# A budget impact model and a cost–utility analysis of reducer device (Neovasc) in patients with refractory angina

## TL;DR

This study evaluates the cost and health impact of a new device for treating refractory angina, showing potential long-term savings and improved quality of life.

## Contribution

The study introduces a budget impact model and cost–utility analysis for the Neovasc reducer device in refractory angina treatment.

## Key findings

- The reducer device is more expensive in the first two years but leads to savings from the third year onward.
- Improved clinical outcomes from the device result in a dominance ratio in cost–utility analysis.
- Healthcare resource use decreases over time with the device's implementation.

## Abstract

Refractory angina (RA) is a chronic condition characterized by the presence of debilitating angina symptoms due to established reversible ischemia in the presence of obstructive coronary artery disease (CAD). Treatments for this condition have undergone major developments in recent decades; however, the treatment for RA remains a challenge for medicine. In this sense, the Coronary Sinus Reducer System (CSRS) stands as the last line of therapy for ineligible patients for revascularization with reversible ischemia. The purpose of this report is to evaluate the potential burden on the National Health Service (NHS) and measure the health effects in terms of both quantity (life years) and quality-of-life aspects related to the reducer.

Two different economic evaluation models were developed as part of the analysis. The budget impact was developed to estimate the potential burden on the NHS from incremental uptake of the use of the reducer in the target population. The utility cost analysis compares and evaluates the quality of life and health resource use and costs between the two alternatives, based on the research of Gallone et al. A deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analysis was carried out to characterize the uncertainty around the parameters of the model.

In the budget impact analysis (BIA), the reducer is shown to be more expensive in the first 2 years of the model, due to the gradual uptake in the market and the cost of the device. Starting from the third year, assuming maintenance of effectiveness, there are savings in terms of resource absorption in direct healthcare costs arising from hospitalizations, emergency department accesses, coronarography, and visits avoided.

The BIA and cost-effectiveness model show that the reducer device, despite an increase in resources absorbed in the first years of implementation and use, has the potential to result in increased quality of life in patients with RA. These costs are largely offset in the short term by the improved clinical outcomes achievable leading to savings from the third year onward in the BIA and a dominance ratio in the cost–utility analysis.