Cost-effectiveness of cardiac resynchronisation therapy for patients with moderate-to-severe heart failure: a lifetime Markov model. Issue 2 (20th October 2011)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Neyt, Mattias; Stroobandt, Serge; Obyn, Caroline; Camberlin, Cécile; Devriese, Stephan; De Laet, Chris; Van Brabandt, Hans
• Is Part Of: BMJ open. Volume 1:Issue 2(2011)
• Publication Date: 2011-10-20
• Subjects: Medicine -- Research -- Periodicals; 610.72
• DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2011-000276
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 2044-6055

Abstract

Abstract : Objective: To assess the cost-effectiveness of cardiac resynchronisation therapy (CRT) both with CRT-P (biventricular pacemaker only) and with CRT-D (biventricular pacemaker with defibrillator) in patients with New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional class III/IV from a Belgian healthcare-payer perspective. Methods: A lifetime Markov model was designed to calculate the cost–utility of both interventions. In the reference case, the treatment effect was based on the Comparison of Medical Therapy, Pacing and Defibrillation in Heart Failure trial. Costs were based on real-world data. Pharmacoeconomic guidelines were applied, including probabilistic modelling and sensitivity analyses. Results: Compared with optimal medical treatment, on average 1.31 quality-adjusted life-years (QALY) are gained with CRT-P at an additional cost of €14 700, resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of about €364;11 200/QALY. As compared with CRT-P, CRT-D treatment adds on average an additional 0.55 QALYs at an extra cost of €30 900 resulting in an ICER of €57 000/QALY. This result was very sensitive to the incremental clinical benefit of the defibrillator function on top of CRT. Conclusions: Based on efficiency arguments, CRT-P can be recommended for NYHA class III and IV patients if there is a willingness to pay more than €11 000/QALY. Even though CRT-D may offer a survival benefit over CRT-P, the incremental clinical benefit appears to be too marginal to warrant a threefold-higher device price for CRT-D. Further clinical research should focus on the added value of CRT-D over CRT-P.