Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-m8qmq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-20T07:12:25.070Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENTS REPORTING COST-EFFECTIVENESS OF TRANSCATHETER AORTIC VALVE IMPLANTATION

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 August 2016

Sanjeewa Kularatna ,
Joshua Byrnes ,
Merehau Cindy Mervin  and
Paul A. Scuffham
Sanjeewa Kularatna
Affiliation:
Centre for Applied Health Economics, School of Medicine, Griffith Universitys.kularatna@griffith.edu.au Population and Social Health Research Program, Menzies Health Institute Queensland, Griffith University
Joshua Byrnes
Affiliation:
Centre for Applied Health Economics, School of Medicine, Griffith Universitys.kularatna@griffith.edu.au Population and Social Health Research Program, Menzies Health Institute Queensland, Griffith University
Merehau Cindy Mervin
Affiliation:
Centre for Applied Health Economics, School of Medicine, Griffith Universitys.kularatna@griffith.edu.au Population and Social Health Research Program, Menzies Health Institute Queensland, Griffith University
Paul A. Scuffham
Affiliation:
Centre for Applied Health Economics, School of Medicine, Griffith Universitys.kularatna@griffith.edu.au Population and Social Health Research Program, Menzies Health Institute Queensland, Griffith University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objectives: Made available since 2002, transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is a minimally invasive new intervention which can provide significant survival improvement to patients with aortic stenosis. However, TAVI is expensive and currently not reimbursed by many governments. Some governments and institutions have been conducting health technology assessments (HTAs) to inform their reimbursement decisions. The aim of the present study is to review HTAs that have relied on a cost-effectiveness analysis to inform reimbursement decisions of TAVI.

Methods: A systematic literature review was conducted among published literature as well as reports released by HTA agencies. Predetermined inclusion and exclusion criteria, following the Preferred Reporting System for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis guidelines, were used to select relevant HTAs. The selected papers were assessed against the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards.

Results: HTAs on TAVI from three countries were available for this review: Canada, Belgium, and the United Kingdom. All three HTAs used the Placement of Aortic Transcatheter Valve (PARTNER) trial data with Markov models to estimate the incremental cost effectiveness ratio. The three HTAs recommended conditional reimbursement for TAVI for otherwise inoperable patients. The HTAs did not use clear methods to estimate the health-related utility which ultimately affected their cost-effectiveness results. The UK HTA showed the best value for money (US$20,416 per quality-adjusted life-year).

Conclusion: All studies found TAVI to be more costly and less effective for high-risk patients suitable for surgery, whereas TAVI was consistently found to be cost effective for otherwise inoperable patients.

Keywords

TAVIHTA
Type
Assessments
Information
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care , Volume 32 , Issue 3 , 2016 , pp. 89 - 96
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2016 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

1. Ramaraj, R, Sorrell, VL. Degenerative aortic stenosis. BMJ. 2008;336:550–555.Google Scholar
2. Osnabrugge, RLJ, Mylotte, D, Head, SJ, et al. Aortic stenosis in the elderlydisease prevalence and number of candidates for transcatheter aortic valve replacement: A meta-analysis and modeling study. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2013;62:1002–1012.Google Scholar
3. Carabello, BA, Paulus, WJ. Aortic stenosis. Lancet. 2009;373:956–966.Google Scholar
4. Cribier, A, Eltchaninoff, H, Bash, A, et al. Percutaneous transcatheter implantation of an aortic valve prosthesis for calcific aortic stenosis: First human case description. Circulation. 2002 Dec 10;106:3006–3008.Google Scholar
5. Abramowitz, Y, Banai, S, Katz, G, et al. Comparison of early and late outcomes of TAVI alone compared to TAVI plus PCI in aortic stenosis patients with and without coronary artery disease. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2014;83:649–654.Google Scholar
6. Adams, DH, Popma, JJ, Reardon, MJ. Transcatheter aortic-valve replacement with a self-expanding prosthesis. N Engl J Med. 2014;371:967–968.Google Scholar
7. Smith, CR, Leon, MB, Mack, MJ, et al. Transcatheter versus surgical aortic-valve replacement in high-risk patients. N Engl J Med. 2011;364:2187–2198.Google Scholar
8. Cao, C, Ang, SC, Indraratna, P, et al. Systematic review and meta-analysis of transcatheter aortic valve implantation versus surgical aortic valve replacement for severe aortic stenosis. Ann Cardiothorac Surg. 2013;2:10–23.Google Scholar
9. Watt, M, Mealing, S, Eaton, J, et al. Cost-effectiveness of transcatheter aortic valve replacement in patients ineligible for conventional aortic valve replacement. Heart. 2012;98:370–376.Google Scholar
10. Belgian Health Care Knowledge Centre. Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation (TAVI): A Health Technology Assessment Update. Belgium: 2011 Contract No.: 163C.Google Scholar
11. Smith, CR, Leon, MB, Mack, MJ, et al. Transcatheter versus surgical aortic-valve replacement in high-risk patients. N Engl J Med. 2011;364:2187–2198.Google Scholar
12. Sehatzadeh, S, Doble, B, Xie, F, et al. Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation (TAVI) for treatment of aortic valve stenosis: An evidence-based analysis (part B). Ont Health Technol Assess Ser. 2012;12:1–62.Google Scholar
13. Orlando, R, Pennant, M, Rooney, S, et al. Cost-effectivness of trancatheter aortic valve impantation (TAVI) for aortic stenosis in patients who are high risk or contraindicated for surgery: A model-based economic evaluation. Health Technol Assess. 2013;17:1–86.Google Scholar
14. Leon, MB, Smith, CR, Mack, M, et al. Transcatheter aortic-valve implantation for aortic stenosis in patients who cannot undergo surgery. N Engl J Med. 2010;363:1597–1607.Google Scholar
15. Mack, MJ, Leon, MB, Smith, CR, et al. 5-year outcomes of transcatheter aortic valve replacement or surgical aortic valve replacement for high surgical risk patients with aortic stenosis (PARTNER 1): A randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2015;385:2477–2484.Google Scholar
16. Liberati, A, Altman, DG, Tetzlaff, J, et al. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: Explanation and elaboration. BMJ. 2009;339:b2700.Google Scholar
17. Husereau, D, Drummond, M, Petrou, S, et al. Consolidated health economic evaluation reporting standards (cheers) statement. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2013;29:117–122.Google Scholar
18. Velzenberger, E, Galmiche, H, Denis, C, Machecourt, J. Quelles indications et quelles voies d'abord pour l'implantation des valves aortiques percutanées? Évaluation technologique menée par la Haute Autorité de santé (HAS). Presse Med. 2013;42:160–166.Google Scholar
19. Varela-Lema, L, Queiro-Verdes, T, Baz-Alonso, JA, et al. Post-introduction observation of transcatheter aortic valve implantation in Galicia (Spain). J Eval Clin Pract. 2015;21 (1):34–42.Google Scholar
20. McGregor, M. Trancatheter Aortic Valve Implantation (TAVI) at the MUHC: A health technology assessment. Montreal: Health Tecnology Assesment Unit, McGill University Health Centre, McGill University; 2009.Google Scholar
21. Healthcare Improvement Scotland. Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) for severe symptomatic aortic stenosis in adults at high surgical risk: Evidence note 52 2011. http://www.healthcareimprovementscotland.org/our_work/technologies_and_medicines/shtg_-_evidence_notes/evidence_note_52.aspx (accessed March 1, 2015).Google Scholar
22. Fairbairn, TA, Meads, DM, Hulme, C, et al. The cost-effectiveness of transcatheter aortic valve implantation versus surgical aortic valve replacement in patients with severe aortic stenosis at high operative risk. Heart. 2013;99:914–920.Google Scholar
23. Walters, DL, Sinhal, A, Baron, D, et al. Initial experience with the balloon expandable Edwards-SAPIEN Transcatheter Heart Valve in Australia and New Zealand: The SOURCE ANZ registry: Outcomes at 30 days and one year. Int J Cardiol. 2014;170:406–412.Google Scholar
24. Messori, A, Trippoli, S, Biancari, F. Early and intermediate survival after transcatheter aortic valve implantation: Systematic review and meta-analysis of 14 studies. BMJ Open. 2013;3:pii: e001770.Google Scholar
25. European Union Network of Health Technology Assesment. 2015. http://www.eunethta.eu/ (accessed February 1, 2015).Google Scholar
26. Medical Services Advisory Committee. Application No 1361- Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation (TAVI) via transfemoral or transapical delivery Australian Government 2015. http://www.msac.gov.au/internet/msac/publishing.nsf/Content/9E366B4233A15A35CA257C9E001A0317/$File/1361Final-PSD-Accessible.pdf (accessed November 18, 2015).Google Scholar
27. Gohler, A, Geisler, BP, Manne, JM, et al. Utility estimates for decision-analytic modeling in chronic heart failure–Health states based on New York Heart Association classes and number of rehospitalizations. Value Health. 2009;12:185–187.Google Scholar
28. Maliwa, MA, van der Heijden, GJ, Bots, ML, et al. Quality of life and NYHA class 30 years after mechanical aortic valve replacement. Cardiovasc Surg. 2003;11:381–387.Google Scholar
29. CCEMG-EPPI-CEntre Cost Conveter. Cost converter. 2015. http://eppi.ioe.ac.uk/costconversion/ (accessed November 19, 2015).Google Scholar
30. Eaton, J, Mealing, S, Thompson, J, et al. Is transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) a cost-effective treatment in patients who are ineligible for surgical aortic valve replacement? A systematic review of economic evaluations. J Med Econ. 2014;17:367–375.Google Scholar
31. Simons, CT, Cipriano, LE, Shah, RU, et al. Transcatheter aortic valve replacement in nonsurgical candidates with severe, symptomatic aortic stenosis: A cost-effectiveness analysis. Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes. 2013;6:419–428.Google Scholar
32. Reynolds, M, Thompson, A, Duhay, F. Correction of faulty assumptions in cost-effectiveness analysis. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2013;145:308–309.Google Scholar
33. Reynolds, MR, Magnuson, EA, Lei, Y, et al. Cost-effectiveness of transcatheter aortic valve replacement compared with surgical aortic valve replacement in high-risk patients with severe aortic stenosis: Results of the PARTNER (Placement of Aortic Transcatheter Valves) trial (Cohort A). J Am Coll Cardiol. 2012;60:2683–2692.Google Scholar
34. Lardizabal, JA, O'Neill, BP, Desai, HV, et al. The transaortic approach for transcatheter aortic valve replacement: Initial clinical experience in the United States. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2013;61:2341–2345.Google Scholar
35. Seco, M, Martinez, G, Bannon, PG, et al. Transapical aortic valve implantation—An Australian experience. Heart Lung Circ. 2014;23:462–468.Google Scholar
36. Pighi, M, Serdoz, R, Kilic, ID, et al. TAVI: New trials and registries offer further welcome evidence – U.S. CoreValve, CHOICE, and GARY. Glob Cardiol Sci Pract. 2014;2014:78–87.Google Scholar
37. Bourantas, CV, Farooq, V, Onuma, Y, et al. Transcatheter aortic valve implantation: New developments and upcoming clinical trials. Eurointervention. 2012;8:617–627.Google Scholar