Why the study?
Is an implantable carotid body stimulator cost-effective compared to failed medical management in patients with resistant hypertension?
Is an implantable carotid body stimulator cost-effective compared to failed medical management in patients with resistant hypertension?
An implantable carotid body stimulator may be a cost-effective treatment for resistant hypertension, with an ICER between $50,000 and $100,000 per QALY depending on baseline characteristics and device efficacy.
May support cost-effectiveness in resistant hypertension models; leaves open confirmation via randomized trials before practice change.
The purposes of this study are to investigate the cost-effectiveness of an implantable carotid body stimulator (Rheos; CVRx, Inc, Minneapolis, MN) for treating resistant hypertension and determine the range of starting systolic blood pressure (SBP) values where the device remains cost-effective. A Markov model compared a 20-mm Hg drop in SBP from an initial level of 180 mm Hg with Rheos to failed medical management in a hypothetical 50-year-old cohort. Direct costs (2007$), utilities, and event rates for future myocardial infarction, stroke, heart failure, and end-stage renal disease were modeled. Sensitivity analyses tested the assumptions in the model. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for Rheos was $64,400 per quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) using Framingham-derived event probabilities. The ICER was <$100,000 per QALYs for SBPs > or =142 mm Hg. A probability of device removal of <1% per year or SBP reductions of > or =24 mm Hg were variables that decreased the ICER below $50,000 per QALY. For cohort characteristics similar to Anglo-Scandinavian Cardiac Outcomes Trial-Blood Pressure-Lowering Arm (ASCOT-BPLA) participants, the ICER became $26,700 per QALY. Two-way sensitivity analyses demonstrated that lowering SBP 12 mm Hg from 220 mm Hg or 21 mm Hg from 140 mm Hg were required. Rheos may be cost-effective, with an ICER between $50,000 and $100,000 per QALYs. Cohort characteristics and efficacy are key to the cost-effectiveness of new therapies for resistant hypertension .
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Young et al. (2009) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 4 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: