Cost-effectiveness and budget impact analyses of using implantable cardioverter-defibrillators in the Russian Federation

Objective: to evaluate cost-effectiveness and budget impact of using single and dual chamber implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICD) adjunctive to the standard drug therapy (DT) compared to the standard DT alone for the primary and secondary prevention of sudden cardiac death (SCD).Material and methods. Original partitioned survival analysis model was developed to assess the cost-effectiveness of using ICD within the modelling horizon of 8 years. The following model outcomes were used: life years and quality-adjusted life years (QALY). Primary prevention model was focused on patients after myocardial infarction with left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) ≤30%, whilst secondary prevention model considered cardiac arrest survivors and/or patients diagnosed with ventricular tachycardia or ventricular fibrillation with LVEF ≤35%. The model summarizes treatment effect and costs for ICD and DT specific to the healthcare system of the Russian Federation (RF). The main scenario accounted for ICD implantation cost in accordance with general reimbursement price asserted in the high technology medical care list part 2 (HТMC 2). Additionally, alternative scenario of ICD reimbursement level was developed to account for general tariff split onto singleand dual-chamber ICD implantation reimbursement tariffs which can be financed through high technology medical care list part 1 (HТMC 1). Budget impact analysis compared the costs of using ICD within the current volume of the annual increase in ICD implantations and a threefold increased volume of ICD implantations.Results. By the end of the modelling period, additional 34% of patients survived in the ICD group compared to the DT group. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) per 1 QALY constituted 2.8 and 2.2 million rubles for primary and secondary prevention, respectively. ICER values are slightly above or lower than the willingness-to-pay threshold of 2.5 million rubles per 1 QALY in the RF in the segment of primary and secondary SCD prevention, respectively. Additional HТMC 1 scenario incorporating lower ICD implantation prices resulted in an average ICER drop by 13% compared to HTMC 2. Overall patient population requiring SCD prevention comprised of 7,161 and 3,341 patients in primary and secondary prevention, respectively. Budget impact analysis showed that threefold rise in the ICD implantations rate will require additional 648 million rubles for primary prevention cohort to provide additional 573 patients with ICD, and 230 million rubles for secondary prevention cohort with additional 267 patients covered with ICD. ICD reimbursement price drop within the HТMC 1 scenario will save 133 million rubles and allow to provide additional 143 patients with ICDs for a given budget.Conclusion. ICD is a cost-effective option of secondary prevention of SCD. Additional analysis of ICD reimbursement price drop drives ICER downwards to a considerable extent which in turn increases the accessibility of ICDs to patients. In scenario of ICD implantation financing within HТMC 1, ICD is established to be a cost-effective option for primary and secondary prevention of SCD in the RF.