Cost-utility analysis of TAVI compared with surgery in patients with severe aortic stenosis at low risk of surgical mortality in the Netherlands.

BACKGROUND: There is growing evidence to support the benefits of transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) over surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in patients with symptomatic severe aortic stenosis (sSAS) who are at high- or intermediate-risk of surgical mortality. The PARTNER 3 trial showed clinical benefits with SAPIEN 3 TAVI compared with SAVR in patients at low risk of surgical mortality. Whether TAVI is also cost-effective compared with SAVR for low-risk patients in the Dutch healthcare system remains uncertain. This article presents an analysis using PARTNER 3 outcomes and costs data from the Netherlands to inform a cost-utility model and examine cost implications of TAVI over SAVR in a Dutch low-risk population. METHODS: A two-stage cost-utility analysis was performed using a published and validated health economic model based on adverse events with both TAVI and SAVR interventions from a published randomized low risk trial dataset, and a Markov model that captured lifetime healthcare costs and patient outcomes post-intervention. The model was adapted using Netherlands-specific cost data to assess the cost-effectiveness of TAVI and SAVR. Uncertainty was addressed using deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: TAVI generated 0.89 additional quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) at a €4742 increase in costs per patient compared with SAVR over a lifetime time horizon, representing an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of €5346 per QALY gained. Sensitivity analyses confirm robust results, with TAVI remaining cost-effective across several sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSIONS: Based on the model results, compared with SAVR, TAVI with SAPIEN 3 appears cost-effective for the treatment of Dutch patients with sSAS who are at low risk of surgical mortality. Qualitative data suggest broader societal benefits are likely and these findings could be used to optimize appropriate intervention selection for this patient population.

Cost-effectiveness of endovascular treatment after 6-24 h in ischaemic stroke patients with collateral flow on CT-angiography: A model-based economic evaluation of the MR CLEAN-LATE trial.

BACKGROUND: The MR CLEAN-LATE trial has shown that patient selection for endovascular treatment (EVT) in the late window (6-24 h after onset or last-seen-well) based on the presence of collateral flow on CT-angiography is safe and effective. We aimed to assess the cost-effectiveness of late-window collateral-based EVT-selection compared to best medical management (BMM) over a lifetime horizon (until 95 years of age). MATERIALS AND METHODS: A model-based economic evaluation was performed from a societal perspective in The Netherlands. A decision tree was combined with a state-transition (Markov) model. Health states were defined by the modified Rankin Scale (mRS). Initial probabilities at 3-months post-stroke were based on MR CLEAN-LATE data. Transition probabilities were derived from previous literature. Information on short- and long-term resource use and utilities was obtained from a study using MR CLEAN-LATE and cross-sectional data. All costs are expressed in 2022 euros. Costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were discounted at a rate of 4% and 1.5%, respectively. The effect of parameter uncertainty was assessed using probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA). RESULTS: On average, the EVT strategy cost €159,592 (95% CI: €140,830-€180,154) and generated 3.46 QALYs (95% CI: 3.04-3.90) per patient, whereas the costs and QALYs associated with BMM were €149,935 (95% CI: €130,841-€171,776) and 2.88 (95% CI: 2.48-3.29), respectively. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio per QALY and the incremental net monetary benefit were €16,442 and €19,710, respectively. At a cost-effectiveness threshold of €50,000/QALY, EVT was cost-effective in 87% of replications. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: Collateral-based selection for late-window EVT is likely cost-effective from a societal perspective in The Netherlands.

Development of a decision analytical framework to prioritise operating room capacity: lessons learnt from an empirical example on delayed elective surgeries during the COVID-19 pandemic in a hospital in the Netherlands.

OBJECTIVE: To develop a prioritisation framework to support priority setting for elective surgeries after COVID-19 based on the impact on patient well-being and cost. DESIGN: We developed decision analytical models to estimate the consequences of delayed elective surgical procedures (eg, total hip replacement, bariatric surgery or septoplasty). SETTING: The framework was applied to a large hospital in the Netherlands. OUTCOME MEASURES: Quality measures impacts on quality of life and costs were taken into account and combined to calculate net monetary losses per week delay, which quantifies the total loss for society expressed in monetary terms. Net monetary losses were weighted by operating times. RESULTS: We studied 13 common elective procedures from four specialties. Highest loss in quality of life due to delayed surgery was found for total hip replacement (utility loss of 0.27, ie, 99 days lost in perfect health); the lowest for arthroscopic partial meniscectomy (utility loss of 0.05, ie, 18 days lost in perfect health). Costs of surgical delay per patient were highest for bariatric surgery (€31/pp per week) and lowest for arthroscopic partial meniscectomy (-€2/pp per week). Weighted by operating room (OR) time bariatric surgery provides most value (€1.19/pp per OR minute) and arthroscopic partial meniscectomy provides the least value (€0.34/pp per OR minute). In a large hospital the net monetary loss due to prolonged waiting times was €700 840 after the first COVID-19 wave, an increase of 506% compared with the year before. CONCLUSIONS: This surgical prioritisation framework can be tailored to specific centres and countries to support priority setting for delayed elective operations during and after the COVID-19 pandemic, both in and between surgical disciplines. In the long-term, the framework can contribute to the efficient distribution of OR time and will therefore add to the discussion on appropriate use of healthcare budgets. The online framework can be accessed via: https://stanwijn.shinyapps.io/priORitize/.

Selecting esophageal cancer patients for lymphadenectomy after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy: a modeling study.

OBJECTIVES: Two-thirds of patients do not harbor lymph node (LN) metastases after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT). Our aim was to explore under which circumstances a selective lymph node dissection (LND) strategy, which selects patients for LND based on the restaging results after nCRT, has added value compared with standard LND in esophageal cancer. DESIGN: A decision tree with state-transition model was developed. Input data on short-term and long-term consequences were derived from literature. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess promising scenarios and uncertainty. SETTING: Dutch healthcare system. PARTICIPANTS: Hypothetical cohort of esophageal cancer patients who have already received nCRT and are scheduled for esophagectomy. INTERVENTIONS: A standard LND cohort was compared with a cohort of patients that received selective LND based on the restaging results after nCRT. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), residual LN metastases and LND-related complications. RESULTS: Selective LND could have short-term benefits, that is, a decrease in the number of performed LNDs and LND-related complications. However, this may not outweigh a slight increase in residual LN metastases which negatively impacts QALYs in the long-term. To accomplish equal QALYs as with standard LND, a new surgical strategy should have the same or higher treatment success rate as standard LND, that is, should show equal or less recurrences due to residual LN metastases. CONCLUSIONS: The reduction in LND-related complications that is accomplished by selecting patients for LND based on restaging results after nCRT seems not to outweigh a QALY loss in the long-term due to residual LN metastases. Despite the short-term advantages of selective LND, this strategy can only match long-term QALYs of standard LND when its success rate equals the success rate of standard LND.