Dataset Information

Exploratory cost-effectiveness analysis of cardiac resynchronization therapy with systematic device optimization vs. standard (non-systematic) optimization: a multinational economic evaluation.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:Recent studies provide evidence of improved clinical benefits associated with cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) optimization. Our analysis explores the cost-effectiveness of systematically optimized (SO, 3 times a year) vs. non-systematically optimized (NSO, less than 3 times a year) CRT, whatever the echo optimization method used (manual or SonR® automatic). A longitudinal cohort model was developed to predict clinical and economic outcomes for SO vs. NSO strategies over 5 years. The analysis was performed from the payer perspective. Data from CLEAR study post-hoc analysis was used with 199 pts with CRT pacemaker (CRT-P). The main economic outcome measure was incremental cost-effectiveness (ICER) expressed as cost per Quality Adjusted Life Years (QALY) gained. To assess the impact of data uncertainty, a sensitivity analysis was performed. The model also predicts outcomes for the two optimization strategies for CRT-D therapy vs. optimal medical treatment (OPT). RESULTS:At 1 year, ICERs for SO CRT vs. NSO CRT-P range between 22,226 (Spain) and 26,977 (Italy). Therefore, on the basis of a Willingness-To-Pay of 30,000 per QALY, the SO method develops into a cost effective strategy from 1 year, onwards. These favorable outcomes are supported by the sensitivity analysis. Systematic optimization of CRT-D might also improve the cost-effectiveness of this device therapy by 27 % to 30 % dependent on the country analyzed, at 5 years. CONCLUSIONS:Our economic evaluation shows promising health economic benefits associated with SO CRT. These preliminary findings need further confirmation.

SUBMITTER: Banz K

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4498000 | biostudies-literature | 2015 Dec

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Exploratory cost-effectiveness analysis of cardiac resynchronization therapy with systematic device optimization vs. standard (non-systematic) optimization: a multinational economic evaluation.

Banz Kurt K Delnoy Peter Paul PP Billuart Jean Renaud JR

Health economics review 20150711 1

<h4>Background</h4>Recent studies provide evidence of improved clinical benefits associated with cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) optimization. Our analysis explores the cost-effectiveness of systematically optimized (SO, 3 times a year) vs. non-systematically optimized (NSO, less than 3 times a year) CRT, whatever the echo optimization method used (manual or SonR® automatic). A longitudinal cohort model was developed to predict clinical and economic outcomes for SO vs. NSO strategies ove ...[more]

PMID: 26160650

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceOlder patients with hypertension receiving intensive systolic blood pressure control (110-130 mm Hg) have lower incidences of cardiovascular events than those receiving standard control (130-150 mm Hg). Nevertheless, the mortality reduction is insignificant, and intensive blood pressure management results in more medical costs from treatments and subsequent adverse events.ObjectiveTo examine the incremental lifetime outcomes, costs, and cost-effectiveness of intensive vs standard blood pressure control in older patients with hypertension from the health care payer's perspective.Design, setting, and participantsThis economic analysis was conducted with a Markov model to examine the cost-effectiveness of intensive blood pressure management among patients aged 60 to 80 years with hypertension. Treatment outcome data from the Trial of Intensive Blood-Pressure Control in Older Patients With Hypertension (STEP trial) and different cardiovascular risk assessment models for a hypothetical cohort of STEP-eligible patients were used. Costs and utilities were obtained from published sources. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) against the willingness-to-pay threshold was used to evaluate whether the management was cost-effective. Extensive sensitivity, subgroup, and scenario analyses were performed to address uncertainty. The US and UK population using race-specific cardiovascular risk models were conducted in the generalizability analysis. Data for the STEP trial were collected from February 10 to March 10, 2022, and were analyzed for the present study from March 10 to May 15, 2022.InterventionsHypertension treatments with a systolic blood pressure target of 110 to 130 mm Hg or 130 to 150 mm Hg.Main outcomes and measuresIncremental lifetime quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), costs, and ICER are discounted at the given rates annually.ResultsAfter simulating 10 000 STEP-eligible patients assumed to be 66 years of age (4650 men [46.5%] and 5350 women [53.5%]) in the model, the ICER values were ¥51 675 ($12 362) per QALY gained in China, $25 417 per QALY gained in the US, and £4679 ($7004) per QALY gained in the UK. Simulations projected that the intensive management in China being cost-effective were 94.3% and 100% below the willingness-to-pay thresholds of 1 time (¥89 300 [$21 364]/QALY) and 3 times (¥267 900 [$64 090]/QALY) the gross domestic product per capita, respectively. The US had 86.9% and 95.6% probabilities of cost-effectiveness at $50 000/QALY and $100 000/QALY, respectively, and the UK had 99.1% and 100% of probabilities of cost-effectiveness at £20 000 ($29 940)/QALY and £30 000 ($44 910)/QALY, respectively.Conclusions and relevanceIn this economic evaluation, the intensive systolic blood pressure control in older patients produced fewer cardiovascular events and had acceptable costs per QALY gained, well below the typical willingness-to-pay thresholds. The cost-effective advantages of intensive blood pressure management in older patients were consistent over various clinical scenarios across different countries.

Project description:ImportancePlatform trial design allows the introduction of new interventions after the trial is initiated and offers efficiencies to clinical research. However, limited guidance exists on the economic resources required to establish and maintain platform trials.ObjectiveTo compare cost (US dollars) and time requirements of conducting a platform trial vs a series of conventional (nonplatform) trials using a real-life example.Design, setting, and participantsFor this economic evaluation, an online survey was administered to a group of international experts (146 participants) with publication records of platform trials to elicit their opinions on cost and time to set up and conduct platform, multigroup, and 2-group trials. Using the reported entry dates of 10 interventions into Systemic Therapy in Advancing Metastatic Prostate Cancer: Evaluation of Drug Efficacy, the longest ongoing platform trial, 3 scenarios were designed involving a single platform trial (scenario 1), 1 multigroup followed by 5 2-group trials (scenario 2), and a series of 10 2-group trials (scenario 3). All scenarios started with 5 interventions, then 5 more interventions were either added to the platform or evaluated independently. Simulations with the survey results as inputs were used to compare the platform vs conventional trial designs. Data were analyzed from July to September 2021.ExposurePlatform trial design.Main outcomes and measuresTotal trial setup and conduct cost and cumulative duration.ResultsAlthough setup time and cost requirements of a single trial were highest for the platform trial, cumulative requirements of setting up a series of multiple trials in scenarios 2 and 3 were larger. Compared with the platform trial, there was a median (IQR) increase of 216.7% (202.2%-242.5%) in cumulative setup costs for scenario 2 and 391.1% (365.3%-437.9%) for scenario 3. In terms of total cost, there was a median (IQR) increase of 17.4% (12.1%-22.5%) for scenario 2 and 57.5% (43.1%-69.9%) for scenario 3. There was a median (IQR) increase in cumulative trial duration of 171.1% (158.3%-184.3%) for scenario 2 and 311.9% (282.0%-349.1%) for scenario 3. Cost and time reductions in the platform trial were observed in both the initial and subsequently evaluated interventions.Conclusions and relevanceAlthough setting up platform trials can take longer and be costly, the findings of this study suggest that having a single infrastructure can improve efficiencies with respect to costs and efforts.

Project description:ImportanceVoretigene neparvovec-rzyl, the first gene therapy approved by the US Food and Drug Administration, was approved for the treatment for RPE65-mediated inherited retinal disease (IRD) in December 2017. This gene therapy is associated with high up-front costs and high efficacy, although of unknown duration, and its cost-effectiveness has not been assessed with RPE65 IRD-specific, longitudinal, patient-observation-level data.ObjectiveTo assess the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of voretigene neparvovec-rzyl compared with standard care for RPE65-mediated inherited retinal disease.Design, setting, and participantsIn this economic analysis, a health state transition model based on visual acuity and field with a lifetime horizon was developed to estimate the cost-effectiveness of voretigene neparvovec-rzyl. The model was populated with data from a clinical trial of voretigene neparvovec-rzyl to evaluate treatment outcome and a natural history study of RPE65-mediated IRD to examine disease progression. Direct costs were derived from the literature. Indirect costs, including educational attainment, productivity, caregiver burden, and governmental programs, were estimated using published literature and data analysis of public national surveys. A health utility vignette study specific to RPE65-mediated IRD was used for health utility inputs. The cost-effectiveness study described in this article was conducted from September 15, 2017, to August 23, 2018.ExposuresBilateral voretigene neparvovec-rzyl therapy or standard care.Main outcomes and measuresIncremental cost-effectiveness ratio.ResultsThe model population included 70 patients with RPE65-mediated IRD, with a mean age of 15 years; 42 of 70 patients (60%) were female. In the base case, voretigene neparvovec-rzyl compared with standard care was associated with lower total costs ($2.2 million vs $2.8 million) and higher quality-adjusted life-years (18.1 vs 8.6). Voretigene neparvovec-rzyl remains cost-effective if at least 8.8% of the long-term treatment effect continues after year 3 when including indirect costs and 43.3% when excluding indirect costs, assuming a cost threshold of $150 000 per quality-adjusted life-year.Conclusions and relevanceResults of this study suggest that voretigene neparvovec-rzyl is cost-effective compared with standard care when using a lifetime horizon, excluding indirect costs, and using a threshold of $150 000 per quality-adjusted life-year.

Dataset Information

Exploratory cost-effectiveness analysis of cardiac resynchronization therapy with systematic device optimization vs. standard (non-systematic) optimization: a multinational economic evaluation.

Publications

Exploratory cost-effectiveness analysis of cardiac resynchronization therapy with systematic device optimization vs. standard (non-systematic) optimization: a multinational economic evaluation.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets