logo logo
The effect of major adverse renal cardiovascular event (MARCE) incidence, procedure volume, and unit cost on the hospital savings resulting from contrast media use in inpatient angioplasty. Keuffel Eric,McCullough Peter A,Todoran Thomas M,Brilakis Emmanouil S,Palli Swetha R,Ryan Michael P,Gunnarsson Candace Journal of medical economics OBJECTIVE:To determine the net economic impact of switching from low-osmolar contrast media (LOCM) to iso-osmolar contrast media (IOCM; iodixanol) in patients undergoing inpatient coronary or peripheral angioplasty in the United States (US). METHODS:A budget impact model (BIM) was developed from a hospital perspective. Nationally representative procedural and contrast media prevalence rates, along with MARCE (major adverse renal cardiovascular event) incidence and episode-related cost data were derived from Premier Hospital Data (October 2014 to September 2015). A previously estimated relative risk reduction in MARCE associated with IOCM usage (9.3%) was applied. The higher cost of IOCM was included when calculating the net impact estimates at the aggregate, hospital type, and per hospital levels. One-way (±25%) and probabilistic sensitivity analyses identified the model's most important inputs. RESULTS:Based on weighted analysis, 513,882 US inpatient angioplasties and 35,610 MARCE cases were estimated annually. Switching to an "IOCM only" strategy from a "LOCM only" strategy increases contrast media cost, but prevents 2,900 MARCE events. The annual budget impact was an estimated saving of $30.71 million, aggregated across all US hospitals, $6,316 per hospital, or $60 per procedure. Net savings were maintained across all univariate sensitivity analyses. While MARCE/event-free cost differential was the most important factor driving total net savings for hospitals in the Northeast and West, procedural volume was important in the Midwest and rural locations. CONCLUSIONS:Switching to an "IOCM only" strategy from a "LOCM only" approach yields substantial net global savings to hospitals, both at the national level and within hospital sub-groups. Hospital administrators should maintain awareness of the factors that are likely to be more influential for their hospital and recognize that purchasing on the basis of lower contrast media cost may result in higher overall costs for patients undergoing inpatient angioplasty. 10.1080/13696998.2017.1415912
Economic impact of contrast-induced acute kidney injury associated with invasive cardiology: role of iso-osmolar contrast media in Germany, Italy, Poland, and Spain. De Francesco Maria,Ronco Claudio,Wacinski Piotr J,Wessely Rainer,Hernández Felipe,Lamotte Mark Journal of medical economics OBJECTIVE:Iso-osmolar Iodixanol is associated with a lower rate of contrast-induced acute kidney injury (CI-AKI) in patients at increased risk compared to low-osmolar contrast media (LOCM). The aim of this study was to assess the financial consequences of CI-AKI risk reduction in patients undergoing coronary angiography (CA) with or without percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in German, Italian, Polish and Spanish hospitals. METHODS:This budget impact analysis (BIA) compared a scenario with iodixanol to a scenario without, where only LOCM were used, in patients at increased risk of CI-AKI over a 3-year horizon. A meta-analysis based on a systematic review observed a lower rate of CI-AKI with iodixanol compared to LOCM (Risk Reduction = 0.46) in patients with underlying impaired renal function (serum creatinine ≥1.6 mg/dl and estimated glomerular filtration rate ≤50 ml/min/1.73 m(2)). Contrast media and CI-AKI hospitalization costs were included in the analysis and unit costs were obtained from published literature, official sources or, when available, from hospital data. In the absence of country-specific data, resource utilization for a CI-AKI hospitalization was obtained by interviews with local clinicians in each country. The percentage of patients who received iodixanol was assumed to increase over time. RESULTS:Based on a percentage of patients at increased risk of CI-AKI equal to 20% in Germany, 24% in Italy, 23% in Poland and 10% in Spain, results showed that the introduction of iodixanol would bring a 3-years cumulative net percentage saving on the total hospital budget of 29%, 34%, 25%, and 33% in the four countries respectively. CONCLUSION:The results of the analysis for the four countries showed that iodixanol use in patients at increased risk of CI-AKI undergoing CA with or without PCI may bring considerable savings on the hospital's budget, due to the associated reduction in CI-AKI incidence. 10.3111/13696998.2015.1105809
Economic evaluation of intravenous iodinated contrast media in Italy. Iannazzo Sergio,Vandekerckhove Stijn,De Francesco Maria,Nayak Akash,Ronco Claudio,Morana Giovanni,Valentino Massimo International journal of technology assessment in health care BACKGROUND:Contrast-induced acute kidney injury (CI-AKI) is defined as a deterioration in renal function after administration of radiologic iodinated contrast media (CM). Iodixanol, showed a lower CI-AKI incidence than low-osmolar contrast media (LOCM). A cost-effectiveness analysis was performed comparing iodixanol and LOCM in intravenous (IV) setting in Italy. METHODS:A Markov model was developed. Patients moved across four health states: CI-AKI free, CI-AKI, myocardial infarction, and death. The simulation horizon was lifetime with 1-month cycles. Costs and outcomes were discounted at 3.5 percent rate. CI-AKI incidence was considered from published literature across different definitions. Cost-effectiveness of iodixanol was assessed in terms of incremental cost per life-year gained. Net monetary benefit (NMB) was also calculated. Both deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed. RESULTS:Base-case results showed an average survival increase of 0.51 life-years and a savings of €7.25 for iodixanol versus LOCM. The cost-effectiveness of iodixanol was confirmed when other scenarios were explored, such as varying CI-AKI definition, sub-populations with specified risk factors, CM hospital bids prices, and inclusion of adverse drug reactions of allergic nature. An NMB ranging between €6,007.25 and €30,007.25 was calculated. CONCLUSION:Base-case results show that IV iodixanol is cost-effective compared with LOCM in the Italian clinical setting of a hospital computed tomography radiology practice. However, some caution is due, mainly linked to inherent limitations of the modeling technique and to the lack of agreement on CI-AKI incidence data in the clinical literature. 10.1017/S0266462313000706
Cost-effectiveness of iodixanol in patients at high risk of contrast-induced nephropathy. Aspelin Peter,Aubry Pierre,Fransson Sven-Göran,Strasser Ruth,Willenbrock Roland,Lundkvist Jonas American heart journal BACKGROUND:Acute renal failure after contrast-induced nephropathy is a clinically important and costly complication after the use of iodine-based contrast media. We investigated the cost and cost-effectiveness of 2 contrast media in patients at high risk of contrast-induced nephropathy. METHODS:The analyses were based on a randomized, prospective, multinational clinical study comparing the nephrotoxic effects of an isosmolar nonionic contrast medium, iodixanol, with those of a low-osmolar nonionic contrast medium, iohexol. Resource utilization data were obtained from the study and from a retrospective review of patients' hospital records. Swedish, German, and French unit prices were applied to resources used. Between-group differences in average costs were analyzed using a nonparametric bootstrap method. RESULTS:Resource utilization data for 125 patients were analyzed. Seven contrast media-related serious adverse reactions, of which 6 were acute renal failures, were noted in 6 patients receiving iohexol. Two patients in the iodixanol group had 1 nonserious reaction each. The mean hospitalization cost per patient was Euros 489, Euros 573, and Euros 393 lower after iodixanol than after iohexol using Swedish, German, and French unit prices, respectively. The mean per-patient costs of treating adverse drug reactions were Euros 371, Euros 399, and Euros 445 lower after iodixanol than after iohexol, using the respective unit prices (P < or = 0.01). Iodixanol was cost-effective compared with iohexol, with both lower costs and better effects related to fewer adverse drug reactions. CONCLUSIONS:The isosmolar contrast medium iodixanol appears to be cost-effective when compared with a low-osmolar contrast medium, iohexol, in diabetic patients with renal impairment undergoing angiography. 10.1016/j.ahj.2004.07.020
Are iso-osmolar, as compared to low-osmolar, contrast media cost-effective in patients undergoing cardiac catheterization? An economic analysis. Hiremath Swapnil,Akbari Ayub,Wells George A,Chow Benjamin J W International urology and nephrology PURPOSE:Contrast-induced acute kidney injury is a prominent complication following cardiac catheterization, though the risk has progressively decreased in recent times with appropriate risk stratification and use of safer contrast agents. Despite data supporting further lowering of risk with the iso-osmolar agent, iodixanol, uptake has lagged, perhaps due to increased upfront cost of this agent. We undertook an economic analysis to estimate the cost-effectiveness of a strategy utilizing iodixanol compared to using a low-osmolar contrast agent. METHODS:We created a Markov model to evaluate the two strategies, and included a differential relative risk of contrast-induced acute kidney injury, based on a systematic review of the literature. Downstream clinical events, including need for dialysis and mortality, were modeled using data from existing published literature. A third-party payer perspective was utilized for the analysis and presentation of the primary economic analysis. RESULTS:The strategy of using iodixanol dominated in both the low-risk and high-risk base case analyses. However, the difference was quite small in the low-risk scenario (lifetime cost: C$678,034 vs. C$678,059 and life expectancy: 19.80 vs. 19.72 years). The difference was more marked (life expectancy 15.65 vs. 14.15 years and cost C$680,989 vs. C$682,023) in the high-risk case analysis. This was robust across most of the variables tested in sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSION:The use of iodixanol, compared with low-osmolar contrast agents, for cardiac catheterization, results in a small benefit clinical outcomes, and in a savings in direct healthcare costs. Overall, our analysis supports the use of iodixanol for cardiac catheterization, especially in patients at high risk of acute kidney injury. 10.1007/s11255-018-1874-1