Key result
Implantable cardiac defibrillators were cost-effective for primary prevention (ICER NT$708,711) and highly cost-effective for the 1.5PP subset (ICER NT$441,153) compared to no ICD in Taiwan.
Why the study?
ICDs for primary prevention of sudden cardiac arrest are well established but underutilized globally, and the cost-effectiveness among primary prevention and 1.5 primary prevention patients in Taiwan was unknown.
Is ICD therapy cost-effective compared to no ICD therapy for primary prevention of sudden cardiac arrest in Taiwan?
Is ICD therapy cost-effective compared to no ICD therapy for primary prevention of sudden cardiac arrest in Taiwan?
Effect estimate: ICER NT$708,711 (PP) and NT$441,153 (1.5PP)
ICD therapy is cost-effective for primary prevention of sudden cardiac arrest in Taiwan, particularly in the higher-risk 1.5PP subset.
Supports ICD consideration for primary prevention in Taiwan; leaves open confirmation via local prospective trials.
OBJECTIVE: Implantable cardiac defibrillators (ICDs) for primary prevention (PP) of sudden cardiac arrest (SCA) are well-established but underutilized globally. The Improve SCA study has identified a cohort of patients called 1.5 primary prevention (1.5PP) based on PP patients with the presence of certain risk factors. We evaluated the cost-effectiveness of ICD therapy compared to no ICD among the PP population and the subset of 1.5PP patients in Taiwan. METHODS: A Markov model was run over a lifetime time horizon from the Taiwan payer perspective. Mortality and utility estimates were obtained from the literature (PP) and the IMPROVE SCA trial (1.5PP). Cost inputs were obtained from the Taiwan National Health Insurance Administration (NHIA), Ministry of Health and Welfare. We used a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of NT$2,100,000, as established through standard WTP research methods and in alignment with World Health Organization recommendations. RESULTS: The total discounted costs for ICD therapy and no ICD therapy were NT$1,664,259 and NT$646,396 respectively for PP, while they were NT$2,410,603 and NT$905,881 respectively for 1.5PP. Total discounted QALYs for ICD therapy and no ICD therapy were 6.48 and 4.98 respectively for PP, while they were 10.78 and 7.71 respectively for 1.5PP. The incremental cost effectiveness ratio was NT$708,711 for PP and NT$441,153 for 1.5PP, therefore ICD therapy should be considered cost effective for PP and highly cost effective for 1.5PP. CONCLUSIONS: ICD therapy compared to no ICD therapy is cost-effective in the whole PP population and highly cost-effective in the subset 1.5PP population in Taiwan.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Holbrook et al. (2020) studied Primary prevention of sudden cardiac arrest. Implantable cardiac defibrillators (ICDs) vs. No ICD was evaluated on Incremental cost effectiveness ratio (ICER) (ICER NT$708,711 (PP) and NT$441,153 (1.5PP)). Implantable cardiac defibrillators were cost-effective for primary prevention (ICER NT$708,711) and highly cost-effective for the 1.5PP subset (ICER NT$441,153) compared to no ICD in Taiwan.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: