Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T05:22:16.911Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Modeling payback from research into the efficacy of left-ventricular assist devices as destination therapy

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 April 2007

Alan J. Girling ,
Guy Freeman ,
Jason P. Gordon ,
Philip Poole-Wilson ,
David A. Scott  and
Richard J. Lilford
Alan J. Girling
Affiliation:
University of Birmingham
Guy Freeman
Affiliation:
University of Warwick
Jason P. Gordon
Affiliation:
University of Birmingham
Philip Poole-Wilson
Affiliation:
Imperial College London
David A. Scott
Affiliation:
University of Southampton and Oxford Outcomes Ltd.
Richard J. Lilford
Affiliation:
University of Birmingham
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objectives: Ongoing developments in design have improved the outlook for left-ventricular assist device (LVAD) implantation as a therapy in end-stage heart failure. Nevertheless, early cost-effectiveness assessments, based on first-generation devices, have not been encouraging. Against this background, we set out (i) to examine the survival benefit that LVADs would need to generate before they could be deemed cost-effective; (ii) to provide insight into the likelihood that this benefit will be achieved; and (iii) from the perspective of a healthcare provider, to assess the value of discovering the actual size of this benefit by means of a Bayesian value of information analysis.

Methods: Cost-effectiveness assessments are made from the perspective of the healthcare provider, using current UK norms for the value of a quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). The treatment model is grounded in published analyses of the Randomized Evaluation of Mechanical Assistance for the Treatment of Congestive Heart Failure (REMATCH) trial of first-generation LVADs, translated into a UK cost setting. The prospects for patient survival with second-generation devices is assessed using Bayesian prior distributions, elicited from a group of leading clinicians in the field.

Results: Using established thresholds, cost-effectiveness probabilities under these priors are found to be low (∼.2 percent) for devices costing as much as £60,000. Sensitivity of the conclusions to both device cost and QALY valuation is examined.

Conclusions: In the event that the price of the device in use would reduce to £40,000, the value of the survival information can readily justify investment in further trials.

Keywords

Heart assist devicesCost-effectivenessValue of informationBayesian analysisPrior elicitation
Type
GENERAL ESSAYS
Information
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care , Volume 23 , Issue 2 , April 2007 , pp. 269 - 277
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2007

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

1.Ades, AE, Lu, G, Claxton, K. Expected value of sample information calculations in medical decision modeling. Med Decis Making. 2004; 24: 207–227.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
2.American Heart Association. Heart disease and stroke statistics – 2006 Update. Dallas, TX: American Heart Association; 2006.Google Scholar
3.Anon. Ventricular assist system: Summary of safety and effectiveness. Food and Drug Administration. 2002. Available at: http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/ac/02/briefing/3843b1_01_SSE_draft.pdf.Google Scholar
4.Anon. Special Report: Cost-effectiveness of left-ventricular assist devices as destination therapy for end-stage heart failure. Technol Eval Cent Asses Program Exec Summ. 2004; 19: 1.Google Scholar
5.Brown, A, Young, T, Meenan, B. Medical device prices follow the experimental curve. J Med Marketing. In press.Google Scholar
6.Claxton, K, Lacey, LF, Walker, SG. Selecting treatments: A decision theoretic approach. J R Stat Soc Ser A Stat Soc. 2000; 163: 211–225.Google Scholar
7.Claxton, K. The irrelevance of inference: A decision-making approach to the stochastic evaluation of health care technologies. J Health Econ. 1999; 18: 341–364.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8.Claxton, K, Ginnelly, L, Sculpher, M et al. , A pilot study on the use of decision theory and value of information analysis as part of the NHS health technology assessment programme. Health Technol Assess. 2004; 8: 1–103, iii.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
9.Claxton, K, Posnett, J. An economic approach to clinical trial design and research priority-setting. Health Econ. 1996; 5: 513–524.Google Scholar
10.Claxton, K, Sculpher, M, Drummond, M. A rational framework for decision making by the National Institute For Clinical Excellence (NICE). Lancet. 2002; 360: 711–715.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
11.Clegg, AJ, Scott, DA, Loveman, E et al. , The clinical and cost-effectiveness of left ventricular assist devices for end-stage heart failure: A systematic review and economic evaluation. Health Technol Assess. 2005; 9: 1–148.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
12.Cleland, JG. Heart failure: A medical hydra. Lancet. 1998; 352 (Suppl 1): SI1–SI2.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
13.Day, GS, Montgomery, DB. Diagnosing the experience curve. J Mark. 1983; 47: 44–58.Google Scholar
14.Derose, J, Jarvik, R. Axial flow pumps. In: Goldstein, DJOz, MC, eds. Cardiac assist devices. New York: Futura Publishing; 359–374. 2000:Google Scholar
15.Dominguez, LJ, Parrinello, G, Amato, P et al. , Trends of congestive heart failure epidemiology: Contrast with clinical trial results. Cardiologia. 1999; 44: 801–808.Google ScholarPubMed
16.Evans, RW. Cardiac replacement: Estimation of need, demand and supply. In: Rose, EAStevenson, LW, eds. Management of end-stage heart disease. Philadelphia PA: Lippincott-Raven; 1998: 13–24.Google Scholar
17.Federal Drug Administration. FDA approves heart assist pump for permanent use. FDA. 2002. Available at: http://www.fda. gov/bbs/topics/NEWS/2002/NEW00851.htm.Google Scholar
18.Felli, JC, Hazen, GB. Sensitivity analysis and the expected value of perfect information. Med Decis Making. 1998; 18: 95–109.Google Scholar
19.Fenwick, E, Claxton, K, Sculpher, M et al. , Improving the efficiency and relevance of health technology assessment: The role of iterative decision analytic modelling. Report No. Discussion Paper 179. York: Centre for Health Economics; 2000.Google Scholar
20.Fisher, DC, Lake, KD, Reutzel, TJ et al. , Changes in health-related quality of life and depression in heart transplant recipients. J Heart Lung Transplant. 1995; 14: 373–381.Google ScholarPubMed
21.Garthwaite, PH, Kadane, JB, O'Hagan, A. Statistical methods for eliciting probability distributions. J Am Stat Assoc. 2005; 100: 680–700.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
22.Henderson, BD. The application and misapplication of the experience curve. J Bus Strategy. 1984; 4: 3–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
23.HM, Treasury. The green book: Appraisal and evaluation in central government. London: HMT; 2003.Google Scholar
24.Hoshi, H, Shinshi, T, Takatani, S. Third-generation blood pumps with mechanical noncontact magnetic bearings. Artif Organs. 2006; 30: 324–338.Google Scholar
25.Hussey, JC, Bond, ZC, Collett, D et al. , 2004. on behalf of UK Transplant Cardiothoracic Advisory Group. Long-term patient survival for heart transplant recipients in the UK.Google Scholar
26.John, R. Donor management and selection for heart transplantation. Semin Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2004; 16: 364–369.Google Scholar
27.Kirklin, JK, Holman, WL. Mechanical circulatory support therapy as a bridge to transplant or recovery (new advances). Curr Opin Cardiol. 2006; 21: 120–126.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
28.Lietz, K, Miller, LW. Will left-ventricular assist device therapy replace heart transplantation in the foreseeable future? Curr Opin Cardiol. 2005; 20: 132–137.Google Scholar
29.Lilford, RJ, Braunholtz, D. The statistical basis of public policy: A paradigm shift is overdue. BMJ. 1996; 313: 603–607.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
30.Long, JW, Kfoury, AG, Slaughter, MS et al. , Long-term destination therapy with the HeartMate XVE left ventricular assist device. Improved outcomes since the REMATCH Study. Congest Heart Fail. 2005; 11: 133–138.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
31.Miller, LW, Nelson, KE, Bostic, RR et al. , Hospital costs for left ventricular assist devices for destination therapy: Lower costs for implantation in the post-REMATCH era. J Heart Lung Transplant. 2006; 25: 778–784.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
32.Morris, PA. Decision analysis expert use. Manage Sci. 1974; 20: 1233–1241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
33.Moskowitz, AJ, Weinberg, AD, Oz, MC et al. , Quality of life with an implanted left ventricular assist device. Ann Thorac Surg. 1997; 64: 1764–1769.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
34.Noon, GP, Morley, D, Irwin, S et al. , The DeBakey ventricular assist device. In: Goldstein, DJ, Oz, MC eds. Cardiac assist devices. New York: Futura Publishing; 2000:375–386.Google Scholar
35.Oz, MC, Gelijns, AC, Miller, L et al. , Left ventricular assist devices as permanent heart failure therapy: The price of progress. Ann Surg. 2003; 238: 577–583.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
36.Park, SJ, Tector, A, Piccioni, W et al. , Left ventricular assist devices as destination therapy: A new look at survival. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2005; 129: 9–17.Google Scholar
37.Philbin, EF. Comprehensive multidisciplinary programs for the management of patients with congestive heart failure. J Gen Intern Med. 1999; 14: 130–135.Google Scholar
38.Raiffa, H, Schlaifer, R. Applied statistical decision theory. Boston: Harvard University, Graduate School of Business Administration; 1961.Google Scholar
39.Rawlins, MD, Culyer, AJ. National Institute for Clinical Excellence and its value judgments. BMJ. 2004; 329: 224–227.Google Scholar
40.Richards, PS, Nelson, KA, Frazier, OH et al. , Why referred potential heart donors aren't used. Tex Heart Inst J. 1993; 20: 218–222.Google ScholarPubMed
41.Rose, EA, Moskowitz, AJ, Packer, M et al. , The REMATCH Trial: Rationale, design, and end points. randomized evaluation of mechanical assistance for the treatment of congestive heart failure. Ann Thorac Surg. 1999; 67: 723–730.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
42.Rose, EA, Gelijns, AC, Moskowitz, AJ; and the Randomized Evaluation of Mechanical Assistance for the Treatment of Congestive Heart Failure (REMATCH) Study Group. Long-term use of a left ventricular assist device for end-stage heart failure. N Engl J Med. 2001; 345: 1435–1443.Google Scholar
43.Savage, LJ. The foundations of statistics. New York: John Wiley; 1954.Google Scholar
44.Siegenthaler, MP, Westaby, S, Frazier, OH et al. , Advanced heart failure: Feasibility study of long-term continuous axial flow pump support. Eur Heart J. 2005; 26: 1031–1038.Google Scholar
45.Spiegelhalter, DJ, Abrams, KR, Myles, JP. Bayesian approaches to clinical trials and health-care evaluation. New York: Wiley; 2004.Google Scholar
46.Stevenson, LW, Shekar, P. Ventricular assist devices for durable support. Circulation. 2005; 112: e111–e115.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
47.Takatani, S. Progress of rotary blood pumps. Artif Organs. 2006; 30: 317–321.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
48.Tsukui, H, Winowich, S, Stanford, E et al. , Does a rotary pump provide full cardiac decompression and circulatory support?— from clinical experiences of HeartMate II with severe congestive heart failure patients. ASAIO. 2005; 51: 2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
49.Willan, AR, Pinto, EM. The value of information and optimal clinical trial design. Stat Med. 2005; 24: 1791–1806.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
50.Zaman, SN. Managing elderly patients with end-stage heart failure. CME J Geriatr Med. 2001; 3: 105–109.Google Scholar