A Prospective Assessment of Renal Transplantation Versus Haemodialysis: Which Therapeutic Modality Is Good Value for Society?

Background: Economic evaluations help health authorities facing budget constraints. This study compares the health-related quality of life (HRQOL) and costs in patient subgroups on haemodialysis (HD) and renal transplantation (KT). Methods: In a prospective study with follow-up of 1-3 years, we performed a costutility analysis of KT vs. HD, adopting a lifetime horizon. A societal perspective was taken. Costs for organ procurement, KT eligibility, transplant surgery and follow-up of living donors were included. Key clinical events were recorded. HRQOL was assessed using the EuroQol instrument. Results: The HRQOL remained stable on HD patients. After KT, mean utility score improved at 3 months while mean EQ-VAS scores showed a sustained improvement. Mean annual cost for HD was 32,567.57€. Mean annual costs for KT in the year-1 and in subsequent years were, 60,210.09€ and 12,956.77€ respectively. Cost for initial hospitalization averaged 18,740.74€. HLA-mismatches increased costs by 75% for initial hospitalization (p < 0.001) and 41% in the year-1 (p < 0.05), and duplicate the risk of readmission in the year-1 (p < 0.05). The incremental costutility ratio was 5,534.46€/QALY, increasing 35% when costs for organ procurement were added. KT costs were 41,541.63€ more but provided additional 7.51 QALY. Conclusions: The KT is cost-effective compared with HD. Public funding should reflect the value created by the intervention and adapt to the organ demand.

Cost-Effectiveness of Non-Vitamin K Antagonist Oral Anticoagulants for Atrial Fibrillation in Portugal

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES:Recently, three novel non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants received approval for reimbursement in Portugal for patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation (AF). It is therefore important to evaluate the relative cost-effectiveness of these new oral anticoagulants in Portuguese AF patients. METHODS: A Markov model was used to analyze disease progression over a lifetime horizon. Relative efficacy data for stroke (ischemic and hemorrhagic), bleeding (intracranial, other major bleeding and clinically relevant non-major bleeding), myocardial infarction and treatment discontinuation were obtained by pairwise indirect comparisons between apixaban, dabigatran and rivaroxaban using warfarin as a common comparator. Data on resource use were obtained from the database of diagnosis-related groups and an expert panel. Model outputs included life years gained, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), direct healthcare costs and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). RESULTS:Apixaban provided the most life years gained and QALYs. The ICERs of apixaban compared to warfarin and dabigatran were €5529/QALY and €9163/QALY, respectively. Apixaban was dominant over rivaroxaban (greater health gains and lower costs). The results were robust over a wide range of inputs in sensitivity analyses. Apixaban had a 70% probability of being cost-effective (at a threshold of €20 000/QALY) compared to all the other therapeutic options. CONCLUSIONS:Apixaban is a cost-effective alternative to warfarin and dabigatran and is dominant over rivaroxaban in AF patients from the perspective of the Portuguese national healthcare system. These conclusions are based on indirect comparisons, but despite this limitation, the information is useful for healthcare decision-makers.