Expert review of pharmacoeconomics & outcomes research · 2023
An exploratory cost-effectiveness analysis of a novel tissue valve compared with mechanical valves for surgical aortic valve replacement in subgroups of people aged 55-64 and 65+ with aortic stenosis in the UK.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Malcolm Robert, Buckley Ciara, Shore Judith, Stainthorpe Angela, Marti Belen, White Andrea, Deckert Jens, Vernia Matteo, Carapinha João L, López-Marco Ana, Nikolaidis Nicolas, Wendler Olaf
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: Exploratory analysis to conceptualize and evaluate the potential cost-effectiveness and economic drivers of using a novel tissue valve compared with mechanical heart valves for surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in people aged 55-64 and 65+ with aortic stenosis (AS) from a National Health Service (NHS) UK perspective.
METHODS: A decision-analytic model was developed using a partitioned survival model. Parameter inputs were obtained from published literature. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (DSA and PSA) were conducted to explore the uncertainty around the parameters.
RESULTS: The novel tissue valve was potentially associated with higher quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) of 0.01 per person. Potential cost savings were greatest for those aged 55-64 (£408) versus those aged 65+(£53). DSA indicated the results to be most dependent on relative differences in general mortality, procedure costs, and reoperation rates. PSA estimated around 75% of the iterations to be cost-effective at £20,000 per QALY for those aged 55-64, and 57% for those aged 65+.
CONCLUSIONS: The exploratory analysis suggests that the novel tissue valve could be a cost-effective intervention for people over the age of 55 with AS who are suitable for SAVR in the UK.
METHODS: A decision-analytic model was developed using a partitioned survival model. Parameter inputs were obtained from published literature. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (DSA and PSA) were conducted to explore the uncertainty around the parameters.
RESULTS: The novel tissue valve was potentially associated with higher quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) of 0.01 per person. Potential cost savings were greatest for those aged 55-64 (£408) versus those aged 65+(£53). DSA indicated the results to be most dependent on relative differences in general mortality, procedure costs, and reoperation rates. PSA estimated around 75% of the iterations to be cost-effective at £20,000 per QALY for those aged 55-64, and 57% for those aged 65+.
CONCLUSIONS: The exploratory analysis suggests that the novel tissue valve could be a cost-effective intervention for people over the age of 55 with AS who are suitable for SAVR in the UK.