An Economic Evaluation of a Streamlined Day-Case Atrial Fibrillation Ablation Protocol and Conventional Cryoballoon Ablation versus Antiarrhythmic Drugs in a UK Paroxysmal Atrial Fibrillation Population

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Symptom control for atrial fibrillation can be achieved by catheter ablation or drug therapy. We assessed the cost effectiveness of a novel streamlined atrial fibrillation cryoballoon ablation protocol (AVATAR) compared with optimised antiarrhythmic drug (AAD) therapy and a conventional catheter ablation protocol, from a UK National Health Service (NHS) perspective.

METHODS

Data from the AVATAR study were assessed to determine the cost effectiveness of the three protocols in a two-step process. In the first stage, statistical analysis of clinical efficacy outcomes was conducted considering either a three-way comparison (AVATAR vs. conventional ablation vs. optimised AAD therapies) or a two-way comparison (pooled ablation protocol data vs. optimised AAD therapies). In the second stage, models assessed the cost effectiveness of the protocols. Costs and some of the clinical inputs in the models were derived from within-trial cost analysis and published literature. The remaining inputs were derived from clinical experts.

RESULTS

No significant differences between the ablation protocols were found for any of the clinical outcomes used in the model. Results of a within-trial cost analysis show that AVATAR is cost-saving (£1279 per patient) compared with the conventional ablation protocol. When compared with optimised AAD therapies, AVATAR (pooled conventional and AVATAR ablation protocols efficacy) was found to be more costly while offering improved clinical benefits. Over a lifetime time horizon, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of AVATAR was estimated as £21,046 per quality-adjusted life-year gained (95% credible interval £7086-£71,718).

CONCLUSIONS

The AVATAR streamlined protocol is likely to be a cost-effective option versus both conventional ablation and optimised AAD therapy in the UK NHS healthcare setting.

Budget Impact of RefluxStop™ as a Treatment for Patients with Refractory Gastro-oesophageal Reflux Disease in the United Kingdom

Background: Gastro-oesophageal reflux disease (GORD) is a common condition associated with heartburn and regurgitation. Standard of care for GORD patients in the UK involves initial treatment with proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) and laparoscopic antireflux surgery in patients unwilling to continue or intolerant of long-term PPI treatment. Recently, RefluxStop™, a novel, implantable medical device, has proven to be an efficacious and cost-effective treatment for patients with GORD. The current analysis aimed to describe the budget impact of introducing RefluxStop™ within National Health Service (NHS) England and Wales. Objectives: To estimate the more immediate, short-term clinical and economic effects of introducing RefluxStop™ as a therapeutic option for patients with GORD treated within NHS England and Wales. Methods: A model adherent to international best practice guidelines was developed to estimate the budget impact of introducing RefluxStop™ over a 5-year time horizon, from an NHS perspective. Two hypothetical scenarios were considered, one without RefluxStop™ (comprising PPI treatment, laparoscopic Nissen fundoplication, and magnetic sphincter augmentation using the LINX® system) and one with RefluxStop™ (adding RefluxStop™ to the aforementioned treatment options). Clinical benefits and costs associated with each intervention were included in the analysis. Results: Over 5 years, introducing RefluxStop™ allowed the avoidance of 347 surgical failures, 39 reoperations, and 239 endoscopic esophageal dilations. The financial impact of introducing RefluxStop™ was £3 029 702 in year 5, corresponding to a 1.68% increase in annual NHS spending on GORD treatment in England and Wales. Discussion: While the time horizon was too short to capture some of the adverse events of PPIs and complications of GORD, such as the development of Barrett's esophagus or esophageal cancer, the use of RefluxStop™ was associated with a substantial reduction in surgical complications, including surgical failures, reoperations, and endoscopic esophageal dilations. This favorable clinical profile resulted in cost offsets for the NHS and contributed to the marginal budget impact of RefluxStop™ estimated in the current analysis. Conclusions: Introducing RefluxStop™ as a treatment option for patients with GORD in England and Wales may be associated with clinical benefits at the expense of a marginal budget impact on the NHS.

Cost-effectiveness of a novel, non-active implantable device as a treatment for refractory gastro-esophageal reflux disease

AIMS

Gastro-esophageal reflux disease (GERD) is a common, chronic gastrointestinal condition characterized by heartburn, chest pain, regurgitation, and bloating. Current standard of care includes chronic treatment with proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) or, in selected patients, laparoscopic anti-reflux surgery. RefluxStop is a novel implantable device indicated for GERD patients eligible for laparoscopic surgical treatment. The aim of this analysis was to assess the cost-effectiveness of RefluxStop against available treatment options for GERD.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A Markov model was developed to assess the cost-effectiveness of RefluxStop compared with PPI-based medical management (MM) and two surgical management options, LNF and magnetic sphincter augmentation (MSA, LINX system), in people with GERD. Clinical outcomes and costs were estimated over a lifetime horizon from the UK National Health Service perspective and an annual discount rate of 3.5% was applied.

RESULTS

RefluxStop showed favorable surgical outcomes compared with both LNF and MSA. The base case incremental cost-effectiveness ratios compared with MM, LNF, and MSA were £4,156, £6,517, and £249 per QALY gained, respectively. At the UK cost effectiveness threshold of £20,000 per QALY gained, the probability that RefluxStop was cost-effective against MM, LNF, and MSA was 100%, 93%, and 100%, respectively.

LIMITATIONS

The model presented the results of a naïve comparison, with evidence for RefluxStop derived from its single-arm CE mark trial and that for comparators from the literature. The varied clinical care pathway of individual GERD patients was necessarily simplified for modelling purposes, and necessary assumptions were made; however, the model results proved robust to sensitivity analyses.

CONCLUSIONS

Introduction of RefluxStop was estimated to extend life expectancy and improve quality of life of GERD patients when compared with MM, LNF and MSA. The results of the cost-effectiveness analysis demonstrated that RefluxStop is highly likely to be a cost-effective treatment option within NHS England.