Supplementary data: A value-based budget impact model for dronedarone compared with other rhythm control strategies

Supplementary Table 1: Annual Rate control costs associated with AADs and Annual ablation cost associated with AADsSupplementary Table 2: Risk of LTCOs for AADsSupplementary Table 3: Event Risks Associated with Dronedarone vs. Rate Control + AblationSupplementary Table 4: Event Risks Associated with Dronedarone vs. AblationSupplementary Table 5: Event Risks Associated with Dronedarone + Rate Control vs. AADs + Rate ControlSupplementary Table 6: Event Risks Associated with Dronedarone vs. Rate ControlSupplementary Table 7: Event Risks Associated with Dronedarone + Ablation vs. other AADs + AblationSupplementary Table 8: Event Risks Associated with Dronedarone + Rate Control + Ablation vs. AADs + Rate Control + AblationSupplementary Table 9: Event Risks Associated with Dronedarone vs. Rate Control vs. AblationSupplementary Table 10: Event Risks for Temporal ScenariosAim: The budgetary consequences of increasing dronedarone utilization for treatment of atrial fibrillation were evaluated from a US payer perspective. Materials & methods: A budget impact model over a 5-year time horizon was developed, including drug-related costs and risks for long-term clinical outcomes (LTCOs). Treatments included antiarrhythmic drugs (AADs; dronedarone, amiodarone, sotalol, propafenone, dofetilide, flecainide), rate control medications, and ablation. Direct comparisons and temporal and non-temporal combination scenarios investigating treatment order were analyzed as costs per patient per month (PPPM). Results: By projected year 5, costs PPPM for dronedarone versus other AADs decreased by $37.69 due to fewer LTCOs, treatment with dronedarone versus ablation or rate control medications + ablation resulted in cost savings ($359.94 and $370.54, respectively), and AADs placed before ablation decreased PPPM costs by $242 compared with ablation before AADs. Conclusion: Increased dronedarone utilization demonstrated incremental cost reductions over time.

补充表 1：与抗心律失常药物 (AADs) 相关的年度心律控制成本及与 AADs 相关的年度消融成本
补充表 2：抗心律失常药物 (AADs) 的长期临床结果 (LTCOs) 风险
补充表 3：与多非利酮相比，心律控制 + 消融治疗的事件风险
补充表 4：与消融相比，多非利酮治疗的事件风险
补充表 5：与抗心律失常药物 + 消融相比，心律控制 + 消融治疗的事件风险
补充表 6：与心律控制相比，多非利酮治疗的事件风险
补充表 7：与其他抗心律失常药物 + 消融相比，多非利酮 + 消融治疗的事件风险
补充表 8：与抗心律失常药物 + 消融 + 心律控制相比，AADs + 消融 + 心律控制治疗的事件风险
补充表 9：与多非利酮、心律控制及消融相比，事件风险
补充表 10：时间序列场景的事件风险
研究目的：从美国支付者视角评估提高多非利酮在治疗房颤中应用比例的预算影响。研究材料与方法：构建了一个为期 5 年的预算影响模型，包括药物相关成本及长期临床结果 (LTCOs) 的风险。治疗方案包括抗心律失常药物 (AADs；多非利酮、碘马酮、索他洛尔、普罗帕酚、多菲替利、氟卡因)、心律控制药物和消融治疗。分析了直接比较、时间序列和非时间序列组合场景，以研究治疗顺序，并计算每位患者每月成本 (PPPM)。研究结果：至预测的第 5 年，多非利酮与其他 AADs 相比，每位患者每月成本 (PPPM) 降低了 37.69 美元，这是由于 LTCOs 较少；多非利酮治疗与消融或心律控制药物 + 消融治疗相比，分别实现了成本节约（分别为 359.94 美元和 370.54 美元），以及在消融之前使用 AADs 相比消融之前使用 AADs，每位患者每月成本 (PPPM) 降低了 242 美元。研究结论：提高多非利酮的应用比例显示出随着时间的推移成本逐渐降低的趋势。