PP339 A Budget Impact Model Of The EluviaTM Drug-Eluting Stent from The Australian Public Hospital And National Payer Perspective

IntroductionImproving long-term outcomes like target lesions revascularizations (TLRs) is a focus for endovascular interventions aimed at treating symptomatic lower-limb peripheral arterial disease (PAD). EluviaTM, a paclitaxel-eluting drug-eluting stent (DES) was shown to further reduce TLRs when compared with the paclitaxel-coated Zilver® PTX® stent in the IMPERIAL trial, a global, randomized controlled study. This budget-impact evaluation investigated cost-savings from Eluvia-use when compared with Zilver PTX, relying on the 12- to 24-month outcomes from the IMPERIAL trial.MethodsA budget-impact model comparing Eluvia and Zilver PTX was developed from the Australian public healthcare payer, and an individual hospital perspective, with a 5-year time-horizon. Observed trial results were applied to each year's incident population and associated costs, and no extrapolation was conducted. The analysis used publicly available Australian national hospital cost data, population estimates, procedural statistics, epidemiological literature, and data from public hospital audits to verify eligible population for endovascular procedures (EVP) including DES. All costs were captured in Australian dollars (AUD), where AUD 1 = USD 0.69 (June 2020).ResultsAssuming 80-percent EVP eligibility, and a DES-use range of 10–28 percent, the 5-year model estimated potential national savings of AUD 4.3–12.1 million (M) [USD 3–8.3M] to the public healthcare payer, driven by reduced TLRs from Eluvia-use compared with Zilver-PTX. The model projected potential national savings of AUD 33.1–92.6M (USD 22.8–63.9M) to individual hospitals through reduced hospital bed days for adverse events (AE). The model forecasted 14,428–40,399 treated patients; 1,499–4,198 fewer TLRs; and 16,515–46,243 fewer hospital days for AE. At a state level, projected hospital savings were: New South Wales AUD 10.9–30.7M [USD 7.5–21.1M]; Victoria AUD 8.4–23.4M [USD 5.8–16.1M]; Queensland AUD 6.5–18.3M [USD 4.5–12.6M]; Western Australia AUD 3.4–9.5M [USD 2.3–6.5M]; South Australia AUD 2.3–6.4M [USD 1.6–4.4M].ConclusionsTreatment of symptomatic lower-limb PAD with the Eluvia DES could lead to potential savings for the Australian healthcare system, at the national, state, and the local hospital level, based on improved patient outcomes.

Considering the societal perspective in economic evaluations: a systematic review in the case of depression

Background Depressive disorders are associated with a high burden of disease. However, due to the burden posed by the disease on not only the sufferers, but also on their relatives, there is an ongoing debate about which costs to include and, hence, which perspective should be applied. Therefore, the aim of this paper was to examine whether the change between healthcare payer and societal perspective leads to different conclusions of cost-utility analyses in the case of depression. Methods A systematic literature search was conducted to identify economic evaluations of interventions in depression, launched on Medline and the Cost-Effectiveness Registry of the Tufts University using a ten-year time horizon (2008–2018). In a two-stepped screening process, cost-utility studies were selected by means of specified inclusion and exclusion criteria. Subsequently, relevant findings was extracted and, if not fully stated, calculated by the authors of this work. Results Overall, 53 articles with 92 complete economic evaluations, reporting costs from healthcare payer/provider and societal perspective, were identified. More precisely, 22 estimations (24%) changed their results regarding the cost-effectiveness quadrant when the societal perspective was included. Furthermore, 5% of the ICURs resulted in cost-effectiveness regarding the chosen threshold (2% of them became dominant) when societal costs were included. However, another four estimations (4%) showed the opposite result: these interventions were no longer cost-effective after the inclusion of societal costs. Conclusions Summarising the disparities in results and applied methods, the results show that societal costs might alter the conclusions in cost-utility analyses. Hence, the relevance of the perspectives chosen should be taken into account when carrying out an economic evaluation. This systematic review demonstrates that the results of economic evaluations can be affected by different methods available for estimating non-healthcare costs.