Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 2 de 2
Filtrar
1.
Int J Cardiol ; 357: 26-32, 2022 06 15.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-35306028

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: The PARTNER 3 trial demonstrated clinical benefits of transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) with the SAPIEN 3 device, over surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in patients with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis (sSAS) at low risk of surgical mortality. Using PARTNER 3 outcomes and Italy-specific costs data, this cost-utility analysis from the perspective of the Italian National Health System aimed to determine the cost-effectiveness of SAPIEN 3 TAVI versus SAVR in low risk sSAS patients in Italy. METHODS: A two-stage cost-utility model was developed to estimate changes in both direct healthcare costs and health-related quality of life using TAVI with SAPIEN 3 compared with SAVR. Early adverse events associated with TAVI were captured utilising the PARTNER 3 dataset. These data fed into a Markov model that captured longer-term outcomes of patients, following TAVI or SAVR intervention. RESULTS: Analysis findings estimated that TAVI with SAPIEN 3 offers benefits over SAVR in terms of increased quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) with only a small increase in costs, representing an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio/QALY gained of €2989 per patient. The results were robust, with TAVI with SAPIEN 3 remaining cost-effective across several scenarios and in probabilistic sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSIONS: This model demonstrated that TAVI with SAPIEN 3 is likely to be cost effective compared with SAVR for the treatment of patients with sSAS who are at low risk of surgical mortality. These findings can inform policy makers to facilitate policy development in Italy on intervention selection for this patient population.


Assuntos
Estenose da Valva Aórtica , Implante de Prótese de Valva Cardíaca , Substituição da Valva Aórtica Transcateter , Valva Aórtica/cirurgia , Estenose da Valva Aórtica/cirurgia , Análise Custo-Benefício , Implante de Prótese de Valva Cardíaca/economia , Humanos , Qualidade de Vida , Medição de Risco , Substituição da Valva Aórtica Transcateter/economia , Resultado do Tratamento
2.
J Vasc Surg ; 54(4): 938-46, 2011 Oct.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-21820837

RESUMO

OBJECTIVES: Abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) is defined as a localized dilatation of an aortic vessel. Though predominantly asymptomatic, it is a chronic degenerative condition associated with life-threatening risk of rupture. The early diagnosis of AAA, ie, before it ruptures, is therefore important; a simple, effective diagnostic method is ultrasound examination. To assess the benefit of screening in Italy, we developed a cost-effective Markov model comparing screening vs nonscreening scenarios. METHODS: A 13-health-states Markov model was developed to compare two cohorts of 65- to 75-year-old men: the first group undergoing screening for AAA by means of ultrasound (US), the second following the current practice of incidental detection. The following health states were distinguished: no AAA, unknown small AAA (3-3.9 cm), followed-up small AAA (1 year), unknown medium-sized AAA (4-4.9 cm), followed-up medium-sized AAA (6 months), unknown large AAA (>5 cm), elective repair, emergency repair, postelective-repair AAA, postemergency-repair AAA, rejected large AAA, and death. Transitions between health states were simulated by using 6-month cycles. Transition probabilities were derived from a literature review of relevant randomized controlled trial and from a screening program that is currently ongoing at San Martino Hospital in Genoa, Italy. The Italian National Health Service (NHS) perspective was adopted and incremental cost per life-year saved was calculated with a lifetime horizon; costs and health benefits were discounted at an annual rate of 3% from year 2 onward. Uncertainty surrounding the model inputs was tested by means of univariate, multivariate, and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: Considering an attendance rate of 62%, the individual cost per invited subject was €60 (US $83.2); 0.011 additional quality adjusted life years (QALY) were gained per patient in the screened cohort, corresponding to an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of €5673/QALY (US $7870/QALY). The results were sensitive to some parameter variations but consistent with the base case scenario. They suggest that on the basis of a willingness-to-pay threshold of €50,000/QALY, screening for AAA is cost-effective, with a probability approaching 100%. CONCLUSIONS: As in economic evaluations developed in other countries, such as the UK, Canada, and The Netherlands, setting up a screening program for AAA can be considered cost-effective from the Italian NHS perspective.


Assuntos
Aneurisma da Aorta Abdominal/diagnóstico por imagem , Aneurisma da Aorta Abdominal/economia , Custos de Cuidados de Saúde , Programas de Rastreamento/economia , Programas Nacionais de Saúde/economia , Idoso , Aneurisma da Aorta Abdominal/cirurgia , Análise Custo-Benefício , Nível de Saúde , Humanos , Itália , Masculino , Cadeias de Markov , Modelos Econômicos , Valor Preditivo dos Testes , Prognóstico , Avaliação de Programas e Projetos de Saúde , Anos de Vida Ajustados por Qualidade de Vida , Fatores de Tempo , Ultrassonografia , Procedimentos Cirúrgicos Vasculares/economia
SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
DETALHE DA PESQUISA