Economic evaluation of ivabradine in treatment of patients with heart failure: a systematic review

ABSTRACT

Background

Chronic heart failure (CHF) is a clinical status and a progressive health disorder extremely related to increased morbidity and mortality worldwide. Accordingly, this study aimed to assess systematic review of literature on cost-effectiveness done in patients with heart failure receiving Ivabradine plus standard treatment compared with standard treatment alone.

Areas covered

This study is a systematic review in which all published articles related to the study topic were assessed in time range of 2014–2020. In order to find articles, internet search in foreign databases of PubMed, Embase, ISI/Web of Science (WoS), SCOPUS, Global Health databases, through keywords related to the objective was performed. Six articles out of 1524 article related to final topic were assessed. In addition, quality of studies was evaluated using CHEERS checklist. In six countries investigated (Iran, Thailand, Australia, United States of America, United Kingdom, and Greece), willingness-to-pay (WTP) thresholds higher cost per QALY, and highest ICER for Ivabradine was in USA (55,600 $/QALY) and the lowest was in Thailand (10,616$/QALY). Most items of CHEERS were estimated in the studies and studies had good quality.

Expert opinion

Regarding our investigation, ivabradine combined with standard care was more cost-effective than standard care alone in most of the evaluated studies, although the cost of this intervention was higher than its effectiveness. However, the threshold chosen by each country can have a significant impact on these results. And to have a more accurate result, it is required to pay more attention to the income level in different countries.

KEYWORDS:

• Cost-effectiveness analysis
• ivabradine
• heart failure
• heart rate
• economic evaluation

Declaration of interest

The authors have no relevant affiliations or financial involvement with any organization or entity with a financial interest in or financial conflict with the subject matter or materials discussed in the manuscript. This includes employment, consultancies, honoraria, stock ownership or options, expert testimony, grants or patents received or pending, or royalties.

Reviewers disclosure

Peer reviewers on this manuscript have no relevant financial relationships or otherwise to disclose.

Authors’ contributions

All authors contributed to the conceptual background and content of the publication.

Additional information

Funding

This study was part of research project funded by the Ilam University of Medical Sciences (ethical code: IR.MEDILAM.REC.1400.017).