Kurt Banz1. 1. OUTCOMES INTERNATIONAL, Basel, Switzerland. kurt.banz@outcomes.ch
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: This article describes the framework of a comprehensive European model developed to assess clinical and economic outcomes of cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) versus optimal pharmacological therapy (OPT) alone in patients with heart failure. METHODS: The model structure is based on information obtained from the literature, expert opinion, and a European CRT Steering Committee. The decision-analysis tool allows a consideration of direct medical and indirect costs, and computes outcomes for distinctive periods of time up to 5 years. Qualitative data can also be entered for cost-utility analysis. Model input data for a preliminary economic appraisal of the economic value of CRT in Germany were obtained from clinical trials, experts, health statistics, and medical tariff lists. RESULTS: The model offers comprehensive analysis capabilities and high flexibility so that it can easily be adapted to any European country or special setting. The illustrative analysis for Germany indicates that CRT is a cost-effective intervention. Although CRT is associated with average direct medical net costs of Euro 5880 per patient, this finding means that 22% of its upfront implantation cost is recouped already within 1 year because of significantly decreased hospitalizations. With 36,600 Euros the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained is below the euro equivalent (41,300 Euros, 1 Euro = US1.21 dollars) of the commonly used threshold level of US50,000 dollars considered to represent cost-effectiveness. The sensitivity analysis showed these preliminary results to be fairly robust towards changes in key assumptions. CONCLUSIONS: The European CRT model is an important tool to assess the economic value of CRT in patients with moderate to severe heart failure. In the light of the planned introduction of Diagnosis Related Group (DRG) based reimbursement in various European countries, the economic data generated by the model can play an important role in the decision-making process.
OBJECTIVES: This article describes the framework of a comprehensive European model developed to assess clinical and economic outcomes of cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) versus optimal pharmacological therapy (OPT) alone in patients with heart failure. METHODS: The model structure is based on information obtained from the literature, expert opinion, and a European CRT Steering Committee. The decision-analysis tool allows a consideration of direct medical and indirect costs, and computes outcomes for distinctive periods of time up to 5 years. Qualitative data can also be entered for cost-utility analysis. Model input data for a preliminary economic appraisal of the economic value of CRT in Germany were obtained from clinical trials, experts, health statistics, and medical tariff lists. RESULTS: The model offers comprehensive analysis capabilities and high flexibility so that it can easily be adapted to any European country or special setting. The illustrative analysis for Germany indicates that CRT is a cost-effective intervention. Although CRT is associated with average direct medical net costs of Euro 5880 per patient, this finding means that 22% of its upfront implantation cost is recouped already within 1 year because of significantly decreased hospitalizations. With 36,600 Euros the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained is below the euro equivalent (41,300 Euros, 1 Euro = US1.21 dollars) of the commonly used threshold level of US50,000 dollars considered to represent cost-effectiveness. The sensitivity analysis showed these preliminary results to be fairly robust towards changes in key assumptions. CONCLUSIONS: The European CRT model is an important tool to assess the economic value of CRT in patients with moderate to severe heart failure. In the light of the planned introduction of Diagnosis Related Group (DRG) based reimbursement in various European countries, the economic data generated by the model can play an important role in the decision-making process.
Authors: Alexander Goehler; Benjamin P Geisler; Jennifer M Manne; Beate Jahn; Annette Conrads-Frank; Petra Schnell-Inderst; G Scott Gazelle; Uwe Siebert Journal: Pharmacoeconomics Date: 2011-09 Impact factor: 4.981
Authors: Christopher J Cadham; Marie Knoll; Luz María Sánchez-Romero; K Michael Cummings; Clifford E Douglas; Alex Liber; David Mendez; Rafael Meza; Ritesh Mistry; Aylin Sertkaya; Nargiz Travis; David T Levy Journal: Med Decis Making Date: 2021-10-25 Impact factor: 2.749
Authors: Giovanni B Forleo; Luigi Di Biase; Rupinder Bharmi; Nirav Dalal; Germana Panattoni; Annalisa Pollastrelli; Manfredi Tesauro; Luca Santini; Andrea Natale; Francesco Romeo Journal: Europace Date: 2014-11-04 Impact factor: 5.214
Authors: Moritz Hadwiger; Fabian-Simon Frielitz; Nora Eisemann; Christian Elsner; Nikolaos Dagres; Gerhard Hindricks; Alexander Katalinic Journal: Appl Health Econ Health Policy Date: 2021-01 Impact factor: 2.561