A cost-utility analysis of transcatheter aortic valve implantation in Belgium: Focusing on a well-defined and identifiable population

BMJ Open

Volumn 2, Issue 3, 2012, Pages

  Neyt, Mattias ^a   Van Brabandt, Hans ^a   Devriese, Stephan ^a   Van De Sande, Stefaan ^a  

^a BELGIAN HEALTH CARE KNOWLEDGE CENTRE KCE   (Belgium)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; AORTA VALVE STENOSIS; ARTICLE; BELGIUM; CALCULATION; CONTROLLED STUDY; COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS; COST UTILITY ANALYSIS; HIDDEN MARKOV MODEL; HIGH RISK PATIENT; HUMAN; INCREMENTAL COST EFFECTIVENESS RATIO; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MORTALITY; MULTICENTER STUDY; QUALITY ADJUSTED LIFE YEAR; QUALITY OF LIFE; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; REIMBURSEMENT; SURVIVAL RATE; TRANSCATHETER AORTIC VALVE IMPLANTATION; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

EID: 84862210249     PISSN: None     EISSN: 20446055     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2012-001032     Document Type: Article

References (17)

1. Leon MB, Smith CR, Mack M, et al. Transcatheter aortic-valve implantation for aortic stenosis in patients who cannot undergo surgery. N Engl J Med 2010;363:1597-607.
2. Smith CR, Leon MB, Mack MJ, et al. Transcatheter versus surgical aortic-valve replacement in high-risk patients. N Engl J Med 2011;364:2187-98.
3. Cleemput I, Van Wilder P, Vrijens F, et al. Guidelines for Pharmacoeconomic Evaluations in Belgium. Health Technology Assessment (HTA). Brussels: Belgian Health Care Knowledge Centre (KCE), 2008.
4. FDA. Meeting Materials of the Circulatory SystemDevices Panel. 2011. Department of Health and Human Services, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, Medical Devices Advisory Committee, Gaithersburg, Maryland, Washington DC, 20 July 2011. Annapolis, MD, USA: Free State Reporting, Inc., 2011.
5. Briggs A, Claxton K, Sculpher M. Decision Modelling for Health Economic Evaluation. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006.
6. Neyt M, Van Brabandt H, Van de Sande S, et al. Health Technology Assessment. Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation (TAVI): A Health Technology Assessment Update. Health Technology Assessment (HTA). Brussels: Belgian Health Care Knowledge Centre (KCE), 2011.
7. Schaff HV. Transcatheter aortic-valve implantationdat what price? N Engl J Med 2011;364:2256-8.
8. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Guide to the Methods of Technology Appraisal. London, UK: NICE, 2007.
9. Edwards Lifesciences. The PARTNER trial: Placement of AoRTic TraNscathetER Valves Trial (version 3.2) (protocol for the PARTNER trial). 2009.
10. Mohr F. The German aortic valve registry [Oral presentation]. 40th Annual Meeting of the German Society for Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, Stuttgart, Germany, 2011.
11. Nielsen H, Klaaborg K, Nissen H, et al. A prospective, randomized trial of transapical transcatheter aortic valve implantation vs. surgical aortic valve replacement in operable elderly patients with aortic stenosis. The STACCATO Trial. Transcatheter Cardiovascular Therapeutics (TCT) congress, San Francisco, USA. 2011.
12. Hulstaert F, Neyt M, Vinck I, et al. The Pre-market Clinical Evaluation of Innovative High-risk Medical Devices. Brussels: Belgian Health Care Knowledge Centre (KCE), 2011.
13. Stafford N. German agency refuses to rule on drug's benefits until Pfizer discloses all trial results. BMJ 2009;338:b2521.
14. Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care (IQWIG). Bupropion, Mirtazapine, and Reboxetine in the Treatment of Depression: Final Report; Commission A05-20C (In German). Cologne, Germany: Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care, 2009.
15. Wieseler B, McGauran N, Kaiser T. Finding studies on reboxetine: a tale of hide and seek. BMJ 2010;341:c4942.
16. Eyding D, Lelgemann M, Grouven U, et al. Reboxetine for acute treatment of major depression: systematic review and meta-analysis of published and unpublished placebo and selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor controlled trials. BMJ 2010;341:c4737.
17. Lehman R, Loder E. Missing clinical trial data. BMJ 2012;344:d8158.