Abstract:ObjectivesTo assess the lifetime costs and cost-effectiveness of 5 endovascular interventions to treat superficial femoral arterial disease.DesignA model-based health economic evaluation. An existing decision analytical model was used, with updated effectiveness data taken from the literature, and updated costs based on purchasing prices.SettingUK and German healthcare perspectives were considered.ParticipantsPatients with intermittent claudication of the femoropopliteal arteries eligible for endovascular trea… Show more
“…We read the full text of the remaining ten articles and excluded one article because of its design and a further three because they were not economic evaluations. Our literature search resulted in six studies that fulfilled inclusion criteria (18–23). Figure 1.PRISMA flowchart for study selection.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Most studies (83.3 percent) did not state the aspects of the system in which the decision needed to be made or for which the economic evaluation had been designed (18–22). In addition, very few studies (33.3 percent) reported the choice of discount rate used for costs and outcomes and explained why it was appropriate (18;23). We noticed that the authors correctly stated the time horizon over which costs and consequences had been evaluated, but they rarely explained why the time period chosen was appropriate (33.3 percent) (20–23).…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In addition, very few studies (33.3 percent) reported the choice of discount rate used for costs and outcomes and explained why it was appropriate (18;23). We noticed that the authors correctly stated the time horizon over which costs and consequences had been evaluated, but they rarely explained why the time period chosen was appropriate (33.3 percent) (20–23). Finally, very few studies (33.3 percent) provided a figure to illustrate the model structure (19;21–23).…”
Objective
We aimed to perform a systematic review of economic evaluations of drug-coated balloons (DCBs) and drug-eluting stents (DESs) in peripheral artery disease (PAD) 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 reporting on the use of DCBs and DESs in PAD. The methodological 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
Six articles were included in this review of the 1,728 publications identified. Four studies were cost-effectiveness analyses and two cost–utility analyses. According to the Cooper hierarchy scale, the studies used good-quality data sources. The level of evidence used for clinical effect sizes, safety data, baseline clinical data, and costs was of high quality in general. In contrast, an evaluation of the reporting quality suggested that essential information was lacking.
Conclusion
The present study demonstrates that clinical data used in economic evaluations of DCBs and DESs in PAD are from clinical studies of high quality in general. However, the quality of reporting represents a concern when interpreting the results provided by these economic studies.
“…We read the full text of the remaining ten articles and excluded one article because of its design and a further three because they were not economic evaluations. Our literature search resulted in six studies that fulfilled inclusion criteria (18–23). Figure 1.PRISMA flowchart for study selection.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Most studies (83.3 percent) did not state the aspects of the system in which the decision needed to be made or for which the economic evaluation had been designed (18–22). In addition, very few studies (33.3 percent) reported the choice of discount rate used for costs and outcomes and explained why it was appropriate (18;23). We noticed that the authors correctly stated the time horizon over which costs and consequences had been evaluated, but they rarely explained why the time period chosen was appropriate (33.3 percent) (20–23).…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In addition, very few studies (33.3 percent) reported the choice of discount rate used for costs and outcomes and explained why it was appropriate (18;23). We noticed that the authors correctly stated the time horizon over which costs and consequences had been evaluated, but they rarely explained why the time period chosen was appropriate (33.3 percent) (20–23). Finally, very few studies (33.3 percent) provided a figure to illustrate the model structure (19;21–23).…”
Objective
We aimed to perform a systematic review of economic evaluations of drug-coated balloons (DCBs) and drug-eluting stents (DESs) in peripheral artery disease (PAD) 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 reporting on the use of DCBs and DESs in PAD. The methodological 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
Six articles were included in this review of the 1,728 publications identified. Four studies were cost-effectiveness analyses and two cost–utility analyses. According to the Cooper hierarchy scale, the studies used good-quality data sources. The level of evidence used for clinical effect sizes, safety data, baseline clinical data, and costs was of high quality in general. In contrast, an evaluation of the reporting quality suggested that essential information was lacking.
Conclusion
The present study demonstrates that clinical data used in economic evaluations of DCBs and DESs in PAD are from clinical studies of high quality in general. However, the quality of reporting represents a concern when interpreting the results provided by these economic studies.
“…Although stent placement is associated with higher initial costs, this might be compensated for if the additional placement of a stent results in better clinical outcomes and correspondingly lower hospital costs. 10,11 Several randomised clinical trials suggest that in short stenoses or occlusions, the PTA-S has no benefit over PTA alone. 12e14 The use of a stent in patients with longer lesions has been shown to have beneficial effects on clinical success and freedom from revascularisation.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…12e14 The use of a stent in patients with longer lesions has been shown to have beneficial effects on clinical success and freedom from revascularisation. 11,13 A recent systematic review found a short-term benefit for the stented group at 6 months, but this was lost at 12 month follow up. 15 However, it is important that these results be interpreted with caution, as many of these studies are sponsored by stent supplying companies which might have led to bias.…”
Selective stenting in patients with SFAD shows comparable results in long-term clinical outcomes in patients who were treated with plain PTA as well as patients who are selected for stent placement. An approach of selective stenting is justified.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
