Cost-effectiveness of maribavir versus conventional antiviral therapies for post-transplant refractory cytomegalovirus infection with or without genotypic resistance: A US perspective.

This study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of maribavir versus investigator-assigned therapy (IAT; valganciclovir/ganciclovir, foscarnet, or cidofovir) for post-transplant refractory cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection with or without resistance. A two-stage Markov model was designed using data from the SOLSTICE trial (NCT02931539), real-world multinational observational studies, and published literature. Stage 1 (0-78 weeks) comprised clinically significant CMV (csCMV), non-clinically significant CMV (n-csCMV), and dead states; stage 2 (78 weeks-lifetime) comprised alive and dead states. Total costs (2022 USD) and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were estimated for the maribavir and IAT cohorts. An incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was calculated to determine cost-effectiveness against a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100 000/QALY. Compared with IAT, maribavir had lower costs ($139 751 vs $147 949) and greater QALYs (6.04 vs 5.83), making it cost-saving and more cost-effective. Maribavir had higher acquisition costs compared with IAT ($80 531 vs $65 285), but lower costs associated with administration/monitoring ($16 493 vs $27 563), adverse events (AEs) ($11 055 vs $16 114), hospitalization ($27 157 vs $33 905), and graft loss ($4516 vs $5081), thus making treatment with maribavir cost-saving. Maribavir-treated patients spent more time without CMV compared with IAT-treated patients (0.85 years vs 0.68 years), leading to lower retreatment costs for maribavir (cost savings: -$42 970.80). Compared with IAT, maribavir was more cost-effective for transplant recipients with refractory CMV, owing to better clinical efficacy and avoidance of high costs associated with administration, monitoring, AEs, and hospitalizations. These results can inform healthcare decision-makers on the most effective use of their resources for post-transplant refractory CMV treatment.

A time trade-off study to determine health-state utilities of transplant recipients with refractory cytomegalovirus infection with or without resistance.

BACKGROUND: Health-state utility values (HSUVs) for post-transplant refractory cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection (with or without resistance [R/R]) were determined using a time trade-off (TTO) survey completed by 1,020 members of the UK general public. METHODS: Existing literature and qualitative interviews with clinicians experienced in treating R/R CMV were used to develop initial draft vignettes of health states. The vignettes were refined to describe three clinical states of R/R CMV: clinically significant and symptomatic (CS-symptomatic CMV); clinically significant and asymptomatic (CS-asymptomatic CMV); and non-clinically significant (non-CS CMV). Each clinical state was valued independently and combined with three events of interest: graft-versus-host disease; kidney graft loss; and lung graft loss to generate twelve vignettes. The final vignettes were evaluated by a sample of the UK general public using an online TTO survey. Exclusion criteria were applied to the final data to ensure that responses included in the analysis met pre-defined quality control criteria. RESULTS: Overall, 738 participants met the inclusion criteria and were included in the analysis. The sample was representative of the UK general population in terms of age and sex. Non-CS CMV had the highest mean HSUV (95% confidence interval) (0.815 [0.791, 0.839]), followed by CS-asymptomatic CMV (0.635 [0.602, 0.669]), and CS-symptomatic CMV (0.443 [0.404, 0.482]). CS-symptomatic CMV with lung graft loss had the lowest mean HSUV (0.289), with none of the health states considered on average worse than dead. CONCLUSIONS: Post transplant R/R CMV has substantial impact on the health-related quality of life of patients. The utility values obtained in this study may be used to support economic evaluations of therapies for R/R CMV infection.

Comparative Costs to Medicare and Medicare Beneficiaries of Alternative AF Stroke Risk Reduction Strategies.

Background: As healthcare costs are increasingly being shifted from payers to patients, it is important to understand the economic consequences of therapeutic strategies to both payers and patients. Objective: To determine the relative costs to Medicare and Medicare beneficiaries (patients) of warfarin, non-vitamin K oral anticoagulants (NOACs), and left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) for stroke risk reduction in nonvalvular atrial fibrillation. Methods: An economic model was developed to assess costs at 5 and 10 years. For warfarin and NOACs, inputs were derived from published meta-analyses; for LAAC with the Watchman device, inputs were derived from pooled 5-year PROTECT AF and PREVAIL trial results. The model captured therapy costs vs clinical event costs, including procedural complications and follow-up clinical outcomes. Costs were based on 2023 Medicare reimbursement and copayment rates. Results: At 10 years, overall LAAC costs ($48,337) were lower than those of NOACs ($81,198) and warfarin ($52,359). Overall LAAC costs were lower than those of NOACs by year 5 and warfarin by year 9. At 5 years, patient LAAC costs were lowest at $4,764, compared to $7,146 and $6,453 for NOACs and warfarin, respectively. LAAC patient costs were lower than those of NOACs by year 3 and warfarin by year 4. Clinical events comprised 96% of overall warfarin costs vs 48% for LAAC and 40% for NOACs. Conclusion: LAAC yielded the lowest overall and patient costs. Warfarin costs were largely driven by clinical events, which may represent an unplanned financial burden for patients. These considerations should be incorporated into shared decision-making discussions about stroke prophylaxis strategies.

Cost-effectiveness of left atrial appendage closure with Watchman for non-valvular atrial fibrillation patients in Japan.

AIMS: Left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) has been demonstrated to be cost-saving relative to oral anticoagulants for stroke prophylaxis in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) in the United States and Europe. This study assessed the cost-effectiveness of LAAC with the Watchman device relative to warfarin and direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) for stroke risk reduction in NVAF from a Japanese public healthcare payer perspective. METHODS: A Markov model was developed with 70-year-old patients using a lifetime time horizon. LAAC clinical inputs were from pooled, 5-year PROTECT AF and PREVAIL trials; warfarin and DOAC inputs were from published meta-analyses. Baseline stroke and bleeding risks were from the SALUTE trial on LAAC. Cost inputs were from the Japanese Medical Data Vision database. Probabilistic and one-way sensitivity analyses were performed. RESULTS: Over the lifetime time horizon, LAAC was less costly than warfarin (savings of JPY 1,878,335, equivalent to US $17,600) and DOACs (savings of JPY 1,198,096, equivalent to US $11,226). LAAC also provided 1.500 more incremental quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) than warfarin and 0.996 more than DOACs. In probabilistic sensitivity analysis, LAAC was cost-effective relative to warfarin and DOACs in 99.98% and 99.73% of simulations, respectively. LAAC dominated (had higher cumulative QALYs and was less costly than) warfarin and DOACs in 89.94% and 83.35% of simulations, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Over a lifetime time horizon, LAAC is cost-saving relative to warfarin and DOACs for stroke risk reduction in NVAF patients in Japan and is associated with improved quality-of-life.

This study examined the cost-effectiveness of left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) compared to oral anticoagulants for stroke risk reduction among individuals with a specific type of irregular heart rhythm called non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF). This study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of LAAC using the Watchman device in comparison to warfarin and direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) from the perspective of Japan's public healthcare system. To investigate this, a computer-based model was developed involving 70-year-old patients over their lifetime. Data from notable studies such as the PROTECT AF and PREVAIL trials (covering 5 years) for LAAC and published meta-analyses for warfarin and DOACs were incorporated into the model. Baseline stroke and bleeding risks were derived from the SALUTE trial on LAAC. Cost inputs were based on data from the Japanese Medical Data Vision database. Additionally, we performed thorough cost-effectiveness analyses, including probabilistic and one-way sensitivity assessments. Our findings revealed that, over a lifetime, LAAC was more cost-effective than both warfarin and DOACs. Further, LAAC contributed an additional 1.500 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) compared to warfarin and 0.996 QALYs compared to DOACs. In the long-term, adopting LAAC as an alternative to warfarin and DOACs is a cost-effective strategy for reducing stroke risk in NVAF patients in Japan. Moreover, it is associated with enhanced quality-of-life. These findings hold significant implications for informing decision-making in healthcare policies and clinical practices for NVAF patients.

Cost-effectiveness of a paclitaxel-eluting stent (Eluvia) compared to Zilver PTX for endovascular femoropopliteal intervention.

OBJECTIVES: Antiproliferative therapies based on paclitaxel have been developed to extend the durability of endovascular interventions for lower-extremity atherosclerotic peripheral artery disease, resulting in improved primary vessel patency and fewer target lesion revascularizations. This study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of the sustained-release, paclitaxel-eluting Eluvia stent (Boston Scientific, Marlborough, MA) versus the paclitaxel-coated Zilver PTX stent (Cook Medical, Bloomington, IN) for endovascular intervention in the superficial femoral or proximal popliteal artery. DESIGN: A microsimulation model was constructed from a United States Medicare perspective with a 24-month time horizon. Patients entering the model were assigned to initial endovascular intervention with either Eluvia or Zilver PTX. Each month patients were exposed to the risks of primary vessel patency loss, target lesion revascularization, amputation, and death. Clinical input parameters were taken from a randomized trial (IMPERIAL) comparing the two interventions at 24-months follow-up. Cost parameters were obtained from analyses of Medicare administrative and claims data. Cost-effectiveness analysis entailed sampling a complete set of clinical and cost parameters from their respective distributions, and then running cohorts of 10,000 patients through each intervention arm of the model. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed. RESULTS: In the base case microsimulation, at 24 months, the modeled target lesion revascularization was 11.6% for Eluvia and 19.0% for Zilver PTX, and the mean total direct costs were $20,010 and $21,356, respectively (Eluvia average savings=$1,346). In probabilistic sensitivity analyses, Eluvia was cost-effective in 87.8% of all simulations at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $10,000 per target lesion revascularization prevented. Eluvia was more effective and less costly (dominant) than Zilver PTX in 73.6% of simulations. CONCLUSIONS: In this comparison of a paclitaxel-eluting to a paclitaxel-coated stent for endovascular femoropopliteal intervention, Eluvia was more effective and less costly (dominant) than Zilver PTX from a US Medicare perspective. These findings should be considered when formulating reimbursement policy and clinical practice guidelines.

Paclitaxel is a drug used in the treatment of peripheral artery disease (PAD) to help maintain primary vessel patency and reduce the need for revascularization procedures. This study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of the paclitaxel-eluting Eluvia stent (Boston Scientific, Marlborough, MA) versus the paclitaxel-coated Zilver PTX stent (Cook Medical, Bloomington, IN) in Medicare patients with PAD. Cost-effectiveness is defined as the degree to which a particular treatment option is effective relative to its costs. Therefore, this study compared both the effectiveness, in terms of target lesion revascularization rates, and the costs of Eluvia versus Zilver PTX over 24 months.A microsimulation model was developed from a United States Medicare perspective with a 24-month time horizon. Simulated patients entered the model and were assigned to receive either Eluvia or Zilver PTX. Monthly, patients were exposed to the risks of primary vessel patency loss, target lesion revascularization (TLR), amputation, and death. These risks were taken from a randomized controlled trial that compared Eluvia and Zilver PTX over 24 months. Patients also accrued costs over time. The costs used in the model were obtained from Medicare administrative and claims data analyses.In health economics, a treatment is considered to be the dominant treatment option if it is both more effective and less costly than the alternative treatment. In this case, Eluvia was found to be dominant over Zilver PTX because it was associated with lower TLR rates and lower costs. These findings should be considered when formulating reimbursement policy and clinical practice guidelines.

Cost-Effectiveness and Budget Impact of Emerging Minimally Invasive Surgical Treatments for Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia.

Background: Benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) is one of the most prevalent and costly chronic conditions among middle-aged and elderly men. Prostatic urethral lift (PUL) and convective water vapor thermal therapy (WVTT) are emerging minimally invasive surgical treatments as an alternative to traditional treatment options for men with moderate-to-severe BPH. This study evaluated the cost-effectiveness and budget impact of PUL and WVTT for men with BPH using long-term clinical outcomes. Methods: The cost-effectiveness and budget impact models were developed from a US Medicare perspective over a 4-year time horizon. The models were populated with males with a mean age of 63 and an average International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) of 22. Clinical inputs were extracted from the LIFT and Rezum II randomized controlled trials at 4 years. Utility values were assigned using IPSS and BPH severity levels. Procedural, adverse event, retreatment, follow-up, and medication costs were based on 2019 Medicare payment rates and Medicare Part D drug spending. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSAs) were performed. Results: At 4 years, PUL was associated with greater retreatment rates (24.6% vs 10.9%), lower quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) (3.490 vs 3.548) and higher total costs (US$7393 vs US$2233) compared with WVTT, making WVTT the more effective and less costly treatment strategy. The 70% total cost difference of PUL and WVTT was predominantly driven by higher PUL procedural (US$5617 vs US$1689) and retreatment (US$976 vs US$257) costs. The PSA demonstrated that relative to PUL, WVTT yielded higher QALYs and lower costs 99% and 100% of the time, respectively. Conclusions: Compared to PUL, WVTT was a cost-effective and cost-saving treatment of moderate-to-severe BPH. These findings provide evidence for clinicians, payers, and health policy makers to help further define the role of minimally invasive surgical treatments for BPH.

Device-related infection in de novo transvenous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator Medicare patients.

BACKGROUND: Cardiac device infection is a serious complication of implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) placement and requires complete device removal with accompanying antimicrobial therapy for durable cure. Recent guidelines have highlighted the need to better identify patients at high risk of infection to assist in device selection. OBJECTIVE: To estimate the prevalence of infection in de novo transvenous (TV) ICD implants and assess factors associated with infection risk in a Medicare population. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was conducted using 100% Medicare administrative and claims data to identify patients who underwent de novo TV-ICD implantation (July 2016-December 2017). Infection within 720 days of implantation was identified using ICD-10 codes. Baseline factors associated with infection were identified by univariable logistic regression analysis of all variables of interest, including conditions in Charlson and Elixhauser comorbidity indices, followed by stepwise selection criteria with a P ≤ .25 for inclusion in a multivariable model and a backwards, stepwise elimination process with P ≤ .1 to remain in the model. A time-to-event analysis was also conducted. RESULTS: Among 26,742 patients with de novo TV-ICD, 519 (1.9%) developed an infection within 720 days post implant. While more than half (54%) of infections occurred during the first 90 days, 16% of infections occurred after 365 days. Multivariable analysis revealed several significant predictors of infection: age <70 years, renal disease with dialysis, and complicated diabetes mellitus. CONCLUSION: The rate of de novo TV-ICD infection was 1.9%, and identified risk factors associated with infection may be useful in device selection.

An Analysis of a Commercial Database on the Use of Erectile Dysfunction Treatments for Men With Employer-Sponsored Health Insurance.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the annual erectile dysfunction (ED) prevalence among men enrolled in an employer-sponsored health insurance (ESHI) plan and evaluate ED treatment profiles among those with an ED diagnosis. METHODS: A cross-sectional claims analysis was conducted using the IBM MarketScan Commercial Database, a nationally representative sample of US workers enrolled in ESHI plans. Patients aged 18-64 with at least one ED medical diagnosis claim and continuous enrollment in a given year between 2009 and 2017 were included. Among those with an ED diagnosis, utilization rates of the following ED treatments were determined: phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitors (PDE5I), penile prosthesis implantation, other ED treatments (eg, vacuum pump, intraurethral suppositories), combination treatment, and no insurer-paid treatments. RESULTS: Between 2009 and 2017, the annual prevalence of men with ESHI suffering from ED increased by 116%. However, in 2017, only 23% of men with an ED diagnosis received an ED therapy paid for by their ESHI plans. The proportion of men taking PDE5Is ranged from 18% in 2012 to 26% in 2015. The proportion of men with ED undergoing penile prosthesis implantation has declined in recent years (0.23% in 2009 to 0.11% in 2017). Similarly, the rate of men who received other ED treatments or combination treatment has decreased from 2009 to 2017 (0.94%-0.30% and 0.65%-0.19%, respectively). CONCLUSION: ED prevalence among men insured by an ESHI plan has notably increased, yet approximately three-quarters of these men had no claims for ED treatments, indicating substantial access gaps to treatment.

Costs and complications associated with transvenous lead reoperation in cardiac implantable electronic devices.

BACKGROUND: Cardiac implantable electronic device transvenous (TV) lead reoperations are projected to increase, and robust economic data are needed to assess the resulting financial impact and the cost-effectiveness of prevention and treatment strategies. This study estimates Medicare costs, and describes patterns of complications, in patients who underwent TV lead reoperation. METHODS AND RESULTS: Medicare data (2010-2014) were used to identify patients who underwent TV lead reoperation. Cumulative costs to Medicare, and rates of infection and mechanical complications were calculated from 180 days before, to 180 days after, lead reoperation. Multivariate analysis was used to estimate adjusted costs, and to examine the impact of complications on medical resource use and costs. There were 1691 patients, 63.2% of whom underwent inpatient lead reoperation. Overall, the mean age was 78.2 years, 39.6% were female, and 92.3% were white. The mean cumulative cost was $36 199 (95% confidence interval [CI], $31 864-$40 535) for TV lead repositioning, $27 701 (95% CI, $19 869-$35 534) for repair, and $54 442 (95% CI, $51 651-$57 233) for removal. Underlying infection was associated with increased odds of inpatient reoperation and of lead removal, as well as longer length of stay and higher costs. CONCLUSIONS: The economic consequences of TV lead reoperation are substantial. Strategies aimed at reducing reoperation, particularly lead removal, are likely to result in considerable cost offsets.

Cost-Effectiveness of Left Atrial Appendage Closure for Stroke Reduction in Atrial Fibrillation: Analysis of Pooled, 5-Year, Long-Term Data.

Background Recent publications reached conflicting conclusions about the cost-effectiveness of left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) with the Watchman device (Boston Scientific, Marlborough, MA) for stroke risk reduction in nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (AF). This analysis sought to assess the cost-effectiveness of LAAC relative to both warfarin and nonwarfarin oral anticoagulants (NOACs) using pooled, long-term data from the randomized PROTECT AF (Watchman Left Atrial Appendage System for Embolic Protection in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation) and PREVAIL (Prospective Randomized Evaluation of the Watchman LAA Closure Device in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation Versus Long-Term Warfarin) trials. Methods and Results A Markov model was constructed from a US payer perspective with a lifetime (20-year) horizon. LAAC clinical event rates and stroke outcomes were from pooled PROTECT AF and PREVAIL trial 5-year data. Warfarin and NOAC inputs were derived from published meta-analyses. The model was populated with a cohort of 10 000 patients, aged 70 years, at moderate stroke and bleeding risk. Sensitivity analyses were performed. LAAC was cost-effective relative to warfarin by year 7 ($48 674/quality-adjusted life-year) and dominant (more effective and less costly) by year 10. LAAC became cost-effective and dominant compared with NOACs by year 5. Over a lifetime, LAAC provided 0.60 more quality-adjusted life-years than warfarin and 0.29 more than NOACs. In sensitivity analyses, LAAC was cost-effective relative to warfarin and NOACs in 98% and 95% of simulations, respectively. Conclusions Using pooled, 5-year PROTECT AF and PREVAIL trial data, LAAC proved to be not only cost-effective, but cost saving relative to warfarin and NOACs. LAAC with the Watchman device is an economically viable stroke risk reduction strategy for patients with AF seeking an alternative to lifelong anticoagulation.

Outcomes and costs of remote patient monitoring among patients with implanted cardiac defibrillators: An economic model based on the PREDICT RM database.

BACKGROUND: Remote monitoring of implantable cardioverter-defibrillators has been associated with reduced rates of all-cause rehospitalizations and mortality among device recipients, but long-term economic benefits have not been studied. METHODS AND RESULTS: An economic model was developed using the PREDICT RM database comparing outcomes with and without remote monitoring. The database included patients ages 65 to 89 who received a Boston Scientific device from 2006 to 2010. Parametric survival equations were derived for rehospitalization and mortality to predict outcomes over a maximum time horizon of 25 years. The analysis assessed rehospitalization, mortality, and the cost-effectiveness (expressed as the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year) of remote monitoring versus no remote monitoring. Remote monitoring was associated with reduced mortality; average life expectancy and average quality-adjusted life years increased by 0.77 years and 0.64, respectively (6.85 life years and 5.65 quality-adjusted life years). When expressed per patient-year, remote monitoring patients had fewer subsequent rehospitalizations (by 0.08 per patient-year) and lower hospitalization costs (by $554 per patient year). With longer life expectancies, remote monitoring patients experienced an average of 0.64 additional subsequent rehospitalizations with increased average lifetime hospitalization costs of $2784. Total costs of outpatient and physician claims were higher with remote monitoring ($47 515 vs $42 792), but average per patient-year costs were lower ($6232 vs $6244). The base-case incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was $10 752 per quality-adjusted life year, making remote monitoring high-value care. CONCLUSION: Remote monitoring is a cost-effective approach for the lifetime management of patients with implantable cardioverter-defibrillators.

Cost-Effectiveness of Left Atrial Appendage Closure With the WATCHMAN Device Compared With Warfarin or Non-Vitamin K Antagonist Oral Anticoagulants for Secondary Prevention in Nonvalvular Atrial Fibrillation.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Once a patient with atrial fibrillation experiences an embolic event, the risk of a recurrent event increases 2.6-fold. New treatments have emerged as viable treatment alternatives to warfarin for stroke risk reduction in secondary prevention populations. This analysis sought to assess the cost-effectiveness of left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) compared with warfarin and the non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants dabigatran 150 mg, apixaban and rivaroxaban in the prevention of stroke in nonvalvular atrial fibrillation patients with a prior stroke or transient ischemic attack. METHODS: A Markov model was constructed using data from the secondary prevention subgroup analyses of the non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulant and LAAC pivotal trials. Costs were from 2016 US Medicare reimbursement rates and the literature. The cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted from a US Medicare perspective over a lifetime (20 years) horizon. The model was populated with a cohort of 10 000 patients aged 70 years with a CHA2DS2-VASc score of 7 (annual stroke risk=9.60%) and HAS-BLED score of 3 (annual bleeding risk=3.74%). RESULTS: LAAC achieved cost-effectiveness relative to dabigatran at year 5 and warfarin and apixaban at year 6. At 10 years, LAAC had more quality-adjusted life years (4.986 versus 4.769, 4.869, 4.888, and 4.810) and lower costs ($42 616 versus $53 770, $58 774, $55 656, and $58 655) than warfarin, dabigatran, apixaban, and rivaroxaban, respectively, making LAAC the dominant (more effective and less costly) stroke risk reduction strategy. LAAC remained the dominant strategy over the lifetime analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Upfront procedure costs initially make LAAC higher cost than warfarin and the non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants, but within 10 years, LAAC delivers more quality-adjusted life years and has lower total costs, making LAAC the most cost-effective treatment strategy for secondary prevention of stroke in atrial fibrillation.

Cost effectiveness of left atrial appendage closure with the Watchman device for atrial fibrillation patients with absolute contraindications to warfarin.

AIMS: Atrial fibrillation (AF) patients with contraindications to oral anticoagulation have had few options for stroke prevention. Recently, a novel oral anticoagulant, apixaban, and percutaneous left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) have emerged as safe and effective therapies for stroke risk reduction in these patients. This analysis assessed the cost effectiveness of LAAC with the Watchman device relative to apixaban and aspirin therapy in patients with non-valvular AF and contraindications to warfarin therapy. METHODS AND RESULTS: A cost-effectiveness model was constructed using data from three studies on stroke prevention in patients with contraindications: the ASAP study evaluating the Watchman device, the ACTIVE A trial of aspirin and clopidogrel, and the AVERROES trial evaluating apixaban. The cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted from a German healthcare payer perspective over a 20-year time horizon. Left atrial appendage closure yielded more quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) than aspirin and apixaban by 2 and 4 years, respectively. At 5 years, LAAC was cost effective compared with aspirin with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of €16 971. Left atrial appendage closure was cost effective compared with apixaban at 7 years with an ICER of €9040. Left atrial appendage closure was cost saving and more effective than aspirin and apixaban at 8 years and remained so throughout the 20-year time horizon. CONCLUSIONS: This analysis demonstrates that LAAC with the Watchman device is a cost-effective and cost-saving solution for stroke risk reduction in patients with non-valvular AF who are at risk for stroke but have contraindications to warfarin.

Time to Cost-Effectiveness Following Stroke Reduction Strategies in AF: Warfarin Versus NOACs Versus LAA Closure.

BACKGROUND: Left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) and nonwarfarin oral anticoagulants (NOACs) have emerged as safe and effective alternatives to warfarin for stroke prophylaxis in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (AF). OBJECTIVES: This analysis assessed the cost-effectiveness of warfarin, NOACs, and LAAC with the Watchman device (Boston Scientific, Marlborough, Massachusetts) for stroke risk reduction in patients with nonvalvular AF at multiple time points over a lifetime horizon. METHODS: A Markov model was developed to assess the cost-effectiveness of LAAC, NOACs, and warfarin from the perspective of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services over a lifetime (20-year) horizon. Patients were 70 years of age and at moderate risk for stroke and bleeding. Clinical event rates, stroke outcomes, and quality of life information were drawn predominantly from PROTECT AF (Watchman Left Atrial Appendage System for Embolic Protection in Patients with Atrial Fibrillation) 4-year data and meta-analyses of warfarin and NOACs. Costs for stroke risk reduction therapies, treatment of associated acute events, and long-term care following disabling stroke were presented in 2015 U.S. dollars. RESULTS: Relative to warfarin, LAAC was cost-effective at 7 years ($42,994/quality-adjusted life-years [QALY]), and NOACs were cost-effective at 16 years ($48,446/QALY). LAAC was dominant over NOACs by year 5 and warfarin by year 10. At 10 years, LAAC provided more QALYs than warfarin and NOACs (5.855 vs. 5.601 vs. 5.751, respectively). In sensitivity analyses, LAAC remained cost-effective relative to warfarin ($41,470/QALY at 11 years) and NOACs ($21,964/QALY at 10 years), even if procedure costs were doubled. CONCLUSIONS: Both NOACs and LAAC with the Watchman device were cost-effective relative to warfarin, but LAAC was also found to be cost-effective and to offer better value relative to NOACs. The results of this analysis should be considered when formulating policy and practice guidelines for stroke prevention in AF.

The budget impact of left atrial appendage closure compared with adjusted-dose warfarin and dabigatran etexilate for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation.

AIMS: Major practice changes require both clinical and economic rationale, especially where a novel device replaces an established pharmaceutical therapy. Recent studies have reported the clinical benefits of percutaneous left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation (AF) relative to standard warfarin anticoagulation, but little is published on the cost implications of LAAC. This analysis sought to quantify the budget impact of LAAC compared with warfarin and dabigatran etexilate for stroke prevention in AF. METHODS AND RESULTS: A budget impact model was constructed from a German payer perspective across a 10-year time horizon. Clinical event probabilities were taken from the PROTECT AF and RE-LY clinical studies. Clinical events included stroke, major extracranial bleeding, systemic embolism, procedure-related complications, and death. Costs for stroke included acute, direct costs, as well as long-term disability costs. Cost inputs were taken from German inpatient diagnosis related groups (DRGs), German pharmaceutical pricing databases, and the literature. The findings from this model suggest that LAAC provides long-term clinical and economic benefit while also reducing overall mortality. At 8 years, LAAC was less expensive than dabigatran (€15 061 vs. €16 184), and at 10 years, it was only 10% more expensive than warfarin (€16 736 vs. €15 168). CONCLUSION: The majority of LAAC costs are borne in the first year, while costs for pharmaceutical strategies continue to accrue year on year. Thus, LAAC represents an opportunity for savings to healthcare systems in the long term. This is an important consideration for payers in evaluating lifetime treatment strategies in AF.

Economic modeling of new stent platforms to evaluate cost effectiveness: analysis of the TAXUS Liberté versus TAXUS express stents.

BACKGROUND: With the changing health care environment, cost effectiveness is an important adjunct to clinical investigation when assessing new medical devices. This study presents an economic model to evaluate cost effectiveness of coronary stents. METHODS: Markov modeling was developed comparing total costs (Medicare payer perspective) between TAXUS Liberté and TAXUS Express based on 3-year clinical outcomes from the TAXUS ATLAS Small Vessel and Long Lesion trials. RESULTS: The TAXUS Liberté 2.25-mm stent provided cost savings relative to TAXUS Express from a payer perspective ($17,605 vs. $20,281), driven by reduced target vessel revascularization (0.16 events/patient vs. 0.33 events/patient). In probabilistic sensitivity analyses, TAXUS Liberté was less costly with fewer major adverse cardiac events in over 99% of parameter sets. The TAXUS Liberté Long (38 mm) stent was cost neutral relative to TAXUS Express from a payer perspective ($18,545 vs. $18,551) with fewer myocardial infarctions and cardiac deaths. Accounting for angiography-driven revascularizations, TAXUS Liberté 2.25 mm still provided cost savings relative to TAXUS Express ($16,822 vs. $19,139), although TAXUS Liberté Long was more expensive than TAXUS Express ($17,886 vs. $17,652). From a hospital perspective, TAXUS Liberté Long provided cost savings up to a price premium of $671/stent, driven by fewer stents employed per patient. CONCLUSIONS: This analysis confirms the utility of economic modeling in assessing new stent platforms. TAXUS Liberté 2.25 mm is economically dominant relative to TAXUS Express when treating small vessels. TAXUS Liberté Long is cost neutral to modestly more costly than TAXUS Express 2.25 mm from a payer perspective.

Patterns of endoscopy in the United States: analysis of data from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services and the National Endoscopic Database.

BACKGROUND: Patterns of GI endoscopy are influenced by the underlying epidemiology of GI disease, as well as by policy and practice guidelines. OBJECTIVE: To compare practice patterns of GI endoscopy between two large national databases of the United States. DESIGN: Descriptive database analysis. SETTING: A 5% sample of the entire U.S. Medicare population (Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, CMS data files) and endoscopic data repository of U.S. gastroenterology practices (Clinical Outcomes Research Initiative, CORI database) from 1999 to 2003. PATIENTS: The study population included 1,121,215 Medicare and 635,573 CORI patients undergoing various types of GI endoscopy. INTERVENTIONS: EGD, colonoscopy, and flexible sigmoidoscopy. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: Patient demographics, endoscopic diagnoses, time trends of diagnoses. RESULTS: A colonoscopy was the most common endoscopic procedure performed (CMS 53%, CORI 58%), followed by an EGD (37%, 32%), and a flexible sigmoidoscopy (10%, 10%). In the CMS data, women accounted for 59% of the EGDs, 57% of the colonoscopies, and 56% of the flexible sigmoidoscopies, and in the CORI data, the corresponding numbers were 57%, 55%, and 54%, respectively. Compared with their distribution in the U.S. census population, nonwhite patients in both databases underwent relatively more EGDs and fewer colonoscopies. The most common upper-GI diagnosis was GERD, followed by GI bleeding, gastric ulcer, and duodenal ulcer. The most common lower-GI diagnosis was colorectal polyp. Over the period of 1999 to 2003, the rates of colorectal cancer diagnosed with colonoscopy declined. LIMITATIONS: Only a limited amount of information about individual patients was retrievable from the electronic databases. CONCLUSIONS: A colonoscopy is now the most common endoscopic procedure in the United States. Women undergo both upper and lower endoscopic procedures more often than men. Nonwhite patients are underrepresented in the use of colonoscopy relative to the prevalence of nonwhite persons in the U.S. population. Increased use of a colonoscopy for colon screening and surveillance has been associated with a decreased rate of cancer diagnosis.

Evaluation of patients' preferences for triamcinolone acetonide aqueous, fluticasone propionate, and mometasone furoate nasal sprays in patients with allergic rhinitis.

OBJECTIVE: To compare product attributes, preferences, and expected compliance associated with triamcinolone acetonide aqueous (TAA-AQ), fluticasone propionate (FP), and mometasone furoate (MF) nasal sprays in patients with allergic rhinitis. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Data from 2 randomized, double-blind crossover studies with identical design were pooled (N = 215). Patients completed a 14-item sensory attributes questionnaire immediately after each product, and stated their preference and expected compliance with a prescription after receiving all products. RESULTS: Compared with FP and MF, TAA-AQ was associated with significantly less odor and greater liking of odor ( P < 0.001); and less taste, less dryness of nose/throat, less aftertaste, and greater overall liking ( P < 0.05). Significantly more patients preferred most a prescription of TAA-AQ (50.0%) versus FP (25.0%; P < 0.001) and MF (25.0%; P < 0.001), and would "definitely comply" with TAA-AQ (62.5%) versus FP (49.0%; P < 0.01) and MF (51.0%; P < 0.01). CONCLUSION: TAA-AQ was associated with significantly more positive sensory attributes, higher preference, and better expected compliance than FP and MF. SIGNIFICANCE: Patients' preferences for the sensory attributes of an intranasal corticosteroid may affect adherence to treatment.

Cost analysis of "bridging therapy" with low-molecular-weight heparin versus unfractionated heparin during temporary interruption of chronic anticoagulation.

Patients on long-term anticoagulation who require interruption of therapy for surgery may receive "bridging therapy" with continuous-infusion unfractionated heparin or low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH). We estimated the costs of bridging therapy with: (1) LMWH self-administered at home, (2) LMWH administered by a nurse to patients at home, and (3) continuous-infusion unfractionated heparin in the hospital. For surgeries requiring an overnight stay, bridging costs are estimated to be 672, 933, and 3,816 US dollars, respectively, for each of these strategies.