ArticlePloS one2023
Impact of updated trial data on the cost-effectiveness of percutaneous mitral repair.
Article in PloS one, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
When updated clinical trial data becomes available reassessing the cost-effectiveness of technologies may modify estimates and influence decision-making. We investigated the impact of updated trial outcomes on the cost-effectiveness of percutaneous mitral repair (PR) for secondary mitral regurgitation. We updated our previous three-state time-varying Markov model to assess the cost-effectiveness of PR + guideline directed medical treatment (GDMT) versus GDMT alone. Key clinical inputs (overall survival (OS) and heart failure hospitalisations (HFH)) were obtained using the 3-year trial findings from the COAPT (Cardiovascular Outcomes Assessment of the MitraClip Percutaneous Therapy) RCT. We calculated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) and report how these differ between analyses based on early (2-year) and updated (3-year) evidence. Updated trial data showed an increase in mortality in the intervention arm between two and three years follow-up that was not seen in the control arm. Deterministic and multivariate cost-effectiveness modelling yielded incremental cost effectiveness ratios ICERs of €38,123 and €31,227 /QALY. Compared to our 2-year based estimate (€21,918 / QALY) these results imply an approximate 1.5-fold increase in ICER. The availability of updated survival analyses from the COAPT pivotal trial suggests previous estimates based on 2-year trial findings were over optimistic for the intervention.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.