Ramos Isaac Corro, Versteegh Matthijs M, de Boer Rudolf A, Koenders Jolanda M A, Linssen Gerard C M, Meeder Joan G, Rutten-van Mölken Maureen P M H
Institute for Medical Technology Assessment, Erasmus University Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
Institute for Medical Technology Assessment, Erasmus University Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
Value Health. 2017 Dec;20(10):1260-1269. doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2017.05.013. Epub 2017 Jun 20.
To describe the adaptation of a global health economic model to determine whether treatment with the angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor LCZ696 is cost effective compared with the angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor enalapril in adult patients with chronic heart failure with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction in the Netherlands; and to explore the effect of performing the cost-effectiveness analyses according to the new pharmacoeconomic Dutch guidelines (updated during the submission process of LCZ696), which require a value-of-information analysis and the inclusion of indirect medical costs of life-years gained.
We adapted a UK model to reflect the societal perspective in the Netherlands by including travel expenses, productivity loss, informal care costs, and indirect medical costs during the life-years gained and performed a preliminary value-of-information analysis.
The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio obtained was €17,600 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. This was robust to changes in most structural assumptions and across different subgroups of patients. Probability sensitivity analysis results showed that the probability that LCZ696 is cost-effective at a €50,000 per QALY threshold is 99.8%, with a population expected value of perfect information of €297,128. On including indirect medical costs of life-years gained, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was €26,491 per QALY gained, and LCZ696 was 99.46% cost effective at €50,000 per QALY, with a population expected value of perfect information of €2,849,647.
LCZ696 is cost effective compared with enalapril under the former and current Dutch guidelines. However, the (monetary) consequences of making a wrong decision were considerably different in both scenarios.
调整一种全球健康经济模型,以确定在荷兰左心室射血分数降低的成年慢性心力衰竭患者中,血管紧张素受体脑啡肽酶抑制剂LCZ696与血管紧张素转换酶抑制剂依那普利相比是否具有成本效益;并探讨按照新的荷兰药物经济学指南(在LCZ696提交过程中更新)进行成本效益分析的效果,该指南要求进行信息价值分析并纳入获得的生命年的间接医疗成本。
我们调整了一个英国模型,通过纳入差旅费用、生产力损失、非正式护理成本以及获得的生命年期间的间接医疗成本,以反映荷兰的社会视角,并进行了初步的信息价值分析。
获得的增量成本效益比为每获得一个质量调整生命年(QALY)17,600欧元。这在大多数结构假设变化和不同患者亚组中都很稳健。概率敏感性分析结果表明,在每QALY阈值为50,000欧元时,LCZ696具有成本效益的概率为99.8%,总体完美信息期望值为297,128欧元。纳入获得的生命年的间接医疗成本后,增量成本效益比为每获得一个QALY 26,491欧元,在每QALY 50,000欧元时,LCZ696的成本效益为99.46%,总体完美信息期望值为2,849,647欧元。
根据以前和当前的荷兰指南,与依那普利相比,LCZ696具有成本效益。然而,在两种情况下做出错误决策的(货币)后果有很大不同。