The Cost Implications of Off-Pump Versus On-Pump Coronary Artery Bypass Graft Surgery at One Year

The Cost-Effectiveness of Rivaroxaban Plus Aspirin Compared with Aspirin Alone in the COMPASS Trial: A US Perspective

BACKGROUND

Rivaroxaban 2.5 mg twice daily with aspirin 100 mg daily was shown to be better than aspirin 100 mg daily for preventing cardiovascular (CV) death, stroke or myocardial infarction in patients with either stable coronary artery disease (CAD) or peripheral artery disease (PAD). The cost-effectiveness of this regimen in this population is essential for decision-makers to know.

METHODS

US direct healthcare system costs (in USD) were applied to hospitalized events, procedures and study drugs utilized by all patients. We determined the mean cost per participant for the full duration of the trial (mean follow-up of 23 months) plus quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) over a lifetime using a two-state Markov model with 1-year cycle length. Sensitivity analyses were performed on the price of rivaroxaban and the annual discontinuation rate.

RESULTS

The costs of events and procedures were reduced for Cardiovascular Outcomes for People Using Anticoagulation Strategies (COMPASS) patients who received rivaroxaban 2.5 mg orally (BID) plus acetylsalicylic acid (ASA) compared with ASA alone. Total costs were higher for the combination group ($7426 versus $4173) after considering acquisition costs of the study drug. Over a lifetime, patients receiving rivaroxaban plus ASA incurred $27,255 more and gained 1.17 QALYs compared with those receiving ASA alone resulting in an ICER of $23,295/QALY. ICERs for PAD only and polyvascular disease subgroups were lower.

CONCLUSION

Rivaroxaban 2.5 mg BID plus ASA compared with ASA alone was cost-effective (high value) in the USA. COMPASS ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01776424.

The cost-effectiveness of rivaroxaban with or without aspirin in the COMPASS trial

AIMS

The Cardiovascular Outcomes for People Using Anticoagulation Strategies (COMPASS) trial demonstrated that rivaroxaban 2.5 mg BID with aspirin 100 mg was more effective than aspirin 100 mg daily alone for the prevention of cardiovascular (CV) death, stroke, or myocardial infarction in patients with stable coronary artery disease (CAD) or peripheral artery disease (PAD). We aimed to examine the cost-effectiveness of rivaroxaban using patient-level data from the COMPASS trial.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We performed an in-trial analysis and extrapolated our results for 33 years using a two-state Markov model with a 1-year cycle length. Hospitalization events, procedures, and study drugs were documented for patients. We applied country-specific (Canada, France, and Germany) direct healthcare system costs (in USD) to healthcare resources consumed by patients. Average cost per patient during the trial (mean follow-up of 23 months), quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and lifetime cost-effectiveness were calculated. Costs of events and procedures were reduced with rivaroxaban 2.5 mg BID with aspirin. The addition of rivaroxaban 2.5 mg BID increased total costs for the combination group. Over a lifetime horizon (in trial +33 years), rivaroxaban plus aspirin was associated with 1.17 QALYs gained, yielding an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $3946/QALY, $9962/QALY, and $10 264/QALY in Canada, France, and Germany, respectively. PAD and polyvascular disease subgroups had lower ICERs.

CONCLUSION

Rivaroxaban 2.5 mg twice daily plus aspirin compared with aspirin alone reduces direct healthcare costs. After acquisition costs of rivaroxaban, the lifetime cost-effectiveness of 2.5 mg twice daily plus aspirin is highly cost-effective in Canada, France, and Germany.(COMPASS ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01776424).

Cost Implications of Left Atrial Appendage Occlusion During Cardiac Surgery: A Cost Analysis of the LAAOS III Trial

Background The LAAOS III (Left Atrial Appendage Occlusion Study) clinical trial demonstrated that concomitant left atrial appendage (LAA) occlusion leads to a lower risk of ischemic stroke or systemic embolism compared with no occlusion in participants with atrial fibrillation and a CHA₂DS₂-VASc score of ≥2 undergoing cardiac surgery for another indication. We report the cost implications of concomitant LAA occlusion during cardiac surgery. Methods and Results Using LAAOS III data, we compared the costs (in US dollars) associated with LAA occlusion to no occlusion from the perspective of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. We calculated the average cost per participant during the trial by applying Medicare reimbursement costs to cardiovascular events for all trial participants. We conducted sensitivity analyses, varying the cost of stroke ±25% and occlusion technique use. Cost neutrality was defined as a mean cost difference within ±5% of the cost per participant in the no-occlusion group. Total study cost per participant was $3878 in the LAA occlusion group and $4490 in the no-occlusion group, a mean difference of -$612 (95% CI, -$1276 to $45). The main drivers of cost savings were fewer stroke events during the trial (mean difference of -$1021). In sensitivity analyses, LAA occlusion was cost saving for suture and stapler techniques but more expensive with closure device. Conclusions Concomitant LAA occlusion was cost saving for participants in LAAOS III. Our findings support concomitant LAA occlusion as an economically dominant strategy for patients with atrial fibrillation and a CHA₂DS₂-VASc score of ≥2 undergoing cardiac surgery.

The cost implications of a polypill for primary prevention in the TIPS-3 trial

AIMS

The International Polycap Study 3 (TIPS-3) trial demonstrated that a polypill containing cholesterol- and multiple blood-pressure-lowering drugs reduces cardiovascular events by 20% compared with placebo in people without cardiovascular disease. The polypill plus aspirin led to a 31% relative risk reduction in cardiovascular disease events compared with double placebo. We report regional variations in costs and affordability of a polypill based on the TIPS-3 trial.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Countries were categorized using World Bank economic groups: lower-middle-income, upper-middle-income, and high-income countries. Country-specific costs were obtained for hospitalization events, procedures, and non-study medications (2019 US dollars). Polypill price was based on the cheapest equivalent substitute (CES) for each component. For the polypill vs. placebo, the difference in cost over the 4.6 years of the trial was $291 [95% confidence interval (CI): $243-339] per participant in lower-middle-income countries, $1068 (95% CI: $992-1144) in upper-middle-income countries, and $48 (95% CI: -$271 to $367) in high-income countries. Results were similar for the polypill plus aspirin vs. a double placebo. In both cases, the polypill was affordable in all groups using monthly household capacity to pay or a threshold of 4% of the gross national income per capita.

CONCLUSION

The use of a polypill (CES) in TIPS-3 increases costs in lower-middle-income countries and upper-middle-income countries but is affordable in countries at various economic levels and is cost neutral (dominant) in high-income countries.

The Cost Implications of Dabigatran in Patients with Myocardial Injury After Non-Cardiac Surgery

BACKGROUND

The Management of Myocardial Injury after Non-Cardiac Surgery (MANAGE) trial demonstrated that dabigatran 110 mg twice daily was more effective than placebo in preventing the primary composite outcome of vascular mortality, non-fatal myocardial infarction, non-hemorrhagic stroke, peripheral arterial thrombosis, amputation and symptomatic venous thromboembolism in patients with myocardial injury after non-cardiac surgery (MINS). The cost implications of dabigatran for this population are unknown but are important given the significant clinical implications.

METHODS

Hospitalized events, procedures, and study and non-study medications were documented. We applied Canadian unit costs to healthcare resources consumed for all patients in the trial, and calculated the average cost per patient in Canadian dollars for the duration of the study (median follow-up of 16 months). A sensitivity analysis was performed using only Canadian patients, and subgroup analyses were also conducted.

RESULTS

The total study cost for the dabigatran group was $9985 per patient, compared with $10,082 for placebo, a difference of - $97 (95% confidence interval [CI] - $2128 to $3672). Savings arising from fewer clinical events and procedures in the dabigatran 110 mg twice-daily group were enough to offset the cost of the study drug. In Canadian patients, the difference was $250 (95% CI -$2848 to $4840). Both differences were considered cost neutral. Dabigatran 110 mg twice daily was cost saving or cost neutral in many subgroups that were considered.

CONCLUSION

Dabigatran 110 mg twice daily was cost neutral for patients in the MANAGE trial. Our cost findings support the use of dabigatran 110 mg twice daily in patients with MINS.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov identifier number NCT01661101.

The cost implication of primary prevention in the HOPE 3 trial

Aims

The Heart Outcomes Prevention Evaluation-3 (HOPE-3) found that rosuvastatin alone or with candesartan and hydrochlorothiazide (HCT) (in a subgroup with hypertension) significantly lowered cardiovascular events compared with placebo in 12 705 individuals from 21 countries at intermediate risk and without cardiovascular disease. We assessed the costs implications of implementation in primary prevention in countries at different economic levels.

Methods and results

Hospitalizations, procedures, study and non-study medications were documented. We applied country-specific costs to the healthcare resources consumed for each patient. We calculated the average cost per patient in US dollars for the duration of the study (5.6 years). Sensitivity analyses were also performed with cheapest equivalent substitutes. The combination of rosuvastatin with candesartan/HCT reduced total costs and was a cost-saving strategy in United States, Canada, Europe, and Australia. In contrast, the treatments were more expensive in developing countries even when cheapest equivalent substitutes were used. After adjustment for gross domestic product (GDP), the costs of cheapest equivalent substitutes in proportion to the health care costs were higher in developing countries in comparison to developed countries.

Conclusion

Rosuvastatin and candesartan/HCT in primary prevention is a cost-saving approach in developed countries, but not in developing countries as both drugs and their cheapest equivalent substitutes are relatively more expensive despite adjustment by GDP. Reductions in costs of these drugs in developing countries are essential to make statins and blood pressure lowering drugs affordable and ensure their use.

Clinical trial registration

HOPE-3 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00468923.

Costs Five Years After Off-Pump or On-Pump Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery

BACKGROUND

Coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) is a common surgical treatment for ischemic heart disease. Little is known about the long-term costs of conducting the surgery on-pump or off-pump.

METHODS

As part of the Randomized On/Off Bypass follow-up study, we followed 2,203 participants randomized to on-pump (n = 1,099) and off-pump (n = 1,104) CABG for 5 years using Department of Veterans Affairs and Medicare administrative data. We examined annual costs through 5 years, standardized to 2016 dollars, using multivariate regression models, controlling for site and baseline patient factors.

RESULTS

In the first year, including the CABG surgery, annual average costs were $66,599 (SE, $1,946) for the on-pump group and $70,552 (SE, $1,954) for the off-pump group. In years 2 to 5, average costs ranged from $15,000 to $20,000 per year. There was no significant difference between on-pump and off-pump across the 5 years. We explored differences among high-risk subgroups (diabetes, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, peripheral vascular disease, cerebrovascular disease, renal dysfunction, ejection fraction < 35%, over age 70 years), and found no treatment assignment by time interactions, except for a nonsignificant trend in patients with diabetes.

CONCLUSIONS

At 5 years, the average costs of off-pump and on-pump CABG patients did not statistically differ. Costs do not favor one approach and the decision should be based on clinical risks, especially in subgroups. Future research is warranted to examine post-CABG costs and outcomes for diabetic patients over time.

Economic Studies on Non-Communicable Diseases and Injuries in India: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

The burden from non-communicable diseases and injuries (NCDI) in India is increasing rapidly. With low public sector investment in the health sector generally, and a high financial burden on households for treatment, it is important that economic evidence is used to set priorities in the context of NCDI.

OBJECTIVE

Our objective was to understand the extent to which economic analysis has been used in India to (1) analyze the impact of NCDI and (2) evaluate prevention and treatment interventions. Specifically, this analysis focused on the type of economic analysis used, disease categories, funding patterns, authorship, and author characteristics.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review based on economic keywords to identify studies on NCDI in India published in English between January 2006 and November 2016. In all, 96 studies were included in the review. The analysis used descriptive statistics, including frequencies and percentages.

RESULTS

A majority of the studies were economic impact studies, followed by economic evaluation studies, especially cost-effectiveness analysis. In the costing/partial economic evaluation category, most were cost-description and cost-analysis studies. Under the economic impact/economic burden category, most studies investigated out-of-pocket spending. The studies were mostly on cardiovascular disease, diabetes, and neoplasms. Slightly over half of the studies were funded, with funding coming mainly from outside of India. Half of the studies were led by domestic authors. In most of the studies, the lead author was a clinician or a public health professional; however, most of the economist-led studies were by authors from outside India.

CONCLUSIONS

The results indicate the lack of engagement of economists generally and health economists in particular in research on NCDI in India. Demand from health policy makers for evidence-based decision making appears to be lacking, which in turn solidifies the divergence between economics and health policy, and highlights the need to prioritize scarce resources based on evidence regarding what works. Capacity building in health economics needs focus, and the government's support in this is recommended.

Cost-effectiveness of interventions to control cardiovascular diseases and diabetes mellitus in South Asia: a systematic review

OBJECTIVES

More than 80% of cardiovascular diseases (CVD) and diabetes mellitus (DM) burden now lies in low and middle-income countries. Hence, there is an urgent need to identify and implement the most cost-effective interventions, particularly in the resource-constraint South Asian settings. Thus, we aimed to systematically review the cost-effectiveness of individual-level, group-level and population-level interventions to control CVD and DM in South Asia.

METHODS

We searched 14 electronic databases up to August 2016. The search strategy consisted of terms related to 'economic evaluation', 'CVD', 'DM' and 'South Asia'. Per protocol two reviewers assessed the eligibility and methodological quality of studies using standard checklists, and extracted incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of interventions.

RESULTS

Of the 2949 identified studies, 42 met full inclusion criteria. Critical appraisal of studies revealed 15 excellent, 18 good and 9 poor quality studies. Most studies were from India (n=37), followed by Bangladesh (n=3), Pakistan (n=2) and Bhutan (n=1). The economic evaluations were based on observational studies (n=9), randomised trials (n=12) and decision models (n=21). Together, these studies evaluated 301 policy or clinical interventions or combination of both. We found a large number of interventions were cost-effective aimed at primordial prevention (tobacco taxation, salt reduction legislation, food labelling and food advertising regulation), and primary and secondary prevention (multidrug therapy for CVD in high-risk group, lifestyle modification and metformin treatment for diabetes prevention, and screening for diabetes complications every 2-5 years). Significant heterogeneity in analytical framework and outcome measures used in these studies restricted meta-analysis and direct ranking of the interventions by their degree of cost-effectiveness.

CONCLUSIONS

The cost-effectiveness evidence for CVD and DM interventions in South Asia is growing, but most evidence is from India and limited to decision modelled outcomes. There is an urgent need for formal health technology assessment and policy evaluations in South Asia using local research data.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42013006479.

Five-Year Outcomes after Off-Pump or On-Pump Coronary-Artery Bypass Grafting

BACKGROUND

We previously reported that there was no significant difference at 30 days or at 1 year in the rate of the composite outcome of death, stroke, myocardial infarction, or renal failure between patients who underwent coronary-artery bypass grafting (CABG) performed with a beating-heart technique (off-pump) and those who underwent CABG performed with cardiopulmonary bypass (on-pump). We now report the results at 5 years (the end of the trial).

METHODS

A total of 4752 patients (from 19 countries) who had coronary artery disease were randomly assigned to undergo off-pump or on-pump CABG. For this report, we analyzed a composite outcome of death, stroke, myocardial infarction, renal failure, or repeat coronary revascularization (either CABG or percutaneous coronary intervention). The mean follow-up period was 4.8 years.

RESULTS

There were no significant differences between the off-pump group and the on-pump group in the rate of the composite outcome (23.1% and 23.6%, respectively; hazard ratio with off-pump CABG, 0.98; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.87 to 1.10; P=0.72) or in the rates of the components of the outcome, including repeat coronary revascularization, which was performed in 2.8% of the patients in the off-pump group and in 2.3% of the patients in the on-pump group (hazard ratio, 1.21; 95% CI, 0.85 to 1.73; P=0.29). The secondary outcome for the overall period of the trial - the mean cost in U.S. dollars per patient - also did not differ significantly between the off-pump group and the on-pump group ($15,107 and $14,992, respectively; between-group difference, $115; 95% CI, -$697 to $927). There were no significant between-group differences in quality-of-life measures.

CONCLUSIONS

In our trial, the rate of the composite outcome of death, stroke, myocardial infarction, renal failure, or repeat revascularization at 5 years of follow-up was similar among patients who underwent off-pump CABG and those who underwent on-pump CABG. (Funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research; CORONARY ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00463294 .).

Off-pump coronary artery bypass: past, present and future of a controversial technology

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This review will examine the current role of off-pump coronary artery bypass (OPCAB) surgery compared with on-pump coronary artery bypass (ONCAB) surgery for the revascularization of ischemic myocardium.

RECENT FINDINGS

Recent studies have confirmed earlier findings that OPCAB is associated with less grafts per patient and less complete revascularization, and increased incidence of recurrent angina and need for repeat revascularization procedures, and more frequent rehospitalization for cardiac-related issues. OPCAB does not prevent postoperative renal dysfunction and is associated with worse long-term outcomes. Hospital costs are not reduced and are increased in those OPCAB patients who require intraoperative conversion to ONCAB procedures; however, when multiple arterial grafts are used and a complete revascularization is performed, OPCAB outcomes are equivalent to those of ONCAB procedures.

SUMMARY

OPCAB should only be performed by surgeons experienced in this technique in patients in whom a complete revascularization can be achieved; preferably with multiple arterial grafts.