• Greg de Lissovoy, Kathy Fraeman, John R Teerlink, John Mullahy, Jeff Salon, Raimund Sterz, Amy Durtschi, and Robert J Padley.
• United BioSource Corporation, 7101 Wisconsin Avenue, Suite 600, Bethesda, MD 20814, USA. greg.delissovoy@unitedbiosource.com
• Eur J Health Econ. 2010 Apr 1;11(2):185-93.

BackgroundAcute heart failure (AHF) is the leading cause of hospital admission among older Americans. The Randomized EValuation of Intravenous Levosimendan Efficacy (REVIVE II) trial compared patients randomly assigned to a single infusion of levosimendan (levo) or placebo (SOC), each in addition to local standard treatments for AHF. We report an economic analysis of REVIVE II from the hospital perspective.MethodsREVIVE II enrolled patients (N = 600) hospitalized for treatment of acute decompensated heart failure (ADHF) who remained dyspneic at rest despite treatment with intravenous diuretics. Case report forms documented index hospital treatment (drug administration, procedures, days of treatment by care unit), as well as subsequent hospital and emergency department admissions during follow-up ending 90 days from date of randomization. These data were used to impute cost of admission based on an econometric cost function derived from >100,000 ADHF hospital billing records selected per REVIVE II inclusion criteria.ResultsIndex admission mean length of stay (LOS) was shorter for the levo group compared with standard of care (SOC) (7.03 vs 8.96 days, P = 0.008) although intensive care unit (ICU)/cardiac care unit (CCU) days were similar (levo 2.88, SOC 3.22, P = 0.63). Excluding cost for levo, predicted mean (median) cost for the index admission was levo US $13,590 (9,458), SOC $19,021 (10,692) with a difference of $5,431 (1,234) favoring levo (P = 0.04). During follow-up through end of study day 90, no significant differences were observed in numbers of hospital admissions (P = 0.67), inpatient days (P = 0.81) or emergency department visits (P = 0.41). Cost-effectiveness was performed with a REVIVE-II sub-set conforming to current labeling, which excluded patients with low baseline blood pressure. Assuming an average price for levo in countries where currently approved, there was better than 50% likelihood that levo was both cost-saving and improved survival. Likelihood that levo would be cost-effective for willingness-to-pay below $50,000 per year of life gained was about 65%.ConclusionsIn the REVIVE II trial, patients treated with levo had shorter LOS and lower cost for the initial hospital admission relative to patients treated with SOC. Based on sub-group analysis of patients administered per the current label, levo appears cost-effective relative to SOC.

36 keywords...

hide…