Etienne Nédellec1, Judith Pineau1, Patrice Prognon1, Nicolas Martelli2,3. 1. Pharmacy Department, Georges Pompidou European Hospital, AP-HP, 20 rue Leblanc, 75015, Paris, France. 2. Pharmacy Department, Georges Pompidou European Hospital, AP-HP, 20 rue Leblanc, 75015, Paris, France. nicolas.martelli@aphp.fr. 3. Université Paris-Sud, Université Paris-Saclay, EA7358 GRADES, 5 rue Jean-Baptiste Clément, 92290, Châtenay-Malabry, France. nicolas.martelli@aphp.fr.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The objective of the present work was to assess the level of evidence in economic evaluations of percutaneous left atrial appendage closure devices, and to test the complementarity of three different tools for assessing the quality of economic evaluations. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of articles in English or French listed in MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane, the Cost-Effectiveness Analysis registry and the National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database. We included only economic evaluations concerning left atrial appendage closure devices. Data were extracted from articles by two authors working independently and using three analysis grids to measure the quality of economic evaluations [the British Medical Journal (BMJ) checklist, the hierarchy scale developed by Cooper et al. (J Health Serv Res Policy 10:245-50, 2005) and the Quality of Health Economic Studies (QHES) instrument]. RESULTS: Seven economic evaluations met our inclusion criteria. All were published between 2013 and 2016. All were cost-utility analyses, and fully complied with the BMJ checklist. According to the hierarchy scale developed by Cooper et al., the quality of data used was heterogeneous. Finally, the mean score for the seven economic studies was 90/100 with the QHES instrument. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the recent development of left atrial appendage closure devices, most economic evaluations conducted here were well-designed studies. Furthermore, different tools used to assess the quality of these studies were complementary, but none gave a global vision of the quality of economic studies.
OBJECTIVES: The objective of the present work was to assess the level of evidence in economic evaluations of percutaneous left atrial appendage closure devices, and to test the complementarity of three different tools for assessing the quality of economic evaluations. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of articles in English or French listed in MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane, the Cost-Effectiveness Analysis registry and the National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database. We included only economic evaluations concerning left atrial appendage closure devices. Data were extracted from articles by two authors working independently and using three analysis grids to measure the quality of economic evaluations [the British Medical Journal (BMJ) checklist, the hierarchy scale developed by Cooper et al. (J Health Serv Res Policy 10:245-50, 2005) and the Quality of Health Economic Studies (QHES) instrument]. RESULTS: Seven economic evaluations met our inclusion criteria. All were published between 2013 and 2016. All were cost-utility analyses, and fully complied with the BMJ checklist. According to the hierarchy scale developed by Cooper et al., the quality of data used was heterogeneous. Finally, the mean score for the seven economic studies was 90/100 with the QHES instrument. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the recent development of left atrial appendage closure devices, most economic evaluations conducted here were well-designed studies. Furthermore, different tools used to assess the quality of these studies were complementary, but none gave a global vision of the quality of economic studies.