The cost-effectiveness of dual oral antiplatelet therapy following percutaneous coronary intervention: a Swedish analysis of the CREDO trial

Antiplatelet agents for chronic kidney disease

BACKGROUND

Antiplatelet agents are widely used to prevent cardiovascular events. The risks and benefits of antiplatelet agents may be different in people with chronic kidney disease (CKD) for whom occlusive atherosclerotic events are less prevalent, and bleeding hazards might be increased. This is an update of a review first published in 2013.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the benefits and harms of antiplatelet agents in people with any form of CKD, including those with CKD not receiving renal replacement therapy, patients receiving any form of dialysis, and kidney transplant recipients.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Kidney and Transplant Register of Studies up to 13 July 2021 through contact with the Information Specialist using search terms relevant to this review. Studies in the Register are identified through searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and EMBASE, conference proceedings, the International Clinical Trials Register (ICTRP) Search Portal and ClinicalTrials.gov.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We selected randomised controlled trials of any antiplatelet agents versus placebo or no treatment, or direct head-to-head antiplatelet agent studies in people with CKD. Studies were included if they enrolled participants with CKD, or included people in broader at-risk populations in which data for subgroups with CKD could be disaggregated.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Four authors independently extracted data from primary study reports and any available supplementary information for study population, interventions, outcomes, and risks of bias. Risk ratios (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated from numbers of events and numbers of participants at risk which were extracted from each included study. The reported RRs were extracted where crude event rates were not provided. Data were pooled using the random-effects model. Confidence in the evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 113 studies, enrolling 51,959 participants; 90 studies (40,597 CKD participants) compared an antiplatelet agent with placebo or no treatment, and 29 studies (11,805 CKD participants) directly compared one antiplatelet agent with another. Fifty-six new studies were added to this 2021 update. Seven studies originally excluded from the 2013 review were included, although they had a follow-up lower than two months. Random sequence generation and allocation concealment were at low risk of bias in 16 and 22 studies, respectively. Sixty-four studies reported low-risk methods for blinding of participants and investigators; outcome assessment was blinded in 41 studies. Forty-one studies were at low risk of attrition bias, 50 studies were at low risk of selective reporting bias, and 57 studies were at low risk of other potential sources of bias. Compared to placebo or no treatment, antiplatelet agents probably reduces myocardial infarction (18 studies, 15,289 participants: RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.79 to 0.99, I² = 0%; moderate certainty). Antiplatelet agents has uncertain effects on fatal or nonfatal stroke (12 studies, 10.382 participants: RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.59, I² = 37%; very low certainty) and may have little or no effect on death from any cause (35 studies, 18,241 participants: RR 0.94, 95 % CI 0.84 to 1.06, I² = 14%; low certainty). Antiplatelet therapy probably increases major bleeding in people with CKD and those treated with haemodialysis (HD) (29 studies, 16,194 participants: RR 1.35, 95% CI 1.10 to 1.65, I² = 12%; moderate certainty). In addition, antiplatelet therapy may increase minor bleeding in people with CKD and those treated with HD (21 studies, 13,218 participants: RR 1.55, 95% CI 1.27 to 1.90, I² = 58%; low certainty). Antiplatelet treatment may reduce early dialysis vascular access thrombosis (8 studies, 1525 participants) RR 0.52, 95% CI 0.38 to 0.70; low certainty). Antiplatelet agents may reduce doubling of serum creatinine in CKD (3 studies, 217 participants: RR 0.39, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.86, I² = 8%; low certainty). The treatment effects of antiplatelet agents on stroke, cardiovascular death, kidney failure, kidney transplant graft loss, transplant rejection, creatinine clearance, proteinuria, dialysis access failure, loss of primary unassisted patency, failure to attain suitability for dialysis, need of intervention and cardiovascular hospitalisation were uncertain. Limited data were available for direct head-to-head comparisons of antiplatelet drugs, including prasugrel, ticagrelor, different doses of clopidogrel, abciximab, defibrotide, sarpogrelate and beraprost.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Antiplatelet agents probably reduced myocardial infarction and increased major bleeding, but do not appear to reduce all-cause and cardiovascular death among people with CKD and those treated with dialysis. The treatment effects of antiplatelet agents compared with each other are uncertain.

Association between atrial fibrillation and Helicobacter pylori

The connection between atrial fibrillation (AF) and H. pylori (HP) infection is still matter of debate. We performed a systematic review and metanalysis of studies reporting the association between AF and HF. A systematic review of all available reports in literature of the incidence of HP infection in AF and comparing this incidence with subjects without AF were analysed. Risk ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) and risk difference with standard error (SE) were the main statistics indexes. Six retrospective studies including a total of 2921 were included at the end of the selection process. Nine hundred-fifty-six patients (32.7%) were in AF, whereas 1965 (67.3%) were in normal sinus rhythm (NSR). Overall, 335 of 956 patients with AF were HP positive (35%), whereas 621 were HP negative (65%). In addition, 643 of 1965 NSR patients (32.7%) were HP positive while 1,322 were negative (67.3%; Chi-square 2.15, p = 0.21). The Cumulative Risk Ratio for AF patients for developing an HP infection was 1.19 (95% CI 1.08-1.41). In addition, a small difference risk towards AF was found (0.11 [SE = 0.04]). Moreover, neither RR nor risk difference were influenced by the geographic area at meta-regression analysis. Finally, there was a weak correlation between AF and HP (coefficient = 0.04 [95% CI -0.01-0.08]). We failed to find any significant correlation between H. pylori infection and AF and, based on our data, it seems unlikely than HP can be considered a risk factor for AF. Further larger research is warranted.

Chinese Herbal Medicines Might Improve the Long-Term Clinical Outcomes in Patients with Acute Coronary Syndrome after Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: Results of a Decision-Analytic Markov Model

Aims. The priority of Chinese herbal medicines (CHMs) plus conventional treatment over conventional treatment alone for acute coronary syndrome (ACS) after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) was documented in the 5C trial (chictr.org number: ChiCTR-TRC-07000021). The study was designed to evaluate the 10-year effectiveness of CHMs plus conventional treatment versus conventional treatment alone with decision-analytic model for ACS after PCI. Methods and Results. We constructed a decision-analytic Markov model to compare additional CHMs for 6 months plus conventional treatment versus conventional treatment alone for ACS patients after PCI. Sources of data came from 5C trial and published reports. Outcomes were expressed in terms of quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Sensitivity analyses were performed to test the robustness of the model. The model predicted that over the 10-year horizon the survival probability was 77.49% in patients with CHMs plus conventional treatment versus 77.29% in patients with conventional treatment alone. In combination with conventional treatment, 6-month CHMs might be associated with a gained 0.20% survival probability and 0.111 accumulated QALYs, respectively. Conclusions. The model suggested that treatment with CHMs, as an adjunctive therapy, in combination with conventional treatment for 6 months might improve the long-term clinical outcome in ACS patients after PCI.

Assessing uncertainties surrounding combined endpoints for use in economic models

BACKGROUND

To increase power to detect a treatment effect, trials may combine multiple endpoints such as survival, myocardial infarctions, and strokes. When such trials are used to define the uncertainty associated with input parameters in an economic model, the output uncertainty will depend on the way in which the dependency between individual endpoints is modeled.

OBJECTIVE

To develop a flexible approach to model the interrelationship between individual components of a combined endpoint.

METHODS

A standard independent Dirichlet approach is compared with a dependent Dirichlet approach and logistic approaches. The logistic approaches use a link between the various endpoints by either an observed clinical variable (cholesterol) or a latent one. The logistic and Dirichlet methods are compared using 6 statin trials including 5 endpoints: myocardial infarction (MI), stroke, fatal MI, fatal stroke, and other cardiovascular death. The results are compared using the point estimates and uncertainty in a simplified cardiovascular model to calculate point estimates and uncertainty of estimated incremental life-years when applying probabilistic sensitivity analysis. The influence of the link between endpoints is tested by changing the prior in the logistic approaches.

RESULTS

The dependent Dirichlet approach reduces uncertainty up to 29% and changes the point estimate by up to 28%. The logistic approach with uninformative priors does not affect the uncertainty and point estimates. When strong priors are used, the uncertainty margins get smaller (up to 49%) and point estimates vary more. Including information about cholesterol has limited impact.

CONCLUSIONS

The logistic approaches offer a flexible way to reflect one's beliefs about the interrelationships between individual endpoints, potentially decreasing uncertainty margins. The approach works equally well with and without data concerning the underlying disease process.

Antiplatelet therapy in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention: economic considerations

Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is one of the most common medical procedures performed for treatment of coronary artery disease. Antiplatelet medications as adjunctive therapy for PCI are used routinely, with indications for specific agents or their combinations varying depending on the clinical scenario. While the cost-effectiveness of well-established agents has been extensively studied, newer drugs have not been evaluated as thoroughly. In addition, the clinical application of some antiplatelet drugs has recently changed, thus making older studies of cost effectiveness less applicable to the current landscape of clinical practice. This article reviews cost-effectiveness considerations of antiplatelet therapies in the treatment of coronary artery disease in patients undergoing PCI. Aspirin, P2Y12 inhibitors including clopidogrel and the newer agents prasugrel and ticagrelor, as well as glycoprotein (GP) IIb/IIIa inhibitors, are discussed. Overall, the use of dual antiplatelet therapy with aspirin and a P2Y12 inhibitor in patients undergoing PCI improves ischaemic outcomes and appears to be cost effective. The few available studies suggest that the recently approved medications prasugrel and ticagrelor are cost-effective alternatives to clopidogrel. However, no direct comparison between these two newer agents is available. The indications for GP IIb/IIIa inhibitors have changed in the current PCI era, and there is a paucity of cost-effectiveness data for their use in contemporary care.

Model performance evaluation (validation and calibration) in model-based studies of therapeutic interventions for cardiovascular diseases : a review and suggested reporting framework

Decision analytic models play an increasingly important role in the economic evaluation of health technologies. Given uncertainties around the assumptions used to develop such models, several guidelines have been published to identify and assess 'best practice' in the model development process, including general modelling approach (e.g., time horizon), model structure, input data and model performance evaluation. This paper focuses on model performance evaluation. In the absence of a sufficient level of detail around model performance evaluation, concerns regarding the accuracy of model outputs, and hence the credibility of such models, are frequently raised. Following presentation of its components, a review of the application and reporting of model performance evaluation is presented. Taking cardiovascular disease as an illustrative example, the review investigates the use of face validity, internal validity, external validity, and cross model validity. As a part of the performance evaluation process, model calibration is also discussed and its use in applied studies investigated. The review found that the application and reporting of model performance evaluation across 81 studies of treatment for cardiovascular disease was variable. Cross-model validation was reported in 55 % of the reviewed studies, though the level of detail provided varied considerably. We found that very few studies documented other types of validity, and only 6 % of the reviewed articles reported a calibration process. Considering the above findings, we propose a comprehensive model performance evaluation framework (checklist), informed by a review of best-practice guidelines. This framework provides a basis for more accurate and consistent documentation of model performance evaluation. This will improve the peer review process and the comparability of modelling studies. Recognising the fundamental role of decision analytic models in informing public funding decisions, the proposed framework should usefully inform guidelines for preparing submissions to reimbursement bodies.

Adherence to guidelines for sensitivity analysis: cost-effectiveness analyses of dual oral antiplatelet therapy

OBJECTIVE

Cost-effectiveness analyses of new treatments for cardiovascular disease frequently require input parameters whose values are known with uncertainty due to limited data. The objective of this paper is to examine the extent to which published sensitivity analyses addressing this uncertainty adhere to Health Technology Assessment (HTA) guidelines.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

A systematic review of published cost-effectiveness analyses was performed for an example drug treatment scenario, dual oral antiplatelet therapy compared with aspirin alone following acute coronary syndromes and/or percutaneous coronary intervention. The following medical literature databases were searched for articles published from January 1997 to June 2007: PubMed, Cochrane Collaboration, EMBASE and the Health Economic Evaluation Database (HEED). Evidence tables were created to show the sensitivity of the cost-effectiveness estimates to changes in the input parameter values, as well as the data sources used for the reference-case and sensitivity analysis input parameter values. The extent to which the sensitivity analyses adhered to HTA guidelines were also examined.

RESULTS

Cost-effectiveness ratios were most sensitive to changes in the efficacy of dual antiplatelet therapy and reference-case model assumptions about costs beyond the trial period. Although alternative values tested in the sensitivity analysis for some input parameters were based on observed ranges or distributions, alternative values tested for many other input parameters were assumed without justification.

CONCLUSIONS

Sensitivity analyses in the cost-effectiveness studies of dual oral antiplatelet therapy were not fully adherent with HTA guidelines. In particular, long-term costs and benefits were not always included in the sensitivity estimates, the impact of differential effects on death and myocardial infarction was not explored, and justification for the alternative parameter values tested was not always provided.

The primary and secondary prevention of coronary artery disease: American College of Chest Physicians Evidence-Based Clinical Practice Guidelines (8th Edition)

The following chapter devoted to antithrombotic therapy for chronic coronary artery disease (CAD) is part of the Antithrombotic and Thrombolytic Therapy: American College of Chest Physicians Evidence-Based Clinical Practice Guidelines (8th Edition). Grade 1 recommendations are strong and indicate that the benefits do or do not outweigh risks, burden, and costs. Grade 2 suggests that individual patient values may lead to different choices (for a full understanding of the grading see the "Grades of Recommendation" chapter by Guyatt et al in this supplement, CHEST 2008; 133[suppl]:123S-131S). Among the key recommendations in this chapter are the following: for patients with non-ST-segment elevation (NSTE)-acute coronary syndrome (ACS) we recommend daily oral aspirin (75-100 mg) [Grade 1A]. For patients with an aspirin allergy, we recommend clopidogrel, 75 mg/d (Grade 1A). For patients who have received clopidogrel and are scheduled for coronary bypass surgery, we suggest discontinuing clopidogrel for 5 days prior to the scheduled surgery (Grade 2A). For patients after myocardial infarction, after ACS, and those with stable CAD and patients after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), we recommend daily aspirin (75-100 mg) as indefinite therapy (Grade 1A). We recommend clopidogrel in combination with aspirin for patients experiencing ST-segment elevation (STE) and NSTE-ACS (Grade 1A). For patients with contraindications to aspirin, we recommend clopidogrel as monotherapy (Grade 1A). For long-term treatment after PCI in patients who receive antithrombotic agents such as clopidogrel or warfarin, we recommend aspirin (75 to 100 mg/d) [Grade 1B]. For patients who undergo bare metal stent placement, we recommend the combination of aspirin and clopidogrel for at least 4 weeks (Grade 1A). We recommend that patients receiving drug-eluting stents (DES) receive aspirin (325 mg/d for 3 months followed by 75-100 mg/d) and clopidogrel 75 mg/d for a minimum of 12 months (Grade 2B). For primary prevention in patients with moderate risk for a coronary event, we recommend aspirin, 75-100 mg/d, over either no antithrombotic therapy or vitamin K antagonist (Grade 1A).

Cost-effectiveness of clopidogrel treatment in percutaneous coronary intervention: a European model based on a meta-analysis of the PCI-CURE, CREDO and PCI-CLARITY trials

OBJECTIVE

Our objective was to conduct a comprehensive cost-effectiveness analysis of pre-treatment and long-term treatment with clopidogrel in percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in three European countries based on a meta-analysis of the PCI-Clopidogrel in Unstable angina to prevent Recurrent Events (CURE), Clopidogrel for the Reduction of Events During Observation (CREDO) and PCI-Clopidogrel as Adjunctive Therapy (CLARITY) trials. This analysis adds to existing knowledge by providing further data on the cost-effectiveness of clopidogrel in PCI across a wide spectrum of patients.

METHODS

A combined decision tree and Markov model was created. The relative risks of myocardial infarction, cardiovascular death and of major bleedings with clopidogrel were based on a fixed-effects meta-analysis. The risk of ischaemic events in untreated patients and long-term survival were taken from the Swedish hospital and death registers. A societal perspective was used in Sweden and a payer perspective in Germany and France. Costs are stated in euro2006 and effectiveness measured in quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs).

RESULTS

The pooled effects of clopidogrel on the combined endpoint showed a relative risk of 0.711 (p=0.003) at 30 days and 0.745 (p=0.002) at end of follow-up (up to 1 year). Pre-treatment with clopidogrel compared with aspirin alone is a dominant strategy. Long-term treatment with clopidogrel compared with 1-month treatment leads to approximately 0.09 QALYs at an incremental cost of euro393 in Sweden, euro709 in Germany and euro494 in France. The corresponding incremental cost-effectiveness ratios range from euro4225/QALY to euro7871/QALY.

CONCLUSION

The results of this modelling analysis suggest that pre-treatment and long-term treatment in PCI with clopidogrel for up to 1 year are cost-effective in a range of patient groups and settings given commonly accepted thresholds.

Cost-effectiveness of clopidogrel: seeing through the smoke

BACKGROUND

The authors reviewed various recommendations and practices for cost-effectiveness analysis. They also performed a PubMed search for clopidogrel and cost-effectiveness from 2004 to early 2008 to obtain original analyses published in English to look for possible associations of assumptions and conclusions with reported pharmaceutical support.

RESULTS

. Inclusion of incident cases and truncation at a sensible follow-up time more appropriately reflect the burden to be assumed by third-party payers. Extending the time horizon too far runs the risk of decreasing any relation with future reality. Parsimony cannot justify simplifications that omit relevant issues such as noncoronary costs, which worsen the calculated cost-effectiveness ratio of clopidogrel by 5% to 27%. The choice of the population to be analyzed has a major effect on cost-effectiveness: pharmaceutically sponsored studies published between 2004 and early 2008 focused on high-risk patients and have routinely shown more favorable cost-effectiveness ratios for clopidogrel than studies without pharmaceutical support.

CONCLUSION

. Any entity hoping to make the cost-effectiveness ratio of clopidogrel look more favorable would prefer the isolated, cohort approach and limit the analysis to high-risk patients most likely to benefit from it. This approach ignores the reality of medical policies and does not address the most relevant questions regarding the optimum use of clopidogrel.

On future non-medical costs in economic evaluations

Economic evaluation in health care is still an evolving discipline. One of the current controversies in cost-effectiveness analysis regards the inclusion or exclusion of future non-medical costs (i.e. consumption net of production) due to increased survival. This paper examines the implications of a symmetry rule stating that there should be consistency between costs included in the numerator and utility aspects included in the denominator. While the observation that no quality-adjusted life year (QALY) instruments explicitly include consumption and leisure seems to give support to the notion that future non-medical costs should be excluded when QALYs are used as the outcome measure, a better understanding of what respondents actually consider when reporting QALY weights is required. However, the more fundamental question is whether QALYs can be interpreted as utilities. Or more precisely, what are the assumptions needed for a general utility model also including consumption and leisure to be consistent with QALYs? Once those assumptions are identified, they need to be experimentally tested to see whether they are at least approximately valid. Until we have answers to these areas for future research, it seems premature to include future non-medical costs.

Cost-effectiveness of clopidogrel in myocardial infarction with ST-segment elevation: A European model based on the CLARITY and COMMIT trials

BACKGROUND

Several health economic studies have shown that the use of clopidogrel is cost-effective to prevent ischemic events in non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) and unstable angina.

OBJECTIVE

This study was designed to assess the cost-effectiveness of clopidogrel in short- and long-term treatment of ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) with the use of data from 2 trials in Sweden, Germany, and France: CLARITY (Clopidogrel as Adjunctive Reperfusion Therapy) and COMMIT (Clopidogrel and Metoprolol in Myocardial Infarction Trial).

METHODS

A combined decision tree and Markov model was constructed. Because existing evidence indicates similar long-term outcomes after STEMI and NSTEMI, data from the long-term NSTEMI CURE trial (Clopidogrel in Unstable Angina to Prevent Recurrent Events) were combined with 1-month data from CLARITY and COMMIT to model the effect of treatment up to 1 year. The risks of death, myocardial infarction, and stroke in an untreated population and long-term survival after all events were derived from the Swedish Hospital Discharge and Cause of Death register. The model was run separately for the 2 STEMI trials. A payer perspective was chosen for the comparative analysis, focusing on direct medical costs. Costs were derived from published sources and were converted to 2005 euros. Effectiveness was measured as the number of life-years gained (LYG) from clopidogrel treatment.

RESULTS

In a patient cohort with the same characteristics and event rates as in the CLARITY population, treatment with clopidogrel for up to 1 year resulted in 0.144 LYG. In Sweden and France, this strategy was dominant with estimated cost savings of euro 111 and euro 367, respectively. In Germany, clopidogrel treatment had an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of euro 92/LYG. Data from the COMMIT study showed that clopidogrel treatment resulted in 0.194 LYG at an incremental cost of euro 538 in Sweden, euro 798 in Germany, and euro 545 in France. The corresponding ICERs were euro 2772/LYG, euro 4144/LYG, and euro 2786/LYG, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Treatment of these STEMI patients with clopidogrel appeared to be cost-effective in all 3 European countries studied. Predicted ICERs were below generally accepted threshold values.