Cost effectiveness of drug-eluting stents as compared with bare metal stents in patients with coronary artery disease

Modelling the cost-effectiveness of PCSK9 inhibitors vs. ezetimibe through LDL-C reductions in a Norwegian setting

Aims

Despite the success of statins, there remains unmet clinical need in cardiovascular disease (CVD) prevention. New proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 (PCSK9) inhibitors reduce low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) by 55-65%. Two PCSK9 inhibitors, evolocumab, and alirocumab, were approved for use in Norway but not yet for reimbursement through public national insurance. We aim to explore the cost-effectiveness of these compared with available treatments in a Norwegian setting.

Methods and results

A state transition Markov model was developed to model the cost-effectiveness of PCSK9 inhibitors for prevention of coronary heart disease, ischaemic strokes, and death among high-risk patient subpopulations in Norway, in both primary and secondary settings. Evolocumab and alirocumab are compared against ezetimibe and standard treatment. Risk of CVD is based on population incidence rates and adjusted according to baseline risk factors. Preventative effect of treatment was modelled according to absolute reduction in LDL-C. PCSK9 inhibitors were never found to be cost-effective in primary prevention. In secondary prevention they were cost-effective only for older, high-risk patients. The lowest cost-effectiveness ratios were for heterozygous familial hypercholesterolaemia patients and high-risk diabetics, with €63 200 and €68 400 per quality-adjusted life-year, respectively.

Conclusion

High lifetime costs of PCSK9 inhibitors may not be offset by estimated health gains for most eligible patients. PCSK9 inhibitors are found in the model only to be cost-effective in secondary prevention for older patients with high absolute risk of CVD. This picture is likely to change as price decreases. Future research is needed to determine the long-term preventative effects of PCSK9 inhibitors.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of biodegradable polymer versus durable polymer drug-eluting stents incorporating real-world evidence

AIM

Compared with second-generation durable polymer drug-eluting stents (DP-DES), the cost-effectiveness of biodegradable polymer drug-eluting stents (BP-DES) remains unclear in the real-world setting. We assessed the cost-effectiveness of BP-DES in patients with coronary artery disease undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).

METHODS

We developed a decision-analytic model to compare the cost-effectiveness of BP-DES to DP-DES over 1 year and 5 years from healthcare payer perspective. Relative treatment effects during the first year post-PCI were obtained from a real-world population analysis while clinical event risks in the subsequent 4 years were derived from a meta-analysis of published studies.

RESULTS

At 1 year, based on the clinical data analysis of 497 propensity-score matched pairs of patients, BP-DES were associated with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of USD20 503 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. At 5 years, BP-DES yielded an ICER of USD4062 per QALY gained. At the willingness-to-pay threshold of USD50 400 (one gross domestic product per capita in Singapore in 2015), BP-DES were cost-effective. Sensitivity analysis showed that the cost of stents had a significant impact on the cost-effectiveness of BP-DES. Threshold analysis demonstrated that if the cost difference between BP-DES and DP-DES exceeded USD493, BP-DES would not be cost-effective in patients with 1 year of follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

Biodegradable polymer drug-eluting stents were cost-effective compared with DP-DES in patients with coronary artery disease at 1 year and 5 years after PCI. It is worth noting that the cost of stents had a significant impact on the findings.

Cost-effectiveness of drug-eluting stents versus bare-metal stents in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention

OBJECTIVE

To determine the cost-effectiveness of drug-eluting stents (DES) compared with bare-metal stents (BMS) in patients requiring a percutaneous coronary intervention in France, using a recent meta-analysis including second-generation DES.

METHODS

A cost-effectiveness analysis was performed in the French National Health Insurance setting. Effectiveness settings were taken from a meta-analysis of 117 762 patient-years with 76 randomised trials. The main effectiveness criterion was major cardiac event-free survival. Effectiveness and costs were modelled over a 5-year horizon using a three-state Markov model. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios and a cost-effectiveness acceptability curve were calculated for a range of thresholds for willingness to pay per year without major cardiac event gain. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed.

RESULTS

Base case results demonstrated that DES are dominant over BMS, with an increase in event-free survival and a cost-reduction of €184, primarily due to a diminution of second revascularisations, and an absence of myocardial infarction and stent thrombosis. These results are robust for uncertainty on one-way deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. Using a cost-effectiveness threshold of €7000 per major cardiac event-free year gained, DES has a >95% probability of being cost-effective versus BMS.

CONCLUSIONS

Following DES price decrease, new-generation DES development and taking into account recent meta-analyses results, the DES can now be considered cost-effective regardless of selective indication in France, according to European recommendations.

Cost-effectiveness modelling of percutaneous coronary interventions in stable coronary artery disease

The objective of this study is to develop a cost-effectiveness model comparing drug eluting stents (DES) vs bare metal stent (BMS) in patients suffering of stable coronary artery disease. Using a 2-years time horizon, two simulation models have been developed: BMS first line strategy and DES first line strategy. Direct medical costs were estimated considering ambulatory and hospital costs. The effectiveness endpoint was defined as treatment success, which is the absence of major adverse cardiac events. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses were carried out using 10000 Monte-Carlo simulations. DES appeared slightly more efficacious over 2 years (60% of success) when compared to BMS (58% of success). Total costs over 2 years were estimated at 9303 € for the DES and at 8926 € for bare metal stent. Hence, corresponding mean cost-effectiveness ratios showed slightly lower costs (P < 0.05) per success for the BMS strategy (15520 €/success), as compared to the DES strategy (15588 €/success). Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio is 18850 € for one additional percent of success. The sequential strategy including BMS as the first option appears to be slightly less efficacious but more cost-effective compared to the strategy including DES as first option. Future modelling approaches should confirm these results as further comparative data in stable coronary artery disease and long-term evidence become available.

Cost-effectiveness of antiplatelet drugs after percutaneous coronary intervention

Aims

Clopidogrel has, for long time, been accepted as the standard treatment for patients who have undergone a percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). The introduction of prasugrel-and more recently, ticagrelor-has introduced a decision-making problem for clinicians and governments worldwide: to use the cheaper clopidogrel or the more effective, and also more expensive prasugrel or ticagrelor. We aim to give helpful contributions to this debate by analysing the cost-effectiveness of clopidogrel, prasugrel, and ticagrelor compared with each other.

Methods and results

We modified a previously developed Markov model of cardiac disease progression. In the model, we followed up cohorts of patients who have recently had a PCI until 100 years or death. Possible events are revascularization, bleeding, acute myocardial infarction, and death. Our analysis shows that ticagrelor is cost-effective in 77% of simulations at an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of €7700 compared with clopidogrel. Ticagrelor was also cost-effective against prasugrel at a cost-effectiveness ratio of €7800. Given a Norwegian cost-effectiveness threshold of €70 000, both comparisons appear to be clearly cost-effective in favour of ticagrelor.

Conclusion

Ticagrelor is cost-effective compared with both clopidogrel and prasugrel for patients who have undergone a PCI.