Microvolt T-wave alternans and the selective use of implantable cardioverter defibrillators for primary prevention: A cost-effectiveness study

Improving the Methods for the Economic Evaluation of Medical Devices

Medical devices (MDs) have distinctive features, such as incremental innovation, dynamic pricing, the learning curve and organisational impact, that need to be considered when they are evaluated. This paper investigates how MDs have been assessed in practice, in order to identify methodological gaps that need to be addressed to improve the decision-making process for their adoption. We used the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) checklist supplemented by some additional categories to assess the quality of reporting and consideration of the distinctive features of MDs. Two case studies were considered: transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) representing an emerging technology and implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) representing a mature technology. Economic evaluation studies published as journal articles or within Health Technology Assessment reports were identified through a systematic literature review. A total of 19 studies on TAVI and 41 studies on ICDs were analysed. Learning curve was considered in only 16% of studies on TAVI. Incremental innovation was more frequently mentioned in the studies of ICDs, but its impact was considered in only 34% of the cases. Dynamic pricing was the most recognised feature but was empirically tested in less than half of studies of TAVI and only 32% of studies on ICDs. Finally, organisational impact was considered in only one study of ICDs and in almost all studies on TAVI, but none of them estimated its impact. By their very nature, most of the distinctive features of MDs cannot be fully assessed at market entry. However, their potential impact could be modelled, based on the experience with previous MDs, in order to make a preliminary recommendation. Then, well-designed post-market studies could help in reducing uncertainties and make policymakers more confident to achieve conclusive recommendations. © 2017 The Authors. Health Economics published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Economic evaluations of implantable cardioverter defibrillators: a systematic review

The aim of this paper was to review the cost-effectiveness studies of implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICD) for primary or secondary prevention of sudden cardiac death (SCD). A systematic review of the literature published in English or Spanish was performed by electronically searching MEDLINE and MEDLINE in process, EMBASE, NHS-EED, and EconLit. Some keywords were implantable cardioverter defibrillator, heart failure, heart arrest, myocardial infarction, arrhythmias, syncope, sudden death. Selection criteria were the following: (1) full economic evaluations published after 1995, model-based studies or alongside clinical trials (2) that explored the cost-effectiveness of ICD with or without associated treatment compared with placebo or best medical treatment, (3) in adult patients for primary or secondary prevention of SCD because of ventricular arrhythmias. Studies that fulfilled these criteria were reviewed and data were extracted by two reviewers. The methodological quality of the studies was assessed and a narrative synthesis was prepared. In total, 24 studies were included: seven studies on secondary prevention and 18 studies on primary prevention. Seven studies were performed in Europe. For secondary prevention, the results showed that the ICD is considered cost-effective in patients with more risk. For primary prevention, the cost-effectiveness of ICD has been widely studied, but uncertainty about its cost-effectiveness remains. The cost-effectiveness ratios vary between studies depending on the patient characteristics, methodology, perspective, and national settings. Among the European studies, the conclusions are varied, where the ICD is considered cost-effective or not dependent on the study.

Implantable cardioverter defibrillators for the treatment of arrhythmias and cardiac resynchronisation therapy for the treatment of heart failure: systematic review and economic evaluation

BACKGROUND

This assessment updates and expands on two previous technology assessments that evaluated implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) for arrhythmias and cardiac resynchronisation therapy (CRT) for heart failure (HF).

OBJECTIVES

To assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of ICDs in addition to optimal pharmacological therapy (OPT) for people at increased risk of sudden cardiac death (SCD) as a result of ventricular arrhythmias despite receiving OPT; to assess CRT with or without a defibrillator (CRT-D or CRT-P) in addition to OPT for people with HF as a result of left ventricular systolic dysfunction (LVSD) and cardiac dyssynchrony despite receiving OPT; and to assess CRT-D in addition to OPT for people with both conditions.

DATA SOURCES

Electronic resources including MEDLINE, EMBASE and The Cochrane Library were searched from inception to November 2012. Additional studies were sought from reference lists, clinical experts and manufacturers' submissions to the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence.

REVIEW METHODS

Inclusion criteria were applied by two reviewers independently. Data extraction and quality assessment were undertaken by one reviewer and checked by a second. Data were synthesised through narrative review and meta-analyses. For the three populations above, randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing (1) ICD with standard therapy, (2) CRT-P or CRT-D with each other or with OPT and (3) CRT-D with OPT, CRT-P or ICD were eligible. Outcomes included mortality, adverse events and quality of life. A previously developed Markov model was adapted to estimate the cost-effectiveness of OPT, ICDs, CRT-P and CRT-D in the three populations by simulating disease progression calculated at 4-weekly cycles over a lifetime horizon.

RESULTS

A total of 4556 references were identified, of which 26 RCTs were included in the review: 13 compared ICD with medical therapy, four compared CRT-P/CRT-D with OPT and nine compared CRT-D with ICD. ICDs reduced all-cause mortality in people at increased risk of SCD, defined in trials as those with previous ventricular arrhythmias/cardiac arrest, myocardial infarction (MI) > 3 weeks previously, non-ischaemic cardiomyopathy (depending on data included) or ischaemic/non-ischaemic HF and left ventricular ejection fraction ≤ 35%. There was no benefit in people scheduled for coronary artery bypass graft. A reduction in SCD but not all-cause mortality was found in people with recent MI. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) ranged from £14,231 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) to £29,756 per QALY for the scenarios modelled. CRT-P and CRT-D reduced mortality and HF hospitalisations, and improved other outcomes, in people with HF as a result of LVSD and cardiac dyssynchrony when compared with OPT. The rate of SCD was lower with CRT-D than with CRT-P but other outcomes were similar. CRT-P and CRT-D compared with OPT produced ICERs of £27,584 per QALY and £27,899 per QALY respectively. The ICER for CRT-D compared with CRT-P was £28,420 per QALY. In people with both conditions, CRT-D reduced the risk of all-cause mortality and HF hospitalisation, and improved other outcomes, compared with ICDs. Complications were more common with CRT-D. Initial management with OPT alone was most cost-effective (ICER £2824 per QALY compared with ICD) when health-related quality of life was kept constant over time. Costs and QALYs for CRT-D and CRT-P were similar. The ICER for CRT-D compared with ICD was £27,195 per QALY and that for CRT-D compared with OPT was £35,193 per QALY.

LIMITATIONS

Limitations of the model include the structural assumptions made about disease progression and treatment provision, the extrapolation of trial survival estimates over time and the assumptions made around parameter values when evidence was not available for specific patient groups.

CONCLUSIONS

In people at risk of SCD as a result of ventricular arrhythmias and in those with HF as a result of LVSD and cardiac dyssynchrony, the interventions modelled produced ICERs of < £30,000 per QALY gained. In people with both conditions, the ICER for CRT-D compared with ICD, but not CRT-D compared with OPT, was < £30,000 per QALY, and the costs and QALYs for CRT-D and CRT-P were similar. A RCT comparing CRT-D and CRT-P in people with HF as a result of LVSD and cardiac dyssynchrony is required, for both those with and those without an ICD indication. A RCT is also needed into the benefits of ICD in non-ischaemic cardiomyopathy in the absence of dyssynchrony.

STUDY REGISTRATION

This study is registered as PROSPERO number CRD42012002062.

FUNDING

The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

MEDICAL DEVICE PRICES IN ECONOMIC EVALUATIONS

Objectives: Economic evaluations, although not formally used in purchasing decisions for medical devices in Canada, are still being conducted and published. The aim of this study was to examine the way that prices have been included in Canadian economic evaluations of medical devices.

Methods: We conducted a review of the economic concepts and implications of methods used for economic evaluations of the eleven most implanted medical devices from the Canadian perspective.

Results: We found Canadian economic studies for five of the eleven medical devices and identified nineteen Canadian studies. Overall, the device costs were important components of total procedure cost, with an average ratio of 44.1 %. Observational estimates of the device costs were obtained from buyers or sellers in 13 of the 19 studies. Although most of the devices last more than 1 year, standard costing methods for capital equipment was never used. In addition, only eight studies included a sensitivity analysis for the device cost. None of the sensitivity analyses were based on actual price distributions.

Conclusions: Economic evaluations are potentially important for policy making, but although they are being conducted, there is no standardized approach for incorporating medical device prices in economic analyses. Our review provides suggestions for improvements in how the prices are incorporated for economic evaluations of medical devices.