Derek S Chew1,2, Yanhong Li1, Patricia A Cowper1, Kevin J Anstrom1,3,4, Jonathan P Piccini1,5, Jeanne E Poole6, Melanie R Daniels1, Kristi H Monahan7, Linda Davidson-Ray1, Tristram D Bahnson1,5, Hussein R Al-Khalidi1,3, Kerry L Lee1,3, Douglas L Packer7, Daniel B Mark1,5. 1. Duke Clinical Research Institute (D.S.C., Y.L., P.A.C., K.J.A., J.P.P., M.R.D., L.D.-R., T.D.B., H.R.A.-K., K.L.L., D.B.M.), Duke University, Durham, NC. 2. Department of Cardiac Sciences, Libin Cardiovascular Institute, University of Calgary, Alberta, Canada (D.S.C.). 3. Department of Biostatistics and Bioinformatics (K.J.A., H.R.A.-K., K.L.L.), Duke University, Durham, NC. 4. Gillings School of Public Health, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC (K.J.A.). 5. Division of Cardiology, Department of Medicine, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC (J.P.P., T.D.B., D.B.M.). 6. University of Washington Medical Center, Seattle (J.E.P.). 7. Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN (D.L.P., K.H.M.).
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In the CABANA trial (Catheter Ablation vs Antiarrhythmic Drug Therapy for Atrial Fibrillation), catheter ablation did not significantly reduce the primary end point of death, disabling stroke, serious bleeding, or cardiac arrest compared with drug therapy by intention-to-treat, but did improve the quality of life and freedom from atrial fibrillation recurrence. In the heart failure subgroup, ablation improved both survival and quality of life. Cost-effectiveness was a prespecified CABANA secondary end point. METHODS: Medical resource use data were collected for all CABANA patients (N=2204). Costs for hospital-based care were assigned using prospectively collected bills from US patients (n=1171); physician and medication costs were assigned using the Medicare Fee Schedule and National Average Drug Acquisition Costs, respectively. Extrapolated life expectancies were estimated using age-based survival models. Quality-of-life adjustments were based on EQ-5D-based utilities measured during the trial. The primary outcome was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, comparing ablation with drug therapy on the basis of intention-to-treat, and assessed from the US health care sector perspective. RESULTS: Costs in the first 3 months averaged $20 794±SD 1069 higher with ablation compared with drug therapy. The cumulative within-trial 5-year cost difference was $19 245 (95% CI, $11 360-$27 170) and the lifetime mean cost difference was $15 516 (95% CI, -$2963 to $35,512) higher with ablation than with drug therapy. The drug therapy arm accrued an average of 12.5 life-years (LYs) and 10.7 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). For the ablation arm, the corresponding estimates were 12.6 LYs and 11.0 QALYs. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was $57 893 per QALY gained, with 75% of bootstrap replications yielding an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio <$100 000 per QALY gained. With no quality-of-life/utility adjustments, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was $183 318 per LY gained. CONCLUSIONS: Catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation was economically attractive compared with drug therapy in the CABANA Trial overall at present benchmarks for health care value in the United States on the basis of projected incremental QALYs but not LYs alone.
BACKGROUND: In the CABANA trial (Catheter Ablation vs Antiarrhythmic Drug Therapy for Atrial Fibrillation), catheter ablation did not significantly reduce the primary end point of death, disabling stroke, serious bleeding, or cardiac arrest compared with drug therapy by intention-to-treat, but did improve the quality of life and freedom from atrial fibrillation recurrence. In the heart failure subgroup, ablation improved both survival and quality of life. Cost-effectiveness was a prespecified CABANA secondary end point. METHODS: Medical resource use data were collected for all CABANA patients (N=2204). Costs for hospital-based care were assigned using prospectively collected bills from US patients (n=1171); physician and medication costs were assigned using the Medicare Fee Schedule and National Average Drug Acquisition Costs, respectively. Extrapolated life expectancies were estimated using age-based survival models. Quality-of-life adjustments were based on EQ-5D-based utilities measured during the trial. The primary outcome was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, comparing ablation with drug therapy on the basis of intention-to-treat, and assessed from the US health care sector perspective. RESULTS: Costs in the first 3 months averaged $20 794±SD 1069 higher with ablation compared with drug therapy. The cumulative within-trial 5-year cost difference was $19 245 (95% CI, $11 360-$27 170) and the lifetime mean cost difference was $15 516 (95% CI, -$2963 to $35,512) higher with ablation than with drug therapy. The drug therapy arm accrued an average of 12.5 life-years (LYs) and 10.7 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). For the ablation arm, the corresponding estimates were 12.6 LYs and 11.0 QALYs. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was $57 893 per QALY gained, with 75% of bootstrap replications yielding an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio <$100 000 per QALY gained. With no quality-of-life/utility adjustments, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was $183 318 per LY gained. CONCLUSIONS: Catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation was economically attractive compared with drug therapy in the CABANA Trial overall at present benchmarks for health care value in the United States on the basis of projected incremental QALYs but not LYs alone.
Entities:
Keywords:
anti-arrhythmia agents; atrial fibrillation; catheter ablation; drug therapy; health economics; pulmonary vein
Authors: Michael Drummond; Marco Barbieri; John Cook; Henry A Glick; Joanna Lis; Farzana Malik; Shelby D Reed; Frans Rutten; Mark Sculpher; Johan Severens Journal: Value Health Date: 2009-01-12 Impact factor: 5.725
Authors: Daniel B Mark; Charlotte L Nelson; Kevin J Anstrom; Sana M Al-Khatib; Anastasios A Tsiatis; Patricia A Cowper; Nancy E Clapp-Channing; Linda Davidson-Ray; Jeanne E Poole; George Johnson; Jill Anderson; Kerry L Lee; Gust H Bardy Journal: Circulation Date: 2006-07-03 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Mohit K Turagam; Jalaj Garg; William Whang; Samantha Sartori; Jacob S Koruth; Marc A Miller; Noelle Langan; Aamir Sofi; Anthony Gomes; Subbarao Choudry; Srinivas R Dukkipati; Vivek Y Reddy Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2018-12-25 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Derek S Chew; Zak Loring; Jatin Anand; Marat Fudim; Angela Lowenstern; Jennifer A Rymer; Kristin E D Weimer; Brett D Atwater; Adam D DeVore; Derek V Exner; Peter A Noseworthy; Clyde W Yancy; Daniel B Mark; Jonathan P Piccini Journal: Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes Date: 2020-12-07
Authors: Patricia A Cowper; Shubin Sheng; Renato D Lopes; Kevin J Anstrom; Judith A Stafford; Linda Davidson-Ray; Sana M Al-Khatib; Jack Ansell; Paul Dorian; Steen Husted; John J V McMurray; P Gabriel Steg; John H Alexander; Lars Wallentin; Christopher B Granger; Daniel B Mark Journal: JAMA Cardiol Date: 2017-05-01 Impact factor: 14.676
Authors: Nassir F Marrouche; Johannes Brachmann; Dietrich Andresen; Jürgen Siebels; Lucas Boersma; Luc Jordaens; Béla Merkely; Evgeny Pokushalov; Prashanthan Sanders; Jochen Proff; Heribert Schunkert; Hildegard Christ; Jürgen Vogt; Dietmar Bänsch Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2018-02-01 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Douglas L Packer; Daniel B Mark; Richard A Robb; Kristi H Monahan; Tristram D Bahnson; Jeanne E Poole; Peter A Noseworthy; Yves D Rosenberg; Neal Jeffries; L Brent Mitchell; Greg C Flaker; Evgeny Pokushalov; Alexander Romanov; T Jared Bunch; Georg Noelker; Andrey Ardashev; Amiran Revishvili; David J Wilber; Riccardo Cappato; Karl-Heinz Kuck; Gerhard Hindricks; D Wyn Davies; Peter R Kowey; Gerald V Naccarelli; James A Reiffel; Jonathan P Piccini; Adam P Silverstein; Hussein R Al-Khalidi; Kerry L Lee Journal: JAMA Date: 2019-04-02 Impact factor: 56.272