Cost-effectiveness of the RefluxStop device for management of refractory gastroesophageal reflux disease in Switzerland.

BACKGROUND: One of the most prevalent conditions in Western societies is gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). In Switzerland, the standard treatment for GERD is proton pump inhibitor (PPI)-based medical management, but surgical options such as Nissen fundoplication and magnetic sphincter augmentation (MSA) are available. RefluxStop is a novel device that offers an alternative solution. The purpose of this report is to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of RefluxStop compared to PPIs and existing surgical treatments. METHODS: A model (Markov) was developed using the Swiss healthcare payer perspective with a lifetime horizon, 1-month cycle length, and a 3% annual discount rate for costs and benefits. Adverse events specific to treatment arms were incorporated, and benefits were measured in quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). Clinical efficacy data for RefluxStop was obtained from its CE mark study, and comparator treatments were based on published literature. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were used to explore uncertainty. Since there are no head-to-head studies between RefluxStop and PPI therapy, Nissen fundoplication, or MSA, a limitation of this study is the use of naïve, indirect comparison of clinical effectiveness between the studied treatment options. RESULTS: Higher QALYs and lower costs were provided by RefluxStop compared to Nissen fundoplication and the MSA system. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for RefluxStop was CHF 2,116 in comparison to PPI-based medical management. At a cost-effectiveness threshold of CHF 100,000 per QALY gained, the probability of RefluxStop being cost-effective was high, with probabilities of 100%, 97%, and 100% against PPI-based medical management, Nissen fundoplication, and MSA, respectively. The robustness of the analysis was provided by deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSION: This cost-effectiveness analysis demonstrates that there is a high likelihood of RefluxStop being a cost-effective treatment modality in adults with GERD when compared with other treatment options available in Switzerland.

Gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) is one of the most prevalent conditions in Western societies. Standard treatment in Switzerland entails proton pump inhibitor (PPI)-based medical management or surgical options (i.e., Nissen fundoplication and magnetic sphincter augmentation [MSA]) in selected cases. RefluxStop is a new technology indicated for the surgical treatment of GERD that restores the normal anatomy of the anti-reflux barrier. The clinical benefits and monetary costs of RefluxStop must be weighed against available treatment options to determine the role of this new technology in Switzerland. Cost-effectiveness analyses compare the relative costs and clinical outcomes of disease management when pursuing different paths in the patient journey landscape, as measured by quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). In the present study, RefluxStop in comparison to Nissen fundoplication, and MSA, provided higher QALYs and lower costs. Against PPI therapy, the costs were slightly higher but the QALYs were also higher, generating a favourable Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio. Furthermore, at the cost-effectiveness threshold of CHF 100,000 per QALY gained, RefluxStop was highly likely to be cost-effective in comparison to PPI therapy, Nissen fundoplication, and MSA with probabilities of 100%, 97%, and 100%, respectively. Ultimately, this cost-effectiveness analysis showed that RefluxStop has a high likelihood of cost-effectiveness as a GERD treatment in Switzerland against other treatment options, with results being robust even with uncertainties considered in additional sensitivity analyses.

Is the Comparator in Your Diagnostic Cost-Effectiveness Model "Standard of Care"? Recommendations from Literature Reviews and Expert Interviews on How to Identify and Operationalize It.

OBJECTIVES: This research aimed to develop best-practice recommendations for identifying the "standard of care" (SoC) and integrate it when it is the comparator in diagnostic economic models (SoC comparator). METHODS: A multi-methods approach comprising 2 pragmatic literature reviews and 9 expert interviews was used. Experts rated their agreement with draft recommendations based on the authors' analysis of the reviews. These were refined iteratively to produce final recommendations. RESULTS: Fourteen best-practice recommendations are provided. Care pathway mapping (using quantitative, qualitative, or mixed-methods approaches) should be used for identifying the SoC comparator. Guidelines analysis can be integrated with expert opinion to identify pathway variability and discrepancies from clinical practice. For integrating the SoC comparator into the model, recommendations around structure, input sourcing, data aggregation and reporting, input uncertainty, and model variability are presented. For example, modelers should consider that the reference standard is not synonymous with the SoC, and the SoC may not be the only comparator. The comparator limitations should be discussed with clinical experts, but elicitation of its diagnostic accuracy is not recommended. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis is recommended when evaluating the overall input uncertainty, and deterministic sensitivity analysis is useful when there is high model uncertainty or SoC variability. Consensus could not be reached for some topics (eg, the role of real-world data, model averaging, and alternative model structures), but the reported discussions provide points for consideration. CONCLUSIONS: To our knowledge, this is the first guidance to support modelers when identifying and operationalizing the SoC comparator in diagnostic cost-effectiveness models.

Economic evaluation of first-line cryoballoon ablation versus antiarrhythmic drug therapy for the treatment of paroxysmal atrial fibrillation from an English National Health Service perspective.

INTRODUCTION: Three recent randomised controlled trials have demonstrated that pulmonary vein isolation as an initial rhythm control strategy with cryoablation reduces atrial arrhythmia recurrence in patients with symptomatic paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (PAF) compared with antiarrhythmic drug (AAD) therapy. The aim of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of first-line cryoablation compared with first-line AADs for treating symptomatic PAF in an English National Health Service (NHS) setting. METHODS: Individual patient-level data from 703 participants with PAF enrolled into Cryo-FIRST (Catheter Cryoablation Versus Antiarrhythmic Drug as First-Line Therapy of Paroxysmal Atrial Fibrillation), STOP AF First (Cryoballoon Catheter Ablation in an Antiarrhythmic Drug Naive Paroxysmal Atrial Fibrillation) and EARLY-AF (Early Aggressive Invasive Intervention for Atrial Fibrillation) were used to derive the parameters applied in the cost-effectiveness model (CEM). The CEM comprised a hybrid decision tree and Markov structure. The decision tree had a 1-year time horizon and was used to inform the initial health state allocation in the first cycle of the Markov model (40-year time horizon; 3-month cycle length). Health benefits were expressed in quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Costs and benefits were discounted at 3.5% per year. Model outcomes were generated using probabilistic sensitivity analysis. RESULTS: The results estimated that cryoablation would yield more QALYs (+0.17) and higher costs (+£641) per patient over a lifetime than AADs. This produced an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £3783 per QALY gained. Independent of initial treatment, individuals were expected to receive ~1.2 ablations over a lifetime. There was a 45% relative reduction in time spent in AF health states for those initially treated with cryoablation. DISCUSSION: AF rhythm control with first-line cryoablation is cost effective compared with first-line AADs in an English NHS setting.

Budget Impact of RefluxStop™ as a Treatment for Patients with Refractory Gastro-oesophageal Reflux Disease in the United Kingdom.

Background: Gastro-oesophageal reflux disease (GORD) is a common condition associated with heartburn and regurgitation. Standard of care for GORD patients in the UK involves initial treatment with proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) and laparoscopic antireflux surgery in patients unwilling to continue or intolerant of long-term PPI treatment. Recently, RefluxStop™, a novel, implantable medical device, has proven to be an efficacious and cost-effective treatment for patients with GORD. The current analysis aimed to describe the budget impact of introducing RefluxStop™ within National Health Service (NHS) England and Wales. Objectives: To estimate the more immediate, short-term clinical and economic effects of introducing RefluxStop™ as a therapeutic option for patients with GORD treated within NHS England and Wales. Methods: A model adherent to international best practice guidelines was developed to estimate the budget impact of introducing RefluxStop™ over a 5-year time horizon, from an NHS perspective. Two hypothetical scenarios were considered, one without RefluxStop™ (comprising PPI treatment, laparoscopic Nissen fundoplication, and magnetic sphincter augmentation using the LINX® system) and one with RefluxStop™ (adding RefluxStop™ to the aforementioned treatment options). Clinical benefits and costs associated with each intervention were included in the analysis. Results: Over 5 years, introducing RefluxStop™ allowed the avoidance of 347 surgical failures, 39 reoperations, and 239 endoscopic esophageal dilations. The financial impact of introducing RefluxStop™ was £3 029 702 in year 5, corresponding to a 1.68% increase in annual NHS spending on GORD treatment in England and Wales. Discussion: While the time horizon was too short to capture some of the adverse events of PPIs and complications of GORD, such as the development of Barrett's esophagus or esophageal cancer, the use of RefluxStop™ was associated with a substantial reduction in surgical complications, including surgical failures, reoperations, and endoscopic esophageal dilations. This favorable clinical profile resulted in cost offsets for the NHS and contributed to the marginal budget impact of RefluxStop™ estimated in the current analysis. Conclusions: Introducing RefluxStop™ as a treatment option for patients with GORD in England and Wales may be associated with clinical benefits at the expense of a marginal budget impact on the NHS.

An Economic Evaluation of a Streamlined Day-Case Atrial Fibrillation Ablation Protocol and Conventional Cryoballoon Ablation versus Antiarrhythmic Drugs in a UK Paroxysmal Atrial Fibrillation Population.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Symptom control for atrial fibrillation can be achieved by catheter ablation or drug therapy. We assessed the cost effectiveness of a novel streamlined atrial fibrillation cryoballoon ablation protocol (AVATAR) compared with optimised antiarrhythmic drug (AAD) therapy and a conventional catheter ablation protocol, from a UK National Health Service (NHS) perspective. METHODS: Data from the AVATAR study were assessed to determine the cost effectiveness of the three protocols in a two-step process. In the first stage, statistical analysis of clinical efficacy outcomes was conducted considering either a three-way comparison (AVATAR vs. conventional ablation vs. optimised AAD therapies) or a two-way comparison (pooled ablation protocol data vs. optimised AAD therapies). In the second stage, models assessed the cost effectiveness of the protocols. Costs and some of the clinical inputs in the models were derived from within-trial cost analysis and published literature. The remaining inputs were derived from clinical experts. RESULTS: No significant differences between the ablation protocols were found for any of the clinical outcomes used in the model. Results of a within-trial cost analysis show that AVATAR is cost-saving (£1279 per patient) compared with the conventional ablation protocol. When compared with optimised AAD therapies, AVATAR (pooled conventional and AVATAR ablation protocols efficacy) was found to be more costly while offering improved clinical benefits. Over a lifetime time horizon, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of AVATAR was estimated as £21,046 per quality-adjusted life-year gained (95% credible interval £7086-£71,718). CONCLUSIONS: The AVATAR streamlined protocol is likely to be a cost-effective option versus both conventional ablation and optimised AAD therapy in the UK NHS healthcare setting.

The Cost-Effectiveness of First-Line Cryoablation vs First-Line Antiarrhythmic Drugs in Canadian Patients With Paroxysmal Atrial Fibrillation.

BACKGROUND: The EARLY-AF (NCT02825979), STOP AF First (NCT03118518), and Cryo-FIRST (NCT01803438) randomised controlled trials (RCTs) demonstrated that cryoballoon pulmonary vein isolation reduces atrial fibrillation (AF) recurrence compared with antiarrhythmic drugs (AADs) in patients with symptomatic paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (PAF). The present study developed a cost-effectiveness model (CEM) of first-line cryoablation compared with first-line AADs for PAF, from the Canadian health care payer's perspective. METHODS: Data from the 3 RCTs were analysed to estimate key CEM parameters. The model structure used a decision tree for the first 12 months and a Markov model with a 3-month cycle length for the remaining lifetime time horizon. Costs were set at 2023 Canadian dollars, health benefits were expressed as quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and both were discounted 3% annually. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) considered parameter uncertainty. RESULTS: The statistical analysis estimated that first-line cryoablation generates a 47% reduction (P < 0.001) in the rate of AF recurrence, a 73% reduction in the rate of subsequent ablation (P < 0.001), and a 4.3% (P = 0.025) increase in health-related quality of life, compared with first-line AADs. The PSA indicates that an individual treated with first-line cryoablation accrues less costs (-$3,862) and more QALYs (0.19) compared with first-line AADs. Cryoablation is cost-saving in 98.4% of PSA iterations and has a 99.9% probability of being cost-effective at a cost-effectiveness threshold of $50,000 per QALY gained. Cost-effectiveness results were robust to changes in key model parameters. CONCLUSIONS: First-line cryoballoon ablation is cost-effective when compared with AADs for patients with symptomatic PAF.

Cost-effectiveness of a novel urethral catheter safety device in preventing catheterization injuries in the UK.

AIMS: Intraurethral catheter balloon inflation is a substantial contributor to significant catheter-related urethral injury. A novel safety valve has been designed to prevent these balloon-inflation injuries. The purpose of this evaluation was to assess the cost-effectiveness of urethral catheterisation with the safety valve added to a Foley catheter versus the current standard of care (Foley catheter alone). MATERIALS AND METHODS: The analysis was conducted from the UK public payer perspective on a hypothetical cohort of adults requiring transurethral catheterization. A decision tree was used to capture outcomes in the first 30 days following transurethral catheterization, followed by a Markov model to estimate outcomes over a person's remaining lifetime. Clinical outcomes included catheter balloon injuries [CBIs], associated short-term complications, urethral stricture disease, life years and QALYs. Health-economic outcomes included total costs, incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, net monetary benefit (NMB) and net health benefit. RESULTS: Over a person's lifetime, the safety valve was predicted to reduce CBIs by 0.04 per person and CBI-related short-term complications by 0.03 per person, and nearly halve total costs. The safety valve was dominant, resulting in 0.02 QALYs gained and relative cost savings of £93.19 per person. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis indicated that the safety valve would be cost-saving in 97% of simulations run versus standard of care. CONCLUSIONS: The addition of a novel safety valve aiming to prevent CBIs during transurethral catheterization to current standard of care was estimated to bring both clinical benefits and cost savings.

An economic evaluation of first-line cryoballoon ablation vs antiarrhythmic drug therapy for the treatment of paroxysmal atrial fibrillation from a U.S. Medicare perspective.

Background: Three recent randomized controlled trials have demonstrated that, as an initial rhythm control strategy, first-line cryoballoon ablation (cryoablation) reduces atrial arrhythmia recurrence compared with antiarrhythmic drugs (AADs) in patients with symptomatic paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (PAF). Objective: The study sought to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of first-line cryoablation compared with first-line AADs for treating symptomatic PAF from a U.S. Medicare payer perspective. Methods: Individual patient-level data from 703 participants with PAF enrolled into the Cryo-FIRST (NCT01803438), STOP AF First (NCT03118518), and EARLY-AF (NCT02825979) trials were used to derive parameters for the cost-effectiveness model. The cost-effectiveness model used a hybrid decision tree and Markov structure. The decision tree had a 1-year time horizon and was used to inform the initial health state allocation in the first cycle of the Markov model. The Markov model used a 40-year time horizon (3-month cycle length). Health benefits were expressed in quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Costs and benefits were discounted at 3% per year. Results: Cryoablation was estimated to yield higher QALYs (+0.17) and higher costs (+$4274) per patient over a 40-year time horizon than AADs. Ultimately, this produced an average incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $24,637 per QALY gained. Independent of initial treatment, individuals were expected to receive ∼1.2 ablations over a lifetime. There was a 45% relative reduction in time spent in atrial fibrillation health states for those initially treated with cryoablation compared with AADs. Conclusion: Initial rhythm control with first-line cryoballoon ablation is highly cost-effective compared with first-line AADs from a U.S. Medicare payer perspective.

Development of a health economic model to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of roxadustat in treating anemia associated with non-dialysis-dependent chronic kidney disease.

BACKGROUND: Treatment for anemia of chronic kidney disease (CKD) largely consists of erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESAs) with iron supplementation. Although ESAs are well-established and efficacious, their use has been associated with considerable economic and humanistic burdens. Roxadustat, an oral medication, is a hypoxia-inducible factor prolyl hydroxylase inhibitor that targets multiple causes of CKD and has a similar efficacy and safety profile to ESAs. The cost-effectiveness of this treatment, however, has yet to be investigated. OBJECTIVE: The study objective was to develop a health economic model to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of roxadustat compared with ESAs for treating anemia of non-dialysis-dependent (NDD) CKD. METHODS: A cohort-based model was developed for a hypothetical cohort of 1,000 patients with anemia of NDD CKD, incorporating eight health states, representing the hemoglobin level of each patient. The model was informed by individual patient-level data from the roxadustat global phase 3 clinical trial program. Total and incremental costs as well as quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) associated with roxadustat versus ESAs were estimated from the perspective of the UK National Health Service. Sensitivity analyses were performed to assess the robustness of the model. Analyses exploring alternative scenarios were also conducted. RESULTS: On a per-person basis, over 1,000 simulations, roxadustat was found to be on average less costly (-£32) and more effective (+0.01 QALYs) than ESAs, with a dominant incremental cost-effectiveness ratio. The probability of cost-effectiveness at a £20,000 per QALY willingness-to-pay threshold from the UK perspective was 67%. CONCLUSION: The model developed may be a useful instrument that, alongside expert clinical opinion, can inform clinical and policy decision-making regarding treatment of anemia of NDD CKD. The model highlights the cost-effectiveness of roxadustat, as well as its potential to have a meaningful impact in reducing the burden of anemia of NDD CKD.

Transarterial therapies in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma eligible for transarterial embolization: a US cost-effectiveness analysis.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the cost-effectiveness of transarterial radioembolization (TARE) versus conventional transarterial chemoembolization (cTACE) and drug-eluting beads chemoembolization (DEE-TACE) for patients with unresectable early- to intermediate-stage hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). DESIGN: A cohort-based Markov model with a five-year time horizon was developed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of the three embolization treatments. Upon entering the model, patients with HCC received either TARE or one of the two other embolization treatments. Patients remained in a "watch and wait" state for tumor downstaging that allowed them to move to health states such as liver transplant, resection, systemic therapies, or cure. Clinical input parameters were retrieved from the published literature, and where values could not be sourced, assumptions were made and validated by clinical experts. Health benefits were quantified using quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Cost input parameters were obtained from various sources, including the Medicare Cost Report, IBM® Micromedex RED BOOK, and published literature. RESULTS: At five years, TARE was found to be cost-saving (saving $15,779 per person compared to cTACE) and produced 0.33 more QALYs per person than cTACE. TARE cost $13,696 more but produced 0.33 more QALYs than DEE-TACE, with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $41,474 per QALY gained at five years. After accounting for parameter uncertainty, the likelihood of TARE being cost-effective was at least 90% against all comparators at a cost-effectiveness threshold of $100,000 per QALY gained. CONCLUSIONS: TARE produces more QALYs than cTACE and DEE-TACE, with a high probability of being cost-effective against both comparators.

The Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer guideline recommends the use of transarterial radioembolization (TARE), conventional (cTACE), or drug-eluting bead transarterial chemoembolization (DEE-TACE) for treating hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). This study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of TARE versus two alternative embolization treatments (cTACE and DEE-TACE) in treating patients with unresectable early- to intermediate-stage HCC.A cohort-based Markov model was developed to analyze the costs and benefits of these treatments from a US healthcare perspective within a 5-year time horizon. A 20-year time horizon was assessed as a scenario. In the model, patients were assigned to receive TARE, cTACE, or DEE-TACE and remained in the "watch and wait" stage for tumor downstaging. Data used in the model was taken from previous studies and in consultation with clinical experts. The benefits of the treatments were measured by considering the impact on the patient's quality of life. The costs associated with the treatments were obtained from various sources, including reports, publicly available databases, and published literature.The findings show that TARE is not only cost-saving compared to cTACE but also results in a higher number of quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) per person. While TARE was more expensive than DEE-TACE, it produced more QALYs, further indicating more favorable patient outcomes and overall treatment effectiveness. These findings could potentially impact resource allocation and decision-making for the treatment of HCC.

I-PreFer Study: A Discrete Choice Experiment to Explore Patient, Caregiver and Pulmonologist Preferences of Idiopathic Pulmonary Fibrosis Pharmacological Treatment Options.

Purpose: Idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) is a chronic, progressive, and ultimately fatal lung disease that, while rare, has seen incidence rise over time. There is no cure for IPF other than a lung transplant, though two antifibrotic (AF) drugs do exist to slow disease progression. While these drugs are efficacious, they are both associated with differing profiles of adverse events. This study aimed to elicit patient, caregiver and pulmonologist preferences on the treatment profiles of AFs via a discrete choice experiment (DCE). Patients and Methods: The DCE and associated survey were distributed across 7 European countries, and bespoke DCEs were developed for patients/caregivers and pulmonologists. After collaboration with European Pulmonary Fibrosis & Related Disorders Federation (EU-PFF) and expert pulmonologists, respectively, a patient/caregiver DCE with 5 attributes and a pulmonologist DCE with 6 attributes were finalized. The DCEs had a blocked approach to reduce participant burden and were distributed on an online survey platform. Preferences were estimated through conditional multinomial logit regression analysis. Results: Ninety-five patients, 22 caregivers and 115 pulmonologists fully completed their respective DCEs. Overall, patients and caregivers preferred management of treatment-related adverse events over both survival benefits and disease progression. Nearly all preference levels were found to be significantly different from their reference level. In contrast, pulmonologists showed a greater preference for control of lung function and exacerbations over adverse events. Although there were relative differences between the univariate subgroups in terms of the preference weights, most of these were not statistically significant. Conclusion: The outcomes from this study suggest that while patients and caregivers had similar preferences for characteristics of IPF treatments, pulmonologists did not share those same preferences. Patients and caregivers preferred safety, while pulmonologists preferred efficacy. These differences should be considered by clinicians to better involve the patient in treatment decision-making for IPF.

I-PreFer Study: A Questionnaire to Explore Patient, Caregiver and Pulmonologist Preferences of Idiopathic Pulmonary Fibrosis Treatment Options.

Introduction: Idiopathic Pulmonary Fibrosis (IPF) is a rare disease that causes shortness of breath, dry cough, and tiredness. While there is no cure for IPF, current therapeutic treatments aim to slow lung degeneration while managing side effects. There is little known about patient experience and attitude with regards to their disease and medication. Purpose: To understand the perceptions, behaviors and drivers of treatment decision-making among patients, caregivers and pulmonologists in IPF. Patients and Methods: Online surveys to patients with IPF, caregivers and pulmonologists were developed and administered in Belgium, Finland, France, Greece (pulmonologists only), the Netherlands, Ireland and the United Kingdom between November 2021 and January 2022. Results: A total of 111 patients, 22 caregivers and 140 pulmonologists participated. Half (47%) of patients rated their disease as "severe", while pulmonologists reported that a quarter of their patients had a low Forced Vital Capacity (FVC) (below 50% of the predicted value). Between 21% and 42% of the patients do not take an IPF medication (patients' perception) or antifibrotic (physicians' perception). Pulmonologists reported that a total of 58% of their patients were receiving antifibrotic medication, any IPF medication, while around 53%, 55%, 35% and 73% of the patients limited their exposure (sometimes or often) to the sun due to IPF, considered taking medication against diarrhea, nausea/vomiting and heartburn, respectively. Treatment adherence was relatively high (81%), in line with the caregivers' view and the pulmonologists' expectations. Overall, cultural, clinical or socio-demographic factors impacted patients' perceptions or behaviors. Conclusion: This study shows there is a significant proportion of IPF patients who remain untreated, a misalignment of disease severity between patients and their physicians and patient background impacts behavior. Overall, more in-depth patient-physician communication is needed to improve treatment experience.

Cost-effectiveness of an antibacterial envelope for infection prevention in patients undergoing cardiac resynchronization therapy reoperations in Denmark.

AIMS: Use of an absorbable antibacterial envelope during implantation prevents cardiac implantable electronic device infections in patients with a moderate-to-high infection risk. Previous studies demonstrated that an envelope is cost-effective in high-risk patients within German, Italian, and English healthcare systems, but these analyses were based on limited data and may not be generalizable to other healthcare settings. METHODS AND RESULTS: A previously published decision-tree-based cost-effectiveness model was used to compare the costs per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) associated with adjunctive use of an antibacterial envelope for infection prevention compared to standard-of-care intravenous antibiotics. The model was adapted using data from a Danish observational two-centre cohort study that investigated infection-risk patients undergoing cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) reoperations with and without an antibacterial envelope (n = 1943). We assumed a cost-effectiveness threshold of €34 125/QALY gained, based on the upper threshold used by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (£30 000). An antibacterial envelope was associated with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of €12 022 per QALY in patients undergoing CRT reoperations, thus indicating that the envelope is cost-effective when compared with standard of care. A separate analysis stratified by device type showed ICERS of €6227 (CRT defibrillator) and €29 177 (CRT pacemaker) per QALY gained. CONCLUSIONS: Cost-effectiveness ratios were favourable for patients undergoing CRT reoperations in the Danish healthcare system, and thus are in line with previous studies. Results from this study can contribute to making the technology available to Danish patients and align preventive efforts in the pacemaker and ICD area.

Cost-effectiveness of a novel, non-active implantable device as a treatment for refractory gastro-esophageal reflux disease.

AIMS: Gastro-esophageal reflux disease (GERD) is a common, chronic gastrointestinal condition characterized by heartburn, chest pain, regurgitation, and bloating. The current standard of care includes chronic treatment with proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) or, in selected patients, laparoscopic anti-reflux surgery. RefluxStop is a novel implantable device indicated for GERD patients eligible for laparoscopic surgical treatment. The aim of this analysis was to assess the cost-effectiveness of RefluxStop against available treatment options for GERD. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A Markov model was developed to assess the cost-effectiveness of RefluxStop compared with PPI-based medical management (MM) and two surgical management options, LNF and magnetic sphincter augmentation (MSA, LINX system), in people with GERD. Clinical outcomes and costs were estimated over a lifetime horizon from the UK National Health Service perspective and an annual discount rate of 3.5% was applied. RESULTS: RefluxStop showed favorable surgical outcomes compared with both LNF and MSA. The base case incremental cost-effectiveness ratios compared with MM, LNF, and MSA were £4,156, £6,517, and £249 per QALY gained, respectively. At the UK cost-effectiveness threshold of £20,000 per QALY gained, the probability that RefluxStop was cost-effective against MM, LNF, and MSA was 100%, 93%, and 100%, respectively. LIMITATIONS: The model presented the results of a comparison, with evidence for RefluxStop derived from its single-arm CE mark trial and that for comparators from the literature. The varied clinical care pathway of individual GERD patients was necessarily simplified for modeling purposes, and necessary assumptions were made; however, the model results proved robust to sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSIONS: Introduction of RefluxStop was estimated to extend life expectancy and improve quality-of-life of GERD patients when compared with MM, LNF, and MSA. The results of the cost-effectiveness analysis demonstrated that RefluxStop is highly likely to be a cost-effective treatment option within NHS England.

Developing a Modeling Framework for Quantifying the Health and Cost Implications of Antibiotic Resistance for Surgical Procedures.

Background. Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) is a global public health threat. The wider implications of AMR, such as the impact of antibiotic resistance (ABR) on surgical procedures, are yet to be quantified. The objective of this study was to produce a conceptual modeling framework to provide a basis for estimating the current and potential future consequences of ABR for surgical procedures in England. Design. A framework was developed using literature-based evidence and structured expert elicitation. This was applied to populations undergoing emergency repair of the neck of the femur and elective colorectal resection surgery. Results. The framework captures the implications of increasing ABR by allowing for higher rates of surgical site infection (SSI) as the effectiveness of antibiotic prophylaxis wanes and worsened outcomes following SSIs to reflect reduced antibiotic treatment effectiveness. The expert elicitation highlights the uncertainty in quantifying the impact of ABR, reflected in the results. A hypothetical SSI rate increase of 14% in a person undergoing emergency repair of the femur could increase costs by 39% (-2% to 108% credible interval [CI]) and decrease quality-adjusted life-years by 11% (0.4% to 62% CI) over 15 y. Conclusions. The modeling framework is a starting point for addressing the implication of ABR on the outcomes and costs of surgeries. Due to clinical uncertainty highlighted in the expert elicitation process, the numerical outputs of the case studies should not be focused on but rather the framework itself, illustration of the evidence gaps, the benefit of expert elicitation in quantifying parameters with limited data, and the potential magnitude of the impact of ABR on surgical procedures. Implications. The framework can be used to support research surrounding the health and cost burden of ABR in England. Highlights: The modeling framework is a starting point for assessing the health and cost impacts of antibiotic resistance on surgeries in England.Formulating a framework and synthesizing evidence to parameterize data gaps provides targets for future research.Once data gaps are addressed, this modeling framework can be used to feed into overall estimates of the health and cost burden of antibiotic resistance and evaluate control policies.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of hydrophilic-coated catheters in long-term intermittent catheter users in the UK.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the cost-effectiveness of single-use hydrophilic-coated intermittent catheters (HCICs) versus single-use uncoated intermittent catheters (UICs) for urinary catheterization. METHODS: The evaluation took a UK national health service (NHS) perspective. The population of interest were people using intermittent catheters, with either a spinal cord injury or multiple sclerosis. A Markov model was developed that estimated costs and clinical evidence over the lifetime of a hypothetical cohort and applied health-related quality-of-life estimates. Model inputs were sourced from published evidence, including a network meta-analysis to inform the treatment effect (reduction in catheter-associated urinary tract infections [CAUTIs]), and were supported by expert opinion. The model outputs included per-patient lifetime costs, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and the incremental cost effectiveness ratio (ICER). Event counts were also produced. RESULTS: Using HCICs instead of UICs could prevent seven CAUTI events per patient over a lifetime horizon (1.8 requiring secondary care). Overall, lifetime use of HCICs is £3,183 more expensive than use of UICs per patient. However, for these additional costs, 0.55 QALYs are gained. The ICER is £5,755 per additional QALY gained. Key drivers of the model results were identified and subject to sensitivity analyses. The results were found to be robust to parameter uncertainty. CONCLUSION: HCICs are likely to be a cost-effective alternative to UICs, a result driven by substantial reductions in the number of CAUTIs. Their adoption across clinical practice could avoid a substantial number of infections, freeing up resources in the NHS and reducing antibiotic use in urinary catheter users.

A new economic model was developed from a United Kingdom National Health Service perspective, to explore whether hydrophilic-coated intermittent catheters would be "worth" introducing for intermittent catheter users with either a spinal cord injury or multiple sclerosis. More specifically, costs were analyzed alongside clinical evidence and health-related quality-of-life data to investigate whether hydrophilic-coated intermittent catheters would offer a notable health benefit when compared with uncoated intermittent catheters for the assessed population, whilst keeping costs to the National Health Service sufficiently low. Model inputs were sourced from published evidence where possible, and experts were consulted otherwise. The results showed that, whilst lifetime use of hydrophilic-coated intermittent catheters is £3,183 more expensive than use of uncoated intermittent catheters per patient, the health benefit with hydrophilic-coated intermittent catheters offsets these costs, by definition a cost-effective result. This means that hydrophilic-coated intermittent catheters are likely to be a cost-effective alternative to uncoated intermittent catheters. Their adoption across clinical practice could avoid a substantial number of infections, thereby freeing up healthcare resources in the National Health Service and reducing antibiotic use in urinary catheter users.

Systematic review on the use of biologics in adult-onset still's disease.

This systematic review (SR) describes the efficacy and safety of biologic disease modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) for patients with adult-onset Still's disease (AOSD). Three randomised controlled trials (RCTs), one retrospective case series of multiple interventions, and 17 case series of single interventions met the inclusion criteria for this SR. Comparisons of biologic therapy in AOSD were only available against conventional DMARDs in one RCT and against placebo in two RCTs. There was a lack of common assessment criteria, meaning treatment efficacy across studies could not be compared. Uncontrolled retrospective case series suggested that bDMARDs have an effect for patients with AOSD, but these studies did not provide comparative data to show whether bDMARDs were more effective than other interventions or, whether any bDMARD was more effective than another bDMARD. However, there was evidence that bDMARDs could reduce steroid dose. Safety data from all included studies showed that bDMARDs appear to be a safe alternative to conventional DMARDs. This SR has highlighted the need for larger comparative studies in AOSD and has shown the need to standardize the definition of therapeutic response in AOSD. This would allow comparisons between studies in order to gain clarity on which bDMARDs may be more effective treatments for AOSD.

Cost-effectiveness of high dose versus adjuvanted trivalent influenza vaccines in England and Wales.

AIMS: High dose trivalent influenza vaccine (HD TIV) and adjuvant TIV (aTIV) have been developed specifically for adults aged 65 and older (65+) who are at high risk of life-threatening complications. However, there is a scarcity of evidence comparing the clinical and cost-effectiveness of HD TIV and aTIV. The aim of this study was to determine the cost-effectiveness of HD TIV versus aTIV in the England and Wales 65+ population. METHODS: A cost-utility analysis was conducted using a decision tree with two influenza related outcomes: Laboratory confirmed cases that could result in GP consultation, and hospitalizations that may result in premature mortality. Due to a lack of comparative evidence, the effectiveness of HD TIV versus aTIV was calculated indirectly, based on relative effectiveness estimates for each vaccine versus a common comparator, standard dose (SD) TIV. The primary analysis included hospitalizations explicitly due to influenza/pneumonia. Cost-effectiveness was established for three scenarios applying differing relative effectiveness estimates for aTIV versus SD TIV. Uncertainty was analysed in one-way deterministic sensitivity analyses. A secondary analysis included hospitalizations due to any respiratory illness. RESULTS: The minimum population impact of vaccination with HD TIV rather than aTIV was 13,092 fewer influenza cases, 1,109 fewer influenza related deaths, 4,673 fewer hospitalizations, and 3,245 fewer GP appointments. HD TIV was cost-effective versus aTIV for all three effectiveness scenarios, with incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) equal to £1,932, £4,181, and £8,767 per quality adjusted life year. Results were consistent across the secondary analysis and deterministic sensitivity analyses. LIMITATIONS: The analysis was limited by a lack of robust and consistent effectiveness data for aTIV. CONCLUSION: HD TIV is cost-effective versus aTIV in people aged 65+ in England and Wales. Use of HD TIV over aTIV could increase clinical benefits and reduce the public health and economic burden of influenza.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of a single-inhaler triple therapy for COPD in the UK.

UK management costs for COPD, estimated at £1.9 billion/year, are rising. In the FULFIL (Lung Function and Quality of Life Assessment in Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease with Closed Triple Therapy) study, single-inhaler triple therapy with fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol (100/62.5/25 µg) improved clinical outcomes versus budesonide/formoterol (400/12 µg) in patients with symptomatic COPD at risk of exacerbations. We assessed the cost-effectiveness of fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol versus budesonide/formoterol for treating COPD from a UK National Health Service perspective. A model was developed combining a trial-based and Markov component and populated with baseline and treatment effect data from FULFIL, together with UK healthcare resource costs and disease-related utilities. Costs per life year and per quality-adjusted life year gained (costing year 2017) for fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol versus budesonide/formoterol were calculated for a lifetime horizon. Results were explored using deterministic sensitivity, scenario and probabilistic analyses. Fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol was associated with gains in life years (0.533) and quality-adjusted life years (0.506) versus budesonide/formoterol, but at slightly increased total costs (£26 416 versus £25 860). This translated to incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of £1042/life year and £1098/quality-adjusted life year for fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol versus budesonide/formoterol. In scenario analyses, incremental cost-effectiveness ratios ranged from dominant to £1547/quality-adjusted life year gained. Fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol provides a cost-effective treatment option versus budesonide/formoterol for patients with symptomatic COPD in the UK.

Indoor Air Quality at Home-An Economic Analysis.

Background: People with respiratory conditions are susceptible to health problems caused by exposure to indoor air pollutants. An economic framework was developed to inform a guideline developed by National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) to estimate the required level of efficacy necessary for an intervention to be cost-saving in dwellings across England. Methods: An economic modelling framework was built to estimate the incremental costs pre- and post-implementation of interventions designed to reduce exposure to indoor air pollution within dwellings of varying building-related risk factors and profiles. The intervention cost was varied simultaneously with the relative reduction in symptomatic cases of each health condition to estimate the point at which an intervention may become cost-saving. Four health conditions were considered. Results: People living in dwellings with either an extreme risk profile or usable floor area <90m2 have the greatest capacity to benefit and save National Health Service (NHS) costs from interventions at any given level of effectiveness and upfront cost. Conclusions: At any effectiveness level, the threshold for the upfront intervention cost to remain cost-saving is equivalent across the different home characteristics. The flexible model can be used to guide decision-making under a range of scenarios.