Cost-effectiveness of left ventricular assist devices as destination therapy in the United Kingdom.

AIMS: Continuous-flow left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) as destination therapy (DT) are a recommended treatment by National Institute for Health and Care Excellence England for end-stage heart failure patients ineligible for cardiac transplantation. Despite the fact that DT is frequently used as an LVAD indication across other major European countries and the United States, with consistent improvements in quality-of-life and longevity, National Health Service (NHS) England does not currently fund DT, mainly due to concerns over cost-effectiveness. On the basis of the recently published ENDURANCE Supplemental Trial studying DT patients, we assessed for the first time the cost-effectiveness of DT LVADs compared with medical management (MM) in the NHS England. METHODS AND RESULTS: We developed a Markov multiple-state economic model using NHS cost data. LVAD survival and adverse event rates were derived from the ENDURANCE Supplemental Trial. MM survival was based on Seattle Heart Failure Model estimates in the absence of contemporary clinical trials for this population. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated over a lifetime horizon. A discount rate of 3.5% per year was applied to costs and benefits. Deterministic ICER was £46 207 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY). Costs and utilities were £204 022 and 3.27 QALYs for the LVAD arm vs. £77 790 and 0.54 QALYs for the MM arm. Sensitivity analyses confirmed robustness of the primary analysis. CONCLUSIONS: The implantation of the HeartWare™ HVAD™ System in patients ineligible for cardiac transplantation as DT is a cost-effective therapy in the NHS England healthcare system under the end-of-life willingness-to-pay threshold of £50 000/QALY, which applies for VAD patients.

Burden of oral anticoagulation in embolic stroke of undetermined source without atrial fibrillation.

OBJECTIVE: Prevention of recurrent stroke in patients with embolic stroke of undetermined source (ESUS) is challenging. The advent of safer anticoagulation in the form of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) has prompted exploration of prophylactic anticoagulation for all ESUS patients, rather than anticoagulating just those with documented atrial fibrillation (AF). However, recent trials have failed to demonstrate a clinical benefit, while observing increased bleeding. We modeled the economic impact of anticoagulating ESUS patients without documented AF across multiple geographies. METHODS: CRYSTAL-AF trial data were used to assess ischaemic stroke event rates in ESUS patients confirmed AF-free after long-term monitoring. Anticipated bleeding event rates (including both minor and major bleeds) with aspirin, dabigatran 150 mg, and rivaroxaban 20 mg were sourced from published meta-analyses, whilst a 30% ischaemic stroke reduction for both DOACs was assumed. Cost data for clinical events and pharmaceuticals were collected from the local payer perspective. RESULTS: Compared with aspirin, dabigatran and rivaroxaban resulted in 17.9 and 29.9 additional bleeding events per 100 patients over a patient's lifetime, respectively. Despite incorporating into our model the proposed 30% reduction in ischaemic stroke risk, both DOACs were cost-additive over patient lifetime, as the costs of bleeding events and pharmaceuticals outweighed cost savings associated with the reduction in ischaemic strokes. DOACs added £5953-£7018 per patient (UK), €6683-€7368 (Netherlands), €4933-€9378 (Spain), AUD$5353-6539 (Australia) and $26,768-$32,259 (US) of payer cost depending on the agent prescribed. Additionally, in the U.S. patient pharmacy co-payments ranged from $2468-$12,844 depending on agent and patient plan. In all settings, cost-savings could not be demonstrated even when the modelling assumed 100% protection from recurrent ischaemic strokes, due to the very low underlying risk of recurrent ischaemic stroke in this population (1.27 per 100 patient-years). CONCLUSIONS: Anticoagulation of non-AF patients may cause excess bleeds and add substantial costs for uncertain benefits, suggesting a personalised approach to anticoagulation in ESUS patients.

Economic value of insertable cardiac monitors in unexplained syncope in the United States.

INTRODUCTION: Early use of insertable cardiac monitor (ICM) is recommended for patients with unexplained syncope following initial clinical workup, due to its superior ability to establish symptom-rhythm correlation compared with conventional testing (CONV). However, ICMs incur higher upfront costs, and the impact of additional diagnoses and resulting treatment on downstream costs and outcomes is unclear. We aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of ICM compared with CONV for the diagnosis of arrhythmia in patients with unexplained syncope, from a US payer perspective. METHODS: A Markov model was developed to estimate lifetime costs and benefits of arrhythmia diagnosis with ICM versus CONV, considering all related diagnostic and arrhythmia-related treatment costs and consequences. Cohort characteristics and costs were informed by original claims database analyses. Risks of mortality, syncopal recurrence, injury due to syncope and quality of life consequences from syncopal events were identified from the literature. RESULTS: ICM was less costly and more effective than CONV. Most of the observed US$4532 cost savings were attributed to reduced downstream diagnostic testing. For every 1000 patients, ICM was projected to yield an additional 253 arrhythmia diagnoses and lead to treatment in an additional 168 patients. The ICM strategy resulted in overall improved outcomes (0.30 quality-adjusted life years gained), due to a reduction in syncope recurrence and injury resulting from arrhythmia treatment. The results were robust to changes in the base case parameters but sensitive to the model time horizon, underlying probability of syncope recurrence and prevalence of arrhythmias. CONCLUSIONS: Our model projected that early ICM for the diagnosis of unexplained syncope reduced long-term costs, and led to an improvement in overall clinical outcomes by shortening time to arrhythmia treatment. The cost of ICM was outweighed by savings arising from fewer downstream diagnostic episodes, and the increased cost of treatment was counterbalanced by fewer syncope-related event costs.

Economic implications of adding a novel algorithm to optimize cardiac resynchronization therapy: rationale and design of economic analysis for the AdaptResponse trial.

AIMS: Although cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) has proven beneficial in several randomized trials, a subset of patients have limited clinical improvement. The AdaptivCRT algorithm provides automated selection between synchronized left ventricular or biventricular pacing with optimization of atrioventricular delays. The rationale and design of the economic analysis of the AdaptResponse clinical trial are described. RATIONALE: The costs associated with HF hospitalization are substantial and are compounded by a high rate of readmission. HF hospitalization payments range from $1,001 for Greece to $12,235 for US private insurance. When examining the breakdown of HF-related costs, it is clear that approximately 55% of the hospitalization costs are directly attributable to length of stay. Notably, the mean costs of a CRT patient in need of a HF-related hospitalization are currently estimated to be an average of $10,679. METHODS: The economic analysis of the AdaptResponse trial has two main objectives. The hospital provider objective seeks to test the hypothesis that AdaptivCRT reduces the incidence of all-cause re-admissions after a heart failure admission within 30 days of the index event. A negative binomial regression model will be used to estimate and compare the number of readmissions after an index HF hospitalization. The payer economic objective will assess cost-effectiveness of CRT devices with the AdaptivCRT algorithm relative to traditional CRT programming. This analysis will be conducted from a U.S. payer perspective. A decision analytic model comprised of a 6-month decision tree and a Markov model for long term extrapolation will be used to evaluate lifetime costs and benefits. CONCLUSION: AdaptivCRT may offer improvements over traditional device programming in patient outcomes. How the data from AdaptResponse will be used to demonstrate if these clinical benefits translate into substantial economic gains is herein described.

Cost-Effectiveness of a Small Intrapericardial Centrifugal Left Ventricular Assist Device.

There is limited data on the cost-effectiveness of continuous-flow left ventricular assist devices (LVAD) in the United States particularly for the bridge-to-transplant indication. Our objective is to study the cost-effectiveness of a small intrapericardial centrifugal LVAD compared with medical management (MM) and subsequent heart transplantation using the respective clinical trial data. We developed a Markov economic framework. Clinical inputs for the LVAD arm were based on prospective trials employing the HeartWare centrifugal-flow ventricular assist device system. To better assess survival in the MM arm, and in the absence of contemporary trials randomizing patients to LVAD and MM, estimates from the Seattle Heart Failure Model were used. Costs inputs were calculated based on Medicare claim analyses and when appropriate prior published literature. Time horizon was lifetime. Costs and benefits were appropriately discounted at 3% per year. The deterministic cost-effectiveness analyses resulted in $69,768 per Quality Adjusted Life Year and $56,538 per Life Year for the bridge-to-transplant indication and $102,587 per Quality Adjusted Life Year and $87,327 per Life Year for destination therapy. These outcomes signify a substantial improvement compared with prior studies and re-open the discussion around the cost-effectiveness of LVADs.

Cost-Effectiveness of Thoracotomy Approach for the Implantation of a Centrifugal Left Ventricular Assist Device.

This study reports the first analysis regarding cost-effectiveness of left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implantation via thoracotomy. Cost-effectiveness of LVADs implanted via the traditional surgical approach of sternotomy has been improved through the years because of technological advances, along with understanding the importance of patient selection and postimplant management have on positively affecting outcomes. Given the positive clinical outcomes of the thoracotomy approach, we seek to study the cost-effectiveness of a centrifugal LVAD via this less invasive approach. We developed a Markov model. Survival and quality of life inputs (QALY) for the LVAD arm were based on data from the LATERAL clinical trial. For the Medical Management arm, survival was derived from the Seattle Heart Failure Model. The heart transplant probability was derived from INTERMACS. Survival after heart transplantation used International Society for Heart and Lung Transplantation data. Cost inputs were calculated based on Medicare data and past literature. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was found to be $64,632 per quality adjusted life year and $57,891 per life year in the bridge to transplant indication. These results demonstrate further improvement in the overall cost-effectiveness of LVAD therapy and confirm implantation of LVADs via a less invasive approach as being cost-effective.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of implantable cardiac devices in patients with systolic heart failure: a US perspective using real world data.

Aims: Heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) has a substantial impact on costs and patients' quality-of-life. This study aimed to estimate the cost-effectiveness of implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICD), cardiac resynchronization therapy pacemakers (CRT-P), cardiac resynchronization therapy defibrillators (CRT-D), and optimal pharmacologic therapy (OPT) in patients with HFrEF, from a US payer perspective.Materials and methods: The analyses were conducted by adapting the UK-based cost-effectiveness analyses (CEA) to the US payer perspective by incorporating real world evidence (RWE) on baseline hospitalization risk and Medicare-specific costs. The CEA was based on regression equations estimated from data from 13 randomized clinical trials (n = 12,638). Risk equations were used to predict all-cause mortality, hospitalization rates, health-related quality-of-life, and device-specific treatment effects (vs. OPT). These equations included the following prognostic characteristics: age, QRS duration, New York Heart Association (NYHA) class, ischemic etiology, and left bundle branch block (LBBB). Baseline hospitalization rates were calibrated based on RWE from Truven Health Analytics MarketScan data (2009-2014). A US payer perspective, lifetime time horizon, and 3% discount rates for costs and outcomes were used. Benefits were expressed as quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). Incremental cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted for 24 sub-groups based on LBBB status, QRS duration, and NYHA class.Results: Results of the analyses show that CRT-D was the most cost-effective treatment at a $100,000/QALY threshold in 14 of the 16 sub-groups for which it is indicated. Results were most sensitive to changes in estimates of hospitalization costs.Limitations: Study limitations include small sample sizes for NYHA I and IV sub-groups and lack of data availability for duration of treatment effect.Conclusions: CRT-D has higher greater cost-effectiveness across more sub-groups in the indicated patient populations against as compared to OPT, ICD, and CRT-P, from a US payer perspective.

Economic value and cost-effectiveness of biventricular versus right ventricular pacing: results from the BLOCK-HF study.

Aims: The Biventricular vs Right Ventricular Pacing in Heart Failure Patients with Atrioventricular Block (BLOCK-HF) demonstrated that biventricular (BiV) pacing resulted in better clinical and structural outcomes compared to right ventricular (RV) pacing in patients with atrioventricular (AV) block and reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF; ≤50%). This study investigated the cost-effectiveness of BiV vs RV pacing in the patient population enrolled in the BLOCK-HF trial. Methods: All-cause mortality, New York Heart Association (NYHA) Class distribution over time, and NYHA-specific heart failure (HF)-related healthcare utilization rates were predicted using statistical models based on BLOCK-HF patient data. A proportion-in-state model calculated cost-effectiveness from the Medicare payer perspective. Results: The predicted patient survival was 6.78 years with RV and 7.52 years with BiV pacing, a 10.9% increase over lifetime. BiV pacing resulted in 0.41 more quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) compared to RV pacing, at an additional cost of $12,537. The "base-case" incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was $30,860/QALY gained. Within the clinical sub-groups, the highest observed ICER was $43,687 (NYHA Class I). Patients receiving combined BiV pacing and defibrillation (BiV-D) devices were projected to benefit more (0.84 years gained) than BiV pacemaker (BiV-P) recipients (0.49 years gained), compared to dual-chamber pacemakers. Conclusions: BiV pacing in AV block patients improves survival and attenuates HF progression compared to RV pacing. ICERs were consistently below the US acceptability threshold ($50,000/QALY). From a US Medicare perspective, the additional up-front cost associated with offering BiV pacing to the BLOCK-HF patient population appears justified.

Heart failure hospitalization reduction and cost savings achieved by improved delivery of effective biventricular pacing: economic implications of the OLE study under the US setting.

Background: The hOLter for Efficacy analysis (OLE) study demonstrated that current device pacing diagnostics overestimate the amount of cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) pacing that effectively stimulates the cardiac tissue. Sub-optimal pacing increases mortality, hospitalizations, and associated health-care costs. We sought to estimate the expected number of hospital admissions due to heart failure (HF) and its respective financial impact in patients with maximized effective pacing versus conventional pacing. Methods: A Markov model was developed to project HF hospitalizations and quantify the costs that could be avoided if pacing was maximally effective. OLE data were used to inform the prevalence of ineffective pacing among CRT patients and and average loss of pacing by causes. Adaptive CRT trial data quantified the reduction in underlying hospitalization risk by increasing effective pacing delivered. Survival was informed by a meta-analysis of 5 randomized clinical trials. Costs were analyzed from a US payer perspective. Results: Projected average hospitalizations totaled 4.58 over a lifetime horizon for CRT patients with conventional pacing. Maximizing effective pacing delivery was projected to avoid 1.83 HF admissions/patient over the lifetime. This equates to a savings of 40% (US$22,802) compared with conventional pacing from the Medicare perspective. In a sensitivity analysis, CRT with effective pacing was projected to provide cost savings in all scenarios. Conclusions: Maximized effective pacing leads to a lower number of HF hospitalizations, thus allowing significant cost offsets in the US setting.

Economic Value and Cost-Effectiveness of Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy Among Patients With Mild Heart Failure: Projections From the REVERSE Long-Term Follow-Up.

OBJECTIVES: This study investigated the cost effectiveness of early cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) implantation among patients with mild heart failure (HF). The differential cost effectiveness between CRT using a defibrillator (CRT-Ds) and CRT using a pacemaker (CRT-P) was also assessed. BACKGROUND: Cardiac resynchronization has been shown to be cost effective in New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional classes III/IV but is less studied in class II HF. The incremental costs of early CRT implementation in mild HF compared with the costs potentially avoided because of delaying disease progression to advanced HF are also unknown. Finally, combined biventricular pacing and defibrillator (CRT-D) devices are more expensive than biventricular pacemakers (CRT-P), but the relative cost effectiveness is controversial. METHODS: Data from the 5-year follow-up phase of REVERSE (REsynchronization reVErses Remodeling in Systolic Left vEntricular Dysfunction) were used. The economics were evaluated from the U.S. Medicare perspective based on published clinical projections. RESULTS: Probabilistic estimates yielded $8,840/quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained (95% confidence interval [CI]: $6,705 to $10,804/QALY gained) for CRT-ON versus CRT-OFF (i.e., programmed "ON" or "OFF" at pre-specified post-implantation timings) and $43,678/QALY gained for CRT-D versus CRT-P (95% CI: $35,164 to $53,589/QALY gained) over the patient's lifetime. Results were robust to choice of patient subgroup and alterations of ±10% to key model parameters. An "early" CRT-D class II strategy totaled $95,292 compared with $91,511 for a "late" implantation. An "early" implant offered on average 1.00 year of additional survival for $3,781, resulting in an ICER of $3,795/LY gained. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates CRT cost effectiveness in mild HF. The incremental CRT-D costs are justified by the anticipated benefits, despite increased procurement costs and shorter generator longevities. "Early" CRT-D implants have essential cost parity with "late" implants while increasing the patient's survival. (REsynchronization reVErses Remodeling in Systolic Left vEntricular Dysfunction [REVERSE]; NCT00271154).