In line with current needs and expectations there is a number of Health Economical calculations performed with Airsonett as a basis.
QALY: Quality of Life Years
ICER: Incremental Cost-effective Ratio
Conclusions made in “An Economic Analysis of Airsonett – A Temperature Controlled Laminar Airflow Technology for Asthmatic Patients” (Matrix Knowledge Ltd, Dec 2014)
The analysis indicates that:
• the ICER is less than half of the £20,000/QALY threshold considered as the acceptable cost-effectiveness benchmark used by NICE.
• for certain high risk individuals with more severe and less well controlled asthma Airsonett could be cost saving to the NHS.
• the economic value of Airsonett is also likely to be understated in the economic valuation due to the prudent interpretation of inpatient episodes from the German clinical study. Increasing the assumed frequency of inpatient visits per exacerbation would result in Airsonett being deemed more cost-effective and potentially cost-saving
• the patient’s rate of recovery and hence duration of hospital stay is a key cost driver of actual costs incurred by the NHS. Clinical indicators demonstrate that Airsonett enable patients to control their asthma more effectively.
• improved asthma control, reduced use of rescue medication and less absenteeism from work or education provide further qualitative evidence of health benefits for the individual patient, family and care providers plus a value to society as a whole, in addition to the direct economic benefits to the health service described above.
The overall indication from the economic analysis is that Airsonett would be cost-effective in comparison with the current standard of care for patients with asthma exacerbations, relative to a £20,000/QALY threshold.
Conclusions made in “Health Economic Analysis of Airsonett in the Swedish health care system” (IHE, Feb 2013)
In the cost-effectiveness analysis it is argued that the results from the clinical trial with Airsonett showed a significant improvement in health-related quality of life and in asthma control in the target population. These improvements were expected to come along with cost savings, due to a reduced consumption of health care services (direct costs) and reduced absence from work (indirect costs) in patients that were considered poorly controlled at the beginning of treatment but through the treatment improved to being considered moderately controlled.
To download summary of the report, click here.
Cost Assessment Issues for Implementation of Medical Devices: A Case Example date
The European magazine European Medical Device Technology Magazine (EMDT) has published a health economic evaluation which indicates that asthma treatment with Airsonett can lead to substantial cost savings.
The author’s conclusion is that the societal economic savings to treat these patients could amount to £ 5.9 million per year.
A link to the report is found here.