Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-v5vhk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-04T21:42:55.030Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Quality of economic evaluations of ventricular assist devices: A systematic review

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 June 2020

Sarah Fontenay ,
Lionel Catarino ,
Soumeya Snoussi ,
Hélène van den Brink ,
Judith Pineau ,
Patrice Prognon  and
Nicolas Martelli Open the ORCID record for Nicolas Martelli [Opens in a new window]
Sarah Fontenay
Affiliation:
Pharmacy Department, Georges Pompidou European Hospital, AP-HP, 20 Rue Leblanc, 75015Paris, France
Lionel Catarino
Affiliation:
Pharmacy Department, Georges Pompidou European Hospital, AP-HP, 20 Rue Leblanc, 75015Paris, France
Soumeya Snoussi
Affiliation:
Pharmacy Department, Georges Pompidou European Hospital, AP-HP, 20 Rue Leblanc, 75015Paris, France
Hélène van den Brink
Affiliation:
Université Paris-Saclay GRADES, 92290Châtenay-Malabry, France
Judith Pineau
Affiliation:
Pharmacy Department, Georges Pompidou European Hospital, AP-HP, 20 Rue Leblanc, 75015Paris, France
Patrice Prognon
Affiliation:
Pharmacy Department, Georges Pompidou European Hospital, AP-HP, 20 Rue Leblanc, 75015Paris, France
Nicolas Martelli*
Affiliation:
Pharmacy Department, Georges Pompidou European Hospital, AP-HP, 20 Rue Leblanc, 75015Paris, France Université Paris-Saclay GRADES, 92290Châtenay-Malabry, France
*
Author for correspondence: Nicolas Martelli, E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objective

Because of a lack of suitable heart donors, alternatives to transplantation are required. These alternatives can have high costs. The aim of this study was to perform a systematic review of cost-effectiveness studies of ventricular assist devices (VADs) and to assess the level of evidence of relevant studies. The purpose was not to present economic findings.

Methods

A systematic review was performed using four electronic databases to identify health economic evaluation studies dealing with VADs. The methodological quality and reporting quality of the studies was assessed using three different tools, the Drummond, Cooper, and CHEERS (Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards) checklists.

Results

Of the 1,258 publications identified, thirteen articles were included in this review. Twelve studies were cost–utility analyses and one was a cost-effectiveness analysis. According to the Cooper hierarchy scale, the quality of the data used was heterogeneous. The level of evidence used for clinical effect sizes, safety data, and baseline clinical data was of poor quality. In contrast, cost data were of high quality in most studies. Quality of reporting varied between studies, with an average score of 17.4 (range 15–19) according to the CHEERS checklist.

Conclusion

The current study shows that the quality of clinical data used in economic evaluations of VADs is rather poor in general. This is a concern that deserves greater attention in the process of health technology assessment of medical devices.

Keywords

Economic evaluationMedical deviceVentricular assist deviceSystematic review
Type
Assessment
Information
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care , Volume 36 , Issue 4 , August 2020 , pp. 380 - 387
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2020. Published by Cambridge University Press

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

Ambrosy, AP, Fonarow, GC, Butler, J, Chioncel, O, Greene, SJ, Vaduganathan, M et al. The global health and economic burden of hospitalizations for heart failure. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2014;63:1123–33.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jones, NR, Roalfe, AK, Adoki, I, Hobbs, FDR, Taylor, CJ. Survival of patients with chronic heart failure in the community: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Heart Fail. 2019;21(11):1306–1325.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sugiura, A, Kitahara, H, Iwahana, T, Suzuki, N, Okada, S, Miyauchi, H et al. Association of heart failure duration with clinical prognosis in advanced heart failure. Clin Res Cardiol. 2019;109:350–357.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
DeBakey, ME. Left ventricular bypass pump for cardiac assistance. Am J Cardiol. 1971;27:3–11.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kirklin, JK, Pagani, FD, Kormos, RL, Stevenson, LW, Blume, ED, Myers, SL et al. Eighth annual INTERMACS report: Special focus on framing the impact of adverse events. J Heart Lung Transplant. 2017;36:1080–86.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nunes, AJ, MacArthur, RGG, Kim, D, Singh, G, Buchholz, H, Chatterley, P et al. A systematic review of the cost-effectiveness of long-term mechanical circulatory support. Value Health. 2016;19:494–504.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schmier, JK, Patel, JD, Leonhard, MJ, Midha, PA. A systematic review of cost-effectiveness analyses of left ventricular assist devices: Issues and challenges. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2019;17:35–46.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schardt, C, Adams, MB, Owens, T, Keitz, S, Fontelo, P. Utilization of the PICO framework to improve searching PubMed for clinical questions. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2007;7:16.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Drummond, M, Sculpher, M, Claxton, K, Stoddart, G, Torrance, G. Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes, fourth edition; Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2015.Google Scholar
Cooper, N, Coyle, D, Abrams, K, Mugford, M, Sutton, A. Use of evidence in decision models: An appraisal of health technology assessments in the UK since 1997. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2005;10:245–50.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Husereau, D, Drummond, M, Petrou, S, Carswell, C, Moher, D, Greenberg, D et al. Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement. Value Health. 2013;16:e1–e5.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nédellec, E, Pineau, J, Prognon, P, Martelli, N. Level of evidence in economic evaluations of left atrial appendage closure devices: A systematic review. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2018;16:793–802.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Teerawattananon, DY, Russell, S, Mugford, M. A systematic review of economic evaluation literature in Thailand. PharmacoEconomics. 2012;25:467–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martelli, N, Devaux, C, van den Brink, H, Pineau, J, Prognon, P, Borget, I. A systematic review of the level of evidence in economic evaluations of medical devices: The example of vertebroplasty and kyphoplasty. PLoS ONE 2015;10:e0144892.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Baras Shreibati, J, Goldhaber-Fiebert, JD, Banerjee, D, Owens, DK, Hlatky, MA. Cost-effectiveness of left ventricular assist devices in ambulatory patients with advanced heart failure. JACC Heart Fail. 2017;5:110–19.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Neyt, M, Van Den Bruel, A, Smit, Y, De Jonge, N, Erasmus, M, Van Dijk, D et al. Cost-effectiveness of continuous-flow left ventricular assist devices. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2013;29:254–60.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Long, EF, Swain, GW, Mangi, AA. Comparative survival and cost-effectiveness of advanced therapies for end-stage heart failure. Circ Heart Fail. 2014;7:470–78.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Alba, AC, Alba, LF, Delgado, DH, Rao, V, Ross, HJ, Goeree, R. Cost-effectiveness of ventricular assist device therapy as a bridge to transplantation compared with nonbridged cardiac recipients. Circulation 2013;127:2424–35.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tadmouri, A, Blomkvist, J, Landais, C, Seymour, J, Azmoun, A. Cost-effectiveness of left ventricular assist devices for patients with end-stage heart failure: Analysis of the French hospital discharge database. ESC Heart Fail. 2018;5:75–86.Google ScholarPubMed
Magnetta, DA, Kang, JH, Wearden, PD, Smith, KJ, Feingold, B. Cost-Effectiveness of ventricular assist device destination therapy for advanced heart failure in Duchenne muscular dystrophy. Pediatr Cardiol. 2018;39:1242–48.Google ScholarPubMed
Takura, T, Kyo, S, Ono, M, Tominaga, R, Miyagawa, S, Tanoue, Y et al. Preliminary report on the cost effectiveness of ventricular assist devices. J Artif Organs. 2016;19:37–43.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pulikottil-Jacob, R, Suri, G, Connock, M, Kandala, N-B, Sutcliffe, P, Maheswaran, H et al. Comparative cost-effectiveness of the HeartWare versus HeartMate II left ventricular assist devices used in the United Kingdom National Health Service bridge-to-transplant program for patients with heart failure. J Heart Lung Transplant. 2014;33:350–58.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Moreno, SG, Novielli, N, Cooper, NJ. Cost-effectiveness of the implantable HeartMate II left ventricular assist device for patients awaiting heart transplantation. J Heart Lung Transplant. 2012;31:450–58.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chang, H-H, Chen, P-L, Chen, I-M, Kuo, T-T, Weng, Z-C, Huang, P-J et al. Cost-utility analysis of direct ventricular assist device vs double bridges to heart transplantation in patients with refractory heart failure. Clin Transplant. 2017;31:e13124.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chew, DS, Manns, B, Miller, RJH, Sharma, N, Exner, DV. Economic evaluation of left ventricular assist devices for patients with end stage heart failure who are ineligible for cardiac transplantation. Can J Cardiol. 2017;33:1283–91.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Clarke, A, Pulikottil-Jacob, R, Connock, M, Suri, G, Kandala, N-B, Maheswaran, H et al. Cost-effectiveness of left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) for patients with advanced heart failure: Analysis of the British NHS bridge to transplant (BTT) program. Int J Cardiol. 2014;171:338–45.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Neyt, M, Van den Bruel, A, Smit, Y, De Jonge, N, Vlayen, J. The cost-utility of left ventricular assist devices for end-stage heart failure patients ineligible for cardiac transplantation: A systematic review and critical appraisal of economic evaluations. Ann Cardiothorac Surg. 2014;3:439–49.Google ScholarPubMed
Rogers, JG, Bostic, RR, Tong, KB, Adamson, R, Russo, M, Slaughter, MS. Cost-effectiveness analysis of continuous-flow left ventricular assist devices as destination therapy. Circ Heart Fail. 2012;5:10–16.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Draborg, E, Gyrd-Hansen, D, Bo Poulsen, P, Horder, M. International comparison of the definition and the practical application of health technology assessment. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2005;21:89–95.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dakin, H, Devlin, N, Feng, Y, Rice, N, O'Neill, P, Parkin, D. The influence of cost-effectiveness and other factors on nice decisions: Factors influencing nice decisions. Health Econ. 2015;24:1256–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Azimi, NA, Welch, HG. The effectiveness of cost-effectiveness analysis in containing costs. J Gen Intern Med. 1998;13:664–69.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Krimsky, S. Conflict of interest and cost-effectiveness analysis. JAMA. 1999;282:1474–75.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Barbieri, M, Drummond, MF. Conflict of interest in industry sponsored economic evaluations: Real or imagined? Curr Oncol Rep. 2001;3:410–13.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rose, EA, Gelijns, AC, Moskowitz, AJ, Heitjan, DF, Stevenson, LW, Dembitsky, W et al. Long-term use of a left ventricular assist device for end-stage heart failure. N Engl J Med. 2001;345:1435–43.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Slaughter, MS, Rogers, JG, Milano, CA, Russell, SD, Conte, JV, Feldman, D et al. Advanced heart failure treated with continuous-flow left ventricular assist device. N Engl J Med. 2009;361:2241–51.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McIlvennan, CK, Magid, KH, Ambardekar, AV, Thompson, JS, Matlock, DD, Allen, LA. Clinical outcomes after continuous-flow left ventricular assist device: A systematic review. Circulation: Heart Failure 2014;7:1003–13.Google ScholarPubMed
Mangham-Jefferies, L, Pitt, C, Cousens, S, Mills, A, Schellenberg, J. Cost-effectiveness of strategies to improve the utilization and provision of maternal and newborn health care in low-income and lower-middle-income countries: A systematic review. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2014;14:243.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Geng, J, Yu, H, Mao, Y, Zhang, P, Chen, Y. Cost effectiveness of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors for type 2 diabetes. PharmacoEconomics. 2015;33:581–97.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hiligsmann, M, Evers, SM, Ben Sedrine, W, Kanis, JA, Ramaekers, B, Reginster, J-Y et al. A systematic review of cost-effectiveness analyses of drugs for postmenopausal osteoporosis. PharmacoEconomics. 2015;33:205–24.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wong, CKH, Liao, Q, Guo, VYW, Xin, Y, Lam, CLK. Cost-effectiveness analysis of vaccinations and decision makings on vaccination programmes in Hong Kong: A systematic review. Vaccine. 2017;35:3153–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Neumann, PJ, Stone, PW, Chapman, RH, Sandberg, EA, Bell, CM. The quality of reporting in published cost-utility analyses, 1976–1997. Ann Intern Med. 2000;132:964.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Siegel, JE. Recommendations for reporting cost-effectiveness analyses. Panel on Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine. JAMA: J Am Med Assoc. 1996;276:1339–41.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Drummond, MF, Richardson, W, O'Brien, B, Levine, M, Heyland, D. Users’ guides to the medical literature. XIII. How to use an article on economic analysis of clinical practice. A. Are the results of the study valid? Evidence-Based Medicine Working Group. JAMA: J Am Med Assoc. 1997;277:1552–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Menon, D, Schubert, F, Torrance, GW. Canada's new guidelines for the economic evaluation of pharmaceuticals. Med Care. 1996;34:DS77–86.Google Scholar
Zheng, SY, Dhruva, SS, Redberg, RF. Characteristics of clinical studies used for US food and drug administration approval of high-risk medical device supplements. JAMA 2017;318:619–25.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Supplementary material: File

Fontenay et al. supplementary material

Fontenay et al. supplementary material

Download Fontenay et al. supplementary material(File)
File 303.9 KB