COST-EFFECTIVENESS OF A LEFT ATRIAL APPENDAGE CLOSURE DEVICE IN PATIENTS WITH NON-VALVULAR ATRIAL FIBRILLATION UNABLE OR UNWILLING TO TOLERATE ORAL ANTICOAGULANT THERAPY IN ITALY AND SPAIN

Author(s)

Cruz González I1, Reddy V2, Holmes D3, Berti S4, Iñiguez Romo A5, De Deppo L6, Priest V7, Simmonds M8, Amin A9, Lee C9, Wasserman M10, Margonato A11
1University Hospital of Salamanca, Salamanca, Spain, 2Mount Sinai, New York, NY, USA, 3Mayo Clinic College of Medicine, Rochester, MN, USA, 4Fondazione Toscana G. Monasterio, Massa, Italy, 5Complejo Hospitalario Universitario, Pontevedra, Spain, 6Boston Scientific Europe, Milano, Italy, 7Boston Scientific Asia Pacific, The Metropolis Tower One, Singapore, 8Boston Scientific Australasia, Sydney, Austria, 9Double Helix Consulting, London, UK, 10Double Helix Consulting, New York, NY, USA, 11San Raffaele Hospital, Milano, Italy

OBJECTIVES: Approximately 18-20% of non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) patients are unable or unwilling to tolerate oral anticoagulant therapy (OAT), leaving them at risk of stroke. Left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) device offers an alternative stroke risk reduction strategy that enables the majority of patients to discontinue long-term systematic OAT. Acknowledging both potential improvements in health outcomes and additional upfront implantation costs of a LAAC device, this study considers the lifetime costs and benefits of LAAC compared to aspirin plus clopidogrel (A+C) in high-risk NVAF patients ineligible or unwilling to take OAT from the Italian and Spanish public healthcare payer perspectives. METHODS: A Markov model was constructed to assess the cost-effectiveness of LAAC compared to A+C. Due to the lack of direct clinical trial data an indirect comparison was undertaken; having warfarin as the common comparator, PROTECT-AF (mean follow-up: 3.8 years) and ACTIVE-W (1.3 years) trials were used to indirectly compare LAAC against A+C. Clinical results were combined with cost and utility data to assess the relative cost-effectiveness of the device. Furthermore, to reflect the real-world patient population, patients were stratified according to the severity of stroke and bleeding using CHADS-VASc and HAS-BLED scores. RESULTS: The base-case results demonstrate the LAAC as the cost-effective strategy compared to A+C in both countries with ICERs of €5,116 per life-year gained (LYG) and €3,942 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained for Italy, and €10,298 per LYG and €7,683 per QALY gained for Spain. The ICERs per QALY gained are significantly below the willingness-to-pay thresholds generally accepted by each country: €25,000 in Italy and €30,000 in Spain. Results also demonstrate that the clinical benefit of LAAC becomes greater when risk of stroke and bleeding increases. CONCLUSIONS: LAAC device should be prioritised in patients who require an alternative to OAT and at relatively higher risk of stroke or bleeding.

Conference/Value in Health Info

2015-11, ISPOR Europe 2015, Milan, Italy

Value in Health, Vol. 18, No. 7 (November 2015)

Code

PMD75

Topic

Economic Evaluation

Topic Subcategory

Cost-comparison, Effectiveness, Utility, Benefit Analysis

Disease

Cardiovascular Disorders

Explore Related HEOR by Topic


Your browser is out-of-date

ISPOR recommends that you update your browser for more security, speed and the best experience on ispor.org. Update my browser now

×