Cost-effectiveness analysis of transcatheter aortic valve implantation in aortic stenosis patients at low- and intermediate-surgical risk in Japan.

OBJECTIVE: To analyze the cost-effectiveness of transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) using the SAPIEN 3 (Edwards Lifesciences, Irvine, CA) compared to surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in low- and intermediate-risk patients from a Japanese public healthcare payer perspective. METHODS: A Markov model cost-effectiveness analysis was developed. Clinical and utility data were extracted from a systematic literature review. Cost inputs were obtained from analysis of the Medical Data Vision claims database and supplemented with a targeted literature search. The robustness of the results was assessed using sensitivity analyses. Scenario analyses were performed to determine the impact of lower mean age (77.5 years) and the effect of two different long-term mortality hazard ratios (TAVI versus SAVR: 0.9-1.09) on both risk-level populations. This analysis was conducted according to the guidelines for cost-effectiveness evaluation in Japan from Core 2 Health. RESULTS: In intermediate-risk patients, TAVI was a dominant procedure (TAVI had lower cost and higher effectiveness). In low-risk patients, the incremental cost effectiveness ratio (ICER) for TAVI was ¥750,417/quality-adjusted-life-years (QALY), which was below the cost-effectiveness threshold of ¥5 million/QALY. The ICER for TAVI was robust to all tested sensitivity and scenario analyses. CONCLUSIONS: TAVI was dominant and cost-effective compared to SAVR in intermediate- and low-risk patients, respectively. These results suggest that TAVI can provide meaningful value to Japanese patients relative to SAVR, at a reasonable incremental cost for patients at low surgical risk and potentially resulting in cost-savings in patients at intermediate surgical risk.

Aortic Stenosis (AS) is the most common valvular heart disease in Japan, and, if left untreated, severe symptomatic AS (sSAS) is associated with a dramatic increase in mortality and morbidity. Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation (TAVI) is a minimally invasive treatment option for replacing the aortic valve in patients with sSAS and has been associated with similar or better outcomes compared to Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement (SAVR), which involves open-heart surgical replacement of the aortic valve. The objective of this study was to compare the costs and health outcomes associated with TAVI compared to SAVR in Japanese patients deemed low- or intermediate-risk for surgery. Despite the expanding use of TAVI in Japan, a cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) does not exist that evaluates the economics of TAVI with the current generation SAPIEN 3 implant in patients with low- and intermediate-risk from a public perspective. Our study suggests that TAVI represents strong value for money among low- and intermediate-risk patients in Japan: compared to SAVR, TAVI is associated with better clinical outcomes and quality of life for patients, at a reasonable additional cost for low-risk patients and at a lower cost for intermediate-risk patients.

Cost-utility and cost-benefit analysis of TAVR availability in the US severe symptomatic aortic stenosis patient population.

AIMS: We evaluated the availability of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) to determine its value across all severe symptomatic aortic stenosis (SSAS) patients, especially those untreated because of concerns regarding invasive surgical AVR (SAVR) and its impact on active aging. METHODS: We performed payer perspective cost-utility analysis (CUA) and societal perspective cost-benefit analysis (CBA). The CBA's benefit measure is active time: salaried labor, unpaid work, and active leisure. The study population is a cohort of US elderly SSAS patients. We compared a "TAVR available" scenario in which SSAS patients distribute themselves across TAVR, SAVR, and medical management (MM); and a "TAVR not available" scenario with only SAVR and MM. We structured each scenario with a decision-tree model of SSAS patient treatment allocation. We measured the association between health and active time in the US Health and Retirement Study and used this association to impute active time to SSAS patients given their health. RESULTS: The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) and rate of return (RoR) of TAVR availability were $8,533 and 395%, respectively. CUA net monetary benefits (NMB) were $212,199 per patient and $43.4 billion population-wide. CBA NMB were $50,530 per patient and $10.3 billion population-wide. LIMITATIONS: Among study limitations were scarcity of evidence regarding key parameters and the lack of long-term survival, health utility, and treatment cost data. Our analysis did not account for TAVR durability, retreatments, and valve-in-valve treatments. CONCLUSION: Across risk-, age-, and treatment-eligibility groups, TAVR is the economically optimal treatment choice. It represents strong value-for-money per patient and population-wide. The vast majority of TAVR value involves raising treatment uptake among the untreated.

Aortic stenosis (AS) is a common and lethal heart disease. Surgical treatment has long been available, but its invasiveness limits uptake. More recently, transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has emerged as a treatment alternative. Its minimal invasiveness has significantly increased treatment rates, but economic evaluations omit this benefit, risking undervaluation. We evaluated TAVR in elderly US severe symptomatic AS patients, using payer perspective cost-utility analysis (CUA) and societal perspective cost-benefit analysis (CBA). Both CUA and CBA incorporated TAVR's impact on treatment rates. Given patient preferences for treatment options promoting active aging, our CBA used the value of active time as a benefit measure. We found that CUA/CBA net monetary benefits are $212,199/$50,530 per patient. Across risk-, age-, and treatment-eligibility groups, TAVR is the economically optimal treatment choice over surgery and medical management. It represents strong value-for-money per patient and population-wide. Increased treatment uptake accounts for the vast share of TAVR's value.

Anxiety and Depression Following Aortic Valve Replacement.

Background The aim of this study was to identify patients vulnerable for anxiety and/or depression following aortic valve replacement (AVR) and to evaluate factors that may mitigate this risk. Methods and Results This is a retrospective cohort study conducted using a claims database; 18 990 patients (1/2013-12/2018) ≥55 years of age with 6 months of pre-AVR data were identified. Anxiety and/or depression risk was compared at 3 months, 6 months, and 1 year following transcatheter aortic valve replacement or surgical AVR (SAVR) after risk adjustment using logistic regression and Cox proportional hazards models. Separate models were estimated for patients with and without surgical complications and discharge location. Patients with SAVR experienced a higher relative risk of anxiety and/or depression at 3 months (12.4% versus 8.8%; adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 1.39 [95% CI, 1.19-1.63]) and 6 months (15.6% versus 13.0%; adjusted HR, 1.24 [95% CI, 1.08-1.42]), with this difference narrowing by 12 months (20.1% versus 19.3%; adjusted HR, 1.14 [95% CI, 1.01-1.29]) after AVR. This association was most pronounced among patients discharged to home, with patients with SAVR having a higher relative risk of anxiety and/or depression. In patients who experienced operative complications, there was no difference between SAVR and transcatheter aortic valve replacement. However, among patients without operative complications, patients with SAVR had an increased risk of postoperative anxiety and/or depression at 3 months (adjusted HR, 1.47 [95% CI, 1.23-1.75]) and 6 months (adjusted HR 1.26 [95% CI, 1.08-1.46]), but not at 12 months. Conclusions There is an associated reduction in the risk of new-onset anxiety and/or depression among patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement (versus SAVR), particularly in the first 3 and 6 months following treatment.

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement and the value of increasing treatment for severe symptomatic aortic stenosis: a plain language summary.

What is this summary about?This article summarizes an economic evaluation of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR), a treatment for severe symptomatic aortic stenosis (SSAS). SSAS occurs when the aortic valve, which allows blood to leave the heart, becomes very narrow. This reduces blood flow to the body, causing symptoms like tiredness, chest pain, dizziness, or fainting. Treating SSAS requires replacing the valve. Untreated SSAS results in heart failure and death.Before TAVR, SSAS patients had two options, medical management and surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR). Medical management helps with symptoms but does not replace the valve, leading patients to eventually die from SSAS. SAVR replaces the valve through open-heart surgery, which is invasive, involving making a large cut through the chest bone. Concerns about this invasiveness led many patients to avoid SAVR, leaving their SSAS untreated. TAVR was introduced in 2010. It is less invasive than SAVR, involving inserting a new valve through a small cut in the leg. TAVR has become popular and twice as many patients now undergo TAVR compared to SAVR.We measure TAVR's net benefits as the value of its health benefits minus its healthcare costs. We measure these net benefits in three patient groups aged 65 and above in the United States. Group 1 patients are ineligible for SAVR, so TAVR is their only treatment option. Group 2 patients would have received SAVR if TAVR were not available. Group 3 patients are eligible for SAVR but concerned about its invasiveness, and so would have stayed untreated without TAVR.[Box: see text]What were the key takeaways?Net benefits per patient are significant in all groups, roughly equal in groups 1 and 2, and over six times larger in group 3. When net benefits are added up across patients, group 3's total net benefit is 30 times larger than that of groups 1 and 2 combined.What are the main conclusions?Past studies ignored TAVR's value in helping treat patients who might go untreated because of concerns over SAVR's invasiveness. But this is TAVR's largest value to SSAS patients. Our findings support continuing and increasing access to TAVR among SSAS patients, especially those who may go untreated because of concerns about invasive treatment.[Box: see text][Box: see text]Link to original article here.