BACKGROUND: Implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) therapy was traditionally applied in patients who survived a cardiac arrest or who experienced a symptomatic ventricular tachyarrhythmia. Its use in primary prevention (i.e. in patients who have yet to experience a serious arrhythmic event, but who are considered at high risk for sudden cardiac death) has become more common, and policy makers question whether ICD therapy should be reimbursed in these instances. OBJECTIVE: To assess the cost effectiveness of primary prevention ICD therapy versus conventional therapy from the perspective of the Belgian health insurance system. METHOD: A lifetime 1-month cycle Markov model was constructed and populated with clinical and effectiveness data from the SCD-HeFT study and real-world Belgian cost data expressed in year 2005 values. Probabilistic modelling and sensitivity analyses were performed. RESULTS: ICD therapy results in 1.22 life-years gained (LYG) or 1.03 QALYs gained. The lifetime cost-effectiveness and cost-utility ratios were euro 59,989 (95% CI 35 873, 113 518) per LYG and euro 71 428 (95% CI 40 225, 134 623) per QALY gained, respectively. A cost-effectiveness ratio <euro 50,000 per QALY gained was obtained in 15.5% of 1000 simulations. Increasing the service life of the device from 5 to 7 years would improve the cost effectiveness to euro 57,229 (95% CI 32 568, 106 410) per QALY gained. CONCLUSIONS: ICD therapy may not be judged cost effective for the primary prevention of death in patients with a SCD-HeFT profile in the Belgian context using current technology and patient selection. A combination of price reductions and increased service life of the device may alter this conclusion.
BACKGROUND: Implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) therapy was traditionally applied in patients who survived a cardiac arrest or who experienced a symptomatic ventricular tachyarrhythmia. Its use in primary prevention (i.e. in patients who have yet to experience a serious arrhythmic event, but who are considered at high risk for sudden cardiac death) has become more common, and policy makers question whether ICD therapy should be reimbursed in these instances. OBJECTIVE: To assess the cost effectiveness of primary prevention ICD therapy versus conventional therapy from the perspective of the Belgian health insurance system. METHOD: A lifetime 1-month cycle Markov model was constructed and populated with clinical and effectiveness data from the SCD-HeFT study and real-world Belgian cost data expressed in year 2005 values. Probabilistic modelling and sensitivity analyses were performed. RESULTS: ICD therapy results in 1.22 life-years gained (LYG) or 1.03 QALYs gained. The lifetime cost-effectiveness and cost-utility ratios were euro 59,989 (95% CI 35 873, 113 518) per LYG and euro 71 428 (95% CI 40 225, 134 623) per QALY gained, respectively. A cost-effectiveness ratio <euro 50,000 per QALY gained was obtained in 15.5% of 1000 simulations. Increasing the service life of the device from 5 to 7 years would improve the cost effectiveness to euro 57,229 (95% CI 32 568, 106 410) per QALY gained. CONCLUSIONS: ICD therapy may not be judged cost effective for the primary prevention of death in patients with a SCD-HeFT profile in the Belgian context using current technology and patient selection. A combination of price reductions and increased service life of the device may alter this conclusion.
Authors: Lidia García-Pérez; Pilar Pinilla-Domínguez; Antonio García-Quintana; Eduardo Caballero-Dorta; F Javier García-García; Renata Linertová; Iñaki Imaz-Iglesia Journal: Eur J Health Econ Date: 2014-10-17
Authors: T Smith; P F van Dessel; D A M J Theuns; A Muskens-Heemskerk; R T van Domburg; A A Wilde; L Jordaens Journal: Neth Heart J Date: 2011-10 Impact factor: 2.380
Authors: W Anné; D A M J Theuns; B Schaer; Y Van Belle; T Szili-Torok; T Smith; J Res; L Jordaens Journal: Neth Heart J Date: 2014-06 Impact factor: 2.380