Applied health economics and health policy · 2016
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Iodine-123 Meta-Iodobenzylguanidine Imaging for Screening Heart Failure Patients Eligible for an Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator in the USA.
СтатьяНазвание 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.
O'Day Ken, Levy Wayne C, Johnson Meridith, Jacobson Arnold F
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Many guideline-eligible heart failure (HF) patients do not receive a survival benefit from implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs). Improved risk stratification may help to reduce costs and improve the cost effectiveness of ICDs.
OBJECTIVE: To estimate the potential outcomes, costs, and cost effectiveness of using iodine-123 meta-iodobenzylguanidine (I-mIBG) to screen HF patients eligible for an ICD.
METHODS: A decision-analytic model was developed to compare screening with I-mIBG imaging and no screening over 2-year and 10-year time horizons from a US payer perspective. Data on I-mIBG imaging and risk stratification were obtained from the ADMIRE-HF/HFX (AdreView Myocardial Imaging for Risk Evaluation in Heart Failure) trial. Data on ICD effectiveness for prevention of sudden cardiac death (SCD) were obtained from a meta-analysis. Costs of ICDs and costs of generator and lead procedures were obtained from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality National Inpatient Sample. Age-specific mortality was modeled using US life tables and data from the ACT (Advancements in ICD Therapy) Registry on risks of SCD and non-SCD mortality. Sensitivity analyses were conducted.
RESULTS: In the analysis, screening with I-mIBG imaging was associated with a reduction in ICD utilization of 21 %, resulting in a number needed to screen to prevent 1 ICD implantation of 5. Screening reduced the costs per patient by US$5500 and US$13,431 (in 2013 dollars) over 2 and 10 years, respectively, in comparison with no screening and resulted in losses of 0.001 and 0.040 life-years, respectively, over 2 and 10 years. Screening was decrementally cost effective, with savings of US$5,248,404 and US$513,036 per quality-adjusted life-year lost over 2 and 10 years, respectively. In subgroup analyses, cost savings were greater for patients with an ejection fraction (EF) of 25-35 % than for those with an EF <25 %.
CONCLUSIONS: According to the model, screening of guideline-eligible patients selected for ICDs with I-mIBG imaging may be cost effective and may help reduce costs associated with implantation of ICDs, with a minimal impact on survival.
OBJECTIVE: To estimate the potential outcomes, costs, and cost effectiveness of using iodine-123 meta-iodobenzylguanidine (I-mIBG) to screen HF patients eligible for an ICD.
METHODS: A decision-analytic model was developed to compare screening with I-mIBG imaging and no screening over 2-year and 10-year time horizons from a US payer perspective. Data on I-mIBG imaging and risk stratification were obtained from the ADMIRE-HF/HFX (AdreView Myocardial Imaging for Risk Evaluation in Heart Failure) trial. Data on ICD effectiveness for prevention of sudden cardiac death (SCD) were obtained from a meta-analysis. Costs of ICDs and costs of generator and lead procedures were obtained from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality National Inpatient Sample. Age-specific mortality was modeled using US life tables and data from the ACT (Advancements in ICD Therapy) Registry on risks of SCD and non-SCD mortality. Sensitivity analyses were conducted.
RESULTS: In the analysis, screening with I-mIBG imaging was associated with a reduction in ICD utilization of 21 %, resulting in a number needed to screen to prevent 1 ICD implantation of 5. Screening reduced the costs per patient by US$5500 and US$13,431 (in 2013 dollars) over 2 and 10 years, respectively, in comparison with no screening and resulted in losses of 0.001 and 0.040 life-years, respectively, over 2 and 10 years. Screening was decrementally cost effective, with savings of US$5,248,404 and US$513,036 per quality-adjusted life-year lost over 2 and 10 years, respectively. In subgroup analyses, cost savings were greater for patients with an ejection fraction (EF) of 25-35 % than for those with an EF <25 %.
CONCLUSIONS: According to the model, screening of guideline-eligible patients selected for ICDs with I-mIBG imaging may be cost effective and may help reduce costs associated with implantation of ICDs, with a minimal impact on survival.