The Authors' reply
- Maureen Watt1,
- Stuart Mealing1,
- Mark Sculpher2,
- James Eaton1,
- Pascale Brasseur3,
- Rachele Busca3,
- Stephen Palmer2,
- Neil Moat4,
- Nicolo Piazza5
- 1Health Economics, Oxford Outcomes Ltd, Oxford, UK
- 2Centre for Health Economics, University of York, York, UK
- 3Medtronic International Trading, Tolochenaz, Switzerland
- 4Department of Cardiac Surgery, Royal Brompton Hospital, London, UK
- 5German Heart Center, Germany
- Correspondence to Maureen Watt, Health Economics, Oxford Outcomes Ltd, Seacourt Tower, WEst Way, Botley, Oxford OX2 0JJ, UK; maureen.watt{at}oxfordoutcomes.com
-
Contributors All authors contributed to the design, parameterisation and validation of the economic model. MW and SM constructed the economic model and prepared the manuscript. All authors provided significant comment on the content.
- Basic science
- EBM
- quality of care and outcomes
- valvular disease
- interventional cardiology
- minimally invasive
- surgery-valve
- antihypertensive drugs
- hypertension
The Authors' reply We agree that it is important for all data relating to the PARTNER3 trial to be made available to inform decisions about the most cost effective management of aortic stenosis. However, in their critique of our model1 Neyt et al2 are correct in that we were only able to take into account evidence available when we undertook our analysis. At that point (our manuscript was submitted to Heart in May 2011) the only PARTNER trial data in the public domain were those published by Leon et al together with its supplementary appendix.3 Having no links with Edwards Lifesciences, we had no access to unpublished PARTNER trial data.
Neyt et al comment that, in the ‘Continued Access’ trial, 1-year mortality with transcatheter aortic valve implant (TAVI) was worse than in the control arm. Interpreting these data requires further information on the study design and the patients recruited, and this does not seem to be …
