ABSTRACT
Cardiac electrophysiology is an evolving field that relies heavily on costly device- and catheter-based technologies. An increasing number of patients with heart rhythm disorders are becoming eligible for cardiac interventions, not least due to the rising prevalence of atrial fibrillation and increased longevity in the population. Meanwhile, the expansive costs of healthcare face finite societal resources, and a cost-conscious approach to new technologies is critical. Cost-effectiveness analyses support rational decision-making in healthcare by evaluating the ratio of healthcare costs to health benefits for competing therapies. They may, however, be subject to significant uncertainty and bias. This paper aims to introduce the basic concepts, framework, and limitations of cost-effectiveness analyses to clinicians including recent examples from clinical electrophysiology and device therapy.
Subject(s)
Atrial Fibrillation , Electrophysiologic Techniques, Cardiac , Humans , Cost-Benefit Analysis , Atrial Fibrillation/diagnosis , Atrial Fibrillation/epidemiology , Atrial Fibrillation/therapy , Health Care Costs , Treatment Outcome , Quality-Adjusted Life YearsABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Limited data exist on the economic consequences of implementing targeted therapy (TT) for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (RCC) in a real-world setting. OBJECTIVE: To analyze health care and productivity costs for TT implementation in a national cohort of patients. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Costs were measured per patient per year during a 2-yr follow-up during 2002-2005 (immunotherapy only) and 2006-2009 (TT implementation). All Danish patients with a diagnosis code for RCC and a procedure code for TT or immunotherapy were linked to the Danish National Patient Registry (contains information on all contacts with primary and secondary health sector). Health care and productivity costs were retrieved from the Danish case-mix system and Coherent Social Statistics, respectively. Drug costs were calculated separately from procedure codes and retail prices. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Generalized linear models were used to analyze costs adjusted for age, gender, and civil status. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: A total of 439 patients were included for 2006-2009 and 192 for 2002-2005. Comparison of the health care cost per patient per year between 2006-2009 and 2002-2005 revealed lower inpatient costs (11 899 vs 19 944, adjusted relative risk [RR] 0.64), higher outpatient costs (14 308 vs 6209, RR 2.39), lower radiotherapy costs (194 vs 633, RR 0.31), higher radiology costs (676 vs 191, RR 3.73), and higher separately calculated drug costs (12 040 vs 3103, RR 3.82, all p<0.001) for the former. Total health care costs per patient per year did not significantly differ (27 676 vs 27 856, RR 1.05, p=0.5) between the two periods. Income from employment did not significantly differ between 2006-2009 and 2002-2005 (RR 1.11, p=0.11) and costs associated with loss of productivity were 7852 and 8265, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: A different pattern of health care costs were observed but total health care costs per patient per year did not significantly differ after implementation of TT for patients with mRCC. PATIENT SUMMARY: In this nationwide study, we found changes in the pattern of health care costs for patients with metastatic kidney cancer after implementation of targeted therapy compared to an immunotherapy control period; however, total health care costs and income from employment were without significant changes.