Search

Background: In the HOPE (Heart Outcomes Prevention Evaluation) trial, ramipril (compared with placebo) significantly reduced cardiovascular death and all-cause mortality as well as the incidence of costly cardiovascular events, such as myocardial infarction, revascularisation, stroke, cardiac arrest, hospitalisation due to heart failure and worsening angina pectoris, new-onset diabetes mellitus and microvascular diabetic complications., Objective: Data from the HOPE study were used in a cost-effectiveness analysis to determine the additional cost per life-year gained (LYG) when the ACE inhibitor ramipril was added to the current medication of patients at high risk for cardiovascular events. The aim was to establish the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of ramipril versus placebo from the perspective of the Statutory Health Insurance (SHI) provider in Germany, for both the study population as a whole and for the subgroup of patients with diabetes., Design: A modelling approach was used, based on secondary analysis of published data and retrospective application of costs. In the base-case analysis, average case-related expenses of the SHI were applied and LYG were quantified using the average of the difference between the survival rates in the ramipril and placebo groups during the HOPE trial. LYG beyond the trial duration were estimated by the method of declining exponential approximation of life expectancy., Results: After a treatment period of 4.5 years, the ICER of ramipril versus placebo was Euros 4074/LYG and Euros 2486/LYG (discounted at 5% per annum and in 1998-2002 values; Euro 1 approximately USD 0.88; first quarter 2002 values) for the HOPE study population as a whole and the subgroup of patients with diabetes, respectively. To test the model's robustness, the influence of the model variables on the results was quantified using a deterministic model, and a best-case/worst-case scenario analysis. The effect of random variables was investigated in a Monte Carlo simulation. The acquisition cost for ramipril had the greatest impact on the ICER of ramipril (2.2-fold greater than the impact of the number of LYG). In 95% of the 10,000 simulation steps, the ICER of ramipril after 4.5 years of treatment was between Euros 1290 and Euros 9005 per LYG for the entire HOPE study population and between Euros 290 and Euros 6115 per LYG in the diabetic subgroup., Conclusions: Results of this evaluation suggest that ramipril is likely to be cost effective in secondary prevention of cardiovascular events from the perspective of the SHI (third-party payer) in Germany. The estimated ICER of ramipril compares well with other ICERs of widely accepted treatments used for the management of cardiovascular diseases, such as HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors.

Background: In the Ramipril Efficacy In Nephropathy (REIN) trial, ramipril significantly lowered the rate of reaching the combined end-point of doubling of baseline serum creatinine levels or end-stage renal failure (ESRF)., Objective: To determine the additional cost per patient-year of chronic (long term) dialysis avoided (PYCDA) when the ACE inhibitor, ramipril, was added to conventional treatment of patients with non-diabetic nephropathy and hypertension., Study Perspective: Statutory Health Insurance (SHI) provider in Germany., Design and Setting: Data from the REIN Study were used in a cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA). A modelling approach was used, which was based on secondary analysis of published data, and costs were those incurred by the SHI provider (i.e. SHI expenses). In the base-case analysis, average case-related SHI expenses were applied and PYCDA were quantified using the cumulative incidence of ESRF as observed in the REIN trial., Main Outcome Measures and Results: The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) of ramipril varied between about -76,700 deutschmarks (DM) and -DM81,900 per PYCDA (DM 1 approximately equals 0.55 US dollars; 1999 values), according to the treatment periods of 1 year and 3 years, respectively. In the sensitivity,analysis, the robustness of the model and its results were shown when the extent of influence of different model variables on the base-case results was investigated. First, probabilities of ESRF and PYCDA were estimated according to the Weibull method. Second, the influence of the model variables on the target variable was quantified using a deterministic model. Third, the dependency of the target variable (ICER) on random variables was described in a simulation. The cost for chronic dialysis had by far the greatest impact on the target variable, which was 28 times greater than the impact of clinical effectiveness of ramipril, i.e. the number of PYCDA. There were net savings per PYCDA with ramipril treatment after 1, 2 and 3 years: 95% of the 10,000 simulation steps resulted in savings of between DM69 500 and D94,600 per PYCDA after 3 years., Conclusions: Results from this evaluation show that ramipril offers enormous savings from the perspective of the SHI provider (third-party payer) in Germany when added to the conventional treatment of patients with non-diabetic nephropathy and hypertension.

Objective: Data from the Acute Infarction Ramipril Efficacy (AIRE) study were used in a cost-effectiveness analysis to determine the incremental cost per life-year gained (LYG) when the ACE inhibitor ramipril was added to conventional treatment in patients with heart failure after acute myocardial infarction. In the AIRE trial, the addition of ramipril significantly lowered rates of total mortality and rehospitalisation due to heart failure., Design and Setting: The cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted from the perspective of the Statutory Health Insurance (SHI) provider in Germany. A modelling approach was used which was based on secondary analysis of existing data, and costs were those incurred by SHI (i.e. expenses of SHI). In the base-case analysis, average case-related expenses of SHI were applied and LYG were quantified by the method of Kaplan and Meier., Main Outcome Measures and Results: The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of ramipril varied between 2500 and 8300 deutschmarks (DM) per LYG (1993 values for inpatient and 1995 values for outpatient treatment; DM1 approximately $US0.70), according to the treatment periods of 3.8 years and 1 year, respectively. In the sensitivity analysis, the robustness of the model and its results was shown when the extent of influence of different model variables on the base-case results was investigated. First, survival probability and LYG were estimated according to the Weibull method. Second, the dependency of the target variable (i.e. incremental cost per LYG) on random variables was described in a simulation. Third, the influence of the model variables on the target variable was quantified using a deterministic model. The variance of the target variable was broad and the hospitalisation impact of adding ramipril to conventional treatment was an independent variable with much greater influence on the target variable than the parameter of clinical effectiveness, i.e. the number of LYG., Conclusion: Results of this evaluation showed that ramipril has a favourable incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for the treatment of heart failure in post myocardial infarction patients and can be considered an economical therapeutic agent from the perspective of SHI (third-party payer) in Germany.