A budget impact model for paclitaxel-eluting stent in femoropopliteal disease in France.

PURPOSE: The Zilver PTX drug-eluting stent (Cook Ireland Ltd., Limerick, Ireland) represents an advance in endovascular treatments for atherosclerotic superficial femoral artery (SFA) disease. Clinical data demonstrate improved clinical outcomes compared to bare-metal stents (BMS). This analysis assessed the likely impact on the French public health care budget of introducing reimbursement for the Zilver PTX stent. METHODS: A model was developed in Microsoft Excel to estimate the impact of a progressive transition from BMS to Zilver PTX over a 5-year horizon. The number of patients undergoing SFA stenting was estimated on the basis of hospital episode data. The analysis from the payer perspective used French reimbursement tariffs. Target lesion revascularization (TLR) after primary stent placement was the primary outcome. TLR rates were based on 2-year data from the Zilver PTX single-arm study (6 and 9 %) and BMS rates reported in the literature (average 16 and 22 %) and extrapolated to 5 years. Net budget impact was expressed as the difference in total costs (primary stenting and reinterventions) for a scenario where BMS is progressively replaced by Zilver PTX compared to a scenario of BMS only. RESULTS: The model estimated a net cumulative 5-year budget reduction of 6,807,202 for a projected population of 82,316 patients (21,361 receiving Zilver PTX). Base case results were confirmed in sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSION: Adoption of Zilver PTX could lead to important savings for the French public health care payer. Despite higher initial reimbursement for the Zilver PTX stent, fewer expected SFA reinterventions after the primary stenting procedure result in net savings.

Cost-effectiveness of a fourth-generation combination immunoassay for human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) antibody and p24 antigen for the detection of HIV infections in the United States.

PURPOSE: The US Food and Drug Administration recently approved the first 4th-generation HIV test. This study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of the 4th-generation assay versus a 3rd-generation test in screening for HIV infections in the United States. METHODS: An exploratory microsimulation model was developed that follows hypothetical individuals and simulates the course of HIV/AIDS, treatment with highly active antiretroviral therapy, and transmissions. RESULTS: With a 1% HIV prevalence, screening 1.5 million individuals with the 4th- versus 3rd-generation assay resulted in detection of 266 additional HIV cases at an incremental cost per additional HIV case detected of $63,763, an additional 489 life years and 395 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and 26 HIV transmissions prevented. Although lifetime costs were increased by $33.6 million, the incremental cost/QALY gained was $85,206. The 4th-generation test was more cost-effective in high incidence settings. The number needed to screen to detect one additional HIV case was 5,635. CONCLUSIONS: Screening using the 4th-generation assay may be cost-effective for HIV detection in appropriate settings, resulting in increased case identification, fewer transmissions, extended life, and increased quality of life. With early and accurate detection, this 4th-generation test may provide a suitable alternative to current 3rd-generation tests.

Hospital costs for treatment of acute heart failure: economic analysis of the REVIVE II study.

BACKGROUND: Acute heart failure (AHF) is the leading cause of hospital admission among older Americans. The Randomized EValuation of Intravenous Levosimendan Efficacy (REVIVE II) trial compared patients randomly assigned to a single infusion of levosimendan (levo) or placebo (SOC), each in addition to local standard treatments for AHF. We report an economic analysis of REVIVE II from the hospital perspective. METHODS: REVIVE II enrolled patients (N = 600) hospitalized for treatment of acute decompensated heart failure (ADHF) who remained dyspneic at rest despite treatment with intravenous diuretics. Case report forms documented index hospital treatment (drug administration, procedures, days of treatment by care unit), as well as subsequent hospital and emergency department admissions during follow-up ending 90 days from date of randomization. These data were used to impute cost of admission based on an econometric cost function derived from >100,000 ADHF hospital billing records selected per REVIVE II inclusion criteria. RESULTS: Index admission mean length of stay (LOS) was shorter for the levo group compared with standard of care (SOC) (7.03 vs 8.96 days, P = 0.008) although intensive care unit (ICU)/cardiac care unit (CCU) days were similar (levo 2.88, SOC 3.22, P = 0.63). Excluding cost for levo, predicted mean (median) cost for the index admission was levo US $13,590 (9,458), SOC $19,021 (10,692) with a difference of $5,431 (1,234) favoring levo (P = 0.04). During follow-up through end of study day 90, no significant differences were observed in numbers of hospital admissions (P = 0.67), inpatient days (P = 0.81) or emergency department visits (P = 0.41). Cost-effectiveness was performed with a REVIVE-II sub-set conforming to current labeling, which excluded patients with low baseline blood pressure. Assuming an average price for levo in countries where currently approved, there was better than 50% likelihood that levo was both cost-saving and improved survival. Likelihood that levo would be cost-effective for willingness-to-pay below $50,000 per year of life gained was about 65%. CONCLUSIONS: In the REVIVE II trial, patients treated with levo had shorter LOS and lower cost for the initial hospital admission relative to patients treated with SOC. Based on sub-group analysis of patients administered per the current label, levo appears cost-effective relative to SOC.