Chi Nguyen1, Xian Zhang1, Thomas Evers2, Vincent J Willey3, Hiangkiat Tan4, Thomas P Power5. 1. Senior Researcher, HealthCore, an independent subsidiary of Anthem, Wilmington, DE. 2. Head of Real World Insights, Bayer AG, Wuppertal, Germany. 3. Principal Scientist, HealthCore, an independent subsidiary of Anthem, Wilmington, DE. 4. Scientific Director, HealthCore, an independent subsidiary of Anthem, Wilmington, DE. 5. Senior Medical Director of Cardiology and Sleep Medicine, AIM Specialty Health, Chicago, IL.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Although the significant burden of heart failure (HF) is well recognized, the relative contributions of systolic HF versus diastolic HF are less defined. OBJECTIVE: To explore the differential burden between patients with systolic and diastolic HF in terms of treatment patterns, healthcare resource utilization (HCRU), costs, and mortality risk. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study used administrative claims data from a large US commercial health insurer integrated with mortality data. Patients newly diagnosed with HF between January 1, 2010, and June 30, 2016, were identified and grouped according to systolic HF or diastolic HF diagnosis and were followed up to 4 years after diagnosis. Treatment patterns, HCRU, costs, and mortality were compared between the 2 groups of patients. RESULTS: Overall, 46,885 patients with systolic HF and 21,854 with diastolic HF were identified and included in the study. Patients with systolic HF had less HCRU than those with diastolic HF during the first year after HF diagnosis, including hospital admissions (70.2% vs 82.4%, respectively; P <.001) and emergency department visits (30.5% vs 39.1%, respectively; P <.001). The average per-patient costs for patients with systolic HF during the 1-year follow-up were higher than for those with diastolic HF ($64,154 vs $59,652, respectively; P <.001), but lower during years 2 through 4 (approximately $23,000-$25,000 annually vs approximately $28,000-$29,000 annually; P <.001). Patients with diastolic HF had a higher adjusted hospitalization risk (odds ratio, 1.62; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.55-1.69), but comparable adjusted costs (exponentiated estimate, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.99-1.02) and slightly lower mortality risk (hazard ratio, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.93-0.99) versus patients with systolic HF. The number of HF-related medication classes received for other diagnoses during the year preceding an HF diagnosis was associated with lower risks for hospitalization, mortality, and lower costs, with a trend in benefits toward patients with systolic HF. Of note, 21.9% of patients with systolic HF and 25% of patients with diastolic HF filled no HF-related prescriptions in the year after diagnosis. CONCLUSION: This real-world analysis confirms a high disease burden associated with HF and provides insight across the systolic HF and diastolic HF phenotypes. HF-related medication use after diagnosis was suboptimal and underscores a gap in patient care.
BACKGROUND: Although the significant burden of heart failure (HF) is well recognized, the relative contributions of systolic HF versus diastolic HF are less defined. OBJECTIVE: To explore the differential burden between patients with systolic and diastolic HF in terms of treatment patterns, healthcare resource utilization (HCRU), costs, and mortality risk. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study used administrative claims data from a large US commercial health insurer integrated with mortality data. Patients newly diagnosed with HF between January 1, 2010, and June 30, 2016, were identified and grouped according to systolic HF or diastolic HF diagnosis and were followed up to 4 years after diagnosis. Treatment patterns, HCRU, costs, and mortality were compared between the 2 groups of patients. RESULTS: Overall, 46,885 patients with systolic HF and 21,854 with diastolic HF were identified and included in the study. Patients with systolic HF had less HCRU than those with diastolic HF during the first year after HF diagnosis, including hospital admissions (70.2% vs 82.4%, respectively; P <.001) and emergency department visits (30.5% vs 39.1%, respectively; P <.001). The average per-patient costs for patients with systolic HF during the 1-year follow-up were higher than for those with diastolic HF ($64,154 vs $59,652, respectively; P <.001), but lower during years 2 through 4 (approximately $23,000-$25,000 annually vs approximately $28,000-$29,000 annually; P <.001). Patients with diastolic HF had a higher adjusted hospitalization risk (odds ratio, 1.62; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.55-1.69), but comparable adjusted costs (exponentiated estimate, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.99-1.02) and slightly lower mortality risk (hazard ratio, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.93-0.99) versus patients with systolic HF. The number of HF-related medication classes received for other diagnoses during the year preceding an HF diagnosis was associated with lower risks for hospitalization, mortality, and lower costs, with a trend in benefits toward patients with systolic HF. Of note, 21.9% of patients with systolic HF and 25% of patients with diastolic HF filled no HF-related prescriptions in the year after diagnosis. CONCLUSION: This real-world analysis confirms a high disease burden associated with HF and provides insight across the systolic HF and diastolic HF phenotypes. HF-related medication use after diagnosis was suboptimal and underscores a gap in patient care.
Authors: Andrew M Peterson; David P Nau; Joyce A Cramer; Josh Benner; Femida Gwadry-Sridhar; Michael Nichol Journal: Value Health Date: 2007 Jan-Feb Impact factor: 5.725
Authors: Marc A Pfeffer; Brian Claggett; Susan F Assmann; Robin Boineau; Inder S Anand; Nadine Clausell; Akshay S Desai; Rafael Diaz; Jerome L Fleg; Ivan Gordeev; John F Heitner; Eldrin F Lewis; Eileen O'Meara; Jean-Lucien Rouleau; Jeffrey L Probstfield; Tamaz Shaburishvili; Sanjiv J Shah; Scott D Solomon; Nancy K Sweitzer; Sonja M McKinlay; Bertram Pitt Journal: Circulation Date: 2014-11-18 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Melissa A Greiner; Bradley G Hammill; Gregg C Fonarow; David J Whellan; Zubin J Eapen; Adrian F Hernandez; Lesley H Curtis Journal: Am J Cardiol Date: 2011-12-10 Impact factor: 2.778
Authors: R Sacha Bhatia; Jack V Tu; Douglas S Lee; Peter C Austin; Jiming Fang; Annick Haouzi; Yanyan Gong; Peter P Liu Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2006-07-20 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Alanna M Chamberlain; Shannon M Dunlay; Yariv Gerber; Sheila M Manemann; Ruoxiang Jiang; Susan A Weston; Véronique L Roger Journal: Mayo Clin Proc Date: 2017-02 Impact factor: 7.616
Authors: Hude Quan; Vijaya Sundararajan; Patricia Halfon; Andrew Fong; Bernard Burnand; Jean-Christophe Luthi; L Duncan Saunders; Cynthia A Beck; Thomas E Feasby; William A Ghali Journal: Med Care Date: 2005-11 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: M J Lenzen; W J M Scholte op Reimer; E Boersma; P J M J Vantrimpont; F Follath; K Swedberg; J Cleland; M Komajda Journal: Eur Heart J Date: 2004-07 Impact factor: 29.983
Authors: Salim Yusuf; Marc A Pfeffer; Karl Swedberg; Christopher B Granger; Peter Held; John J V McMurray; Eric L Michelson; Bertil Olofsson; Jan Ostergren Journal: Lancet Date: 2003-09-06 Impact factor: 79.321