Journal of medical economics · 2018
Cost-effectiveness of percutaneous patent foramen ovale closure as secondary stroke prevention.
СтатьяМногоцентровое исследованиеРандомизированное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Tirschwell David L, Turner Mark, Thaler David, Choulerton James, Marks David, Carroll John, MacDonald Lee, Smalling Richard W, Koullick Maria, Gu Ning Yan, Saver Jeffrey L
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: Compared to medical therapy alone, percutaneous closure of patent foramen ovale (PFO) further reduces risk of recurrent ischemic strokes in carefully selected young to middle-aged patients with a recent cryptogenic ischemic stroke. The objective of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of this therapy in the context of the United Kingdom (UK) healthcare system.
METHODS: A Markov cohort model consisting of four health states (Stable after index stroke, Post-Minor Recurrent Stroke, Post-Moderate Recurrent Stroke, and Death) was developed to simulate the economic outcomes of device-based PFO closure compared to medical therapy. Recurrent stroke event rates were extracted from a randomized clinical trial (RESPECT) with a median of 5.9-year follow-up. Health utilities and costs were obtained from published sources. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSA) were performed to assess robustness. The model was discounted at 3.5% and reported in 2016 Pounds Sterling.
RESULTS: Compared with medical therapy alone and using a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of £20,000, PFO closure reached cost-effectiveness at 4.2 years. Cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) at 4, 10, and 20 years were ₤20,951, ₤6,887, and ₤2,158, respectively. PFO closure was cost-effective for 89% of PSA iterations at year 10. Sensitivity analyses showed that the model was robust.
CONCLUSIONS: Considering the UK healthcare system perspective, percutaneous PFO closure in cryptogenic ischemic stroke patients is a cost-effective stroke prevention strategy compared to medical therapy alone. Its cost-effectiveness was driven by substantial reduction in recurrent strokes and patients' improved health-related quality-of-life.
METHODS: A Markov cohort model consisting of four health states (Stable after index stroke, Post-Minor Recurrent Stroke, Post-Moderate Recurrent Stroke, and Death) was developed to simulate the economic outcomes of device-based PFO closure compared to medical therapy. Recurrent stroke event rates were extracted from a randomized clinical trial (RESPECT) with a median of 5.9-year follow-up. Health utilities and costs were obtained from published sources. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSA) were performed to assess robustness. The model was discounted at 3.5% and reported in 2016 Pounds Sterling.
RESULTS: Compared with medical therapy alone and using a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of £20,000, PFO closure reached cost-effectiveness at 4.2 years. Cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) at 4, 10, and 20 years were ₤20,951, ₤6,887, and ₤2,158, respectively. PFO closure was cost-effective for 89% of PSA iterations at year 10. Sensitivity analyses showed that the model was robust.
CONCLUSIONS: Considering the UK healthcare system perspective, percutaneous PFO closure in cryptogenic ischemic stroke patients is a cost-effective stroke prevention strategy compared to medical therapy alone. Its cost-effectiveness was driven by substantial reduction in recurrent strokes and patients' improved health-related quality-of-life.