Healthcare costs of patients with heart failure treated with torasemide or furosemide

Kevin T. Stroupe, Melissa M. Forthofer, D. Craig Brater, Michael Murray

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

36 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Objective: To compare the direct healthcare costs of patients with congestive heart failure (CHF) prescribed torasemide (torsemide) or furosemide (frusemide). Design and setting: As part of a prospective, randomised, nonblind study, we assessed the effects of torasemide and furosemide on readmission to hospital in 193 patients treated for CHF at a US urban public healthcare system. We also calculated total direct healthcare costs for the 2 drugs. The perspective of the analysis was that of the healthcare system. Healthcare charge and utilisation data, demographic information, and health status data were obtained from an electronic database containing data for all patients treated within the healthcare system. Patients and participants: Upon admission to the hospital, patients were eligible if they had evidence of left ventricular systolic dysfunction, were at least 18 years old, and were receiving furosemide. Intervention: Inpatients were randomised to either torasemide or furosemide treatment for 1 year. Main outcome measures and results: Patients treated with torasemide had fewer hospital admissions than those treated with furosemide [18 vs 34% for CHF (p = 0.013) and 38 vs 58% for any cardiovascular cause (p = 0.005)]. In the torasemide group, expected annual hospital costs per patient were lower for CHF admissions (by $US1054; 1998 values) and for all cardiovascular admissions (by $US1545) than in the furosemide group. Because the annual acquisition cost of torasemide was $US518 per patient higher than that of furosemide, the resulting net cost saving per patient was $US536 for CHF and $US1027 for all cardiovascular causes. Outpatient costs did not differ between treatment groups regardless of whether drug costs were considered. Total direct costs were $US2124 lower with torasemide than with furosemide (not statistically significant). Conclusions: Owing largely to reduced readmission to the hospital, the cost of inpatient care for patients with CHF is significantly lower with torasemide than with furosemide, despite the higher acquisition cost of torasemide. Treatment with torasemide resulted in a nonsignificant reduction in total direct costs (outpatient plus inpatient) compared with furosemide.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)429-440
Number of pages12
JournalPharmacoEconomics
Volume17
Issue number5
StatePublished - 2000

Fingerprint

torsemide
Furosemide
Health Care Costs
Heart Failure
Costs and Cost Analysis
Delivery of Health Care
Inpatients
Hospital Costs
Outpatients

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Pharmacology
  • Medicine (miscellaneous)

Cite this

Healthcare costs of patients with heart failure treated with torasemide or furosemide. / Stroupe, Kevin T.; Forthofer, Melissa M.; Brater, D. Craig; Murray, Michael.

In: PharmacoEconomics, Vol. 17, No. 5, 2000, p. 429-440.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Stroupe, KT, Forthofer, MM, Brater, DC & Murray, M 2000, 'Healthcare costs of patients with heart failure treated with torasemide or furosemide', PharmacoEconomics, vol. 17, no. 5, pp. 429-440.
Stroupe, Kevin T. ; Forthofer, Melissa M. ; Brater, D. Craig ; Murray, Michael. / Healthcare costs of patients with heart failure treated with torasemide or furosemide. In: PharmacoEconomics. 2000 ; Vol. 17, No. 5. pp. 429-440.
@article{767a86bfd86d4e879a4222fa07a4f782,
title = "Healthcare costs of patients with heart failure treated with torasemide or furosemide",
abstract = "Objective: To compare the direct healthcare costs of patients with congestive heart failure (CHF) prescribed torasemide (torsemide) or furosemide (frusemide). Design and setting: As part of a prospective, randomised, nonblind study, we assessed the effects of torasemide and furosemide on readmission to hospital in 193 patients treated for CHF at a US urban public healthcare system. We also calculated total direct healthcare costs for the 2 drugs. The perspective of the analysis was that of the healthcare system. Healthcare charge and utilisation data, demographic information, and health status data were obtained from an electronic database containing data for all patients treated within the healthcare system. Patients and participants: Upon admission to the hospital, patients were eligible if they had evidence of left ventricular systolic dysfunction, were at least 18 years old, and were receiving furosemide. Intervention: Inpatients were randomised to either torasemide or furosemide treatment for 1 year. Main outcome measures and results: Patients treated with torasemide had fewer hospital admissions than those treated with furosemide [18 vs 34{\%} for CHF (p = 0.013) and 38 vs 58{\%} for any cardiovascular cause (p = 0.005)]. In the torasemide group, expected annual hospital costs per patient were lower for CHF admissions (by $US1054; 1998 values) and for all cardiovascular admissions (by $US1545) than in the furosemide group. Because the annual acquisition cost of torasemide was $US518 per patient higher than that of furosemide, the resulting net cost saving per patient was $US536 for CHF and $US1027 for all cardiovascular causes. Outpatient costs did not differ between treatment groups regardless of whether drug costs were considered. Total direct costs were $US2124 lower with torasemide than with furosemide (not statistically significant). Conclusions: Owing largely to reduced readmission to the hospital, the cost of inpatient care for patients with CHF is significantly lower with torasemide than with furosemide, despite the higher acquisition cost of torasemide. Treatment with torasemide resulted in a nonsignificant reduction in total direct costs (outpatient plus inpatient) compared with furosemide.",
author = "Stroupe, {Kevin T.} and Forthofer, {Melissa M.} and Brater, {D. Craig} and Michael Murray",
year = "2000",
language = "English",
volume = "17",
pages = "429--440",
journal = "PharmacoEconomics",
issn = "1170-7690",
publisher = "Adis International Ltd",
number = "5",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Healthcare costs of patients with heart failure treated with torasemide or furosemide

AU - Stroupe, Kevin T.

AU - Forthofer, Melissa M.

AU - Brater, D. Craig

AU - Murray, Michael

PY - 2000

Y1 - 2000

N2 - Objective: To compare the direct healthcare costs of patients with congestive heart failure (CHF) prescribed torasemide (torsemide) or furosemide (frusemide). Design and setting: As part of a prospective, randomised, nonblind study, we assessed the effects of torasemide and furosemide on readmission to hospital in 193 patients treated for CHF at a US urban public healthcare system. We also calculated total direct healthcare costs for the 2 drugs. The perspective of the analysis was that of the healthcare system. Healthcare charge and utilisation data, demographic information, and health status data were obtained from an electronic database containing data for all patients treated within the healthcare system. Patients and participants: Upon admission to the hospital, patients were eligible if they had evidence of left ventricular systolic dysfunction, were at least 18 years old, and were receiving furosemide. Intervention: Inpatients were randomised to either torasemide or furosemide treatment for 1 year. Main outcome measures and results: Patients treated with torasemide had fewer hospital admissions than those treated with furosemide [18 vs 34% for CHF (p = 0.013) and 38 vs 58% for any cardiovascular cause (p = 0.005)]. In the torasemide group, expected annual hospital costs per patient were lower for CHF admissions (by $US1054; 1998 values) and for all cardiovascular admissions (by $US1545) than in the furosemide group. Because the annual acquisition cost of torasemide was $US518 per patient higher than that of furosemide, the resulting net cost saving per patient was $US536 for CHF and $US1027 for all cardiovascular causes. Outpatient costs did not differ between treatment groups regardless of whether drug costs were considered. Total direct costs were $US2124 lower with torasemide than with furosemide (not statistically significant). Conclusions: Owing largely to reduced readmission to the hospital, the cost of inpatient care for patients with CHF is significantly lower with torasemide than with furosemide, despite the higher acquisition cost of torasemide. Treatment with torasemide resulted in a nonsignificant reduction in total direct costs (outpatient plus inpatient) compared with furosemide.

AB - Objective: To compare the direct healthcare costs of patients with congestive heart failure (CHF) prescribed torasemide (torsemide) or furosemide (frusemide). Design and setting: As part of a prospective, randomised, nonblind study, we assessed the effects of torasemide and furosemide on readmission to hospital in 193 patients treated for CHF at a US urban public healthcare system. We also calculated total direct healthcare costs for the 2 drugs. The perspective of the analysis was that of the healthcare system. Healthcare charge and utilisation data, demographic information, and health status data were obtained from an electronic database containing data for all patients treated within the healthcare system. Patients and participants: Upon admission to the hospital, patients were eligible if they had evidence of left ventricular systolic dysfunction, were at least 18 years old, and were receiving furosemide. Intervention: Inpatients were randomised to either torasemide or furosemide treatment for 1 year. Main outcome measures and results: Patients treated with torasemide had fewer hospital admissions than those treated with furosemide [18 vs 34% for CHF (p = 0.013) and 38 vs 58% for any cardiovascular cause (p = 0.005)]. In the torasemide group, expected annual hospital costs per patient were lower for CHF admissions (by $US1054; 1998 values) and for all cardiovascular admissions (by $US1545) than in the furosemide group. Because the annual acquisition cost of torasemide was $US518 per patient higher than that of furosemide, the resulting net cost saving per patient was $US536 for CHF and $US1027 for all cardiovascular causes. Outpatient costs did not differ between treatment groups regardless of whether drug costs were considered. Total direct costs were $US2124 lower with torasemide than with furosemide (not statistically significant). Conclusions: Owing largely to reduced readmission to the hospital, the cost of inpatient care for patients with CHF is significantly lower with torasemide than with furosemide, despite the higher acquisition cost of torasemide. Treatment with torasemide resulted in a nonsignificant reduction in total direct costs (outpatient plus inpatient) compared with furosemide.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0034131344&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0034131344&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Article

C2 - 10977385

AN - SCOPUS:0034131344

VL - 17

SP - 429

EP - 440

JO - PharmacoEconomics

JF - PharmacoEconomics

SN - 1170-7690

IS - 5

ER -