Literature DB >> 33343816

Real-World Treatment Patterns, Healthcare Resource Utilization, and Costs for Patients with Newly Diagnosed Systolic versus Diastolic Heart Failure.

Chi Nguyen1, Xian Zhang1, Thomas Evers2, Vincent J Willey3, Hiangkiat Tan4, Thomas P Power5.   

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.
Copyright © 2020 by Engage Healthcare Communications, LLC.

Entities:  

Keywords:  cost of care; diastolic heart failure; disease burden; healthcare resource utilization; heart failure, mortality risk; systolic heart failure; treatment patterns

Year:  2020        PMID: 33343816      PMCID: PMC7737726     

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am Health Drug Benefits        ISSN: 1942-2962


  28 in total

1.  A checklist for medication compliance and persistence studies using retrospective databases.

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

2.  Regional variation in patients and outcomes in the Treatment of Preserved Cardiac Function Heart Failure With an Aldosterone Antagonist (TOPCAT) trial.

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

3.  Heart failure with normal ejection fraction. The V-HeFT Study. Veterans Administration Cooperative Study Group.

Authors:  J N Cohn; G Johnson
Journal:  Circulation       Date:  1990-02       Impact factor: 29.690

4.  Global Public Health Burden of Heart Failure.

Authors:  Gianluigi Savarese; Lars H Lund
Journal:  Card Fail Rev       Date:  2017-04

5.  Predicting costs among medicare beneficiaries with heart failure.

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

6.  Outcome of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction in a population-based study.

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

7.  Burden and Timing of Hospitalizations in Heart Failure: A Community Study.

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

8.  Coding algorithms for defining comorbidities in ICD-9-CM and ICD-10 administrative data.

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

9.  Differences between patients with a preserved and a depressed left ventricular function: a report from the EuroHeart Failure Survey.

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

10.  Effects of candesartan in patients with chronic heart failure and preserved left-ventricular ejection fraction: the CHARM-Preserved Trial.

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

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.