Cost-effectiveness of superficial femoral artery endovascular interventions in the UK and Germany: a modelling study. Issue 1 (13th January 2017)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Kearns, Benjamin C; Thomas, Steven M
• Is Part Of: BMJ open. Volume 7:Issue 1(2017)
• Publication Date: 2017-01-13
• Subjects: Cost-effectiveness -- Quality of life -- HEALTH ECONOMICS -- Peripheral Vascular Disease -- Femoropopliteal Disease; Medicine -- Research -- Periodicals; 610.72
• DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2016-013460
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 2044-6055

Abstract

Abstract : Objectives: To assess the lifetime costs and cost-effectiveness of 5 endovascular interventions to treat superficial femoral arterial disease. Design: A model-based health economic evaluation. An existing decision analytical model was used, with updated effectiveness data taken from the literature, and updated costs based on purchasing prices. Setting: UK and German healthcare perspectives were considered. Participants: Patients with intermittent claudication of the femoropopliteal arteries eligible for endovascular treatment. Methods: UK and German healthcare perspectives were considered, as were different strategies for re-intervention. Interventions: Percutaneous transluminal angioplasty (PTA) with bail-out bare metal stenting (assumed to represent the existing standard of care, and 4 alternatives: primary bare metal stents, drug-eluting stents, drug-eluting balloons (DEBs) and biomimetic stents). Primary outcome measures: The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio between 2 treatments, defined as the incremental costs divided by the incremental quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Results: Use of a biomimetic stent, BioMimics 3D, was always estimated to dominate the other interventions, having lower lifetime costs and greater effectiveness, as measured by QALYs. Of the remaining interventions, DEBs were always the most effective, and PTA the least effective. There was uncertainty in the cost-effectiveness results, with key drivers being the costs and effectiveness of the biomimetic stent along with the costs of DEBs. Conclusions: All 4 of the alternatives to PTA were more effective, with the biomimetic stent being the most cost-effective. As there was uncertainty in the results, and all of the interventions have different mechanisms of action, all 4 may be considered to be alternatives to PTA.