Yao Guiqing, Freemantle Nick, Calvert Melanie J, Bryan Stirling, Daubert Jean-Claude, Cleland John G F
Department of Primary Care and General Practice, University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham B15 2TT, UK.
Eur Heart J. 2007 Jan;28(1):42-51. doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehl382. Epub 2006 Nov 16.
Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT-P) is an effective treatment for patients with heart failure and cardiac dyssynchrony with moderate or severe symptoms despite pharmacological therapy. The addition of an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) function may further reduce the risk of sudden death. We assessed the cost-effectiveness of CRT-P compared with medical therapy (MT) alone, and the cost-effectiveness of CRT-ICD + MT compared with CRT-P + MT, on incremental cost per quality adjusted life year (QALY) and life year using data from two landmark clinical trials.
A Markov model with Monte Carlo simulation to assess costs, life years, and QALYs associated with CRT (+/- ICD) and MT in patients with heart failure and cardiac dyssynchrony, on the basis of a UK healthcare perspective was constructed. NYHA class distribution and transitions, associated health utilities, rates and cause of hospitalization and death were estimated from individual patient data from the CArdiac REsychronization in Heart Failure (CARE-HF trial). The estimated additional benefit on survival of an ICD was based on results from COMPANION. The base case analysis used 10 000 individual life-time simulations assuming a battery life of 6 years for CRT-P and 7 years for CRT-ICD. From a life-time perspective in a 65-year-old patient, the incremental cost-effectiveness of CRT-P compared with MT is 7538 euros (95% CI 5325-11,784 euros) per QALY gained and 7011euros (95% CI 5346-10,003 euros) per life year gained. The incremental cost-effectiveness of CRT-ICD compared with CRT-P is 47,909 euros (95% CI 35,703-79,438 euros) per QALY gained, and 35,864 euros (95% CI 26,709-56,353 euros) per life year gained.
Long-term treatment with CRT-P appears cost-effective compared with MT alone. From a life-time perspective, assuming a reasonable life expectancy when receiving effective treatment for heart failure, CRT-ICD may also be considered cost-effective when compared with CRT-P + MT.
心脏再同步治疗(CRT-P)是治疗心力衰竭且存在心脏不同步、尽管接受药物治疗仍有中度或重度症状患者的一种有效方法。增加植入式心脏复律除颤器(ICD)功能可能会进一步降低猝死风险。我们利用两项具有里程碑意义的临床试验数据,评估了CRT-P与单纯药物治疗(MT)相比的成本效益,以及CRT-ICD + MT与CRT-P + MT相比,在每质量调整生命年(QALY)和生命年的增量成本方面的成本效益。
构建了一个马尔可夫模型并进行蒙特卡洛模拟,以评估心力衰竭和心脏不同步患者中与CRT(±ICD)和MT相关的成本、生命年和QALY,视角为英国医疗保健。纽约心脏协会(NYHA)分级分布及转换、相关健康效用、住院率和死亡率以及死因是根据心力衰竭心脏再同步治疗(CARE-HF试验)的个体患者数据估算得出的。ICD对生存的估计额外益处基于COMPANION试验结果。基础病例分析使用了10000次个体终生模拟,假设CRT-P的电池寿命为6年,CRT-ICD的电池寿命为7年。从65岁患者的终生视角来看,CRT-P与MT相比,每获得一个QALY的增量成本效益为7538欧元(95%置信区间5325 - 11784欧元),每获得一个生命年的增量成本效益为7011欧元(95%置信区间5346 - 10003欧元)。CRT-ICD与CRT-P相比,每获得一个QALY的增量成本效益为47909欧元(95%置信区间35703 - 79438欧元),每获得一个生命年的增量成本效益为35864欧元(95%置信区间26709 - 56353欧元)。
与单纯MT相比,CRT-P长期治疗似乎具有成本效益。从终生视角来看,假设在接受心力衰竭有效治疗时有合理的预期寿命,与CRT-P + MT相比,CRT-ICD也可能被认为具有成本效益。