimate: ICER 214,219 THB/QALY
Absolute Event Rate: 6.08% vs 5.84%
Ivabradine is a cost-effective adjunctive therapy in Thai HFrEF patients specifically when baseline heart rate is ≥77 bpm.
Should not yet change practice for ivabradine in Thai HFrEF; leaves open targeted cost-effectiveness at heart rate ≥77 bpm.
Background The benefit of ivabradine as an adjunctive therapy to conventional treatment in patients with heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) is a reduction in both cardiovascular death and HF hospitalization. This study aimed to analyze the cost-effectiveness of ivabradine plus standard treatment compared with standard treatment alone. Methods and results An analytical decision model was used to analyze lifetime costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) from a healthcare perspective. The study cohort comprised HFrEF patients with left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) <35%, with subgroup analysis of those with baseline heart rate ≥77 bpm. Clinical inputs were obtained from a landmark trial. All cost-related data, risk of non-cardiovascular death and readmission rate were based on Thai data. Costs and QALYs were discounted at 3% and presented as 2018 values. Findings were reported as incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). Sensitivity analyses were also performed. Ivabradine plus standard treatment costs more than standard treatment (71,071 vs 18,736 THB or 2,161.54 vs 569.82 USD), and is more effective (6.08 QALYs vs 5.84 QALYs), yielding an ICER of 214,219 THB/QALY (6,515.16 USD/QALY). Ivabradine was not cost-effective at the Thai willingness to pay threshold of 160,000 THB/QALY. The results were sensitive to risk of non-hospitalization cardiovascular death, and costs of HF hospitalization and ivabradine. However, the ICER of subgroup was below the threshold (86,317 THB/QALY or 2,625.20 USD/QALY). Conclusion This study revealed the addition of ivabradine to standard treatment to be a cost-effective treatment strategy in HFrEF patients with a heart rate ≥77 bpm.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Krittayaphong et al. (2019) studied Heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). Ivabradine vs. Standard treatment alone was evaluated on Cost-effectiveness (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio [ICER]) (ICER 214,219 THB/QALY). Adding ivabradine to standard treatment was not cost-effective overall (ICER 214,219 THB/QALY) but was cost-effective in patients with a baseline heart rate ≥77 bpm (ICER 86,317 THB/QALY).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: