Sabrina Trippoli1, Erminia Caccese1, Claudio Marinai1, Andrea Messori2. 1. HTA Section, ESTAR Toscana, Regional Health Service, Firenze, Italy. 2. HTA Section, ESTAR Toscana, Regional Health Service, Firenze, Italy. Electronic address: andrea.messori@estar.toscana.it.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: In the acute ischemic stroke, endovascular devices have shown promising clinical results and are also likely to represent value for money, as several modeling studies have shown. Pharmacoeconomic evaluations in this field, however, have little impact on the procurement of these devices. The present study explored how complex pharmacoeconomic models that evaluate effectiveness and cost can be incorporated into the in-hospital procurement of thrombectomy devices. PATIENTS AND METHODS: As regards clinical modeling, we extracted outcomes at three months from randomized trials conducted for four thrombectomy devices, and we projected long-term results using standard Markov modeling. In estimating QALYs, the same model was run for the four devices. As regards economic modeling, we firstly estimated for each device the net monetary benefit (NMB) per patient (threshold = $60,000 per QALY); then, we simulated a competitive tender across the four products by determining the tender-based score (on a 0-to-100 scale). Prices of individual devices were obtained from manufacturers. Extensive sensitivity testing was applied to our analyses. RESULTS: For the four devices (Solitaire, Trevo, Penumbra, Solumbra), QALYs were 1.86, 1.52, 1,79, 1.35, NMB was $101,824, $83,546, $101,923, $69,440, and tender-based scores were 99.70, 43.43, 100, 0, respectively. Sensitivity analysis confirmed findings from base-case. CONCLUSION: Our results indicate that, in the field of thrombectomy devices, incorporating the typical tools of cost-effectiveness into the processes of tenders and procurement is feasible. Bridging the methodology of cost-effectiveness with the every-day practice of in-hospital procurement can contribute to maximizing the health returns that are generated by in-hospital expenditures for medical devices.
OBJECTIVES: In the acute ischemic stroke, endovascular devices have shown promising clinical results and are also likely to represent value for money, as several modeling studies have shown. Pharmacoeconomic evaluations in this field, however, have little impact on the procurement of these devices. The present study explored how complex pharmacoeconomic models that evaluate effectiveness and cost can be incorporated into the in-hospital procurement of thrombectomy devices. PATIENTS AND METHODS: As regards clinical modeling, we extracted outcomes at three months from randomized trials conducted for four thrombectomy devices, and we projected long-term results using standard Markov modeling. In estimating QALYs, the same model was run for the four devices. As regards economic modeling, we firstly estimated for each device the net monetary benefit (NMB) per patient (threshold = $60,000 per QALY); then, we simulated a competitive tender across the four products by determining the tender-based score (on a 0-to-100 scale). Prices of individual devices were obtained from manufacturers. Extensive sensitivity testing was applied to our analyses. RESULTS: For the four devices (Solitaire, Trevo, Penumbra, Solumbra), QALYs were 1.86, 1.52, 1,79, 1.35, NMB was $101,824, $83,546, $101,923, $69,440, and tender-based scores were 99.70, 43.43, 100, 0, respectively. Sensitivity analysis confirmed findings from base-case. CONCLUSION: Our results indicate that, in the field of thrombectomy devices, incorporating the typical tools of cost-effectiveness into the processes of tenders and procurement is feasible. Bridging the methodology of cost-effectiveness with the every-day practice of in-hospital procurement can contribute to maximizing the health returns that are generated by in-hospital expenditures for medical devices.