European heart journal. Quality of care & clinical outcomes · 2020
Cost-effectiveness of the coronary sinus Reducer and its impact on the healthcare burden of refractory angina patients.
СтатьяМногоцентровое исследованиеНаблюдательное 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.
Gallone Guglielmo, Armeni Patrizio, Verheye Stefan, Agostoni Pierfrancesco, Timmers Leo, Campo Gianluca, Ielasi Alfonso, Sgura Fabio, Tarantini Giuseppe, Rosseel Liesbeth, Zivelonghi Carlo, Leenders Geert, Stella Pieter, Tebaldi Matteo, Tespili Maurizio, D'Amico Gianpiero, Baldetti Luca, Ponticelli Francesco, Colombo Antonio, Giannini Francesco
Аннотация
AIMS: The coronary sinus Reducer is a percutaneous device proven to improve angina symptoms in refractory angina (RA). We evaluated its potential cost-effectiveness and impact on the healthcare resource use.
METHODS AND RESULTS: Angina-related healthcare resource usage and quality-of-life data were collected for 215 consecutive RA patients undergoing Reducer implantation in Belgium, the Netherlands, and Italy. Costs were assessed from each country's healthcare system perspective. Data from the date of RA diagnosis to Reducer implantation [Standard-of-Care (SoC)-period] and from Reducer implantation to follow-up (Reducer-period) were compared: during Reducer-period, a significant reduction in angina-driven hospitalizations, outpatient visits, coronary angiograms, and percutaneous coronary interventions per patient-year was observed, translating into significantly reduced costs per patient-year. To assess cost-effectiveness, costs and utilities of 1-year SoC were compared with those of 1-year Reducer-period. Assumptions on Reducer efficacy duration were further explored with modelled projections. Reducer was associated with higher quality-adjusted life years (QALYs: 0.665 vs. 0.580, P < 0.001) and incremental costs, yielding incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) of 53 197, 34 948, 63 146 €/QALY gained in Belgium, the Netherlands, and Italy, respectively. Under both the assumptions of 2 and 3 years Reducer effect duration with a 30%-year efficacy decrease, the device yielded ICERs in the range of 1977-20 796 €/QALY gained.
CONCLUSION: In patients with RA, Reducer device decreases healthcare resource use and related costs. In a limited 1-year timeframe, Reducer is consistently cost-effective according to a range of cost-effectiveness thresholds. Under the explored assumptions, the device yields cost-effectiveness ratios suggesting high value from all the considered perspectives.
METHODS AND RESULTS: Angina-related healthcare resource usage and quality-of-life data were collected for 215 consecutive RA patients undergoing Reducer implantation in Belgium, the Netherlands, and Italy. Costs were assessed from each country's healthcare system perspective. Data from the date of RA diagnosis to Reducer implantation [Standard-of-Care (SoC)-period] and from Reducer implantation to follow-up (Reducer-period) were compared: during Reducer-period, a significant reduction in angina-driven hospitalizations, outpatient visits, coronary angiograms, and percutaneous coronary interventions per patient-year was observed, translating into significantly reduced costs per patient-year. To assess cost-effectiveness, costs and utilities of 1-year SoC were compared with those of 1-year Reducer-period. Assumptions on Reducer efficacy duration were further explored with modelled projections. Reducer was associated with higher quality-adjusted life years (QALYs: 0.665 vs. 0.580, P < 0.001) and incremental costs, yielding incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) of 53 197, 34 948, 63 146 €/QALY gained in Belgium, the Netherlands, and Italy, respectively. Under both the assumptions of 2 and 3 years Reducer effect duration with a 30%-year efficacy decrease, the device yielded ICERs in the range of 1977-20 796 €/QALY gained.
CONCLUSION: In patients with RA, Reducer device decreases healthcare resource use and related costs. In a limited 1-year timeframe, Reducer is consistently cost-effective according to a range of cost-effectiveness thresholds. Under the explored assumptions, the device yields cost-effectiveness ratios suggesting high value from all the considered perspectives.