Key result
TAVI was cost-effective compared to surgical or medical treatment across intermediate, high-risk, and inoperable patients with aortic stenosis, yielding ICERs of €8338, €11,209, and €10,133 per QALY, respectively.
Why the study?
The cost-effectiveness of TAVI across different surgical risk groups from the Italian National Health System perspective needed assessment.
Does transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) provide a cost-effective alternative to surgical aortic valve replacement or medical therapy in patients with aortic stenosis across different surgical risk groups?
Does transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) provide a cost-effective alternative to surgical aortic valve replacement or medical therapy in patients with aortic stenosis across different surgical risk groups?
Effect estimate: €8338/QALY (intermediate), €11,209/QALY (high-risk), €10,133/QALY (inoperable)
TAVI is a cost-effective treatment strategy for aortic stenosis across intermediate-risk, high-risk, and inoperable patient groups within the Italian National Health System.
Supports TAVI cost-effectiveness across Italian risk groups; leaves open real-world generalizability beyond modeled data.
OBJECTIVES: To assess the cost-effectiveness (CE) of transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) in Italy, considering patient groups with different surgical risk. METHODS: A Markov model with a 1-month cycle length, comprising eight different health states, defined by the New York Heart Association functional classes (NYHA I-IV), with and without stroke plus death, was used to estimate the CE of TAVI for intermediate-, high-risk and inoperable patients considering surgical aortic valve replacement or medical treatment as comparators according to the patient group. The Italian National Health System perspective and 15-year time horizon were considered. In the base-case analysis, effectiveness data were retrieved from published efficacy data and total direct costs (euros) were estimated from national tariffs. A scenario analysis considering a micro-costing approach to estimate procedural costs was also considered. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was expressed both in terms of costs per life years gained (LYG) and costs per quality adjusted life years (QALY). All outcomes and costs were discounted at 3% per annum. Univariate and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSA) were performed to assess robustness of results. RESULTS: Over a 15-year time horizon, the higher acquisition costs for TAVI were partially offset in all risk groups because of its effectiveness and safety profile. ICERs were €8338/QALY, €11,209/QALY and €10,133/QALY, respectively, for intermediate-, high-risk and inoperable patients. ICER values were slightly higher in the scenario analysis. PSA suggested consistency of results. CONCLUSIONS: TAVI would be considered cost-effective at frequently cited willingness-to-pay thresholds; further studies could clarify the CE of TAVI in real-life scenarios.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Lorenzoni et al. (2021) studied Aortic stenosis. Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) vs. Surgical aortic valve replacement (sAVR) or medical treatment was evaluated on Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) per QALY (€8338/QALY (intermediate), €11,209/QALY (high-risk), €10,133/QALY (inoperable)). TAVI was cost-effective compared to surgical or medical treatment across intermediate, high-risk, and inoperable patients with aortic stenosis, yielding ICERs of €8338, €11,209, and €10,133 per QALY, respectively.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: