Key result
Endovascular ultrasound renal denervation plus standard of care was cost-effective for resistant hypertension, yielding an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £5600 per QALY gained compared to standard of care alone.
Why the study?
This analysis assessed the cost effectiveness of adding the Paradise endovascular ultrasound renal denervation System compared with standard of care alone in patients with resistant hypertension from the UK health care perspective.
Is endovascular ultrasound renal denervation cost-effective compared to standard of care alone in patients with resistant hypertension?
Is endovascular ultrasound renal denervation cost-effective compared to standard of care alone in patients with resistant hypertension?
Effect estimate: ICER £5600 per QALY gained (95% CI £5463-£5739)
Endovascular ultrasound renal denervation is a highly cost-effective treatment option for resistant hypertension in the UK healthcare system, with an ICER well below standard willingness-to-pay thresholds.
Supports adoption of endovascular ultrasound renal denervation for resistant hypertension in the UK; extends prior efficacy data with favorable economic modeling.
BACKGROUND: Resistant hypertension (rHTN) is defined as blood pressure (BP) of ≥ 140/90 mmHg despite treatment with at least three antihypertensive medications, including a diuretic. Endovascular ultrasound renal denervation (uRDN) aims to control BP alongside conventional BP treatment with antihypertensive medication. This analysis assesses the cost effectiveness of the addition of the Paradise uRDN System compared with standard of care alone in patients with rHTN from the perspective of the United Kingdom (UK) health care system. METHODS: Using RADIANCE-HTN TRIO trial data, we developed a state-transition model. Baseline risk was calculated using Framingham and Prospective Cardiovascular Münster (PROCAM) risk equations to estimate the long-term cardiovascular risks in patients treated with the Paradise uRDN System, based on the observed systolic BP (SBP) reduction following uRDN. Relative risks sourced from a meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials were then used to project cardiovascular events in patients with baseline SBP ('control' patients); utility and mortality inputs and costs were derived from UK data. Costs and outcomes were discounted at 3.5% per annum. Modelled outcomes were validated against trial meta-analyses and the QRISK3 algorithm and real-world evidence of RDN effectiveness. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess the uncertainty surrounding the model inputs and sensitivity of the model results to changes in parameter inputs. Results were reported as incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). RESULTS: A mean reduction in office SBP of 8.5 mmHg with uRDN resulted in an average improvement in both absolute life-years (LYs) and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained compared with standard of care alone (0.73 LYs and 0.67 QALYs). The overall base-case ICER with uRDN was estimated at £5600 (€6500) per QALY gained (95% confidence interval £5463-£5739 [€6341-€6661]); modelling demonstrated > 99% probability that the ICER is below the £20,000-£30,000 (€23,214-€34,821) per QALYs gained willingness-to-pay threshold in the UK. Results were consistent across sensitivity analyses and validation checks. CONCLUSIONS: Endovascular ultrasound RDN with the Paradise system offers patients with rHTN, clinicians, and healthcare systems a cost-effective treatment option alongside antihypertensive medication.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Bentley et al. (2024) studied Resistant hypertension (n=136). Paradise endovascular ultrasound renal denervation (uRDN) vs. Standard of care alone was evaluated on Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) per QALY gained (ICER £5600 per QALY gained, 95% CI £5463-£5739). Endovascular ultrasound renal denervation plus standard of care was cost-effective for resistant hypertension, yielding an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £5600 per QALY gained compared to standard of care alone.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: