ArticleJournal of arrhythmia2023
Cost-utility analysis of radiofrequency ablation versus optimal medical therapy in managing supraventricular tachycardia among Filipinos.
Article in Journal of arrhythmia, 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, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Trial
- Cost-utility analysis of radiofrequency ablation versus optimal medical therapy in managing supraventricular tachycardia among Filipinos.Journal of arrhythmia · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Radiofrequency ablation (RFA) is the standard of care in the management of supraventricular tachycardia (SVT). Its cost-effectiveness in an emerging Asian country has not been studied. Objectives: A cost-utility analysis of RFA versus optimal medical therapy (OMT) among Filipinos with SVT was conducted using the public healthcare provider's perspective. Methods: A simulation cohort using a lifetime Markov model was constructed using patient interviews, a review of literature, and expert consensus. Three basic health states were defined: stable, SVT recurrence, and death. The incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year (ICER) was determined for both arms. Utilities for the entry states were derived from patient interviews using the EQ5D-5L tool; utilities for other health states were taken from publications. Costs were assessed from the healthcare payer perspective. A sensitivity analysis was done. Results: Base case analysis showed that RFA versus OMT is both highly cost-effective at 5 years and over a lifetime. RFA at 5 years costs about PhP276,913.58 (USD5,446) versus OMT of PhP151,550.95 (USD2,981) per patient. Discounted lifetime costs were PhP280,770.32 (USD5,522) for RFA, versus PhP259,549.74 (USD5,105) for OMT. There was improved quality of life with RFA (8.1 vs. 5.7 QALYs per patient). The 5-year and lifetime incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were PhP148,741.40 (USD2,926) and Php15,000 (USD295), respectively. Sensitivity analysis showed 56.7% of simulations for RFA fell below a GDP-benchmarked willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold. Conclusion: Despite the initial higher cost, RFA versus OMT for SVT is highly cost-effective from the Philippine public health payer's perspective.
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.