A budget impact model and a cost-utility analysis of reducer device (Neovasc) in patients with refractory angina.

Background: Refractory angina (RA) is a chronic condition characterized by the presence of debilitating angina symptoms due to established reversible ischemia in the presence of obstructive coronary artery disease (CAD). Treatments for this condition have undergone major developments in recent decades; however, the treatment for RA remains a challenge for medicine. In this sense, the Coronary Sinus Reducer System (CSRS) stands as the last line of therapy for ineligible patients for revascularization with reversible ischemia. The purpose of this report is to evaluate the potential burden on the National Health Service (NHS) and measure the health effects in terms of both quantity (life years) and quality-of-life aspects related to the reducer. Methods: Two different economic evaluation models were developed as part of the analysis. The budget impact was developed to estimate the potential burden on the NHS from incremental uptake of the use of the reducer in the target population. The utility cost analysis compares and evaluates the quality of life and health resource use and costs between the two alternatives, based on the research of Gallone et al. A deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analysis was carried out to characterize the uncertainty around the parameters of the model. Results: In the budget impact analysis (BIA), the reducer is shown to be more expensive in the first 2 years of the model, due to the gradual uptake in the market and the cost of the device. Starting from the third year, assuming maintenance of effectiveness, there are savings in terms of resource absorption in direct healthcare costs arising from hospitalizations, emergency department accesses, coronarography, and visits avoided. Conclusion: The BIA and cost-effectiveness model show that the reducer device, despite an increase in resources absorbed in the first years of implementation and use, has the potential to result in increased quality of life in patients with RA. These costs are largely offset in the short term by the improved clinical outcomes achievable leading to savings from the third year onward in the BIA and a dominance ratio in the cost-utility analysis.

Cost-Effectiveness of Vedolizumab as a First-Line Advanced Therapy Versus Adalimumab Treatment Sequences for Ulcerative Colitis in Italy.

BACKGROUND: Today, there are many treatment options available for the management of ulcerative colitis, creating challenges in selecting the most efficacious and cost-effective treatment sequences. Treatments in the anti-tumor necrosis factor alpha (TNFα) therapeutic class, as well as vedolizumab, are widely used and endorsed as first-line options according to treatment guidelines. The aim of this study was to compare treatment sequences involving vedolizumab and the anti-TNFα treatment adalimumab in terms of cost-effectiveness in the treatment of moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis in Italy. METHODS: A cost-effectiveness model comparing treatment sequences within the Italian National Health Service in terms of costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) with a lifetime horizon was developed. The analysis focused on the relative positioning of vedolizumab and adalimumab, leveraging the results of the landmark head-to-head VARSITY clinical trial as key inputs. The robustness of the results was investigated through a range of sensitivity and scenario analyses. RESULTS: The strategy of vedolizumab as a first-line advanced therapy followed by adalimumab was associated with higher costs and health benefits compared with first-line adalimumab followed by vedolizumab. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was €16,146/QALY, which was found to be robust to changes to inputs associated with areas of high uncertainty. CONCLUSION: This economic evaluation estimated a 94% probability that vedolizumab as a first-line advanced therapy is cost-effective at a threshold of €33,004/QALY when compared with first-line adalimumab sequences. Using clinical trial evidence to inform the efficacy of second-line treatments estimated that the effectiveness of anti-TNFα treatments is not substantially reduced by vedolizumab exposure.

Analysis of heterogeneity of the different health technology assessment reports produced on the transcatheter aortic valve implantation in patients with severe aortic valve stenosis at low surgical risk.

Background: Symptomatic severe aortic stenosis is a congenital or acquired aortic valve disease that occurs when the aortic valve of the heart narrows. It represents the most common valvular disease in adults and generally has a degenerative nature. Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI), due to its non-invasive approach, has become the standard treatment in patients who are ineligible to surgery or at high surgical risk, and it is also increasingly being performed in patients at intermediate to low surgical risk. The aim is to analyze the heterogeneity and explore the limitations of current health technology assessments (HTAs) on TAVI. Methods: For the purpose of this analysis, a review of the literature based on manual research was performed. A population, intervention, comparators, and outcome (PICO) model was used to gather the HTA reports assessing TAVI in the treatment of patients affected by symptomatic severe aortic valve stenosis at low surgical risk. Furthermore, a manual search has been developed to also include assessments from the Haute Autorité de Santé. Results: At the end of the investigation, a certain degree of heterogeneity in the evidence factored and in the recommendations on the technology has emerged. Relative to the clinical domains, the main drivers for the disparity are found in the type of evidence considered and in the use or not of the grading of recommendations, assessment, development, and evaluation (GRADE) methodology to evaluate the quality of the clinical evidence included. Another element concerns the chosen device generation assessed within the evaluation. In order to perform the economic evaluation, a cost-utility analysis and a budget impact model were developed. Despite some elements of heterogeneity, the economic assessments demonstrate a favorable or dominant cost-effectiveness profile for TAVI compared with surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR). Conclusion: Despite the presence of heterogeneity elements both in clinical and economic domains, HTA agencies reached the same recommendations on the use of TAVI. It emerged the need for a centralized vision on the "strong" domains, which means giving up freedom to local bodies to adapt to their context on the "soft" ones. This approach could have the potential to strengthen the role of HTA in Europe by ensuring faster decision-making and equity of access to health innovations and reduce the heterogeneity in the assessment methods.