BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: The SENIORS trial demonstrated that nebivolol is effective in the treatment of heart failure in elderly patients (e.g. > or = 70 years). This analysis evaluates the cost effectiveness of nebivolol compared with standard treatment. METHODS: An individual patient-simulation model based on a Markov modelling framework was developed to compare costs and outcomes for nebivolol and standard care in patients with heart failure starting treatment at the age of 70 years. Health states were defined by New York Heart Association (NYHA) class and death. At a given NYHA class and a given cycle, patients could die, be hospitalized for cardiovascular disease or remain stable. Risks for these events were derived from individual patient data from the SENIORS trial. The risk of each event in a given cycle was based on the subject's baseline characteristics and time in the current health state. The economic analysis was conducted from the UK NHS perspective with a lifetime horizon. The costs (euro; year 2006 values) considered were drug costs for nebivolol and other cardiac drugs, costs of GP visits, outpatient specialist visits and cardiovascular-related hospitalizations. Univariate and probabilistic sensitivity analysis was conducted. RESULTS: In the baseline analysis, the total cost per patient was euro6740 and euro9288, and QALYs were 5.194 and 5.843 for patients aged 70 years at the start of treatment for the standard treatment and nebivolol groups, respectively. The probabilistic sensitivity analysis provided an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of euro3926 (95% CI 3731, 4159) per QALY. CONCLUSIONS: This analysis indicates that nebivolol appears to be a cost-effective treatment for elderly patients with heart failure compared with standard care.
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: The SENIORS trial demonstrated that nebivolol is effective in the treatment of heart failure in elderly patients (e.g. > or = 70 years). This analysis evaluates the cost effectiveness of nebivolol compared with standard treatment. METHODS: An individual patient-simulation model based on a Markov modelling framework was developed to compare costs and outcomes for nebivolol and standard care in patients with heart failure starting treatment at the age of 70 years. Health states were defined by New York Heart Association (NYHA) class and death. At a given NYHA class and a given cycle, patients could die, be hospitalized for cardiovascular disease or remain stable. Risks for these events were derived from individual patient data from the SENIORS trial. The risk of each event in a given cycle was based on the subject's baseline characteristics and time in the current health state. The economic analysis was conducted from the UK NHS perspective with a lifetime horizon. The costs (euro; year 2006 values) considered were drug costs for nebivolol and other cardiac drugs, costs of GP visits, outpatient specialist visits and cardiovascular-related hospitalizations. Univariate and probabilistic sensitivity analysis was conducted. RESULTS: In the baseline analysis, the total cost per patient was euro6740 and euro9288, and QALYs were 5.194 and 5.843 for patients aged 70 years at the start of treatment for the standard treatment and nebivolol groups, respectively. The probabilistic sensitivity analysis provided an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of euro3926 (95% CI 3731, 4159) per QALY. CONCLUSIONS: This analysis indicates that nebivolol appears to be a cost-effective treatment for elderly patients with heart failure compared with standard care.
Authors: J Jamie Caro; Kristin Migliaccio-Walle; Judith A O'Brien; William Nova; Jennifer Kim; Ole Hauch; Eric Hillson; Hans Wedel; Ake Hjalmarson; Stephen Gottlieb; Prakash C Deedwania; John Wikstrand Journal: J Card Fail Date: 2005-12 Impact factor: 5.712
Authors: M R Cowie; K F Fox; D A Wood; C Metcalfe; S G Thompson; A J S Coats; P A Poole-Wilson; G C Sutton Journal: Eur Heart J Date: 2002-06 Impact factor: 29.983
Authors: Marcus D Flather; Marcelo C Shibata; Andrew J S Coats; Dirk J Van Veldhuisen; Aleksandr Parkhomenko; Joszef Borbola; Alain Cohen-Solal; Dan Dumitrascu; Roberto Ferrari; Philippe Lechat; Jordi Soler-Soler; Luigi Tavazzi; Lenka Spinarova; Jiri Toman; Michael Böhm; Stefan D Anker; Simon G Thompson; Philip A Poole-Wilson Journal: Eur Heart J Date: 2005-01-09 Impact factor: 29.983
Authors: M Packer; M R Bristow; J N Cohn; W S Colucci; M B Fowler; E M Gilbert; N H Shusterman Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 1996-05-23 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Yanhong Li; Matthew P Neilson; David J Whellan; Kevin A Schulman; Wayne C Levy; Shelby D Reed Journal: J Card Fail Date: 2013-05 Impact factor: 5.712
Authors: Adam P Bress; Brandon K Bellows; Jordan B King; Rachel Hess; Srinivasan Beddhu; Zugui Zhang; Dan R Berlowitz; Molly B Conroy; Larry Fine; Suzanne Oparil; Donald E Morisky; Lewis E Kazis; Natalia Ruiz-Negrón; Jamie Powell; Leonardo Tamariz; Jeff Whittle; Jackson T Wright; Mark A Supiano; Alfred K Cheung; William S Weintraub; Andrew E Moran Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2017-08-24 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Mark Bounthavong; Javed Butler; Chantal M Dolan; Jeffrey D Dunn; Kathryn A Fisher; Nina Oestreicher; Bertram Pitt; Paul J Hauptman; David L Veenstra Journal: Pharmacoeconomics Date: 2018-12 Impact factor: 4.981
Authors: Praveen Thokala; Hassan Baalbaki; Alan Brennan; Abdullah Pandor; John W Stevens; Tim Gomersall; Jenny Wang; Ameet Bakhai; Abdallah Al-Mohammad; John Cleland; Martin R Cowie; Ruth Wong Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2013-09-18 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Gian Luca Di Tanna; Anna Bychenkova; Frank O'Neill; Heidi S Wirtz; Paul Miller; Briain Ó Hartaigh; Gary Globe Journal: Pharmacoeconomics Date: 2019-03 Impact factor: 4.981