Cost effectiveness of drug-eluting stents in Belgian practice: healthcare payer perspective

BACKGROUND

There has been a steep increase in the number of percutaneous coronary intervention procedures performed for coronary heart disease since their introduction about 30 years ago. Recently, the use of drug-eluting stents (DES) compared with the original bare metal stents (BMS) has increased in many countries.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the cost effectiveness of DES versus BMS in a real-world setting from the Belgian healthcare payer perspective.

METHODS

We developed a decision analysis model to estimate incremental costs (year 2004 or 2007 values [depending on the underlying variable]) and effectiveness. Incremental effectiveness was calculated by combining relative benefits from published meta-analyses with real-world observations from a Belgian registry. Probabilistic modelling and sensitivity analyses were performed. The model had a 1-year time horizon. Sixteen sub groups were created based on the following characteristics: initial stent type, diabetic status, complex lesion and multi-vessel disease. Scenario analyses were performed for the influence on reinterventions and the duration of clopidogrel use. In each analysis, 1000 Monte Carlo simulations were performed.

RESULTS

The incremental costs for switching from BMS to DES are substantial (approximately euro1000), while the benefits, expressed as QALYs, are extremely small (on average <0.001 QALYs gained). This led to very high incremental cost-effectiveness ratios: over euro860 000 per QALY gained in all subgroups and scenario analyses.

CONCLUSION

Comparing DES with BMS, no life-years are gained and small quality-of-life improvements are achieved for short periods, resulting in a high likelihood that DES are not cost effective. When there is competition for scarce resources this should be considered when deciding on the reimbursement of this technology.

A strategy to offset the extra cost of sirolimus-eluting stent in patients undergoing intervention for acute myocardial infarction

OBJECTIVE

To obtain a quantitative estimate of the overall costs and cost effectiveness ratio of sirolimus-eluting stents (SES) implantation and tirofiban infusion compared to abciximab and bare metal stent (BMS) in patients undergoing primary intervention for acute ST segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI).

METHODS

In the attempt to make the unrestricted use of SES in STEMI patients affordable under the current European reimbursement system, between March 6, 2003, and April 23, 2004, 175 patients with STEMI were randomized to receive tirofiban infusion and SES versus abciximab and BMS as part of the STRATEGY trial. Costs and outcome were monitored for 2 years.

RESULTS

The cost of the index procedure was 9345 euros +/-2573 and 9657+/-2114 for the tirofiban+SES and abciximab+BMS group, respectively (P=0.048). At follow-up, the composite of death or myocardial infarction and the costs not related to target vessel revascularisation (TVR) did not differ in the two groups while the rate of TVR and the costs related to it were lower in the tirofiban+SES group. The overall 2-year cost of treating a patient in the tirofiban+SES group was 10,971 euros +/-4185 compared to 12,066 euros +/-4636 for the abciximab+BMS group (P=0.006). Halving the cost of abciximab resulted in higher initial hospital costs for the tirofiban+SES but overall cost neutrality over a 24-month time horizon.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared to abciximab+BMS, tirofiban infusion+SES implantation in STEMI patients was an economically dominant strategy, with an improved composite outcome and lower overall costs.

Consistency of financial interest disclosures in the biomedical literature: the case of coronary stents

BACKGROUND

Disclosure of authors' financial interests has been proposed as a strategy for protecting the integrity of the biomedical literature. We examined whether authors' financial interests were disclosed consistently in articles on coronary stents published in 2006.

METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS

We searched PubMed for English-language articles published in 2006 that provided evidence or guidance regarding the use of coronary artery stents. We recorded article characteristics, including information about authors' financial disclosures. The main outcome measures were the prevalence, nature, and consistency of financial disclosures. There were 746 articles, 2985 authors, and 135 journals in the database. Eighty-three percent of the articles did not contain disclosure statements for any author (including declarations of no interests). Only 6% of authors had an article with a disclosure statement. In comparisons between articles by the same author, the types of disagreement were as follows: no disclosure statements vs declarations of no interests (64%); specific disclosures vs no disclosure statements (34%); and specific disclosures vs declarations of no interests (2%). Among the 75 authors who disclosed at least 1 relationship with an organization, there were 2 cases (3%) in which the organization was disclosed in every article the author wrote.

CONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCE

In the rare instances when financial interests were disclosed, they were not disclosed consistently, suggesting that there are problems with transparency in an area of the literature that has important implications for patient care. Our findings suggest that the inconsistencies we observed are due to both the policies of journals and the behavior of some authors.

[The evaluation of costs of the abdominal aortic aneurysm endovascular treatment]

Abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) treatment by means of stentgraft implementation is a less post-operationally after-effected, way of treating the AAA on the contrast to the more traditional method. The aim of this study was to evaluate the costs of stentgraft implementation.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

In the years 2001-2006 65 patients were implemented the intervascular prosthesis. Only the patients with severe chronic medical problems were qualified for the treatment: 31 with the respiratory failure, 29 with the circulatory failure and 5 after the stroke with spastic hemiplegia. After CT of the abdominal cave and the angiography performed at the general anaesthetic the intervascular prosthesis was implemented.

RESULTS

After the endovascular procedure was performed the complications could be noticed among 7 patients (10.76%), one patient died (1,53%). After obtaining the data from the Marketing Department the overall cost of treating the patients with endovascular prosthesis was 47500.39 PLN.

CONCLUSION

Among patients with abdominal aortic aneurysm and with severe chronic medical problems costs of the endovascular prosthesis implementation are high, because costs of the stentgraft are high.

Cost-effectiveness of sirolimus-eluting stents in percutaneous coronary interventions in Brazil

OBJECTIVES

To compare the cost-effectiveness ratios of sirolimus-eluting stents (SES) with bare-metal stents (BMS) under two perspectives: the "supplementary medical system" (health plans and private patients) and the public health (SUS) system.

METHODS

A decision-analytic model using three different therapeutic strategies for coronary lesions: percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with BMS; with SES; or with BMS followed by SES to treat symptomatic restenosis. Study endpoints were one-year event-free survival and life expectancy. Decision trees were constructed using the results of published registries and clinical trials.

RESULTS

One-year restenosis-free survival was 92.7% with SES and 78.8% with BMS. Estimated life expectancy was very similar for all the strategies, ranging from 18.5 to 19 years. Under a nonpublic perspective, the cost difference in the first year between BMS and SES was R$3,816, with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of R$27,403 per event avoided in one year. Under the SUS perspective, the cost per event avoided in one year was R$47,529. In the sensitivity analysis, probability of restenosis, risk reduction expected with SES, the price of the stent and cost of treating restenosis were all important predictors. In the Monte Carlo simulation, data per years of life saved showed very high cost-effectiveness ratios.

CONCLUSION

In the Brazilian model, the cost-effectiveness ratios for SES were elevated. The use of SES was more favorable for patients with high risk of restenosis, as it is associated with elevated costs in restenosis management of and under a nonpublic perspective.

[Health economy in cardiovascular imaging]

New medical treatment methods and procedures usually cause high additional costs. Medical progress in cardiovascular imaging may fortunately reduce costs considerably. In Innsbruck it is calculated that about 1000 euros may be saved when replacing diagnostic coronary angiography (CAG) by CT coronary angiography (CTA). If in Austria 30% of CAGs are replaced by CTAs with a 64-slice CT system, about 13 million euros may be saved provided that CAG capacities will be reduced to the same extent as CTAs are done.

Cost comparison of four revascularisation procedures for the treatment of multivessel coronary artery disease

OBJECTIVE

An economic evaluation was performed, using modelling techniques, to compare 1-year total costs of four revascularisation procedures in patients with multivessel disease: on-pump coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG); off-pump CABG; percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with bare-metal stents (BMS); and PCI with drug-eluting stents (DES).

METHODS

Clinical data were derived from four randomised clinical trials comparing CABG versus PCI, as well as from literature reviews. Resource use and unit cost estimates were modelled to reflect current Canadian practice.

RESULTS

This study demonstrated that 1 year after the initial revascularisation, PCI with BMS is the least costly procedure, followed by off-pump CABG, PCI with DES and on-pump CABG. DES became the most costly procedure if 3.5 or more DES were used or if staged PCI was performed.

Variations in hospitalisation costs for acute myocardial infarction - a comparison across Europe

The aim of this study was to determine whether between-country variations in hospital costs are larger than within-country variations and, furthermore, to explore reasons for this variability. For this purpose, we chose the primary treatment of patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) as an episode of care. We obtained hospitalisation costs and reimbursement rates from 45 hospitals in nine different EU member states (i.e. Denmark, England, France, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Netherlands, Poland, and Spain) for the year 2005. To further analyse the variations in hospital costs, we employed a hierarchical random effects model based on treatment and hospital characteristics and using purchasing power parities (PPPs) as a proxy for country-specific price levels. The between-country standard error was estimated at 2473 euros, whereas the within-country standard error was estimated at 1242 euros. Our regression analysis showed that percutaneous coronary intervention was associated with significantly increased hospitals costs compared to other treatment strategies. We were able to distinguish between three groups of countries with different cost levels based on the number of hospitals that were able to provide these services (i.e. percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty (PTCA) with intracoronary stenting). Excluding Hungary, Poland, and Spain, where none of the participating hospitals were able to provide these procedures, the between-country standard error decreased to 1632 euros, whereas the within-country standard error increased to 1416 euros. Finally, we observed exogenous price-level effects between countries and within countries for hospitals located in urban areas.

Colonic stent versus surgery for the management of acute malignant colonic obstruction: a decision analysis

BACKGROUND

Acute colonic obstruction because of advanced colonic malignancy is a surgical emergency.

AIM

To compare the clinical outcomes and cost-effectiveness of endoscopic self-expanding metal stent (SEMS) vs. surgery for emergent management of acute malignant colonic obstruction in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer over a 6-month period.

METHODS

Decision analysis was used to calculate the cost-effectiveness and success of two competing strategies in a hypothetical patient with metastatic colon cancer presenting with acute, malignant colonic obstruction: (i) emergent colonic stent (SEMS cohort); (ii) emergent surgical resection followed by diversion (surgery cohort).

RESULTS

Self-expanding metal stent resulted in a success and a lower mortality rate when compared to surgery over a 6-month period. Colonic SEMS was also associated with a lower mean cost per patient (USD 27,225 vs. USD 57,398). Mortality in the surgery group was 25 times that of the SEMS cohort. One- and two-way sensitivity analyses identified SEMS as the dominant strategy.

CONCLUSION

Colonic stent insertion is more effective and less costly than surgery for the management of colonic obstruction in patients with metastatic colon cancer.

Cost-effectiveness of drug-eluting stents in patients at high or low risk of major cardiac events in the Basel Stent KostenEffektivitäts Trial (BASKET): an 18-month analysis

BACKGROUND

Our aim was to determine whether drug-eluting stents are good value for money in long-term, everyday practice.

METHODS

We did an 18-month cost-effectiveness analysis of the Basel Stent KostenEffektivitäts Trial (BASKET), which randomised 826 patients 2:1 to drug-eluting stents (n=545) or to bare-metal stents (281). We used non-parametric bootstrap techniques to determine incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) of drug-eluting versus bare-metal stents, to compare low-risk (> or =3.0 mm stents in native vessels; n=558, 68%) and high-risk patients (<3.0 mm stents/bypass graft stenting; n=268, 32%), and to do sensitivity analyses by altering costs and event rates in the whole study sample and in predefined subgroups. Quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were assessed by EQ-5D questionnaire (available in 703/826 patients).

FINDINGS

Overall costs were higher for patients with drug-eluting stents than in those with bare-metal stents (11,808 euros [SD 400] per patient with drug-eluting stents and 10,450 euros [592] per patient with bare-metal stents, mean difference 1358 euros [717], p<0.0001), due to higher stent costs. We calculated an ICER of 64,732 euros to prevent one major adverse cardiac event, and of 40,467 euros per QALY gained. Stent costs, number of events, and QALYs affected ICERs most, but unrealistic alterations would have been required to achieve acceptable cost-effectiveness. In low-risk patients, the probability of drug-eluting stents achieving an arbitrary ICER of 10,000 euros or less to prevent one major adverse cardiac event was 0.016; by contrast, it was 0.874 in high-risk patients.

INTERPRETATION

If used in all patients, drug-eluting stents are not good value for money, even if prices were substantially reduced. Drug-eluting stents are cost effective in patients needing small vessel or bypass graft stenting, but not in those who require large native vessel stenting.

Use of colonic stents in emergent malignant left colonic obstruction: a Markov chain Monte Carlo decision analysis

PURPOSE

This decision analysis examines the cost-effectiveness of colonic stenting as a bridge to surgery vs. surgery alone in the management of emergent, malignant left colonic obstruction.

METHODS

We used a Markov chain Monte Carlo decision analysis model to determine the effect on health-related quality of life of two strategies: emergency surgery vs. emergency colonic stenting as a bridge to definitive surgery. All relevant health states were modeled during a patient's expected lifespan. Outcome measures were mortality, the proportion of patients requiring a colostomy, quality-adjusted life expectancy, and costs. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed.

RESULTS

In our model, colonic stenting was more effective (9.2 quality-adjusted life months benefit) and less costly (CAD dollars 3,763; US dollars 3,135) than emergency surgery. Its benefits were secondary to reductions in acute mortality and in the likelihood of requiring a permanent colostomy. The results were only dependent on the rate of stenting complications (perforation, technical placement failure, and migration) and the patient's risk of surgical mortality, with the benefits being greatest among patients at high risk of operative mortality.

CONCLUSIONS

Colonic stenting as a bridge to surgery is more effective and less costly than surgery in the treatment of emergent, malignant left colonic obstruction. The benefits are most pronounced in high-risk patients and are diminished by increases in stent placement failure rates and perforation rates. In low-risk patients, the benefits are more modest and may not outweigh the risks.

Economic appraisal of the angioplasty procedures performed in 2004 in a high-volume diagnostic and interventional cardiology unit

OBJECTIVE

Growing interest in the use of drug-eluting stents (DESs) in coronary angioplasty has prompted the Healthcare Agency of the Emilia Romagna Region to draw up recommendations for their appropriate clinical use in high-risk patients. Since the adoption of any new technology necessitates economic appraisal, we analysed the resource consumption of the various types of angioplasty procedures and the impact on the budget of a cardiology department.

METHODS

A retrospective economic appraisal was carried out on the coronary angioplasty procedures performed in 2004 in the Department of Interventional Cardiology of Reggio Emilia. On the basis of the principles of activity-based costing, detailed hospital costs were estimated for each procedure and compared with the relevant diagnosis-related group (DRG) reimbursement.

RESULTS

In 2004, the Reggio Emilia hospital performed 806 angioplasty procedures for a total expenditure of euro 5,176,268. These were 93 plain old balloon angioplasty procedures (euro 487,329), 401 procedures with bare-metal stents (euro 2,380,071), 249 procedures with DESs (euro 1,827,386) and 63 mixed procedures (euro 481,480). Reimbursements amounted to euro 5,816,748 (11% from plain old balloon angioplasty, 50% from bare-metal stent, 31% from DES and 8% from mixed procedures) with a positive margin of about euro 680,480 between costs incurred and reimbursements obtained, even if the reimbursement for DES and mixed procedures was not covering all the incurred costs.

CONCLUSIONS

Analysis of the case-mix of procedures revealed that an overall positive margin between costs and DRG reimbursements was achieved. It therefore emerges that adherence to the indications of the Healthcare Agency of the Emilia Romagna Region for the appropriate clinical use of DESs is economically sustainable from the hospital enterprise point of view, although the DRG reimbursements are not able to differentiate among resource consumptions owing to the adoption of innovative technologies.

One-year clinical results and total costs of drug-eluting stents implantation in multivessel coronary artery disease

OBJECTIVES

One hundred and eleven consecutive patients with multivessel coronary artery disease treated with percutaneous coronary intervention with multiple drug-eluting stents were examined to investigate 1-year clinical results and initial and total costs.

METHODS

Clinical and procedural characteristics, duration of hospital stay and 12-month follow-up events were considered. Real costs of multivessel percutaneous coronary intervention with multiple drug-eluting stents were calculated, including disposables, personnel, equipment depreciation and hospital stay, whereas medical resources consumption at 12 months were calculated as disease related group reimbursement tariffs.

RESULTS

The patient population (69% males, mean age 65 +/- 10 years) presented mid to high-risk clinical and anatomical characteristics. The mean number of treated vessels was 2.36 per patient with 2.8 drug-eluting stents per patient. A complete revascularization was achieved in 70% of cases. In-hospital events were post-procedural non-Q myocardial infarction in 5.4% and two retroperitoneal haemorrhages. Post-procedural hospital stay was 2.5 +/- 2.3 days (mean total hospital stay = 5.3 +/- 3 days). At 12-month follow-up, total mortality and acute myocardial infarction incidence were 3.6% and 1.8%, respectively; only one patient (0.9%) presented subacute stent thrombosis at 3 months, which was treated by urgent re-percutaneous coronary intervention. Target vessel revascularization rate was 12.6% and the incidence of cumulative major adverse cardiac events was 15.3%. Initial hospital costs were 8992 euros +/- 2825 (5518 euros +/- 1098 for procedure and 3473 euros+/- 2347 for hospital stay); follow-up costs were 222 euros+/- 3087, leading to 12-month total costs of 10214 euros+/- 4184.

CONCLUSIONS

Multivessel percutaneous coronary intervention with drug-eluting stents showed good early and medium-term results with acceptable total costs. Despite not completely being covered by actual disease related group reimbursement, the initial and final costs were substantially lower than that of disease related group reimbursement for coronary artery bypass graft.

The pathophysiology and burden of restenosis

The introduction of percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty (PTCA) revolutionized the surgical treatment of coronary artery disease. However, despite increased surgical experience and technical breakthroughs, restenosis occurs in 30%-50% of patients undergoing simple balloon angioplasty and in 10%-30% of patients who receive an intravascular stent. Animal and human data indicate that restenosis is a response to injury incurred during PTCA. The need for reintervention in a high percentage of patients due to restenosis remains an important limitation to the long-term success of PTCA. Stenting reduces initial elastic recoil and limits negative arterial remodeling; however, bare-metal stents may promote intimal hyperplasia by eliciting an immune and proliferative response. Consistent with these data, clinical studies suggest that drug-eluting stents, coated with anti-inflammatory or antiproliferative agents, reduce the risk for restenosis. Stenting represents a considerable cost burden. Treatment strategy should focus on selective use of expensive drug-eluting stents in populations where they have been found to be more clinically effective than bare-metal stents--patients who are at high risk for restenosis or who develop restenosis with bare-metal stents. Recent studies suggest that the pharmacologic management of restenosis is now feasible. Together, the judicious use of stents and oral pharmacotherapy promise to reduce the risk for restenosis, even among high-risk patients.

Economic Evaluation of Carotid Artery Stenting Versus Carotid Endarterectomy for the Treatment of Carotid Artery Stenosis

BACKGROUND

The clinical effectiveness of carotid endarterectomy (CEA) is well established. But the economic impact of CEA and carotid artery stenting (CAS) is still uncertain. The objective of this study was to compare hospital costs and reimbursement for CAS and CEA.

STUDY DESIGN

We performed a retrospective database analysis on pair-matched patients who underwent CEA (n = 31) and CAS (n = 31) at the Richard M Ross Heart Hospital in Columbus, OH. The hospital's clinical and financial databases were used to obtain patient-specific information and procedural charges. Cost data were generated by applying the hospital's ratio of cost to charges for all DRG charges. The Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used to examine the differences between costs of these procedures.

RESULTS

Data are reported as mean +/- SD. The mean age of patients in CAS group was 70.14 years (+/- 1.60 years) versus 68.64 years (+/- 1.75 years) for CEA patients (p < 0.05). The total direct cost associated with CEA ($3,765.12+/-$2,170.82) was significantly lower than the CAS cost ($8,219.71+/-$2,958.55, p < 0.001). The mean procedural cost for CAS ($7,543.61+/-$2,886.54) was significantly higher than that for CEA ($2,720.00+/-$926.38, p < 0.001). The hospital experienced cost savings of $9,690.87 for CEA versus $4,804.79 for CAS from private insurance. Similarly, savings obtained by Medicare-enrolled CEA patients were higher than those for CAS patients ($1,497.79).

CONCLUSIONS

CAS is significantly more expensive than CEA, with a major portion of cost attributed to the total procedural cost. The hospital experienced significant savings from CEA procedures compared with CAS under all DRG classifications and insurers. Hospitals must develop new financial strategies and improve the efficiency of infrastructure to make CAS financially viable.

Percutaneous treatment of peripheral vascular disease: the role of diabetes and inflammation

Peripheral arterial disease (PAD) is a growing health problem for many Americans and often occurs along with other cardiovascular risk factors, including diabetes mellitus (DM), low-grade inflammation, hypertension, and lipid disorders. Intermittent claudication (IC), an early manifestation of PAD, commonly leads to reduced quality of life for patients who are limited in their ambulation. While recent wide adoption of percutaneous peripheral interventional (PPI) techniques has increased the number patients being aggressively treated for IC, the overall effectiveness of PPI for the treatment of IC is not well known, especially for DM patients who have both hemodynamic and functional obstacles to treatment success. This review is designed to illustrate how treatment outcomes for IC can be measured by different modalities and how diabetes and inflammation can influence those outcomes. In the setting of greater concern for health care resources and clinical accountability, better understanding of treatment outcomes and efficacy will help us manage these complex challenges.