Cost-effectiveness of percutaneous closure of a patent foramen ovale compared with medical management in patients with a cryptogenic stroke: from the US payer perspective. (2nd September 2019)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Volpi, John J.; Ridge, John R.; Nakum, Mitesh; Rhodes, John F.; Søndergaard, Lars; Kasner, Scott E.
• Is Part Of: Journal of medical economics. Volume 22:Number 9(2019)
• Page Start: 883
• Page End: 890
• Publication Date: 2019-09-02
• Subjects: Ischemic stroke -- patent foramen ovale -- cryptogenic stroke -- cost-effectiveness; I10 -- I19; Medical care -- Cost control -- Periodicals; Medical economics -- Periodicals; 362.10941
• DOI: 10.1080/13696998.2019.1611587
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1369-6998

Abstract

Abstract: Aims: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of percutaneous patent foramen ovale (PFO) closure, from a US payer perspective. Lower rates of recurrent ischemic stroke have been documented following percutaneous PFO closure in properly selected patients. Stroke in patients aged <60 years is particularly interesting because this population is typically at peak economic productivity and vulnerable to prolonged disability. Materials and methods: A Markov model comprising six health states (Stable after index stroke, Transient ischemic attack, Post-Transient Ischemic Attack, Clinical ischemic stroke, Post-clinical ischemic stroke, and Death) was constructed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of PFO closure in combination with medical management versus medical management alone. The base-case model employed a 5-year time-horizon, with transition probabilities, clinical inputs, costs, and utility values ascertained from published and national costing sources. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was evaluated per US guidelines, utilizing a discount rate of 3.0%. Results: At 5 years, overall costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) obtained from PFO closure compared with medical management were $16, 323 vs $7, 670 and 4.18 vs 3.77, respectively. At 5 years, PFO closure achieved an ICER of $21, 049, beneficially lower than the conventional threshold of $50, 000. PFO closure reached cost-effectiveness at 2.3 years (ICER = $47, 145). Applying discount rates of 0% and 6% had a negligible impact on base-case model findings. Furthermore, PFO closure was 95.4% likely to be cost-effective, with a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $50, 000 and a 5-year time horizon. Limitations: From a cost perspective, our economic model employed a US patient sub-population, so cost data may not extrapolate to other non-US stroke populations. Conclusion: Percutaneous PFO closure plus medical management represents a cost-effective approach for lowering the risk of recurrent stroke compared with medical management alone.