Dataset Information

Cost-effectiveness of supervised exercise, stenting, and optimal medical care for claudication: results from the Claudication: Exercise Versus Endoluminal Revascularization (CLEVER) trial.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:Both supervised exercise (SE) and stenting (ST) improve functional status, symptoms, and quality of life compared with optimal medical care (OMC) in patients with claudication. The relative cost-effectiveness of these strategies is not well defined. METHODS AND RESULTS:The Claudication: Exercise Versus Endoluminal Revascularization (CLEVER) study randomized patients with claudication due to aortoiliac stenosis to a 6-month SE program, to ST, or to OMC. Participants who completed 6-month follow-up (n=98) were included in a health economic analysis through 18 months. Costs were assessed using resource-based methods and hospital billing data. Quality-adjusted life-years were estimated using the EQ-5D. Markov modeling based on the in-trial results was used to explore the impact of assumptions about the longer term durability of observed differences in quality of life. Through 18 months, mean healthcare costs were $5178, $9804, and $14 590 per patient for OMC, SE, and ST, respectively. Measured quality-adjusted life-years through 18 months were 1.04, 1.16, and 1.20. In our base case analysis, which assumed that observed differences in quality of life would dissipate after 5 years, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were $24 070 per quality-adjusted life-year gained for SE versus OMC, $41 376 for ST versus OMC, and $122 600 for ST versus SE. If the treatment effect of ST was assumed to be more durable than that of SE, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for ST versus SE became more favorable. CONCLUSIONS:Both SE and ST are economically attractive by US standards relative to OMC for the treatment of claudication in patients with aortoiliac disease. ST is more expensive than SE, with uncertain incremental benefit. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION URL:www.clinicaltrials.gov, Unique identifier: NCT00132743.

SUBMITTER: Reynolds MR

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4338709 | biostudies-literature | 2014 Nov

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Cost-effectiveness of supervised exercise, stenting, and optimal medical care for claudication: results from the Claudication: Exercise Versus Endoluminal Revascularization (CLEVER) trial.

Reynolds Matthew R MR Apruzzese Patricia P Galper Benjamin Z BZ Murphy Timothy P TP Hirsch Alan T AT Cutlip Donald E DE Mohler Emile R ER Regensteiner Judith G JG Cohen David J DJ

Journal of the American Heart Association 20141111 6

<h4>Background</h4>Both supervised exercise (SE) and stenting (ST) improve functional status, symptoms, and quality of life compared with optimal medical care (OMC) in patients with claudication. The relative cost-effectiveness of these strategies is not well defined.<h4>Methods and results</h4>The Claudication: Exercise Versus Endoluminal Revascularization (CLEVER) study randomized patients with claudication due to aortoiliac stenosis to a 6-month SE program, to ST, or to OMC. Participants who ...[more]

PMID: 25389284

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveSupervised exercise therapy (SET) is the first line treatment for intermittent claudication owing to peripheral arterial disease. Despite multiple randomized controlled trials proving the efficacy of SET, there are large differences in individual patient's responses. We used plasma metabolomics to identify potential metabolic influences on the individual response to SET.MethodsPrimary metabolites, complex lipids, and lipid mediators were measured on plasma samples taken at before and after Gardner graded treadmill walking tests that were administered before and after 12 weeks of SET. We used an ensemble modeling approach to identify metabolites or changes in metabolites at specific time points that associated with interindividual variability in the functional response to SET. Specific time points analyzed included baseline metabolite levels before SET, dynamic metabolomics changes before SET, the difference in pre- and post-SET baseline metabolomics, and the difference (pre- and post-SET) of the dynamic (pre- and post-treadmill).ResultsHigh levels of baseline anandamide levels pre- and post-SET were associated with a worse response to SET. Increased arachidonic acid (AA) and decreased levels of the AA precursor dihomo-γ-linolenic acid across SET were associated with a worse response to SET. Participants who were able to tolerate large increases in AA during acute exercise had longer, or better, walking times both before and after SET.ConclusionsWe identified two pathways of relevance to individual response to SET that warrant further study: anandamide synthesis may activate endocannabinoid receptors, resulting in worse treadmill test performance. SET may train patients to withstand higher levels of AA, and inflammatory signaling, resulting in longer walking times.Clinical relevanceThis manuscript describes the use of metabolomic techniques to measure the interindividual effects of SET in patients with peripheral artery disease (PAD). We identified high levels of AEA are linked to CB1 signaling and activation of inflammatory pathways. This alters energy expenditure in myoblasts by decreasing glucose uptake and may induce an acquired skeletal muscle myopathy. SET may also help participants tolerate increased levels of AA and inflammation produced during exercise, resulting in longer walking times. This data will enhance understanding of the pathophysiology of PAD and the mechanism by which SET improves walking intolerance.

Project description:Objectives Transcarotid arterial revascularization (TCAR) is associated with a lower risk of stroke or death than transfemoral carotid artery stenting (TF-CAS). TCAR infers a lower risk of cranial nerve injury and a similar risk of myocardial infarction (MI) than carotid endarterectomy (CEA). There have been no comparative studies on the cost of TCAR, TF-CAS, and CEA, which may have important implications for institutional support for the new modality to address carotid artery stenosis. Our aim was to compare the estimated cost profiles of TCAR, TF-CAS, and CEA. Methods A review was performed on Medicare patients who underwent TCAR, TF-CAS, or CEA between January 1, 2020, and December 31, 2020. Demographics, comorbidities, operative details, and postoperative complications were reviewed. Acute stroke presentations and elective procedures were included. Cost data were obtained from the hospital's finance department. Quantitative variables were compared using analysis of variance, and categorical variables were compared using the chi-square analysis. Results In total, 21 TCAR, 97 TF-CAS, and 26 CEA patients were initially identified. After removing the non-Medicare patients, 17 TCAR, 57 TF-CAS, and 13 CEA patients were included in the analysis. In-hospital stroke, MI, and mortality included three deaths in TF-CAS patients. At 30 days, the stroke rates for TCAR, TF-CAS, and CEA groups were 0%, 1.8%, and 0%, respectively. The payments for TCAR, TF-CAS, and CEA were $15,400 ± 2,100, $23,400 ± 11,800 and $14,300 ± 5,700 (p=0.001), respectively. The estimated costs for TCAR, TF-CAS, and CEA were $10,500 ± 3,300, $13,800 ± 14,300, and $12,400 ± 6,000 (p=0.575), respectively. The profit margins for TCAR, TF-CAS, and CEA were $5,100 ± 3,100, $9,600 ± 12,100, and $1,900 ± 6,400 (p=0.032), respectively. There was no significant difference in American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) scores (p=0.635) or age (p=0.485) among the three groups. The length of hospital stay was not significantly different (p=0.107). The TF-CAS maintained the highest profit margin (p<0.001) when matched for the same diagnosis-related code (without complications or comorbidities). Urgency classification within the TF-CAS group included 45 elective, four urgent, and eight emergent cases. The profit margin was significantly higher for the elective group than for the emergent group (p=0.002) but not different for elective versus urgent (p=0.503) or urgent versus emergent (p=0.102). All patients who underwent TCAR and CEA were elective. Conclusion The hospital reimbursement and profit margins are higher for TF-CAS than for TCAR. With the increasing data now demonstrating similar outcomes with TF-CAS and CEA, further research is required to examine the long-term cost-effectiveness of TCAR and how this will compare to TF-CAS.

Project description:The Carotid Revascularization Endarterectomy versus Stenting Trial (CREST) demonstrated similar rates of the primary composite end point between carotid artery stenting (CAS) and carotid endarterectomy (CEA), although the risk of stroke was higher with CAS, and the risk of myocardial infarction was higher with CEA. Given the large number of patients who are candidates for these procedures, an understanding of their relative cost and cost-effectiveness may have important implications for health care policy and treatment guidelines.We performed a formal economic evaluation alongside the CREST trial. Costs were estimated from all trial participants over the first year of follow-up using a combination of resource use data and hospital billing data. Patient-level health use scores were obtained using data from the SF-36. We then used a Markov disease-simulation model calibrated to the CREST results to project 10-year costs and quality-adjusted life expectancy for the 2 treatment groups.Although initial procedural costs were $1025/patient higher with CAS, postprocedure costs and physician costs were lower such that total costs for the index hospitalization were similar for the CAS and CEA groups ($15 055 versus $14 816; mean difference, $239/patient; 95% CI for difference, -$297 to $775). Neither follow-up costs after discharge nor total 1-year costs differed significantly. For the CREST population, model-based projections over a 10-year time horizon demonstrated that CAS would result in a mean incremental cost of $524/patient and a reduction in quality-adjusted life expectancy of 0.008 years compared with CEA. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis demonstrated that CEA was economically attractive at an incremental cost-effectiveness threshold of $50 000/quality-adjusted life-year gained in 54% of samples, whereas CAS was economically attractive in 46%.Despite slightly lower in-trial costs and lower rates of stroke with CEA compared with CAS, projected 10-year outcomes from this controlled clinical trial demonstrate only trivial differences in overall healthcare costs and quality-adjusted life expectancy between the 2 strategies. If the CREST results can be replicated in clinical practice, these findings suggest that factors other than cost-effectiveness should be considered when deciding between treatment options for carotid artery stenosis in patients at standard risk for surgical complications. Clinical Trial Registration- URL: http://clinicaltrials.gov. Unique Identifier: NCT00004732.

Dataset Information

Cost-effectiveness of supervised exercise, stenting, and optimal medical care for claudication: results from the Claudication: Exercise Versus Endoluminal Revascularization (CLEVER) trial.

Publications

Cost-effectiveness of supervised exercise, stenting, and optimal medical care for claudication: results from the Claudication: Exercise Versus Endoluminal Revascularization (CLEVER) trial.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets