Left ventricular assist device as destination therapy: application of the payment-by-results approach for the device reimbursement

A Systematic Review of Cost-Effectiveness Analyses of Left Ventricular Assist Devices: Issues and Challenges

BACKGROUND

Advanced heart failure (HF) can be treated conservatively or aggressively, with left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) and heart transplant (HT) being the most aggressive strategies.

OBJECTIVE

The goal of this review was to identify, describe, critique and summarize published cost-effectiveness analyses on LVADs for adults with HF.

METHODS

We conducted a literature search using PubMed and ProQuest DIALOG databases to identify English-language publications from 2006 to 2017 describing cost-effectiveness analyses of LVADs and reviewed them against inclusion criteria. Those that met criteria were obtained for full-text review and abstracted if they continued to meet study requirements.

RESULTS

A total of 12 cost-effectiveness studies (13 articles) were identified, all of which described models; they were almost evenly split between those examining LVADs as destination therapy (DT) or as bridge to transplant (BTT). Studies were Markov or semi-Markov models with one- or three-month cycles that followed patients until death. Inputs came from a variety of sources, with the REMATCH trial and INTERMACS registry common clinical data sources, although some publications also used data from studies at their own institutions. Costs were derived from standard sources in many studies but from individual hospital data in some. Inputs for health utilities, which were used in 11 of 12 studies, were generally derived from two studies. None of the studies reported a societal perspective, that is, included non-medical costs such as caregiving.

CONCLUSIONS

No study found LVADs to be cost effective for DT or BTT with base case assumptions, although incremental cost-effectiveness ratios met thresholds for cost effectiveness in some probabilistic analyses. With constant improvements in LVADs and expanding indications, understanding and re-evaluating the cost effectiveness of their use will be critical to making treatment decisions.

Cost-effectiveness of left ventricular assist devices for patients with end-stage heart failure: analysis of the French hospital discharge database

AIMS

Although left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) are currently approved for coverage and reimbursement in France, no French cost-effectiveness (CE) data are available to support this decision. This study aimed at estimating the CE of LVAD compared with medical management in the French health system.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Individual patient data from the 'French hospital discharge database' (Medicalization of information systems program) were analysed using Kaplan-Meier method. Outcomes were time to death, time to heart transplantation (HTx), and time to death after HTx. A micro-costing method was used to calculate the monthly costs extracted from the Program for the Medicalization of Information Systems. A multistate Markov monthly cycle model was developed to assess CE. The analysis over a lifetime horizon was performed from the perspective of the French healthcare payer; discount rates were 4%. Probabilistic and deterministic sensitivity analyses were performed. Outcomes were quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and incremental CE ratio (ICER). Mean QALY for an LVAD patient was 1.5 at a lifetime cost of €190 739, delivering a probabilistic ICER of €125 580/QALY [95% confidence interval: 105 587 to 150 314]. The sensitivity analysis showed that the ICER was mainly sensitive to two factors: (i) the high acquisition cost of the device and (ii) the device performance in terms of patient survival.

CONCLUSIONS

Our economic evaluation showed that the use of LVAD in patients with end-stage heart failure yields greater benefit in terms of survival than medical management at an extra lifetime cost exceeding the €100 000/QALY. Technological advances and device costs reduction shall hence lead to an improvement in overall CE.

Mechanical Ventricular Assistance as Destination Therapy for End-Stage Heart Failure: Has it Become a First Line Therapy?

Patients with end-stage heart failure have poor quality of life and prognosis. Therapeutic options are scarce and are not available for all. Only few patients can be transplanted every year. Several medical and surgical strategies have shown limited ability to influence prognosis and quality of life. In the past years, technological progress has realized devices capable of providing appropriate hemodynamic stabilization and recovery of secondary organ failure. Recently, these devices have been assessed as definitive treatment for patients who do not qualify for transplantation or/and instead to transplantation (“destination therapy”). This indication is increasingly considered following the results of newest clinical study reporting long-term survival without device correlated adverse events using last generation devices, and acceptable quality of life. The current knowledge about destination therapy and some original data from the DAVID Study (an Italian multicenter prospective study designed to evaluate the patient’s survival rate and quality of life of patients implanted with these new devices as long-term support or destination therapy) are summarized herein.

The cost-utility of left ventricular assist devices for end-stage heart failure patients ineligible for cardiac transplantation: a systematic review and critical appraisal of economic evaluations

BACKGROUND

A health technology assessment (HTA) of left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) as destination therapy in patients with end-stage heart failure was commissioned by the Dutch Health Care Insurance Board [College voor Zorgverzekeringen (CVZ)]. In this context, a systematic review of the economic literature was performed to assess the procedure's value for money.

METHODS

A systematic search (updated in December 2013) for economic evaluations was performed by consulting various databases: the HTA database produced by the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination (CRD HTA), websites of HTA institutes, CRD's National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database (NHS EED), Medline (OVID) and EMBASE. No time or language restrictions were imposed and pre-defined selection criteria were used. The two-step selection procedure was performed by two people. References of the selected studies were checked for additional relevant citations.

RESULTS

Six relevant studies were selected. Four economic evaluations relied on the results of the REMATCH trial to compare a pulsatile-flow LVAD with optimal medical therapy (OMT). These evaluations were performed before the publication of the HeartMate II (HM-II) Destination Therapy Trial which compared a pulsatile-flow with a continuous-flow LVAD. Two more recent economic evaluations combined the results of both trials to make an indirect comparison of a continuous-flow LVAD with OMT. In all studies, the largest part of the incremental cost was due to the reimplantation cost of an LVAD, with a device cost of €58,000-€75,000 and about €55,000 for the surgical procedure. The survival gain was highest with a continuous-flow LVAD, up to about three life-years gained (LYG) versus OMT in the most optimistic study. Quality of life (QoL) was improved but measures with a generic utility instrument were lacking, making estimates on quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained more uncertain. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of the two most recent studies were on average €107,600 and $198,184 (ca.€145,800) per QALY gained.

CONCLUSIONS

Although LVAD destination therapy improves survival and QoL, it remains questionable as to whether it offers value for money. This conclusion may alter if the price of the device/procedure decreases sufficiently, in combination with further improved outcomes for mortality, adverse events and QoL.

The actual role of cardiocirculatory assistance in heart-failure treatment as destination therapy and bridge to life

Patients with end-stage heart failure have poor quality of life and a poor prognosis, and are usually burdened by symptoms at rest, need for frequent hospital admissions, complex pharmacologic therapies, and 1-year mortality rate of about 50%. Therapeutic options are scarce and not amenable to all. Only few patients can be transplanted. In recent years, technological progress has made available mechanical devices capable of providing short/medium- and long-term circulatory assistance. Clinical evidence of long-term survival without device-related adverse events using latest-generation small axial pumps allows evaluation of its use in patients with contraindications or inaccessibility to transplantation.

Cost-effectiveness of continuous-flow left ventricular assist devices

OBJECTIVES

Mechanical circulatory support through left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) improves survival and quality of life for patients with end-stage heart failure who are ineligible for cardiac transplantation. Our aim was to calculate the cost-effectiveness of continuous-flow LVADs.

METHODS

A cost-utility analysis from a societal perspective was performed. A lifetime Markov model was set up in which continuous-flow LVAD was compared with optimal medical therapy (OMT). The treatment effect was modeled indirectly combining the results of the REMATCH trial comparing OMT with a pulsatile-flow LVAD and the HeartMate II Destination Therapy Trial comparing a pulsatile-flow LVAD with a continuous-flow LVAD. Cost data were based on real-world financial data of sixty-nine patients with a HeartMate II implantation from the University Medical Centre Utrecht (the Netherlands). One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed.

RESULTS

Comparing the continuous-flow HeartMate II with OMT, 3.23 (95 percent confidence interval [CI], 2.18-4.49) life-years were gained (LYG) or 2.83 (95 percent CI, 1.91-3.90) quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). The cost of an LVAD implant was approximately €126,000, of which the device itself represented the largest cost, being €70,000. Total incremental costs amounted to €299,100 (95 percent CI, 190,500-521,000). This resulted in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of €94,100 (95 percent CI, 59,100-160,100) per LYG or €107,600 (95 percent CI, 66,700-181,100) per QALY. Sensitivity analyses showed these results were robust.

CONCLUSIONS

Although LVAD destination therapy improves survival and quality of life, it remains a relatively expensive intervention which renders the reimbursement of this therapy questionable.

Heart failure and mechanical circulatory assist devices

During the last 20 years, the management of heart failure has significantly improved by means of new pharmacotherapies, more timely invasive treatments and device assisted therapies. Indeed, advances in mechanical support, namely with the development of more efficient left ventricular assist devices (LVAD), and the total artificial heart have reduced mortality and morbidity in patients with end-stage heart failure awaiting for transplantation. However, the transplant cannot be the only solution, due to an insufficient number of available donors, but also because of the high number of patients who are not candidates for severe comorbidities or advanced age. New perspectives are emerging in which the VAD is no longer conceived only as a “Bridge to Transplant”, but is now seen as a destination therapy. In this review, the main VAD classification, current basic indications, functioning modalities, main limitations of surgical VAD and the total artificial heart development are described.

Hospital costs fell as numbers of LVADs were increasing: experiences from Oslo University Hospital

Background

The current study was undertaken to examine total hospital costs per patient of a consecutive implantation series of two 3^rd generation Left Ventricle Assist Devices (LVAD). Further we analyzed if increased clinical experience would reduce total hospital costs and the gap between costs and the diagnosis related grouped (DRG)-reimbursement.

Method

Cost data of 20 LVAD implantations (VentrAssist™) from 2005-2009 (period 1) were analyzed together with costs from nine patients using another LVAD (HeartWare™) from 2009-June 2011 (period 2). For each patient, total costs were calculated for three phases - the pre-LVAD implantation phase, the LVAD implantation phase and the post LVAD implant phase. Patient specific costs were obtained prospectively from patient records and included personnel resources, medication, blood products, blood chemistry and microbiology, imaging and procedure costs including operating room costs. Overhead costs were registered retrospectively and allocated to the specific patient by predefined allocation keys. Finally, patient specific costs and overhead costs were aggregated into total hospital costs for each patient. All costs were calculated in 2011-prices. We used regression analyses to analyze cost variations over time and between the different devices.

Results

The average total hospital cost per patient for the pre-LVAD, LVAD and post-LVAD for period 1 was $ 585, 513 (range 132, 640- 1 247, 299), and the corresponding DRG- reimbursement (2009) was $ 143, 192 . The mean LOS was 54 days (range 12- 127). For period 2 the total hospital cost per patient was $ 413, 185 (range 314, 540- 622, 664) and the corresponding DRG- reimbursement (2010) was $ 136, 963. The mean LOS was 49 days (range 31- 93).

The estimates from the regression analysis showed that the total hospital costs, excluding device costs, per patient were falling as the number of treated patients increased. The estimate from the trend variable was -14, 096 US$ (CI -3, 842 to -24, 349, p < 0.01).

Conclusion

There were significant reductions in total hospital costs per patient as the numbers of patients were increasing. This can possibly be explained by a learning effect including better logistics, selection and management of patients.

A uniform procedure for reimbursing the off-label use of antineoplastic drugs according to the value-for-money approach

National healthcare systems as well as local institutions generally reimburse numerous off-label uses of anticancer drugs, but an explicit framework for managing these payments is still lacking. As in the case of on-label uses, an optimal management of off-label uses should be aimed at a direct proportionality between cost and clinical benefit. Within this framework, assessing the incremental cost/effectiveness ratio becomes mandatory, and measuring the magnitude of the clinical benefit (e.g. gain in overall survival or progression-free survival) is essential.This paper discusses how the standard principles of cost-effectiveness and value-for-money can be applied to manage the reimbursement of off-label treatments in oncology. It also describes a detailed operational scheme to appropriately implement this aim. Two separate approaches are considered: a) a trial-based approach, which is designed for situations where enough information is available from clinical studies about the expected effectiveness of the off-label treatment; b) an individualized payment-by-results approach, which is designed for situations in which adequate information on effectiveness is lacking; this latter approach requires that each patient receiving off-label treatment is followed-up to determine individual outcomes and tailor the extent of payment to individual results.Some examples of application of both approaches are presented in detail, which have been extracted from a list of 184 off-label indications approved in 2010 by the Region of tuscany in italy. these examples support the feasibility of the two methods proposed.In conclusion, the scheme described in this paper represents an operational solution to an unsettled problem in the area of oncology drugs.

The role of bortezomib, thalidomide and lenalidomide in the management of multiple myeloma: an overview of clinical and economic information

Bortezomib, thalidomide and lenalidomide can be aimed at treating patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (both eligible and ineligible for transplantation) as well as those with relapsed or refractory disease. This review analysed the available clinical and economic data on these three drugs. Irrespective of which of the three agents is considered, the magnitude of the benefit in newly diagnosed cases (transplanted or non-transplanted) tends to be between 10 and 20 months per patient in terms of progression-free survival or survival; the survival benefit is smaller in relapsed or refractory disease. In addition, a single-institution observational analysis evaluated the outcomes in nearly 3000 consecutive patients examined between 1971 and 2006. The survival in patients diagnosed between 2001 and 2006 was longer than that observed in patients diagnosed between 1994 and 2000. This finding supports the conclusion that novel agents provide a survival improvement compared with traditional therapy. Formal cost-effectiveness studies on these three agents are still lacking. A MEDLINE search retrieved only four short papers or letters and no full-length analysis. Hence, the cost effectiveness of these agents needs further investigation, with separate assessments of the different therapeutic settings. In a simplified analysis, we tried to contrast the average cost of treatment for each of the novel agents versus their respective benefit, expressed in quality-adjusted survival. Despite its preliminary nature, our assessment indicates that the cost effectiveness of these three agents is likely to be within commonly accepted pharmacoeconomic thresholds.