Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rcrh6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T01:27:17.416Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Cost-effectiveness of enhanced external counterpulsation (EECP) for the treatment of stable angina in the United Kingdom

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 April 2010

Claire McKenna ,
Neil Hawkins ,
Karl Claxton ,
Catriona McDaid ,
Sara Suekarran ,
Kate Light ,
Michael Chester ,
John G. F. Cleland ,
Nerys Woolacott  and
Mark Sculpher
Claire McKenna
Affiliation:
University of York
Neil Hawkins
Affiliation:
University of York
Karl Claxton
Affiliation:
University of York
Catriona McDaid
Affiliation:
University of York
Sara Suekarran
Affiliation:
University of York
Kate Light
Affiliation:
University of York
Michael Chester
Affiliation:
Liverpool Hope University
John G. F. Cleland
Affiliation:
Castle Hill Hospital and University of Hull
Nerys Woolacott
Affiliation:
University of York
Mark Sculpher
Affiliation:
University of York
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objectives: The objective of this study is to assess the cost-effectiveness of enhanced external counterpulsation (EECP) compared with no treatment as additional therapy to usual care for the treatment of chronic stable angina from the perspective of the UK National Health Service.

Methods: The study design was a systematic review of published evidence, use of expert clinical opinion, and decision analytic cost-effectiveness model. The systematic review was conducted and statistical methods used to synthesize the effectiveness evidence from randomized control trials. Formal methods were used to elicit opinion from clinical experts where no evidence was available. These provide informed “priors” on key model parameters. A decision analytic model was developed to assess the costs and health consequences associated with the primary outcome of the trials over a lifetime time horizon. The main outcome measures were costs from a health service perspective and outcomes measured as quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs).

Results: The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of EECP was £18,643 for each additional QALY, with a probability of being cost-effective of 0.44 and 0.70 at cost-effectiveness thresholds of £20,000 and £30,000 per QALY gained, respectively. Results were sensitive to the duration of health-related quality of life (HRQoL) benefits from treatment.

Conclusions: The long-term maintenance of HRQoL benefits of EECP is central to the estimate of cost-effectiveness. The results from a single randomized control trial do not provide firm evidence of the clinical or cost-effectiveness of EECP in stable angina. Long-term follow-up trials assessing quality of life from EECP are required.

Keywords

Cost-effectiveness analysisCardiovascular diseases
Type
ASSESSMENTS
Information
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care , Volume 26 , Issue 2 , April 2010 , pp. 175 - 182
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

1. Allender, S, Peto, V, Scarborough, P, Boxer, A, Rayner, M. Morbidity. Coronary heart disease statistics. London: British Heart Foundation; 2007.Google Scholar
2. Ara, R, Brazier, J. Deriving an algorithm to convert the 8 mean SF-36 dimension scores into a mean EQ-5D preference-based score from published studies (where patient level data are not available) Value Health. 2008;11:1131–1143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3. Arora, R, Chou, T, Jain, D, et al. The multicenter study of enhanced external counterpulsation (MUST-EECP): Effect of EECP on exercise-induced myocardial ischemia and anginal episodes. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1999;33:1833–1840.Google Scholar
4. Arora, R, Chou, T, Jain, D, et al. Effects of enhanced external counterpulsation on health-related quality of life continue 12 months after treatment: A substudy of the multicenter study of enhanced external counterpulsation. J Invest Med. 2002;50:25–32.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
5. Bonetti, PO, Holmes, DR Jr, Lerman, A, Barsness, GW. Enhanced external counterpulsation for ischemic heart disease: What's behind the curtain? J Am Coll Cardiol. 2003;41:1918–1925.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
6. Briggs, A, Claxton, K, Sculpher, M. Decision modelling for health economic evaluation. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7. Briggs, A, Mihaylova, B, Sculpher, M, et al. Cost effectiveness of perindopril in reducing cardiovascular events in patients with stable coronary artery disease using data from the EUROPA study. Heart. 2007;93:1081–1086.Google Scholar
8. Briggs, AH, Goeree, R, Blackhouse, G, O'Brien, BJ. Probabilistic analysis of cost-effectiveness models: Choosing between treatment strategies for gastroesophageal reflux disease. Med Decis Making. 2002;22:290–308.Google Scholar
9. Cooke, RM. Experts in uncertainty: Opinion and subjective probability in science. New York: Oxford University Press; 1991.Google Scholar
10. Devlin, N, Parkin, D. Does NICE have a cost effectiveness threshold and what other factors influence its decisions? A binary choice analysis. Health Econ. 2004;13:437–452.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
11. Government Actuary's Department. Interim life tables. London: Office for National Statistics; 2007.Google Scholar
12. Johannesson, M, Weinstein, S. On the decision rules of cost-effectiveness analysis. J Health Econ. 1993;12:459–467.Google Scholar
13. Kind, P. The EuroQoL instrument: An index of health-related quality of life. In: Spilker, B, ed. Quality of life and pharmacoeconomics in clinical trials. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott-Raven; 1996.Google Scholar
14. Kind, P, Hardman, G, Macran, S. UK population norms for EQ-5D. Centre for Health Economics Discussion Paper 172. York: Centre for Health Economics, University of York; 1999.Google Scholar
15. Lawson, WE, Hui, JCK, Soroff, HS, et al. Efficacy of enhanced external counterpulsation in the treatment of angina pectoris. Am J Cardiol. 1992;70:859–862.Google Scholar
16. Lawson, WE, Hui, JCK, Zheng, ZS, et al. Three-year sustained benefit from enhanced external counterpulsation in chronic angina pectoris. Am J Cardiol. 1995;75:840–841.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
17. McKenna, C, McDaid, C, Suekarran, S, et al. Enhanced External Counterpulsation (EECP) for the treatment of stable angina and heart failure: A systematic review and economic analysis. Health Technol Assess. 2009;13:1–128.Google Scholar
18. Michaels, A, Barsness, G, Soran, O, et al. Frequency and efficacy of repeat enhanced external counterpulsation for stable angina pectoris (from the International EECP Patient Registry). Am J Cardiol. 2005;95:394–397.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
19. National Institute for Clinical Excellence. Guidance to the methods of technology appraisal. London: National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE); 2004.Google Scholar
20. O'Hagan, A, Buck, CE, Daneshkhah, A, et al. Uncertain judgements. Eliciting experts’ probabilities. Chichester: Wiley; 2006.Google Scholar
21. Polsky, D, Basu, A. Selection bias in observational data. In: Jones, AM, ed. The Elgar companion to health economics. Cheltenham, UK; 2006.Google Scholar
22. Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network. Management of stable angina: A national clinical guideline [SIGN guideline 96]. Edinburgh: SIGN; 2007.Google Scholar
23. Sinvhal, RM, Gowda, RM, Khan, IA. Enhanced external counterpulsation for refractory angina pectoris. Heart. 2003;89:830–833.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
24. Stewart, S, Murphy, NF, Walker, A, McGuire, A, McMurray, JJ. The current cost of angina pectoris to the National Health Service in the UK. Heart. 2003;89:848–853.Google Scholar
25. van Noortwijk, JM, Dekker, A, Cooke, RM, Mazzuchi, TA. Expert judgment in maintenance optimization. IEEE Trans Reliability. 1992;41:427–432.Google Scholar
26. Vasogenics price list (effective from April 2007).Google Scholar
Supplementary material: File

McKenna et al. supplementary material

Supplementary Table and figures

Download McKenna et al. supplementary material(File)
File 47.6 KB