Cleveland Clinic, OH (B.L.W., K.G.T.).
University of Modena and Reggio Emilia, Modena, Italy (G.B.).
Circ Arrhythm Electrophysiol. 2020 Oct;13(10):e008503. doi: 10.1161/CIRCEP.120.008503. Epub 2020 Sep 11.
In the WRAP-IT trial (Worldwide Randomized Antibiotic Envelope Infection Prevention), adjunctive use of an absorbable antibacterial envelope resulted in a 40% reduction of major cardiac implantable electronic device infection without increased risk of complication in 6983 patients undergoing cardiac implantable electronic device revision, replacement, upgrade, or initial cardiac resynchronization therapy defibrillator implant. There is limited information on the cost-effectiveness of this strategy. As a prespecified objective, we evaluated antibacterial envelope cost-effectiveness compared with standard-of-care infection prevention strategies in the US healthcare system.
A decision tree model was used to compare costs and outcomes of antibacterial envelope (TYRX) use adjunctive to standard-of-care infection prevention versus standard-of-care alone over a lifelong time horizon. The analysis was performed from an integrated payer-provider network perspective. Infection rates, antibacterial envelope effectiveness, infection treatment costs and patterns, infection-related mortality, and utility estimates were obtained from the WRAP-IT trial. Life expectancy and long-term costs associated with device replacement, follow-up, and healthcare utilization were sourced from the literature. Costs and quality-adjusted life years were discounted at 3%. An upper willingness-to-pay threshold of $150 000 per quality-adjusted life year was used to determine cost-effectiveness, in alignment with the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association practice guidelines and as supported by the World Health Organization and contemporary literature.
The base case incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of the antibacterial envelope compared with standard-of-care was $112 603/quality-adjusted life year. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio remained lower than the willingness-to-pay threshold in 74% of iterations in the probabilistic sensitivity analysis and was most sensitive to the following model inputs: infection-related mortality, life expectancy, and infection cost.
The absorbable antibacterial envelope was associated with a cost-effectiveness ratio below contemporary benchmarks in the WRAP-IT patient population, suggesting that the envelope provides value for the US healthcare system by reducing the incidence of cardiac implantable electronic device infection. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT02277990.
在 WRAP-IT 试验(全球随机抗生素包裹感染预防)中,在 6983 例接受心脏植入式电子设备(CIED)修正、替换、升级或初始心脏再同步治疗除颤器植入的患者中,辅助使用可吸收抗菌包裹可将主要心脏植入式电子设备感染减少 40%,而不会增加并发症风险。关于这种策略的成本效益信息有限。作为预先规定的目标,我们在美国家庭医疗保健系统中评估了与标准护理感染预防策略相比,抗菌包裹的成本效益。
使用决策树模型比较了在终生时间范围内,辅助使用抗菌包裹(TYRX)与单独使用标准护理预防感染的成本和结果。该分析从集成支付者-提供者网络的角度进行。感染率、抗菌包裹的有效性、感染治疗费用和模式、感染相关死亡率以及效用估计值来自 WRAP-IT 试验。设备替换、随访和医疗保健利用相关的预期寿命和长期成本来自文献。成本和质量调整生命年以 3%贴现。使用 150000 美元/QALY 的上限支付意愿阈值来确定成本效益,这与美国心脏病学会/美国心脏协会的实践指南一致,并得到世界卫生组织和当代文献的支持。
与标准护理相比,抗菌包裹的增量成本效益比为 112603 美元/QALY。在概率敏感性分析的 74%迭代中,增量成本效益比仍低于支付意愿阈值,并且对以下模型输入最为敏感:感染相关死亡率、预期寿命和感染成本。
在 WRAP-IT 患者人群中,可吸收抗菌包裹与低于当代基准的成本效益比相关,这表明该包裹通过降低心脏植入式电子设备感染的发生率,为美国家庭医疗保健系统提供了价值。