Cost-utility of transcatheter aortic valve implantation for inoperable patients with severe aortic stenosis treated by medical management: a UK cost-utility analysis based on patient-level data from the ADVANCE study.

OBJECTIVE: To use patient-level data from the ADVANCE study to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) compared to medical management (MM) in patients with severe aortic stenosis from the perspective of the UK NHS. METHODS: A published decision-analytic model was adapted to include information on TAVI from the ADVANCE study. Patient-level data informed the choice as well as the form of mathematical functions that were used to model all-cause mortality, health-related quality of life and hospitalisations. TAVI-related resource use protocols were based on the ADVANCE study. MM was modelled on publicly available information from the PARTNER-B study. The outcome measures were incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) estimated at a range of time horizons with benefits expressed as quality-adjusted life-years (QALY). Extensive sensitivity/subgroup analyses were undertaken to explore the impact of uncertainty in key clinical areas. RESULTS: Using a 5-year time horizon, the ICER for the comparison of all ADVANCE to all PARTNER-B patients was £13 943 per QALY gained. For the subset of ADVANCE patients classified as high risk (Logistic EuroSCORE >20%) the ICER was £17 718 per QALY gained). The ICER was below £30 000 per QALY gained in all sensitivity analyses relating to choice of MM data source and alternative modelling approaches for key parameters. When the time horizon was extended to 10 years, all ICERs generated in all analyses were below £20 000 per QALY gained. CONCLUSION: TAVI is highly likely to be a cost-effective treatment for patients with severe aortic stenosis

Quantifying the direct secondary health care cost of seasonal influenza in England

Background: The winter pressure often experienced by NHS hospitals in England is considerably contributed to by severe cases of seasonal influenza resulting in hospitalisation. The prevention planning and commissioning of the influenza vaccination programme in the UK does not always involve those who control the hospital budget. The objective of this study was to describe the direct medical costs of secondary care influenza-related hospital admissions across different age groups in England during two consecutive influenza seasons. Methods: The number of hospital admissions, length of stay, and associated costs were quantified as well as determining the primary costs of influenza-related hospitalisations. Data were extracted from the Hospital Episode Statistics (HES) database between September 2017 to March 2018 and September 2018 to March 2019 in order to incorporate the annual influenza seasons. The use of international classification of disease (ICD)-10 codes were used to identify relevant influenza hospitalisations. Healthcare Resource Group (HRG) codes were used to determine the costs of influenza-related hospitalisations. Results: During the 2017/18 and 2018/19 seasons there were 46,215 and 39,670 influenza-related hospital admissions respectively. This resulted in a hospital cost of £128,153,810 and £99,565,310 across both seasons. Results showed that those in the 65+ year group were associated with the highest hospitalisation costs and proportion of in-hospital deaths. In both influenza seasons, the HRG code WJ06 (Sepsis without Interventions) was found to be associated with the longest average length of stay and cost per admission, whereas PD14 (Paediatric Lower Respiratory Tract Disorders without Acute Bronchiolitis) had the shortest length of stay. Conclusion: This study has shown that influenza-related hospital admissions had a considerable impact on the secondary healthcare system during the 2017/18 and 2018/19 influenza seasons, before taking into account its impact on primary health care

Cost-effectiveness of high dose versus adjuvanted trivalent influenza vaccines in England and Wales

Aims: High dose trivalent influenza vaccine (HD TIV) and adjuvant TIV (aTIV) have been developed specifically for adults aged 65 and older (65+) who are at high risk of life-threatening complications. However, there is a scarcity of evidence comparing the clinical and cost-effectiveness of HD TIV and aTIV. The aim of this study was to determine the cost-effectiveness of HD TIV versus aTIV in the England and Wales 65+ population. Methods: A cost-utility analysis was conducted using a decision tree with two influenza related outcomes: Laboratory confirmed cases that could result in GP consultation, and hospitalizations that may result in premature mortality. Due to a lack of comparative evidence, the effectiveness of HD TIV versus aTIV was calculated indirectly, based on relative effectiveness estimates for each vaccine versus a common comparator, standard dose (SD) TIV. The primary analysis included hospitalizations explicitly due to influenza/pneumonia. Cost-effectiveness was established for three scenarios applying differing relative effectiveness estimates for aTIV versus SD TIV. Uncertainty was analysed in one-way deterministic sensitivity analyses. A secondary analysis included hospitalizations due to any respiratory illness. Results: The minimum population impact of vaccination with HD TIV rather than aTIV was 13,092 fewer influenza cases, 1,109 fewer influenza related deaths, 4,673 fewer hospitalizations, and 3,245 fewer GP appointments. HD TIV was cost-effective versus aTIV for all three effectiveness scenarios, with incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) equal to £1,932, £4,181, and £8,767 per quality adjusted life year. Results were consistent across the secondary analysis and deterministic sensitivity analyses. Limitations: The analysis was limited by a lack of robust and consistent effectiveness data for aTIV. Conclusion: HD TIV is cost-effective versus aTIV in people aged 65+ in England and Wales. Use of HD TIV over aTIV could increase clinical benefits and reduce the public health and economic burden of influenza

The cost-effectiveness of radiofrequency ablation for treating patients with gastric antral vascular ectasia refractory to first line endoscopic therapy

OBJECTIVE: This economic evaluation aims to provide a preliminary assessment of the cost-effectiveness of radiofrequency ablation (RFA) compared with argon plasma coagulation (APC), when used to treat APC-refractory gastric antral vascular ectasia (GAVE) in symptomatic patients.METHODS: A Markov model was constructed to undertake a cost-utility analysis for adults with persistent symptoms secondary to GAVE refractory to first line endoscopic therapy. The economic evaluation was conducted from a UK NHS and personal social services (PSS) perspective, with a 20-year time horizon, comparing RFA with APC. Patients transfer between health states defined by haemoglobin level. The clinical effectiveness data were sourced from expert opinion, resource use and costs were reflective of the UK NHS and benefits were quantified using Quality Adjusted Life Years (QALYs) with utility weights taken from the literature. The primary output was the Incremental Cost-Effectiveness Ratio (ICER), expressed as cost per QALY gained.RESULTS: Over a lifetime time horizon, the base case ICER was £4,840 per QALY gained with an 82.2% chance that RFA was cost-effective at a threshold of £20,000 per QALY gained. The model estimated that implementing RFA would result in reductions in the need for intravenous iron, endoscopic intervention and requirement for blood transfusions by 27.1%, 32.3% and 36.5% respectively. Compared to APC, RFA was associated with an estimated 36.7% fewer procedures.CONCLUSIONS: RFA treatment is likely to be cost-effective for patients with ongoing symptoms following failure of first line therapy with APC and could lead to substantive reductions in health care resource

The effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of cochlear implants for severe to profound deafness in children and adults: a systematic review and economic model

addresses: Peninsula Technology Assessment Group (PenTAG), Peninsula Medical School, Universities of Exeter and Plymouth, UK.types: Journal Article; Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't; ReviewPublished version. Copyright © 2009 NIHR Health Technology Assessment ProgrammeTo investigate whether it is clinically effective and cost-effective to provide (i) a unilateral cochlear implant for severely to profoundly deaf people (using or not using hearing aids), and (ii) a bilateral cochlear implant for severely to profoundly deaf people with a single cochlear implant (unilateral or unilateral plus hearing aid)

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

Investigation of relative risk estimates from studies of the same population with contrasting response rates and designs

Background: There is little empirical evidence regarding the generalisability of relative risk estimates from studies which have relatively low response rates or are of limited representativeness. The aim of this study was to investigate variation in exposure-outcome relationships in studies of the same population with different response rates and designs by comparing estimates from the 45 and Up Study, a population-based cohort study (self-administered postal questionnaire, response rate 18%), and the New South Wales Population Health Survey (PHS) (computer-assisted telephone interview, response rate ~60%). Methods: Logistic regression analysis of questionnaire data from 45 and Up Study participants (n = 101,812) and 2006/ 2007 PHS participants (n = 14,796) was used to calculate prevalence estimates and odds ratios (ORs) for comparable variables, adjusting for age, sex and remoteness. ORs were compared using Wald tests modelling each study separately, with and without sampling weights. Results: Prevalence of some outcomes (smoking, private health insurance, diabetes, hypertension, asthma) varied between the two studies. For highly comparable questionnaire items, exposure-outcome relationship patterns were almost identical between the studies and ORs for eight of the ten relationships examined did not differ significantly. For questionnaire items that were only moderately comparable, the nature of the observed relationships did not differ materially between the two studies, although many ORs differed significantly. Conclusions: These findings show that for a broad range of risk factors, two studies of the same population with varying response rate, sampling frame and mode of questionnaire administration yielded consistent estimates of exposure-outcome relationships. However, ORs varied between the studies where they did not use identical questionnaire items