PP41 Using Medicare Claims Data To Support Reimbursement Of A Novel Leadless Pacing System For The Management Of Bradycardia

Abstract

IntroductionThe Micra Transcatheter Pacing System (Micra TPS) is a single-chamber transcatheter leadless pacemaker (LPM). LPMs do not require leads or a subcutaneous pocket, which represent the primary sources of device-related complications with conventional transvenous pacemakers (TVPMs). Complications such as infections and lead dislodgements cause significant patient burden, which have significant economic consequences. Running a randomized controlled trial (RCT) to estimate risk differences of infrequent events requires large sample sizes and long follow-up periods. Real-world observational data, while informative, requires an appropriate study design and statistical adjustments to control for potential biases.MethodsThe Micra Coverage with Evidence Development (CED) study was a cohort study of LPM versus TVPM based on US Medicare claims data of 16,431 patients with 2-year follow up (LPM: n=6,219; TVPM: n=10,212). Propensity score matching (PSM) was applied to account for differences in baseline characteristics. As no RCT was identified in the literature, this study was presented to the Australian payer as the primary source of clinical evidence, upon which a cost-utility analysis was conducted.ResultsAfter PSM, the CED study demonstrated significantly more complications with TVPM versus LPM with adjusted rates of 6.5 percent and 4.6 percent (p<0.001). Significant differences favoring LPM (p<0.01) were observed in device breakdown (1.4% vs 2.0%), dislodgment (0.4% vs 1.2%) and infection (<0.1% vs 0.6%). Based on these findings, a claim of superior safety was accepted by Medical Services Advisory Committee (MSAC) to support reimbursement. In making this decision, MSAC considered that the large sample size and propensity weighting overcame some of the potential biases and the magnitude of the benefit supported cost-effectiveness relative to TVPM.ConclusionsThe lack of a sufficiently powered RCT with an extended follow-up period can mean the impact and benefits of new technologies that reduce clinically important adverse events of relative infrequency are not formally incorporated into payer decision making, particularly where RCTs are a requirement. A well-designed observational study can provide valuable, real-world evidence to support a HTA for reimbursement decisions.