IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0255870.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Innovation in unruptured intracranial aneurysm coiling: At which price or efficacy are new technologies cost-effective?

Author

Listed:
  • David Ben-Israel
  • Brooke L Belanger
  • Amin Adibi
  • Muneer Eesa
  • Alim P Mitha
  • Eldon Spackman

Abstract

Background: Unruptured intracranial aneurysms (UIA) are increasingly being treated by endovascular coiling as opposed to open surgical clipping. Unfortunately, endovascular coiling imparts an approximate 25% recanalization rate, leading to additional procedures and increased rupture risk. While a new health technology innovation (HTI) that reduces this recanalization rate would benefit patients, few advancements have been made. We aim to determine whether cost-effectiveness has been a barrier to HTI. Methods: A probabilistic Markov model was constructed from the healthcare payer perspective to compare standard endovascular treatment of UIA to standard treatment plus the addition of a HTI adjunct. Costs were measured in 2018 USD and health outcomes were measured in quality-adjusted life-years (QALY). In the base case, the HTI was a theoretical mesenchymal stem cell therapy which reduced the aneurysm recanalization rate by 50% and cost $10,000 per procedure. All other model inputs were derived from the published scientific literature. Results: Based on the model results, we found that for a given HTI price (y) and relative risk reduction of aneurysm recanalization (x), the HTI was always cost-effective if the following equation was satisfied: y ≤ 20268 ∙ x, using a willingness-to-pay threshold of $50,000 per QALY. The uncertainty surrounding whether an aneurysm would recanalize was a significant driver within the model. When the uncertainty around the risk of aneurysm recanalization was eliminated, the 10-year projected additional benefit to the United States healthcare system was calculated to be $113,336,994. Conclusion: Cost-effectiveness does not appear to be a barrier to innovation in reducing the recanalization rate of UIA treated by endovascular coil embolization. Our model can now be utilized by academia and industry to accentuate economically feasible HTI and by healthcare payers to calculate their maximum willingness-to-pay for a new technology. Our results also indicate that predicting a patient’s baseline risk of aneurysm recanalization is a critical area of future research.

Suggested Citation

  • David Ben-Israel & Brooke L Belanger & Amin Adibi & Muneer Eesa & Alim P Mitha & Eldon Spackman, 2021. "Innovation in unruptured intracranial aneurysm coiling: At which price or efficacy are new technologies cost-effective?," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(8), pages 1-14, August.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0255870
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0255870
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0255870
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0255870&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0255870?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Chhabi Lal Ranabhat & Mihajlo Jakovljevic, 2023. "Sustainable Health Care Provision Worldwide: Is There a Necessary Trade-Off between Cost and Quality?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(2), pages 1-11, January.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0255870. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.