Central Venous Access Devices for the Delivery of Systemic Anticancer Therapy: An Economic Evaluation

Robert Heggie; Nishant Jaiswal; Elaine McCartney; Jon Moss; Tobias Menne; Brian Jones; Kathleen Boyd; Eileen Soulis; Neil Hawkins; Olivia Wu

doi:10.1016/j.jval.2023.09.2996

Central Venous Access Devices for the Delivery of Systemic Anticancer Therapy: An Economic Evaluation

Value Health. 2024 Jan;27(1):7-14. doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2023.09.2996. Epub 2023 Oct 14.

Authors

Affiliations

¹ Health Economics and Health Technology Assessment (HEHTA), School of Health and Wellbeing, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, Scotland, UK. Electronic address: robert.heggie@glasgow.ac.uk.
² Health Economics and Health Technology Assessment (HEHTA), School of Health and Wellbeing, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, Scotland, UK.
³ Glasgow Oncology Clinical Trials Unit (GO CTU) and School of Cancer Studies, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, Scotland, UK.
⁴ School of Cardiovascular and Metabolic Health, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, Scotland, UK.
⁵ Haematology Department, Northern Centre for Cancer Care, The Newcastle upon Tyne Hospitals, Newcastle, England, UK.
⁶ School of Infection and Immunity, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, Scotland, UK.

PMID: 37844662
DOI: 10.1016/j.jval.2023.09.2996

Abstract

Objectives: Patients undergoing long-term anticancer therapy typically require one of 3 venous access devices: Hickman-type device (HICK), peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC), or implantable chest wall port (PORT). Recent evidence has shown PORT is safer and improves patient satisfaction. However, PORT did not show improvement in quality-adjusted life-years and was more expensive. Decisions regarding cost-effectiveness in the United Kingdom are typically informed by a cost-per-quality-adjusted life-year metric. However, this approach is limited in its ability to capture the full range of relevant outcomes, especially in the context of medical devices. This study assessed the potential cost-effectiveness of HICK, PICC, and PORT in routine clinical practice.

Methods: This is a cost-consequence analysis to determine the trade-offs between the following outcomes: complication, infection, noninfection, chemotherapy interruption, unplanned device removals, health utilities, device insertion cost, follow-up cost, and total cost, using data from the Cancer and Venous Access clinical trial. We conducted value of implementation analysis of a PORT service.

Results: PORT was superior in terms of overall complication rate compared with both HICK (incidence rate ratio 0.422; 95% CI 0.286-0.622) and PICC (incidence rate ratio 0.295; 95% CI 0.189-0.458) and less likely to lead to an unplanned device removal. There was no difference in chemotherapy interruption or health utilities. Total cost with device in situ was lower on PORT than HICK (-£98.86; 95% CI -189.20 to -8.53) and comparable with PICC -£48.57 (95% CI -164.99 to 67.86). Value of implementation analysis found that PORT was likely to be considered cost-effective within the National Health Service.

Conclusion: Decision makers should consider including PORT within the suite of venous access devices available within in the National Health Service.

Keywords: cost-consequence; value of implementation; venous access device.

MeSH terms

Catheterization, Central Venous* / adverse effects
Catheterization, Peripheral* / adverse effects
Cost-Benefit Analysis
Humans
Neoplasms* / drug therapy
Neoplasms* / etiology
State Medicine