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.

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation vs. surgical aortic valve replacement for aortic stenosis in Taiwan: A population-based cohort study.

OBJECTIVE: Aortic stenosis (AS) is a heart valve disease characterized by left ventricular outflow fixed obstruction. It can be managed by surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) or transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). However, real-world evidence for TAVI or SAVR outcomes is lacking in Taiwan. This study aimed to compare the clinical outcomes of TAVI and SAVR for treating of AS in Taiwan. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The National Health Insurance Research Database is a nationally representative cohort that contains detailed registry and claims data from all 23 million residents of Taiwan. This retrospective cohort study used this database to compare patients who underwent SAVR (bioprosthetic valves) or TAVI from 2017 to 2019. Survival outcomes and length of hospital stay (LOS) and intensive care unit (ICU) stay between TAVI and SAVR in the matched cohort. A Cox proportional hazards model was performed to identify the effect of treatment type on survival rates while controlling variables including age, gender, and comorbidities. RESULTS: We identified 475 and 1605 patients who underwent TAVI and SAVR with a bioprosthetic valve, respectively. Patients who underwent TAVI were older (82.19 vs. 68.75 y/o) and more likely to be female (55.79% vs. 42.31%) compared with patients who underwent SAVR. Propensity score matching (PSM) on age, gender, and Elixhauser Comorbidity Index (ECI) score revealed that 375 patients who underwent TAVI were matched with patients who underwent SAVR. A significant difference was found in survival rates between TAVI and SAVR. The 1-year mortality rate was 11.44% with TAVI and 17.55% with SAVR. Both the mean total LOS (19.86 vs. 28.24 days) and mean ICU stay (6.47 vs. 11.12 days) for patients who underwent TAVI were shorter than those who underwent SAVR. CONCLUSION: Patients who had undergone TAVI had better survival outcomes and shorter LOS compared with patients who had undergone SAVR in Taiwan.

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.

Temporal trends in self-reported general and mental health status among colorectal cancer patients: racial/ethnic disparities in a population-based analysis.

PURPOSE: Patient-reported outcomes are essential to patient-centered cancer care. We sought to determine the relationships between colorectal cancer (CRC) diagnosis and trends in self-reported general health status (GHS) and mental health status (MHS) among racial/ethnic groups. METHODS: We used population-based Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (CAHPS) data to identify CRC patients diagnosed from 1996 to 2011 who reported GHS and/or MHS on a CAHPS survey within 6 years before or after diagnosis and were 65 or older at survey completion. Multivariable logistic regression assessed relationships of patient race/ethnicity and CRC diagnosis with the odds of reporting fair or poor GHS or MHS. RESULTS: Five thousand five hundred forty-five patients reported GHS and/or MHS within 6 years before CRC diagnosis and 4,604 reported GHS and/or MHS within 6 years after diagnosis. 80.9% were non-Hispanic white (NHW), 7.1% were non-Hispanic black (NHB), 6.7% were Hispanic, and 5.3% were non-Hispanic Asian. Being diagnosed with CRC was associated with increased odds of reporting fair or poor GHS (OR = 1.55, 95% CI = 1.40-1.72) and MHS (OR = 1.33, 95% CI = 1.13-1.58). For GHS, this trend held for all race/ethnicities except NHBs, and for MHS, this trend held for NHWs and Hispanics only. CONCLUSION: CRC diagnosis is an important driver of increased likelihood of fair and poor GHS and MHS, but the relationship is complicated by effect modification by race/ethnicity. Efforts to further understand the race/ethnicity-specific relationships between CRC diagnosis and declines in GHS and MHS are necessary to promote equitable care for all patients.

A US Population Health Survey on the Impact of COVID-19 Using the EQ-5D-5L.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in negative impacts on the economy, population health, and health-related quality-of-life (HRQoL). OBJECTIVE: To assess the impact of COVID-19 on US population HRQoL using the EQ-5D-5L. DESIGN: We surveyed respondents on physical and mental health, demographics, socioeconomics, brief medical history, current COVID-19 status, sleep, dietary, financial, and spending changes. Results were compared to online and face-to-face US population norms. Predictors of EQ-5D-5L utility were analyzed using both standard and post-lasso OLS regressions. Robustness of regression coefficients against unmeasured confounding was analyzed using the E-Value sensitivity analysis. SUBJECTS: Amazon MTurk workers (n=2776) in the USA. MAIN MEASURES: EQ-5D-5L utility and VAS scores by age group. KEY RESULTS: We received n=2746 responses. Subjects 18-24 years reported lower mean (SD) health utility (0.752 (0.281)) compared with both online (0.844 (0.184), p=0.001) and face-to-face norms (0.919 (0.127), p<0.001). Among ages 25-34, utility was worse compared to face-to-face norms only (0.825 (0.235) vs. 0.911 (0.111), p<0.001). For ages 35-64, utility was better during pandemic compared to online norms (0.845 (0.195) vs. 0.794 (0.247), p<0.001). At age 65+, utility values (0.827 (0.213)) were similar across all samples. VAS scores were worse for all age groups (p<0.005) except ages 45-54. Increasing age and income were correlated with increased utility, while being Asian, American Indian or Alaska Native, Hispanic, married, living alone, having history of chronic illness or self-reported depression, experiencing COVID-19-like symptoms, having a family member diagnosed with COVID-19, fear of COVID-19, being underweight, and living in California were associated with worse utility scores. Results were robust to unmeasured confounding. CONCLUSIONS: HRQoL decreased during the pandemic compared to US population norms, especially for ages 18-24. The mental health impact of COVID-19 is significant and falls primarily on younger adults whose health outcomes may have been overlooked based on policy initiatives to date.

Outcomes and Utilization of Adjuvant Chemotherapy for Stage II Colon Cancer in the Oxaliplatin Period: A SEER-Medicare Analysis.

PURPOSE: Previous SEER (Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results)-Medicare analyses have shown no definitive survival benefit for adjuvant chemotherapy (AC) with fluoropyrimidines. Impact of oxaliplatin-containing regimens for elderly stage II patients in real-world setting is unknown. We explored the utilization and outcome of AC after the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval of oxaliplatin. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with stage II colon cancer (2004-2011) who underwent resection were selected for this analysis. Medicare claims data were used to ascertain the administration of AC within 120 days after surgery. The primary endpoint of the analysis was overall survival. We used the Cox proportional hazards model to estimate the effect of AC while adjusting for clinical and sociodemographic variables available in SEER. To adjust for referral pattern, a source of selection bias, we conducted an instrumental variable analysis using the surgeon of record and health service area. RESULTS: A total of 16,468 patients were identified and 12.1% received AC. AC recipients were significantly younger, more likely to be male, nonwhite, married, and had lower comorbidity index. Their tumors had a more advanced stage, more likely to be left sided, and were less differentiated. The hazard ratio (HR) from the Cox model showed a statistically significant survival advantage for AC (HR=0.847, 95% confidence interval: 0.782-0.916). However, results from the instrumental variable analysis indicated that there was no definitive benefit of survival in AC recipients (HR=1.779, 95% confidence interval: 0.927-3.415). AC use decreased over time. CONCLUSIONS: After controlling for referral patterns, administration of AC provided no definitive survival benefit. Future studies may elucidate the elderly population who may benefit from AC.