Evaluating the potential 'economic attractiveness' of new therapies in patients with non-ST elevation acute coronary syndrome

Cost-effectiveness of 12-month treatment with ticagrelor compared with clopidogrel in the management of acute coronary syndromes

BACKGROUND

The PLATO (Platelet Inhibition and Patient Outcomes) randomized trial (NCT00391872) in patients with acute coronary syndromes (ACS) reported that ticagrelor (in addition to aspirin) reduced the rate of the composite end point of myocardial infarction (MI), stroke, or cardiovascular death compared with clopidogrel (in addition to aspirin) by 16% over 12 months (P < 0.001). No significant difference in the incidence of major bleeding was noted, but ticagrelor was associated with a higher rate of major bleeding not related to coronary artery bypass grafting.

OBJECTIVE

By extrapolating the key findings of PLATO, we sought to assess the cost-effectiveness of ticagrelor compared with clopidogrel in the management of ACS in a contemporary Australian setting.

METHODS

A Markov model with 4 health states (free from further ACS events, MI, stroke, and death) was developed to simulate the long-term costs and outcomes associated with ACS. Event risks were based on data derived directly from PLATO, and costs and utilities were drawn from published sources. A 10-year time horizon was simulated, and future costs and benefits were discounted at a 5% annual rate. However, treatment with ticagrelor and clopidogrel was only assumed for the first 12 months, with no benefits applied beyond drug cessation. Sensitivity analyses were undertaken based on variations to key data inputs. All costs for resource use applied in the analysis were based on published Australian prices (in 2010/2011 dollars [A$]).

RESULTS

Over 10 years, the estimated quality-adjusted life-years lived per-patient were 5.74 and 5.68 for ticagrelor and clopidogrel, respectively. Net costs were A$19,132 for ticagrelor and A$18,428 for clopidogrel. These equated to an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of A$9031 per quality-adjusted life-year gained for ticagrelor compared with clopidogrel. Sensitivity analyses indicated the result to be robust.

CONCLUSIONS

When assessed from the perspective of the Australian health care system, ticagrelor is likely to be cost-effective compared with clopidogrel in preventing downstream morbidity and mortality associated with ACS.

Nonfatal myocardial infarction and long-term outcomes in coronary artery disease

BACKGROUND

Therapies may reduce short-term rates of nonfatal myocardial infarction (MI) without a detectable effect on mortality. We sought to estimate the long-term clinical implications of nonfatal MI occurring within the first 3 and 6 months after initial cardiac catheterization.

METHODS

We included consecutive patients with significant coronary artery disease (≥75% stenosis in ≥1 epicardial segments) undergoing diagnostic catheterization between January 1, 1999, and September 30, 2006. Landmark analyses were performed for patients surviving at 3- and 6-month follow-up. At these times, patients were divided into groups based upon occurrence of a nonfatal MI subsequent to catheterization.

RESULTS

Among 14,890 patients alive at 3 months (669 with MI and 14,221 without an MI), having an MI during the initial 3-month period was a significant predictor of reduced 4-year survival (77.1% vs 83.5%, hazard ratio 1.40, 95% CI 1.21-1.63, P < .001), survival free of MI (68.4% vs 78.5%, hazard ratio 1.50, 95% CI 1.32-1.71, P < .001), and survival free of MI or revascularization (59.7% vs 68.5%, hazard ratio 1.34, 95% CI 1.19-1.51, P < .001). Adjusted hazard ratios were similar for patients surviving to 6 months (804 with MI and 13,842 without an MI).

CONCLUSIONS

Nonfatal MIs occurring within the first 3 and 6 months after diagnostic catheterization are associated with a significant increase in the risk for subsequent clinical events. Clinical studies with limited follow-up periods may underestimate the long-term value of therapies that reduce early MI rates as downstream benefits continue to accrue over time.

An economic evaluation of a perindopril-based blood pressure lowering regimen for patients who have suffered a cerebrovascular event

OBJECTIVES

Cerebrovascular disease (or stroke) is one of the main causes of long-term disability and the second leading cause of death worldwide. The economic impact of stroke is clearly seen, as it is the largest single cause of bed occupancy in hospitals in England and accounts for 6% of hospital costs. This analysis is the first to quantify the economic consequences of a blood pressure lowering regimen based on the PROGRESS study (perindopril-based regimen), for reducing future cardiovascular events.

DESIGN

A Markov decision analytical model was used to estimate the cost per quality adjusted life year (QALY) of blood pressure lowering in the treatment of patients presenting with a cerebrovascular event. The health states are based upon Barthel indices for which resource utilisation and health benefits have previously been estimated.

SETTING

The participants for the economic analysis were obtained from the PROGRESS study database. 6,105 clinical study participants were recruited through both primary and secondary care centres.

PARTICIPANTS

The mean age was 64 years; 70% were male in the original study.

INTERVENTIONS

In the PROGRESS study, blood pressure lowering by a perindopril-based regimen was compared to standard care.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Cost per quality adjusted life year for the duration of the study (4 years) and for a time span of 20 years.

RESULTS

Using only direct hospital medical costs, the cost per QALY for a perindopril based regimen is pound 6,927 for the base study period and pound 10,133 for a 20-year time period. These results are sensitive to the cost of perindopril, the cost of the stroke unit, length of stay, and to a lesser extent, the cost of indapamide.

CONCLUSIONS

This analysis demonstrates a cost-effective treatment for patients suffering a cerebrovascular event with a blood pressure lowering regimen. The findings of this study are in line with current decisions and guidance by the national institute for health and clinical excellence (NICE) in England.

Decision models for assessing the cost effectiveness of drug-eluting stents

Percutaneous coronary intervention is an increasingly common treatment for many people with coronary disease. Randomised trials using antiproliferative, drug-eluting stents (DES) have shown important reductions in the need for repeat procedures after initial percutaneous coronary intervention. These trials indicate that the growing use of DES has the potential to create major clinical benefits for patients; however, in actual practice, the associated costs may cause financial crises for hospital systems. This paper reviews previously published DES economic decision models from both societal and hospital perspectives. From a social perspective, additional spending for new technologies may be acceptable if these technologies convincingly improve the lives of patients. The models reviewed suggest that DES incurs large costs to both society and hospitals, and currently offers uncertain clinical benefits. More research is recommended to identify high-risk patients who stand to gain significant health benefits from this therapy.

Economic impact of drug-eluting stents on hospital systems: a disease-state model

BACKGROUND

Drug-eluting intracoronary stents decrease restenosis and later revascularization. The US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), recognizing the financial and clinical impact of this technology, recently proposed accelerated reimbursement to hospitals.

METHODS AND RESULTS

A disease state-transition computer model simulated the clinical and economic consequences to hospitals of drug-eluting stents over 5 years. Model parameters combined information from a longitudinal clinical database, a hospital cost-accounting system, and a survey instrument. Simulations were repeated 1000 times for each set of parameters. With 85% of stent procedures shifted to drug-eluting stents in the first year of availability, the mean number of repeat revascularizations dropped by 60.4% at year 5. With no changes in reimbursement policy, a hospital with a catheterization laboratory volume of 3112 patients yearly converted from a 2.01 million dollars (M) annual profit to an 8.10 M dollars loss in the first year (95% CI 8.09 M dollars to 8.12 M dollars) and 8.7 M dollars annual losses in later years. This represented an overall change in cash flow of 55.71 M dollars (95% CI 55.66 M dollars to 55.76 M dollars) away from the hospital over 5 years. The incremental reimbursement proposed by HHS reduced this loss to 4.75 M dollars in the first year and to 5.6 M dollars annually thereafter. In sensitivity analyses, the conversion of patients from bypass surgery to drug-eluting stents was the largest driver of overall cash flow shifts.

CONCLUSIONS

Although Medicare has proposed to increase reimbursement to ease the impact of drug-eluting stents on hospitals, this increase will not totally offset the costs.

Risk assessment of drugs, biologics and therapeutic devices: present and future issues

PURPOSE

The current US system for detecting adverse effects of therapeutics (drugs, devices and biological products) is suboptimal. This report presents the results of an expert workshop on assessing therapeutic risks. This is the second of five workshops coordinated by the Centers for Education and Research on Therapeutics (CERTs) to address the management of therapeutic risks relative to potential benefits.

METHODS

The workshop included academic, industry, government and constituency-based leaders. The focus was on the post-approval phase and procedures in the US, but relevant international issues and attendees were included.

RESULTS

Substantial deficiencies in the current US system for risk assessment were delineated. Improving the system will involve research into methods to improve risk assessment, enhancement and consolidation of data-handling systems, education of healthcare workers, allocation of financial resources and building of constituencies.

CONCLUSIONS

We need leadership on multiple levels for global coordination of risk assessment. We can then begin to fill gaps and produce benefits for industry, health authorities, government agencies, healthcare providers, and most important, the public.