Cost-utility and cost-benefit analysis of TAVR availability in the US severe symptomatic aortic stenosis patient population. (31st December 2022)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Sevilla, J. P.; Klusty, Jessica M.; Song, Younghwan; Russo, Mark J.; Thompson, Christin A.; Jiao, Xiayu; Clancy, Seth J.; Bloom, David E.
• Is Part Of: Journal of medical economics. Volume 25:Number 1(2022)
• Page Start: 1051
• Page End: 1060
• Publication Date: 2022-12-31
• Subjects: Active aging -- cost-benefit analysis -- cost-utility analysis -- severe symptomatic aortic stenosis -- time use -- transcathether aortic valve replacement; J14 -- 1 -- J -- I10 -- I1 -- I -- D61 -- D6 -- D; Medical care -- Cost control -- Periodicals; Medical economics -- Periodicals; 362.10941
• DOI: 10.1080/13696998.2022.2112442
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1369-6998

Abstract

Abstract: Aims: We evaluated the availability of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) to determine its value across all severe symptomatic aortic stenosis (SSAS) patients, especially those untreated because of concerns regarding invasive surgical AVR (SAVR) and its impact on active aging. Methods: We performed payer perspective cost-utility analysis (CUA) and societal perspective cost-benefit analysis (CBA). The CBA's benefit measure is active time: salaried labor, unpaid work, and active leisure. The study population is a cohort of US elderly SSAS patients. We compared a "TAVR available" scenario in which SSAS patients distribute themselves across TAVR, SAVR, and medical management (MM); and a "TAVR not available" scenario with only SAVR and MM. We structured each scenario with a decision-tree model of SSAS patient treatment allocation. We measured the association between health and active time in the US Health and Retirement Study and used this association to impute active time to SSAS patients given their health. Results: The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) and rate of return (RoR) of TAVR availability were $8, 533 and 395%, respectively. CUA net monetary benefits (NMB) were $212, 199 per patient and $43.4 billion population-wide. CBA NMB were $50, 530 per patient and $10.3 billion population-wide. Limitations: Among study limitations were scarcity of evidence regarding key parameters and the lack of long-term survival, health utility, and treatment cost data. Our analysis did not account for TAVR durability, retreatments, and valve-in-valve treatments. Conclusion: Across risk-, age-, and treatment-eligibility groups, TAVR is the economically optimal treatment choice. It represents strong value-for-money per patient and population-wide. The vast majority of TAVR value involves raising treatment uptake among the untreated. PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY: Aortic stenosis (AS) is a common and lethal heart disease. Surgical treatment has long been available, but its invasiveness limits uptake. More recently, transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has emerged as a treatment alternative. Its minimal invasiveness has significantly increased treatment rates, but economic evaluations omit this benefit, risking undervaluation. We evaluated TAVR in elderly US severe symptomatic AS patients, using payer perspective cost-utility analysis (CUA) and societal perspective cost-benefit analysis (CBA). Both CUA and CBA incorporated TAVR's impact on treatment rates. Given patient preferences for treatment options promoting active aging, our CBA used the value of active time as a benefit measure. We found that CUA/CBA net monetary benefits are $212, 199/$50, 530 per patient. Across risk-, age-, and treatment-eligibility groups, TAVR is the economically optimal treatment choice over surgery and medical management. It represents strong value-for-money per patient and population-wide. Increased treatment uptake accounts for the vast share of TAVR's value.