Cost-utility of ranolazine for the symptomatic treatment of patients with chronic angina pectoris in Spain

Cost-Utility of Ranolazine for Chronic Stable Angina Pectoris: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

PURPOSE

Ranolazine is used to treat stable angina pectoris, the most common symptom of ischemic heart disease. Appropriate management of chronic stable angina pectoris is essential from both a clinical and an economic view point.

METHODS

This systematic review and meta-analysis adhered to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. We included cost-utility analyses, which compared ranolazine with other standard treatments for treating stable angina pectoris. The search was conducted in PubMed, EMBASE, and Scopus databases. A random-effects model based on the DerSimonian and Laird method was used to pool the incremental net benefit reported in purchasing power parity adjusted US dollars. The modified economic evaluation checklist was used to assess the risk of bias.

FINDINGS

The pooled results from 7 selected studies with a time horizon of 1 year show that add-on ranolazine was significantly cost-effective compared with standard treatment, with a pooled incremental net benefit of US$1335 (95% CI, 500 to 2169) but with substantial heterogeneity (I² = 79.46%). On subgroup analysis, ranolazine was cost-effective from the payers' perspective (US$1975; 95% CI, 1042 to 2908; I² = 69.23) but not from a societal perspective (US$297; 95% CI, -241 to 715; I² = 0%)]. There was limited evidence from lower economies.

IMPLICATIONS

Pooled evidence suggests that add-on ranolazine therapy is cost-effective for chronic stable angina pectoris up to a 1-year time horizon. There is a lacuna of evidence from low- and middle-income countries and on long-term cost-effectiveness. The current evidence synthesis may provide a macroeconomic point of view for policy makers regarding the direction of ranolazine's cost-effectiveness for evidence-informed policy-making. PROSPERO identifier: CRD42022332454.

Quality of health economic evaluations for the ACC/AHA stable ischemic heart disease practice guideline: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

The American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association (ACC/AHA) recently published a rigorous framework to guide integration of economic data into clinical guidelines. We assessed the quality of economic evaluations in a major ACC/AHA clinical guidance report.

METHODS

We systematically identified cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs) of RCTs cited in the ACC/AHA 2012 Guideline for the Diagnosis and Management of Patients with Stable Ischemic Heart Disease. We extracted: (1) study identifiers; (2) parent RCT information; (3) economic analysis characteristics; and (4) study quality using the Quality of Health Economic Studies instrument (QHES).

RESULTS

Quality scores were categorized as high (≥75 points) or low (<75 points). Of 1,266 citations in the guideline, 219 were RCTs associated with 77 CEAs. Mean quality score was 81 (out of 100) and improved over time, though 29.9% of studies were low-quality. Cost-per-QALY was the most commonly reported primary outcome (39.0%). Low-quality studies were less likely to report study perspective, use appropriate time horizons, or address statistical and clinical uncertainty. Funding was overwhelmingly private (83%). A detailed methodological assessment of high-quality studies revealed domains of additional methodological issues not identified by the QHES.

CONCLUSIONS

Economic evaluations of RCTs in the 2012 ACC/AHA ischemic heart disease guideline largely had high QHES scores but methodological issues existed among "high-quality" studies. Because the ACC/AHA has generally been more systematic in its integration of scientific evidence compared to other professional societies, it is likely that most societies will need to proceed more cautiously in their integration of economic evidence.

Ranolazine: A true pluripotent cardiovascular drug or jack of all trades, master of none?

Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is a leading cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide. Although the majority of patients with CVD are treated with interventional procedures, a substantial number require medical therapy in terms of both prognosis and symptomatic relief. However, commonly used agents such as β-blockers and calcium channel blockers reduce blood pressure in patients whose resting pressures are often already low. Ranolazine is a promising agent that does not have significant effects on blood pressure or heart rate. Use of this drug has been documented in various cardiovascular conditions, including ischaemic heart disease, heart failure and arrhythmias. This review article aimed to examine current evidence on the use of ranolazine in various cardiovascular conditions in order to determine whether it is a true pluripotent cardiovascular agent or, on the other hand, a "jack of all trades, master of none."

Ranolazine for stable angina pectoris

BACKGROUND

Stable angina pectoris is a chronic medical condition with significant impact on mortality and quality of life; it can be macrovascular or microvascular in origin. Ranolazine is a second-line anti-anginal drug approved for use in people with stable angina. However, the effects of ranolazine for people with angina are considered to be modest, with uncertain clinical relevance.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of ranolazine on cardiovascular and non-cardiovascular mortality, all-cause mortality, quality of life, acute myocardial infarction incidence, angina episodes frequency and adverse events incidence in stable angina patients, used either as monotherapy or as add-on therapy, and compared to placebo or any other anti-anginal agent.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and the Conference Proceedings Citation Index - Science in February 2016, as well as regional databases and trials registers. We also screened reference lists.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) which directly compared the effects of ranolazine versus placebo or other anti-anginals in people with stable angina pectoris were eligible for inclusion.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently selected studies, extracted data and assessed risk of bias. Estimates of treatment effects were calculated using risk ratios (RR), mean differences (MD) and standardised mean differences (SMD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) using a fixed-effect model. Where we found statistically significant heterogeneity (Chi² P < 0.10), we used a random-effects model for pooling estimates. Meta-analysis was not performed where we found considerable heterogeneity (I² ≥ 75%). We used GRADE criteria to assess evidence quality and the GRADE profiler (GRADEpro GDT) to import data from Review Manager 5.3 to create 'Summary of findings' tables.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 17 RCTs (9975 participants, mean age 63.3 years). We found very limited (or no) data to inform most planned comparisons. Summary data were used to inform comparison of ranolazine versus placebo. Overall, risk of bias was assessed as unclear.For add-on ranolazine compared to placebo, no data were available to estimate cardiovascular and non-cardiovascular mortality. We found uncertainty about the effect of ranolazine on: all-cause mortality (1000 mg twice daily, RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.26 to 2.71; 3 studies, 2053 participants; low quality evidence); quality of life (any dose, SMD 0.25, 95% CI -0.01 to 0.52; 4 studies, 1563 participants; I² = 73%; moderate quality evidence); and incidence of non-fatal acute myocardial infarction (AMI) (1000mg twice daily, RR 0.40, 95% CI 0.08 to 2.07; 2 studies, 1509 participants; low quality evidence). Add-on ranolazine 1000 mg twice daily reduced the fervour of angina episodes (MD -0.66, 95% CI -0.97 to -0.35; 3 studies, 2004 participants; I² = 39%; moderate quality evidence) but increased the risk of non-serious adverse events (RR 1.22, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.40; 3 studies, 2053 participants; moderate quality evidence).For ranolazine as monotherapy compared to placebo, we found uncertain effect on cardiovascular mortality (1000 mg twice daily, RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.88; 1 study, 2604 participants; low quality evidence). No data were available to estimate non-cardiovascular mortality. We also found an uncertain effect on all-cause mortality for ranolazine (1000 mg twice daily, RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.25; 3 studies, 6249 participants; low quality evidence), quality of life (1000 mg twice daily, MD 0.28, 95% CI -1.57 to 2.13; 3 studies, 2254 participants; moderate quality evidence), non-fatal AMI incidence (any dose, RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.12; 3 studies, 2983 participants; I² = 50%; low quality evidence), and frequency of angina episodes (any dose, MD 0.08, 95% CI -0.85 to 1.01; 2 studies, 402 participants; low quality evidence). We found an increased risk for non-serious adverse events associated with ranolazine (any dose, RR 1.50, 95% CI 1.12 to 2.00; 3 studies, 947 participants; very low quality evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found very low quality evidence showing that people with stable angina who received ranolazine as monotherapy had increased risk of presenting non-serious adverse events compared to those given placebo. We found low quality evidence indicating that people with stable angina who received ranolazine showed uncertain effect on the risk of cardiovascular death (for ranolazine given as monotherapy), all-cause death and non-fatal AMI, and the frequency of angina episodes (for ranolazine given as monotherapy) compared to those given placebo. Moderate quality evidence indicated that people with stable angina who received ranolazine showed uncertain effect on quality of life compared with people who received placebo. Moderate quality evidence also indicated that people with stable angina who received ranolazine as add-on therapy had fewer angina episodes but increased risk of presenting non-serious adverse events compared to those given placebo.

Economic evaluation of trimetazidine in the management of chronic stable angina in Greece

Background

To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of trimetazidine (TMZ) as add-on therapy to standard-of-care (SoC) compared to SoC alone in patients with chronic stable angina who did not respond adequately to first line therapy with b-blockers, nitrates or calcium channel antagonists in Greece.

Methods

A Markov model with 3-month cycles and 1-year time horizon was developed to assess the comparators. The analysis was conducted from a third-party payer perspective. The clinical inputs and utility values were extracted from the published literature. Resource consumption data were obtained from local experts, using a questionnaire developed for the purpose of the study and were combined with unit cost data (in €2016) obtained from official sources. Cost effectiveness was assessed by calculating the incremental cost effectiveness ratio (ICER). Probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) was performed to account for uncertainty and variation in the input parameters of the model.

Results

The analysis showed that the cost of TMZ plus SoC was €1755.57 versus €1751.76 of SoC alone. In terms of health outcomes, TMZ plus SoC was associated with 0.6650 QALYs versus 0.6562 QALYs for SoC alone. The incremental analysis resulted in an ICER of €430.67 per QALY gained. PSA revealed that the probability of TMZ plus SoC being cost-effective over SoC was 89 %, at a threshold of €34,000 per QALY gained.

Conclusion

The results indicate that TMZ as add –on treatment may be a highly cost-effective option for the symptomatic treatment of patients with chronic stable angina in Greece relative to SoC alone.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12913-016-1779-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Ranolazine for the symptomatic treatment of patients with chronic angina pectoris in Greece: a cost-utility study

Background

To conduct an economic evaluation comparing ranolazine as add-on therapy to standard-of-care (SoC) with SoC alone in patients with stable angina who did not respond adequately to first line therapy, in Greece.

Methods

A decision tree model was locally adapted in the Greek setting to evaluate the cost-utility of ranolazine during a 6-month period. The analysis was conducted from a third-party payer perspective. The clinical inputs were extracted from the published literature. The cost inputs considered in the model reflect drug acquisition, hospitalizations, vascular interventions and monitoring of patients. The resource utilization data were obtained from 3 local experts. All costs refer to the year 2014. Cost-effectiveness was assessed by means of the incremental cost per quality adjusted life year (QALY) gained with the ranolazine as add-on therapy relative to SoC alone (ICER). Probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) was performed.

Results

Ranolazine as add-on therapy was more costly compared to SoC alone, as the 6-month total cost per patient was €1170 and € 984, respectively. Patients received ranolazine plus SoC and SoC alone gained 0.3155 QALYs and 0.2752 QALYs, respectively. Ranolazine plus SoC resulted in an ICER equal to €4620 per QALY gained, well below the threshold of €34,000 per QALY gained. The PSA showed that the likelihood of ranolazine plus SoC being cost-effective at the threshold of €34,000 per QALY gained was 100 %.

Conclusions

Τhe results suggest that ranolazine as add–on treatment may be a cost-effective alternative for the symptomatic treatment of patients with chronic stable angina in Greece.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12913-015-1228-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Ranolazine for the treatment of chronic stable angina: a cost-effectiveness analysis from the UK perspective

OBJECTIVES

To estimate the cost-effectiveness of ranolazine when added to standard-of-care (SoC) antianginals compared with SoC alone in patients with stable coronary disease experiencing ≥3 attacks/week.

SETTING

An economic model utilising a UK health system perspective, a 1-month cycle-length and a 1-year time horizon.

PARTICIPANTS

Patients with stable coronary disease experiencing ≥3 attacks/week starting in 1 of 4 angina frequency health states based on Seattle Angina Questionnaire Angina Frequency (SAQAF) scores (100=no; 61-99=monthly; 31-60=weekly; 0-30=daily angina).

INTERVENTION

Ranolazine added to SoC or SoC alone. Patients were allowed to transition between SAQAF states (first cycle only) or death (any cycle) based on probabilities derived from the randomised, controlled Efficacy of Ranolazine in Chronic Angina trial and other studies. Patients not responding to ranolazine in month 1 (not improving ≥1 SAQAF health state) discontinued ranolazine and were assumed to behave like SoC patients.

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOMES MEASURES

Costs (£2014) and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) for patients receiving and not receiving ranolazine.

RESULTS

Ranolazine patients lived a mean of 0.701 QALYs at a cost of £5208. Those not receiving ranolazine lived 0.662 QALYs at a cost of £5318. The addition of ranolazine to SoC was therefore a dominant economic strategy. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was sensitive to ranolazine cost; exceeding £20,000/QALY when ranolazine's cost was >£203/month. Ranolazine remained a dominant strategy when indirect costs were included and mortality rates were assumed to increase with worsening severity of SAQAF health states. Monte Carlo simulation found ranolazine to be a dominant strategy in ∼71% of 10,000 iterations.

CONCLUSIONS

Although UK-specific data on ranolazine's efficacy and safety are lacking, our analysis suggest ranolazine added to SoC in patients with weekly or daily angina is likely cost-effective from a UK health system perspective.

Update on ranolazine in the management of angina

Mortality rates attributable to coronary heart disease have declined in recent years, possibly related to changes in clinical presentation patterns and use of proven secondary prevention strategies. Chronic stable angina (CSA) remains prevalent, and the goal of treatment is control of symptoms and reduction in cardiovascular events. Ranolazine is a selective inhibitor of the late sodium current in myocytes with anti-ischemic and metabolic properties. It was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration in 2006 for use in patients with CSA. Multiple, randomized, placebo-controlled trials have shown that ranolazine improves functional capacity and decreases anginal episodes in CSA patients, despite a lack of a significant hemodynamic effect. Ranolazine did not improve cardiovascular mortality or affect incidence of myocardial infarction in the MERLIN (Metabolic Efficiency with Ranolazine for Less Ischemia in Non-ST-Elevation Acute Coronary Syndrome)-TIMI (Thrombolysis In Myocardial Infarction) 36 trial, but significantly decreased the incidence of recurrent angina. More recently, ranolazine has been shown to have beneficial and potent antiarrhythmic effects, both on supraventricular and ventricular tachyarrhythmias, largely due to its inhibition of the late sodium current. Randomized controlled trials testing these effects are underway. Lastly, ranolazine appears to be cost-effective due to its ability to decrease angina-related hospitalizations and improve quality of life.