Search

Aim: Use long-term follow-up data from the IMPERIAL study to determine whether drug-eluting polymer-based nitinol stent treatment can delay the time to repeat intervention for femoropopliteal artery disease and how such a delay may result in cost savings in a value-based episode of care. Patients & methods: The IMPERIAL randomized controlled trial was an international study of a paclitaxel-eluting polymer-coated stent (Eluvia, Boston Scientific, MA, USA) versus a polymer-free paclitaxel-coated stent (Zilver PTX, Cook Corporation, IN, USA) for treating lesions of the femoropopliteal arterial segment. Study patients (n = 465) had symptomatic lower limb ischemia. Safety and efficacy assessments were performed through 5 years. Mean time to first reintervention was calculated in post-hoc analysis for patients who underwent a clinically driven target lesion revascularization (CD-TLR) through 3 or 5 years following the index procedure. To simulate potential cost savings associated with differential CD-TLR burden over time, a cost-avoidance analysis using input parameters from IMPERIAL and US 100% Medicare standard analytical files was developed. Results: Among patients with a first CD-TLR through 3 years of follow-up, mean time to reintervention was 5.5 months longer (difference 166 days, 95% CI: 51, 282 days; p = 0.0058) for patients treated with Eluvia (n = 56) than for those treated with Zilver PTX (n = 30). Through the 5-year study follow-up period, CD-TLR rates were 29.3% (68/232) for Eluvia and 34.2% (39/114) for Zilver PTX (p = 0.3540) and mean time to first reintervention exceeded 2 years for patients treated with Eluvia at 737 days versus 645 days for the Zilver PTX group (difference 92 days, 95% CI: -85, 269 days; p = 0.3099). Simulated savings considering reinterventions occurring over 1 and 5 years following initial use of Eluvia over Zilver PTX were US $1,395,635 and US $1,531,795, respectively, when IMPERIAL CD-TLR rates were extrapolated to 1000 patients. Conclusion: IMPERIAL data suggest initial treatment with Eluvia extends the time patients spend without undergoing reintervention. This extension may be associated with cost savings in relevant time frames.

Real-world data are considered a potentially valuable source of evidence for assessing medical technologies in clinical practice, but their widespread use is hampered by numerous challenges. Using the case of coronary stents in Italy, we investigate the potential of administrative databases for estimating costs and health outcomes associated with the use of medical devices in real world conditions. An administrative dataset was created ad hoc by merging hospital records from patients admitted between 2013 and 2019 for stent implantations with ambulatory records, pharmaceutical use data and vital statistics. Health outcomes were multifold: all-cause and cardiac mortality and myocardial infarction, within 30 days, 1, 2, 5 years. Costs were estimated from the National Health System perspective. We used multivariable Cox models and propensity score (PS) methods (PS matching; stratification on PS; inverse probability of treatment weighting using PS; PS adjustment). 257,907 coronary stents were implanted in 113,912 patients. For all health outcomes and follow-up times, and across all methods, patients receiving drug-eluting stents (DES) presented lower risk. For all-cause mortality, the DES patient advantage over bare-metal stent (BMS) patients declined over time but remained significant even at 5 years. For myocardial infarction, results remained quite stable. The DES group presented lower cumulative total costs (ranging from 3264 to 2363 Euros less depending on methods). Our results confirm the consolidated evidence of the benefits of DES compared to BMS. The consistency of results across methods suggests internal validity of the study, while highlighting strengths and limitations of each depending on research context. Administrative data yield great potential to perform comparative effectiveness and cost-effectiveness analysis of medical devices provided certain conditions are met., (© 2022 The Authors. Health Economics published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

The use of a drug-eluting stent (DES) in patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) treated with percutaneous coronary intervention is conventional. However, the effect of DES on new-onset atrial fibrillation (AF) after AMI still remains unclear.By using data from Taiwan's National Health Insurance Research Database, a total of 17,741 patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and 17,631 patients with non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) treated with percutaneous coronary intervention were analyzed to investigate the risk of new-onset AF after index admission of AMI.There were 26.5% (N = 4696) of patients with STEMI and 39.5% (N = 6967) of patients with NSTEMI received DES implantation. Upon 1-year follow-up, we observed that DES placement was associated with a reduced 1-year risk of new-onset AF in the patients with NSTEMI (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] = 0.74, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.59-0.93, P = .009) after adjustment for clinical relevant variables. This benefit was consistent with that in the patients with NSTEMI who were ≥75 years old, had a CHA2DS2-VASc score of ≥2, and did not receive intra-aortic balloon pump insertion (aHR = 0.72, 95% CI = 0.53-0.98, P = .039; aHR = 0.73, 95% CI = 0.586-0.92, P = .006; and aHR = 0.71, 95% CI = 0.56-0.90, P = .004; respectively). However, DES placement had a neutral effect on the risk of new-onset AF in the patients with STEMI.Compared with the use of BMS, the use of DES might reduce the risk of new-onset AF in patients with NSTEMI.

Background: In routine clinical practice, the implantation of a drug-eluting stent (DES) versus a bare metal stent (BMS) for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) has been guided by criteria for appropriate use. The cost-effectiveness (CE) of adopting these guidelines, however, is not clear, and was investigated from the perspective of the Australian healthcare payer. Methods and results: Baseline and 12-month follow-up data of 12,710 PCI patients enrolled in the Melbourne Interventional Group (MIG) registry between 2004 and 2011 were analysed. Costs inputs were derived from a clinical costing database and published sources. Propensity-score-matching was performed for DES and BMS groups within sub-groups. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were evaluated for all patients, and sub-groups of patients with '0', 1, 2, or ≥3 indications for a DES. The incremental cost per target vessel revascularization avoided for the overall population was $24,683, and for patients with 0, 1, and 2 indications for a DES was $44,635, $33,335, and $23,788, respectively. However, for those with >3 indications, DES compared with BMS was associated with cost savings. At willingness to pay thresholds of $45,000-$75,000, the probability of cost-effectiveness of DES for the overall cohort was 71-91%, '0' indications, 49-67%, 1 indication, 56-82%, 2 indications, 70-90%, and ≥3 indications, 97-99%. Conclusions: The cost-effectiveness of DES compared with BMS increased with increasing risk profile of patients from those who had 1, 2, to ≥3 indications for a DES. When compared with BMS, DES was least cost effective among patients with '0' indications for a DES. Based on these results, selective use of DES implantation is supported. These findings may be useful for evidence-based clinical decision-making.

Purpose: Drug-eluting stents (DES) improve clinical and morphological long-term results compared to percutaneous transluminal angioplasty (PTA) with bailout bare metal stenting (BMS) in patients with critical limb ischemia (CLI) and infrapopliteal lesions (PADI trial). We performed a cost-effectiveness analysis of DES compared to PTA ± BMS in cooperation with Dutch health insurance company VGZ, using data from the PADI trial., Materials and Methods: In the PADI trial, adults with CLI (Rutherford category ≥ 4) and infrapopliteal lesions were randomized to receive DES with paclitaxel or PTA ± BMS. Seventy-four limbs (73 patients) were treated with DES and 66 limbs (64 patients) with PTA ± BMS. The costs were calculated by using the mean costs per stent multiplied by the mean number of stents used per patient (€750 × 1.8 for DES vs €250 × 0.3 for PTA ± BMS). These costs were compared with the costs of major amputation (€16.000) and rehabilitation (first year €15.750, second year €7.375 and third year €3.600)., Results: The 5-year major amputation rate was lower in the DES group (19.3% vs 34.0% for PTA ± BMS; p = 0.091). In addition, the 5-year amputation-free survival and event-free survival were significantly higher in the DES group (31.8% vs 20.4%, p=0.043; and 26.2% vs 15.3%, p=0.041, respectively). After 1 year, the cost difference per patient between DES and PTA ± BMS is €1.679 in favor of DES and €2.694 after 3 years., Conclusion: In our analysis, DES are cost-effective due to the higher hospital costs of amputation and rehabilitation in the PTA ± BMS group., Level of Evidence: Level 1b, analysis based on clinically sensible costs and randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND Surgical treatment methods for patients with complex coronary artery disease (CAD) who have undergone vascular reconstruction mainly include coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). The purpose of the study aimed to compare a 1-year follow-up for the patient clinical outcomes and costs between PCI and CABG treatment. MATERIAL AND METHODS There were 840 patients enrolled in this study from July 2015 to September 2016. Among the study participants, 420 patients underwent PCI treatment and 420 patients underwent off-pump CABG. Patients costs were assessed from the perspective of the China healthcare and medical insurance system. EuroQOL 5-dimension 3 levels (EQ-5D-3L) questionnaire was used to evaluate the general health status, and the Seattle Angina Questionnaire (SAQ) was used to assess the disease-specific health status. RESULTS After a 1-year follow-up, the all-cause mortality (P=0.0337), the incidence of major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (P<0.001), and additional revascularization (P<0.001) in PCI group were significantly higher than those in CABG group. Both groups have significant sustained benefits in the SAQ subscale. The CABG group had a higher score on the frequency of angina than the PCI group. In addition, the quality-adjusted life year value of PCI and CABG resulted was 0.8. The average total cost for PCI was $14 643 versus CABG cost of $13 842 (P=0.0492). CONCLUSIONS In the short-term, among the CAD patients with stable triple-vessel or left-main, costs and clinical outcomes are substantially higher for CABG than PCI. Long-term, economic, and health benefits analysis, is warranted.

Background: A meta-analysis of trials in endovascular therapy suggested an increased mortality associated with treatment exposure to paclitaxel. Multiple publications and corrections of prior data were performed, and the United States Food and Drug Administration has issued multiple advisories regarding paclitaxel use. We analyzed how this controversy impacted device purchasing and related utilization patterns in the period immediately following publication of the meta-analysis., Methods and Results: Ascension Healthcare System purchase data over a 14-month period were synthesized across centers for both paclitaxel and non-paclitaxel devices. A fixed-effects regression model and a binary regression model with facility-level controls were used to compare purchasing patterns before and after the meta-analysis. Purchase volumes of each paclitaxel device fell. Pooled purchase volumes of all paclitaxel devices decreased from a 14-month peak of 631 devices in October 2018 to a 14-month nadir of 359 devices in February 2019. An F-test comparing the pooled-month specific fixed effects for the months before vs after the publication of the meta-analysis has an F-statistic of 11.64, suggesting that average purchasing levels in the two periods are statistically different (P<.001). Utilization of non-paclitaxel devices did not decline., Conclusions: Purchase volumes of paclitaxel devices decreased immediately during the months following publication of the related meta-analysis. Total Ascension-wide paclitaxel device purchase volume in February 2019 demonstrated a 43.1% reduction from peak monthly purchase volume during the assessed period and a 32.5% reduction compared with November 2019, the last month preceding publication of the meta-analysis.

Background: Elderly patients receive bare metal stents instead of drug-eluting stents (DES) to shorten the duration of dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT). The SENIOR trial compared outcomes between these 2 types of stents combined with a short duration of DAPT. A significant decrease in the number of patients with at least 1 major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular event (MACCE) was noted in the DES group., Objectives: The objective of this article was to perform an economic evaluation of the SENIOR trial., Methods: This evaluation was performed separately in 5 participating countries using pooled patient-level data from all study patients and country-specific unit costs and utility values. Costs, MACCEs, and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were calculated in both arms at 1 year, and an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was estimated. Uncertainty was explored by probabilistic bootstrapping., Results: A total of 1200 patients underwent randomization. The average total cost per patient was higher in the DES group. The number of MACCEs and average QALYs were not statistically different between the 2 groups. The 1-year incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for each country of reference ranged from €13 752 to €20 511/MACCE avoided and from €42 835 to €68 231/QALY gained. The scatter plots found a wide dispersion, reflecting a large uncertainty surrounding the results. But in each country studied, 90% of the bootstrap replications indicated a higher cost for greater effectiveness for the DES group. Assuming a willingness to pay of €50 000/QALY, there was between a 40% and 50% chance that the use of DES was cost-effective in 4 countries., Conclusion: The use of DES instead of bare metal stents combined with a short duration of DAPT in elderly patients induced higher cost for greater effectiveness in each of the 5 countries studied., (Copyright © 2019 ISPOR–The Professional Society for Health Economics and Outcomes Research. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: We aimed to estimate the annual pharmaceutical costs for patients with stable coronary artery disease, using Australian administrative data, comparing patients who had undergone interventional treatment with those had not. We also aimed to compare the duration of dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) prescription in the real-world, with recommended guidelines., Design: An observational study using administrative data., Participants: We used data from the QSkin study, a population-based prospective study assessing skin cancer risk. Participants were invited from the Queensland population, not based on perceived skin cancer risk, and had consented to future use of their data for approved research projects., Main Outcome Measures: We calculated 12-month costs of pharmaceutical therapy for coronary artery disease for patients in each of three clinically relevant groups: medical therapy only, following coronary stent implantation and following coronary artery bypass graft surgery. We measured the duration of DAPT following stent implantation and total duration of DAPT, where it was prescribed, in the medical therapy only group., Results: Estimated mean annual pharmaceutical costs were highest in the stent group at AUD$1920, compared with AUD$1481 in the medical therapy group, and AUD$881 in the coronary artery bypass group. There were similar rates of prescriptions of symptom relief drugs following stent insertion, compared with the medical therapy only group. The median duration of DAPT in the stent group was 16, and 31 months in the medical therapy group., Conclusions: Our results suggest that despite the common expectation that the burden of medical therapy is reduced following coronary stent insertion for stable coronary artery disease, this does not occur in practice. Many patients also appear to continue DAPT longer than guidelines recommend, which may put them at unnecessarily elevated risk of bleeding events., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Background: Insertion of a ventriculoperitoneal shunt for hydrocephalus is one of the commonest neurosurgical procedures worldwide. Infection of the implanted shunt affects up to 15% of these patients, resulting in prolonged hospital treatment, multiple surgeries, and reduced cognition and quality of life. Our aim was to determine the clinical and cost-effectiveness of antibiotic (rifampicin and clindamycin) or silver shunts compared with standard shunts at reducing infection., Methods: In this parallel, multicentre, single-blind, randomised controlled trial, we included patients with hydrocephalus of any aetiology undergoing insertion of their first ventriculoperitoneal shunt irrespective of age at 21 regional adult and paediatric neurosurgery centres in the UK and Ireland. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1 in random permuted blocks of three or six) to receive standard shunts (standard shunt group), antibiotic-impregnated (0·15% clindamycin and 0·054% rifampicin; antibiotic shunt group), or silver-impregnated shunts (silver shunt group) through a randomisation sequence generated by an independent statistician. All patients and investigators who recorded and analysed the data were masked for group assignment, which was only disclosed to the neurosurgical staff at the time of operation. Participants receiving a shunt without evidence of infection at the time of insertion were followed up for at least 6 months and a maximum of 2 years. The primary outcome was time to shunt failure due the infection and was analysed with Fine and Gray survival regression models for competing risk by intention to treat. This trial is registered with ISRCTN 49474281., Findings: Between June 26, 2013, and Oct 9, 2017, we assessed 3505 patients, of whom 1605 aged up to 91 years were randomly assigned to receive either a standard shunt (n=536), an antibiotic-impregnated shunt (n=538), or a silver shunt (n=531). 1594 had a shunt inserted without evidence of infection at the time of insertion (533 in the standard shunt group, 535 in the antibiotic shunt group, and 526 in the silver shunt group) and were followed up for a median of 22 months (IQR 10-24; 53 withdrew from follow-up). 32 (6%) of 533 evaluable patients in the standard shunt group had a shunt revision for infection, compared with 12 (2%) of 535 evaluable patients in the antibiotic shunt group (cause-specific hazard ratio [csHR] 0·38, 97·5% CI 0·18-0·80, p=0·0038) and 31 (6%) of 526 patients in the silver shunt group (0·99, 0·56-1·74, p=0·96). 135 (25%) patients in the standard shunt group, 127 (23%) in the antibiotic shunt group, and 134 (36%) in the silver shunt group had adverse events, which were not life-threatening and were mostly related to valve or catheter function., Interpretation: The BASICS trial provides evidence to support the adoption of antibiotic shunts in UK patients who are having their first ventriculoperitoneal shunt insertion. This practice will benefit patients of all ages by reducing the risk and harm of shunt infection., Funding: UK National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme., (Copyright © 2019 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 license. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: The study estimated the health economic impact of a latest generation coronary stent with ultrathin struts and bioresorbable polymer coating., Background: The recent BIOFLOW V trial, an international FDA approval trial (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02389946), has shown that an ultrathin, bioresorbable polymer sirolimus-eluting stent had a significantly lower rate of target lesion failure and target vessel-related myocardial infarction than a thin, durable polymer everolimus-eluting stent at 12 months, driven by a lower rate of peri-procedural myocardial infarction (ppMI)., Methods: We used a Markov model to project mortality and cost outcomes of that lower ppMI rate from a U.S. health system perspective over a 12-month horizon. Model parameters were derived from BIOFLOW V trial data, a systematic literature review and expert interviews., Results: Use of the bioresorbable polymer sirolimus-eluting stent compared to durable polymer everolimus-eluting stent is associated with net reductions in medical cost of $124 (Interquartile Range (IQR) $97-154) per patient in 2018 US$, of which $115 (IQR $76-124) accrues to the initial admission and $10 (IQR $7-72) to cost of follow-up. The lower rate of ppMI translates into a gain of 0.000017 (IQR 0.000011-0.000022) quality-adjusted life-years (QALY) per patient., Conclusions: Lower ppMI rates of bioresorbable polymer sirolimus-eluting stent translate into reductions in direct medical cost, while improving patient outcomes. Most of the cost reduction is attributed to the initial admission with moderate savings up to 12 months post-discharge., (Copyright © 2018 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: There is only limited information about the cost-effectiveness of drug-eluting stents compared with bare-metal stents in Turkey., Aims: To evaluate bare-metal and drug-eluting stents used in the treatment of coronary artery disease from the perspective of the reimbursement institution with cost-effectiveness analysis., Study Design: Retrospective cost-effectiveness analysis., Methods: In our study, 329 patients diagnosed with coronary artery disease and treated with bare-metal or drug-eluting stents in the cardiology clinics of a public university hospital between January 1 and December 31, 2016 were investigated. Bare-metal and drug-eluting stents used in the treatment of coronary artery disease were evaluated retrospectively with cost-effectiveness analysis from the perspective of the reimbursement institution., Results: The cost of treatment with a bare-metal stent was 2,131.41 Turkish Liras, and the cost of treatment with a drug-eluting stent was 3,546.14 Turkish Liras; the Quality Adjusted Life Years value of treatment with a bare-metal stent was 0.8371, and the Quality Adjusted Life Years value of treatment with a drug-eluting stent was 0.8924. All these data were analyzed by decision tree. As a result of decision tree analysis, the weighted cost of treatment with a bare-metal stent was 2,340.71 Turkish Liras and weighted Quality Adjusted Life Years value was 0.8332; and the weighted cost of treatment with drug-eluting stent was 3,970.90 Turkish Liras and the weighted Quality Adjusted Life Years value of the treatment with drug-eluting stent was 0.8911. With these values, the additional cost-effectiveness ratio was calculated as 28,179.12 Turkish Liras per acquired Quality Adjusted Life Years. The additional cost-effectiveness ratio is in the first zone in the cost-effectiveness plane and below the very threshold of cost-effectiveness., Conclusion: In our study, it was concluded that drug-eluting stents are cost effective compared with bare-metal stents in the treatment of coronary artery disease. Considering the cost and effectiveness of the drug-eluting stent, it is thought that increasing reimbursement for this technology by the reimbursement agency would be beneficial for the service provider.

Background: The cost-effectiveness of newer drug-eluting stents (DES) such as biodegradable-polymer or polymer-free stents with shorter dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) duration is unknown. We evaluated the cost-effectiveness of treatment with newer DES that may allow for shorter DAPT duration., Patients and Methods: We performed a cost-effectiveness analysis of treatment with newer DES platforms followed by 1 or 3 months of DAPT compared with standard second-generation DES followed by 6 or 12 months of DAPT in patients with stable coronary disease. A Markov model simulated distinct health states over a lifetime. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis and one-way sensitivity analyses were performed. A high-risk bleeding scenario was also evaluated., Results: Among patients with typical bleeding risk, second-generation DES and 6 months of DAPT was less expensive and resulted in marginally higher quality-adjusted life years compared with other strategies. A newer DES platform and 3 months of DAPT was preferred when the risk of fatal bleeding was two times greater than baseline, or when bleeding increased long-term mortality by a factor of 1.5. In a probabilistic sensitivity analysis, second-generation DES and 6 months of DAPT was preferred in 58% of iterations, whereas in a high-risk bleeding patient scenario, a newer DES and 3 months of DAPT was preferred in 52% of iterations., Conclusion: A DES that allows 3 months of DAPT without increasing stent-related events is likely to be cost-effective among patients at elevated risk of bleeding, but not in patients with average bleeding risk.

Background: Despite significant technical advancement in the last decade, the durability of endovascular management of critical limb ischemia (CLI) remains highly debatable. Drug-eluting stents (DESs) are being popularized for the management of CLI after its precedent success in coronary intervention. Initial reports on the durability of DES are promising. However, little is known on the additional cost of this relatively newer technology. The aim of this study is to compare the cost of the traditional bare metal stents (BMSs) to the newly introduced DES in a large cohort of CLI patients., Methods: Using the Premier database (2009-2015), we identified all patients with CLI undergoing DES and BMS. A multivariable generalized linear model was implemented to examine in-hospital cost adjusting for patients' characteristics, comorbidities, and regional characteristics., Results: A total of 20,702 patients with CLI underwent peripheral artery revascularization using BMS (18,924 [91.41%]) or DES (1,778 [8.6%]). Majority of patients were males (53%) and whites (71%). Patients undergoing BMS were slightly younger (median age [interquartile range]: 70 [62-79] versus 71 [63-80]) and were more likely to be smokers (46% vs. 39%) and have a history of cerebrovascular disease (10% vs. 8%) and chronic pulmonary disease (24.5% vs. 20.9%) as compared with those undergoing DES (all P < 0.05). On the other hand, DES patients had a high prevalence of diabetes (4% vs. 3%) and renal disease (25% vs. 22%) (both P < 0.05). There was also a significant increase in the proportion of patients undergoing DES and a corresponding decrease in BMS (P < 0.001) over the study period. Median total in-hospitalization cost (BMS: $13,342 [8,574 to 21,166], DES: $13,243 [8,560-20,232], P = 0.76) was similar for both approaches. After adjusting for potential confounders, DES was associated with $407 higher cost than BMS (adjusted mean difference [95% confidence interval]: 407 [17 to 798], P = 0.04). In addition, the cost was $672 higher in teaching hospitals, $1,153 higher in Rural areas, and increased in all regions compared with the Midwest (adjusted mean difference [95% confidence interval]-South: $293 [31 to 555], Northeast: $2,006 [1,517 to 2,495], West: $3,312 [2,930 to 3,695], all P < 0.05)., Conclusions: In this large cohort of CLI patients, after controlling for potential confounders, we demonstrated that the cost of endovascular revascularization is significantly higher in patients undergoing DES than those undergoing BMS. Regional disparities in cost were also observed. Further studies looking at the long-term durability and costs of DES versus BMS are needed., (Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of using drugeluting stents (DES) compared to bare-metal stents (BMS) for coronary heart disease (CHD)., Data Sources/study Setting: Data were obtained from the National Health Insurance Longitudinal Health Insurance Database, which contains claims data for 1,000,000 beneficiaries. The data were randomly sampled from all beneficiaries., Study Design: A retrospective claims data analysis., Data Collection/extraction Methods: Patients with stable coronary heart disease who underwent coronary stent implantation from 2007 to 2008 were recruited and followed to the end of 2013. After a 2:1 propensity score matched by gender, age, stent number, and the Charlson comorbidity index (CCI), 852 patients with 568 stents in the BMS group and 284 stents in the DES group were included. The cumulative medical costs for both matched groups were estimated with the Kaplan-Meier Sample Average (KMSA), and then the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was estimated., Principal Findings: The ICER of DES vs. BMS was NT$ 663,000 per cardiovascular death averted and NT$ 238,394 per cardiovascular death or coronary event averted in five years from the insurer perspective., Conclusion: Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with DES was a more cost-effective strategy than PCI with BMS for CHD patients during the five-year follow-up., (Copyright © 2018 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: Initial data on drug-eluting stents (DES) shows that they may increase the durability of endovascular treatment of superficial femoral artery disease compared with traditional bare-metal stents (BMS). Observed decreased target lesion revascularization (TLR) rates have potential for cost savings despite an increased initial cost. The purpose of this study was to run a simulation model of progressive transition from BMS to DES over 5 years evaluating the overall cost impact of that transition., Methods: Florida State Ambulatory Databases were searched for all patients undergoing superficial femoral artery stenting in 2013 using Current Procedural Terminology codes 37226 and 37227. A simulation model was developed to estimate the impact of a progressive transition from BMS to DES over a 5-year horizon in this patient population. Cost estimates were determined from available cost charge ratio data. For the 5-year model, 2013 served as the initial year with each subsequent year based on the expected number of interventions per year. Up to one TLR per patient was assumed for the model. The 5-year TLR rates for DES and other parameter estimates were based on pooled data from the literature. Institutional data were used to estimate that up to 48% of superficial femoral artery lesions would fit the instructions for use for the Zilver PTX (Cook Medical, Bloomington, Ind), which is currently the only DES approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for peripheral interventions. The net budget impact was expressed as the difference in total costs (primary stenting and reinterventions) for a scenario where BMS is progressively replaced by Zilver PTX compared with a scenario of BMS only. Multiple sensitivity analyses were performed on the base scenario., Results: We identified 4107 peripheral interventions in the first year that fit our study. The overall cost for these procedures in Florida database was $51,362,142.00. In the base case scenario, DES was introduced slowly into the population at a rate of 8% per year up to 48% at the end of the model. This strategy resulted in an overall cost savings of $1,688,953.72 compared with the model with BMS alone. Sensitivity analyses including slower adoption of DES up to only 24% at 5 years, a 20% increase in TLR rates per year for the DES, and a 10% reduction in TLR rates per year for BMS still resulted in a net savings. As long as the additional cost of a DES compared with BMS is less than $677, the DES model remains less expensive., Conclusions: The adoption of DES in lieu of traditional BMS can lead to significant cost savings in a single state model over a short time horizon., (Copyright © 2018 Society for Vascular Surgery. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

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., (© 2018 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Background: Use of everolimus-eluting stents (EES) has proven to be clinically effective and safe in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction but it remains unclear whether it is cost-effective compared to bare-metal stents (BMS) in the long-term. We sought to assess the cost-effectiveness of EES versus BMS based on the 5-year results of the EXAMINATION trial, from a Spanish health service perspective., Methods: Decision analysis of the use of EES versus BMS was based on the patient-level clinical outcome data of the EXAMINATION trial. The analysis adopted a lifelong time horizon, assuming that long-term survival was independent of the initial treatment strategy after the end of follow-up. Life-expectancy, health-state utility scores and unit costs were extracted from published literature and publicly available sources. Non-parametric bootstrapping was combined with probabilistic sensitivity analysis to co-assess the impact of patient-level variation and parameter uncertainty. The main outcomes were total costs and quality-adjusted life-years. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was expressed as cost per quality-adjusted life-years gained. Costs and effects were discounted at 3%., Results: The model predicted an average survival time in patients receiving EES and BMS of 10.52 and 10.38 undiscounted years, respectively. Over the life-long time horizon, the EES strategy was €430 more costly than BMS (€8,305 vs. €7,874), but went along with incremental gains of 0.10 quality-adjusted life-years. This resulted in an average incremental cost-effectiveness ratio over all simulations of €3,948 per quality-adjusted life-years gained and was below a willingness-to-pay threshold of €25,000 per quality-adjusted life-years gained in 86.9% of simulation runs., Conclusions: Despite higher total costs relative to BMS, EES appeared to be a cost-effective therapy for ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction patients due to their incremental effectiveness. Predicted incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were below generally acceptable threshold values., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Aims: In patients at high risk of bleeding who undergo PCI the biolimus A9 polymer-free drug coated stent (DCS) has superior efficacy and safety compared to a bare metal stent (BMS). We estimated the cost effectiveness of DCS vs. BMS., Methods and Results: The Leaders FREE-based economic evaluation estimated service use and quality of life data collected prospectively. The entire trial population was analysed using cost-weights from England, France, Germany, Italy, Scotland and Spain. Country-specific QALYs were derived from EQ-5D scores. We estimated cost per event averted and per QALY gained. DCS use resulted in -0.095 cardiac deaths, target vessel MI, stent thrombosis and revascularization per patient (0.152 vs. 0.237;p<0.001). One-year QALYs were non-significantly higher in the DCS group. Total costs for the index admission were similar between groups. One-year costs using cost-weights from each of the 6 countries, including the additional €300 per DCS stent, ranged from €4,664-8,593 for DCS and €4,845-9,742 for BMS and were lower in the DCS group (England:€-428, France:€-137, Germany:€-33, Italy:€-522, Scotland:€-298, Spain:€-854)., Conclusions: The probability that DCS dominated BMS was >50% in all countries. At a threshold of €10,000 per event averted DCS had a 98% probability of being cost-effective in all 6 countries.

Objective: Drug-coated balloons (DCBs) may increase durability of endovascular treatment of superficial femoral artery (SFA) disease while avoiding stent-related risks. The purpose of this study was to use meta-analytic data of DCB studies to compare the cost-effectiveness of potential SFA treatments: DCB, drug-eluting stent (DES), plain old balloon angioplasty (POBA), or bare-metal stent (BMS)., Methods: A search for randomized controlled trials comparing DCB with POBA for treatment of SFA disease was performed. Hazard ratios were extracted to account for the time-to-event primary outcome of target lesion revascularization. Odds ratios were calculated for the secondary outcomes of primary patency (PP) and major amputation. Incorporating pooled data from the meta-analysis, cost-effectiveness analysis, assuming a payer perspective, used a decision model to simulate patency at 1 year and 2 years for each index treatment modality: POBA, BMS, DCB, or DES. Costs were based on current Medicare outpatient reimbursement rates., Results: Eight studies (1352 patients) met inclusion criteria for meta-analysis. DCB outperformed POBA with respect to target lesion revascularization over time (pooled hazard ratio, 0.41; P < .001). Risk of major amputation at 12 months was not significantly different between groups. There was significantly improved 1-year PP in the DCB group compared with POBA (pooled odds ratio, 3.30; P < .001). In the decision model, the highest PP at 1 year was seen in the DES index therapy strategy (79%), followed by DCB (74%), BMS (71%), and POBA (64%). With a baseline cost of $9259.39 per patent limb at 1 year in the POBA-first group, the incremental cost per patent limb for each other strategy compared with POBA was calculated: $14,136.10/additional patent limb for DCB, $38,549.80/limb for DES, and $59,748,85/limb for BMS. The primary BMS option is dominated by being more expensive and less effective than DCB. Compared directly with DCB, DES costs $87,377.20 per additional patent limb at 1 year. Based on the projected PP at 1 year in the decision model, the number needed to treat for DES compared with DCB is 20. At current reimbursement, the use of more than two DCBs per procedure would no longer be cost-effective compared with DES. At 2 years, DCB emerges as the most cost-effective index strategy with the lowest overall cost and highest patency rates over that time horizon., Conclusions: Current data and reimbursements support the use of DCB as a cost-effective strategy for endovascular intervention in the SFA; any additional effectiveness of DES comes at a high price. Use of more than one DCB per intervention significantly decreases cost-effectiveness., (Copyright © 2017 Society for Vascular Surgery. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Clinical and cost-effectiveness of prasugrel vs. clopidogrel in acute coronary syndrome (ACS) was only evaluated using TRITON-TIMI 38 event rates. A comparative analysis of both drugs in contemporary European ACS patients is lacking., Methods: To address this issue, cardiac and bleeding events of 2 "sister" multicenter stent trials, BASKET-PROVE (BP) I with clopidogrel and BPII with prasugrel (for 12months each) were used in a hybrid analysis. Medication costs were 2015 sales prices, event costs modelled for Denmark (DNK), Germany (GER) and Switzerland (SUI) and quality adjusted life years (QALY) by EQ-5D-3L questionnaire., Results: In BPI and II, 1012 and 985 ACS-patients received drug eluting stents, respectively, followed-up for 2years. Compared to clopidogrel, prasugrel-treated patients had no more major cardiac events (5.2% vs. 6.4%, p=0.422) nor cardiac deaths (1.6% vs. 1.0%, p=0.255), but more major bleedings (4.0% vs. 1.7%, p<0.001) and altogether no difference in QALYs (-0.027 (95%CI: -0.064/0.011)). Prasugrel caused higher total expenditures per patient: 1116.3 (DNK), 1063.5 (GER) and 880.8 (SUI) EURO, respectively. Accordingly, incremental cost-effectiveness was negative for prasugrel vs. clopidogrel with ratios of -45,907 (DNK), -39,909 (GER) and -33,435 (SUI) EURO/QALY gained, making clopidogrel an economically dominant strategy, even after accounting for the non-randomized comparison., Conclusion: Findings of this contemporary European ACS-cohort showed markedly lower cardiac event rates than TRITON-TIMI 38 and no significant difference in 2-year QALYs between prasugrel and clopidogrel-treated patients. At current drug prices, clopidogrel use resulted in an economically dominant treatment strategy in Western European patients., (Copyright © 2017 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Aim: Health technology assessment (HTA) is a tool to help the decision-making process. The aim is to describe methods and processes used in the reimbursement decision making for drug-eluting stents (DES) in four different settings., Methods: DES as a technology under study was selected according to different criteria, all of them agreed by a working group. A survey of key informants was designed., Results: DES was evaluated following well-structured HTA processes. Nonetheless, scope for improvement was observed in relation to the data considered for the final decision, the transparency and inclusiveness of the process as well as in the methods employed., Conclusion: An attempt to describe the HTA processes of a well-known medical device.

Continuation of dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) beyond 1 year reduces late stent thrombosis and ischemic events after drug-eluting stents (DES) but increases risk of bleeding. We hypothesized that extending DAPT from 12 months to 30 months in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) after DES is cost-effective. A lifelong decision-analytic model was designed to simulate 2 antiplatelet strategies in event-free ACS patients who had completed 12-month DAPT after DES: aspirin monotherapy (75-162 mg daily) and continuation of DAPT (clopidogrel 75 mg daily plus aspirin 75-162 mg daily) for 18 months. Clinical event rates, direct medical costs, and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained were the primary outcomes from the US healthcare provider perspective. Base-case results showed DAPT continuation gained higher QALYs (8.1769 vs 8.1582 QALYs) at lower cost (USD42 982 vs USD44 063). One-way sensitivity analysis found that base-case QALYs were sensitive to odds ratio (OR) of cardiovascular death with DAPT continuation and base-case cost was sensitive to OR of nonfatal stroke with DAPT continuation. DAPT continuation remained cost-effective when the ORs of nonfatal stroke and cardiovascular death were below 1.241 and 1.188, respectively. In probabilistic sensitivity analysis, DAPT continuation was the preferred strategy in 74.75% of 10 000 Monte Carlo simulations at willingness-to-pay threshold of 50 000 USD/QALYs. Continuation of DAPT appears to be cost-effective in ACS patients who were event-free for 12-month DAPT after DES. The cost-effectiveness of DAPT for 30 months was highly subject to the OR of nonfatal stroke and OR of death with DAPT continuation., (© 2017 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.)

Background: Severe limb ischaemia (SLI) is defined as the presence of rest pain and/or tissue loss secondary to lower extremity atherosclerotic peripheral arterial disease. The superficial femoral and popliteal arteries are the most commonly diseased vessels in such patients and are being increasingly treated using endovascular revascularisation techniques. However, it is currently unknown whether drug-eluting stents and drug-coated balloons confer additional clinical benefits over more established techniques using plain balloons and bare metal stents, or whether they represent a cost-effective use of NHS resources., Methods: The BASIL-3 trial is a UK National Institute for Health Research, Health Technology Assessment Programme-funded, multicentre, randomised controlled trial (RCT) comparing the clinical and cost-effectiveness of plain balloon angioplasty with or without bail-out bare metal stenting, drug-coated balloon angioplasty with or without bail-out bare metal stenting, and primary stenting with drug-eluting stents for SLI secondary to femoro-popliteal disease. Patients with 'multilevel' disease may receive aorto-iliac and/or infrapopliteal treatments concurrently with their randomised femoro-popliteal intervention. The primary clinical outcome is amputation-free survival defined as the time to major (above the ankle) amputation of the index limb or death from any cause. The primary outcome for the economic analysis is cost per quality-adjusted life year. Secondary outcome measures include overall survival, major adverse limb events, major adverse cardiac events, relief of ischaemic pain, healing of tissue loss, and quality of life. The required sample size has been calculated at 861 participants (287 on each arm). These patients will be recruited over 3 years and followed-up for between 2 and 5 years., Discussion: BASIL-3 is a pragmatic RCT designed to reflect current UK clinical practice. The results will inform decision-making regarding the appropriateness of funding the use of drug-coated balloons and drug-eluting stents, by the NHS, for the management of SLI due to femoro-popliteal disease., Trial Registration: ISRCTN Registry, identifier: ISRCTN14469736 . Registered on 22 October 2015.

Background: Drug-eluting stents (DESs) were considered as ground-breaking technology promising to eradicate restenosis and the necessity to perform multiple revascularization procedures subsequent to percutaneous coronary intervention. Soon after DESs were released on the market, however, there were reports of a potential increase in mortality and of early or late thrombosis. In addition, DESs are far more expensive than bare-metal stents (BMSs), which has led to their limited use in many countries. The technology has improved over the last few years with the second generation of DESs (DES-2). Moreover, costs have come down and an improved safety profile with decreased thrombosis has been reported., Objective: Perform a cost-benefit analysis of DES-2s versus BMSs in the context of a publicly funded university hospital in Quebec, Canada., Methods: A systematic review of meta-analyses was conducted between 2012 and 2016 to extract data on clinical effectiveness. The clinical outcome of interest for the cost-benefit analysis was target-vessel revascularization (TVR). Cost units are those used in the Quebec health-care system. The cost-benefit analysis was based on a 2-year perspective. Deterministic and stochastic models (discrete-event simulation) were used, and various risk factors of reintervention were considered., Results: DES-2s are much more effective than BMSs with respect to TVR rate ratio (i.e., 0.29 to 0.62 in more recent meta-analyses). DES-2s seem to cause fewer deaths and in-stent thrombosis than BMSs, but results are rarely significant, with the exception of the cobalt-chromium everolimus DES. The rate ratio of myocardial infraction is systematically in favor of DES-2s and very often significant. Despite the higher cost of DES-2s, fewer reinterventions can lead to huge savings (i.e., -$479 to -$769 per patient). Moreover, the higher a patient's risk of reintervention, the higher the savings associated with the use of DES-2s., Conclusion: Despite the higher purchase cost of DES-2s compared to BMSs, generalizing their use, in particular for patients at high risk of reintervention, should enable significant savings.

Background: Second-generation drug eluting stents (DES) may reduce costs and improve clinical outcomes compared to first-generation DES with improved cost-effectiveness when compared to bare metal stents (BMS). We aimed to conduct an economic evaluation of a cobalt-chromium everolimus eluting stent (Co-Cr EES) compared with BMS in percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI)., Objective: To conduct a cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) of a cobalt-chromium everolimus eluting stent (Co-Cr EES) versus BMS in PCI., Methods: A Markov state transition model with a 2-year time horizon was applied from a US Medicare setting with patients undergoing PCI with Co-Cr EES or BMS. Baseline characteristics, treatment effects, and safety measures were taken from a patient level meta-analysis of 5 RCTs (n = 4,896). The base-case analysis evaluated stent-related outcomes; a secondary analysis considered the broader set of outcomes reported in the meta-analysis., Results: The base-case and secondary analyses reported an additional 0.018 and 0.013 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and cost savings of $236 and $288, respectively with Co-Cr EES versus BMS. Results were robust to sensitivity analyses and were most sensitive to the price of clopidogrel. In the probabilistic sensitivity analysis, Co-Cr EES was associated with a greater than 99% chance of being cost saving or cost effective (at a cost per QALY threshold of $50,000) versus BMS., Conclusions: Using data from a recent patient level meta-analysis and contemporary cost data, this analysis found that PCI with Co-Cr EES is more effective and less costly than PCI with BMS. © 2016 The Authors. Catheterization and Cardiovascular Interventions Published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc., (© 2016 The Authors. Catheterization and Cardiovascular Interventions Published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc.)

Objectives: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the economic impact of the Absorb bioresorbable vascular scaffold compared with the Xience everolimus-eluting stent in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention., Background: The ABSORB III trial (Everolimus-Eluting Bioresorbable Scaffolds for Coronary Artery Disease) demonstrated that the Absorb scaffold was noninferior to the Xience stent with respect to target lesion failure at 1 year. Whether health care costs differ between the Absorb scaffold and the Xience stent is unknown., Methods: We performed a prospective health economic study alongside the ABSORB III trial, in which patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention for stable or unstable angina were randomized to receive the Absorb scaffold (n = 1,322) or Xience stent (n = 686). Resource use data were collected through 1 year of follow-up. Costs were assessed using resource-based accounting (for procedures), MedPAR data (for other index hospitalization costs), and Medicare reimbursements (for follow-up costs and physician fees)., Results: Initial procedural costs were higher with the Absorb scaffold than the Xience stent ($6,316 ± 1,892 vs. $6,103 ± 1,895; p = 0.02), driven mainly by greater balloon catheter use and the higher cost of the scaffold in the Absorb group. Nonetheless, index hospitalization costs ($15,035 ± 2,992 for Absorb vs. $14,903 ± 3,449 for Xience; p = 0.37) and total 1-year costs ($17,848 ± 6,110 for Absorb vs. $17,498 ± 7,411 for Xience; p = 0.29) were similar between the 2 groups., Conclusions: Although initial procedural costs were higher with the Absorb scaffold, there were no differences in total 1-year health care costs between the 2 cohorts. Longer term follow-up is needed to determine whether meaningful cost savings emerge after scaffold resorption. (A Clinical Evaluation of Absorb™ BVS, the Everolimus-Eluting Bioresorbable Vascular Scaffold in the Treatment of Subjects With de Novo Native Coronary Artery Lesions; NCT01751906)., (Copyright © 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is one of the most performed interventions for ischemic heart diseases. In Hong Kong, the total number of patient discharges and deaths for ischemic heart diseases in 2009 was 33,363, including 4,360 deaths. There are over 5,000 cases of PCI yearly. This study aimed to compare clinical, economic, and humanistic outcomes among patients receiving drug-eluting stent (DES) or bare metal stent (BMS) in Hong Kong., Methods: Patients who received stent implantation between September 15, 2009 and October 11, 2010 in Prince of Wales Hospital, Hong Kong, were recruited and followed for 18 months. Occurrence of major adverse cardiac events (cardiac death, non-fatal MI, TLR and TVR) was employed as the clinical outcome measurements. Improvement in quality-of-life by stent interventions was measured as quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). EQ-5D questionnaire was adopted to assess the QALY gained. Cost-utility analysis and cost-effectiveness analysis for BMS and DES were employed as the economic outcome measurement., Results: Six hundred and eighty-four patients (DES = 402; BMS = 282) were included. From 0-18 months, TLR rate (2.7% vs 3.5%, p = .549) and TVR rate (3.7% vs 6.4%, p = .111) were lower in the DES group, but without statistical significance. EQ VAS (71.06 ± 14.56 vs 71.07 ± 16.57, p = .998) and utility score (0.81 ± 0.17 vs 0.78 ± 0.16, p = .162) were comparable between DES and BMS group. Overall, the cost per QALY gained was HKD + 1,178,100 and ICER was HKD + 187,000 (1USD = 7.8 HKD)., Conclusions: No significant difference in TVR, TLR rates, EQ VAS, and utility score was found between the DES and BMS group. The higher cost of index procedure for the DES group was found to be partly offset by reduced cost of follow-up, offering cost-effectiveness in ACS patients, predominantly in STEMI patients. DES was recommended for STEMI patients.

Aims: The British National Institute of Clinical Excellence (NICE) guidelines recommend to use drug-eluting stents (DES) instead of bare-metal stents (BMS) only in lesions >15 mm in length or in vessels <3 mm in diameter. We analyzed the impact of stent length and stent diameter on in-stent restenosis (ISR) in the BASKET-PROVE study population and evaluated the cost-effectiveness of DES compared to BMS., Methods/results: The BASKET-PROVE trial compared DES vs BMS in large coronary arteries (≥3 mm). We calculated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) and cost-effectiveness acceptability curves with regard to quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained and target lesion revascularizations (TLRs) avoided. A total of 2278 patients were included in the analysis. A total of 74 ISR in 63 patients were observed. In-stent restenosis was significantly more frequent in segments treated with a BMS compared to segments treated with a DES (5.4% vs 0.76%; P<.001). The benefit of a DES compared to a BMS regarding ISR was consistent among the subgroups of stent length >15 mm and ≤15 mm, respectively. With the use of DES in short lesions, there was only a minimal gain of 0.005 in QALYs. At a threshold of 10 000 CHF per TLR avoided, DES had a high probability of being cost-effective., Conclusion: In the BASKET-PROVE study population, the strongest predictor of ISR is the use of a BMS, even in patients in need of stents ≥3.0 mm and ≤15 mm lesion length and DES were cost-effective. This should prompt the NICE to reevaluate its recommendation to use DES instead of BMS only in vessels <3.0 mm and lesions >15 mm length., (© 2016 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Objectives: To assess the lifetime costs and cost-effectiveness of 5 endovascular interventions to treat superficial femoral arterial disease., Design: A model-based health economic evaluation. An existing decision analytical model was used, with updated effectiveness data taken from the literature, and updated costs based on purchasing prices., Setting: UK and German healthcare perspectives were considered., Participants: Patients with intermittent claudication of the femoropopliteal arteries eligible for endovascular treatment., Methods: UK and German healthcare perspectives were considered, as were different strategies for re-intervention., Interventions: Percutaneous transluminal angioplasty (PTA) with bail-out bare metal stenting (assumed to represent the existing standard of care, and 4 alternatives: primary bare metal stents, drug-eluting stents, drug-eluting balloons (DEBs) and biomimetic stents)., Primary Outcome Measures: The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio between 2 treatments, defined as the incremental costs divided by the incremental quality-adjusted life years (QALYs)., Results: Use of a biomimetic stent, BioMimics 3D, was always estimated to dominate the other interventions, having lower lifetime costs and greater effectiveness, as measured by QALYs. Of the remaining interventions, DEBs were always the most effective, and PTA the least effective. There was uncertainty in the cost-effectiveness results, with key drivers being the costs and effectiveness of the biomimetic stent along with the costs of DEBs., Conclusions: All 4 of the alternatives to PTA were more effective, with the biomimetic stent being the most cost-effective. As there was uncertainty in the results, and all of the interventions have different mechanisms of action, all 4 may be considered to be alternatives to PTA., Competing Interests: BCK has received speaking honoraria from Medtronic and Veryan., (Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/.)

Background: Although drug-eluting stents (DES) have been widely incorporated into clinical practice in developed countries, several countries restrict their use mainly because of their high cost and unfavorable incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER)., Objective: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of DES in comparison with bare-metal stents (BMS) for treatment of coronary artery disease (CAD)., Design: Markov model., Data Sources: Published literature, government database, and CAD patient cohort., Target Population: Single-vessel CAD patients., Time Horizon: One year and lifetime., Perspective: Brazilian Public Health System (SUS)., Intervention: Six strategies composed of percutaneous intervention with a BMS or 1 of 5 DES (paclitaxel, sirolimus, everolimus, zotarolimus, and zotarolimus resolute)., Outcome Measures: Cost for target vessel revascularization avoided and cost for quality-adjusted life year gained., Base Case Analysis: In the short-term analysis, sirolimus was the most effective and least costly among DES (ICER of I$20,642 per target vessel revascularization avoided), with all others DES dominated by sirolimus. Lifetime cumulative costs ranged from I$18,765 to I$21,400. In the base case analysis, zotarolimus resolute had the most favorable ICER among the DES (ICER I$62,761), with sirolimus, paclitaxel, and zotarolimus being absolute dominated and everolimus extended dominated by zotarolimus resolute, although all the results were above the willingness-to-pay threshold of 3 times the gross domestic product per capita (I$35,307)., Sensitivity Analysis: In deterministic sensitivity analysis, results were sensitive to cost of DES, number of stents used per patient, baseline probability, and duration of stent thrombosis risk. The probabilistic sensitivity analysis demonstrated a probability of 81% for BMS being the strategy of choice, with 9% for everolimus and 9% zotarolimus resolute, at the willingness-to-pay threshold., Conclusion: DES is not a good value for money in SUS perspective, despite its benefit in reducing target vessel revascularization. Since the cost-effectiveness of DES is mainly driven by the stents' cost difference, they should cost less than twice the BMS price to become a cost-effective alternative., (© The Author(s) 2016.)

Aims: The suitability of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), compared with coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG), for patients with complex multivessel coronary artery disease (MVCAD) remains a contentious topic. While the body of evidence regarding the clinical effectiveness of these revascularization strategies is growing, there is limited evidence concerning their long-term cost-effectiveness. We aim to critically appraise the body of literature investigating the cost-effectiveness of CABG compared with PCI using stents, and to assess the quality of the economic evidence available., Methods and Results: A systematic review was performed across six electronic databases; Medline, Embase, the NHS Economic Evaluation Database, the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects, the health technology assessment database, and the Cochrane Library. All studies comparing economic attractiveness of CABG vs. PCI using bare-metal stents (BMS) or drug-eluting stents (DES) in balanced groups of patients were considered. Sixteen studies were included. These comprised studies of conventional CABG vs. BMS (n = 8), or DES (n = 4); off-pump CABG vs. BMS (n = 2), or DES (n = 1); and minimally invasive direct CABG vs. BMS (n = 2). The majority adopted a healthcare payer perspective (n = 14). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) reported across studies varied widely according to perspective and time horizon. Favourable lifetime ICERs were reported for CABG in three trials. For patients with left main coronary artery disease, however, DES was reported as the dominant (more effective and cost-saving) strategy in one study., Conclusion: Overall, CABG rather than PCI was the favoured cost-effective treatment for complex MVCAD in the long term. While the evidence base for the cost-effectiveness of DES compared with CABG is growing, there is a need for more evaluations adopting a societal perspective, and time horizons of a lifetime or 10 or more years.

Objective: Propel is a bioabsorbable drug-eluting sinus implant inserted following an endoscopic sinus surgery (ESS) for chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS). The objective of this study was to estimate the budget impact of incorporating Propel post-ESS for CRS patients from a self-insured employer or third-party payer perspective., Methods: An Excel-based budget impact model was developed. Estimates of the prevalence of CRS, rates of ESS, and effectiveness outcomes, along with direct and indirect costs from CRS were obtained from published literature. A total population of 1.5 million members was hypothesized for the analysis. All cost data were adjusted to October 2015 US dollars using the Medical Care Component of the Consumer Price Index. The cost and clinical/economic characteristics of Propel were compared to other treatments commonly used to minimize post-operative complications. The primary outcome was the incremental budget impact reported using per-member-per-month (PMPM) costs. Scenario-based, probabilistic, and one-way sensitivity analyses were performed to gauge the robustness of the results and identify the parameters with the most influence on the results., Results: For a US self-insured employer or a commercial health plan of 1.5 million members, the incremental PMPM impact of incorporating Propel was estimated to range from -$0.003 to $0.036, respectively, for all members in the health plan. Sensitivity analyses identified the cost of Propel, probability of polyposis recurrence requiring medical intervention, probability of adhesion formation requiring surgical intervention, and the treatment costs for polyposis as the primary parameters influencing the results., Conclusion: This study has demonstrated the use of Propel following ESS procedures has a negligible impact on the budget of a US self-insured employer or payer. The upfront cost of Propel was offset by savings associated with reduced probability for polyp recurrence, adhesion formation, and their subsequent treatment.

Objectives: To estimate the clinical and economic impact of drug-eluting endovascular treatment strategies for femoropopliteal artery disease compared with current standard of care., Design: Systematic literature search to pool target lesion revascularisations (TLR). Model-based per-patient cost impact and quasi-cost-effectiveness projection over 24 months based on pooled TLRs and current reimbursement., Setting: The UK's National Health Service (NHS)., Participants: Patients presenting with symptomatic femoropopliteal disease eligible for endovascular treatment., Interventions: Current National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guideline-recommended treatment with percutaneous transluminal balloon angioplasty (PTA) and bailout bare metal stenting (BMS) versus primary BMS placement, or drug-coated balloon (DCB), or drug-eluting stent (DES) treatment., Primary and Secondary Outcome Measures: 24-month per-patient cost impact to NHS (primary outcome)., Secondary Outcomes: pooled 24-month TLR rates; numbers needed to treat (NNTs); cost per TLR avoided and estimated incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) in £ per quality-adjusted life year (QALY)., Results: N=28 studies were identified, reporting on 5167 femoropopliteal lesions. Over 24 months, DCB, DES and BMS reduced TLRs of de novo lesions from 36.2% to 17.6%, 19.4% and 26.9%, respectively, at an increased cost of £43, £44 and £112. NNTs to avoid 1 TLR in 24 months were 5.4, 6.0 and 10.8, resulting in cost per TLR avoided of £231, £264 and £1204. DCB was estimated to add 0.011 QALYs, DES 0.010 QALYs and BMS 0.005 QALYs, resulting in estimated ICERs of £3983, £4534 and £20 719 per QALY gained. A subset analysis revealed more favourable clinical and economic outcomes for a 3.5 µg/mm(2) DCB with urea excipient, compared with the rest of DCBs. A modest reduction of 10% in DCB and DES prices made drug-eluting treatments dominant., Conclusions: Widespread adoption of drug-eluting endovascular therapies for femoropopliteal disease would add meaningful clinical benefit at reasonable additional costs to the NHS. Based on currently available data, DCBs offer the highest clinical and economic value., (Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/)

Aims: To examine the cost-effectiveness of intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) use during percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with drug-eluting stents (DES) in treating coronary artery disease (CAD)., Methods and Results: A Markov model was constructed with a lifetime horizon to compare costs and health outcomes between IVUS-guided PCI and PCI guided solely by angiography from an Italian healthcare payer perspective. The population examined included CAD patients undergoing PCI with DES. From a healthcare payer perspective, the resulting incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) per quality-adjusted life-year was negative in the base-case scenario (i.e., IVUS benefit assumed to persist beyond the first year). When IVUS benefit was assumed to be limited to the first year, the ICER increased to €9,624. This conclusion remained consistent even when scenarios varied regarding the duration of the device's effect. Furthermore, benefits of using IVUS were greater for patients with acute coronary syndrome, renal insufficiency, and diabetes., Conclusions: Using IVUS with angiography is a dominant strategy in Italy, and results demonstrate that it is desirable to target those at a greater risk of restenosis (i.e., patients with diabetes, chronic kidney disease, and acute coronary syndrome), who tend to benefit more from accurate stent implantation. Further information is necessary regarding the long-term benefits of IVUS, however sensitivity analysis presented in this research demonstrates a strong argument supporting the cost-effectiveness of IVUS.

Background: Systematic reviews of cost-effectiveness analyses summarize results and describe study characteristics. Variability in the study results is often explained qualitatively or based on sensitivity analyses of individual studies. However, variability due to input parameters and study characteristics (e.g., funding or study quality) is often not statistically explained. As a case study, a systematic review on the cost-effectiveness of drug-eluting stents (DES) versus bare-metal stents (BMS) using meta-regression analyses is performed to explore the usefulness of such methods compared with conventional review methods., Methods: We attempted to identify and review all modelling studies published until January 2012 that compared costs and consequences of DES versus BMS. We extracted general study information (e.g., funding), modelling methods, values of input parameters, and quality of the model using the Philips et al. checklist. Associations between study characteristics and the incremental costs and effectiveness of individual analyses were explored using regression analyses corrected for study ID., Results: Sixteen eligible studies were identified, with a combined total of 508 analyses. The overall quality of the models was moderate (59% ± 15%). This study showed associations (e.g., type of lesion) that were expected (based on individual studies), however the meta-regression analyses revealed also unpredicted associations: e.g., model quality was negatively associated with repeat revascularizations avoided., Conclusions: Meta-regressions can be of added value, identifying significant associations that could not be identified using conventional review methods or by sensitivity analyses of individual studies. Furthermore, this study underlines the need to examine input parameters and perform a quality check of studies when interpreting the results.

Objectives: We studied the trends and predictors of drug eluting stent (DES) utilization from 2006 to 2011 to further expound the inter-hospital variability in their utilization., Background: We queried the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project's Nationwide Inpatient Sample (NIS) between 2006 and 2011 using ICD-9-CM procedure code, 36.06 (bare metal stent) or 36.07 (drug eluting stents) for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention (PCI). Annual hospital volume was calculated using unique identification numbers and divided into quartiles for analysis., Methods and Results: We built a hierarchical two level model adjusted for multiple confounding factors, with hospital ID incorporated as random effects in the model. About 665,804 procedures (weighted n = 3,277,884) were analyzed. Safety concerns arising in 2006 reduced utilization DES from 90% of all PCIs performed in 2006 to a nadir of 69% in 2008 followed by increase (76% of all stents in 2009) and plateau (75% in 2011). Significant between-hospital variation was noted in DES utilization irrespective of patient or hospital characteristics. Independent patient level predictors of DES were (OR, 95% CI, P-value) age (0.99, 0.98-0.99, <0.001), female(1.12, 1.09-1.15, <0.001), acute myocardial infarction(0.75, 0.71-0.79, <0.001), shock (0.53, 0.49-0.58, <0.001), Charlson Co-morbidity index (0.81,0.77-0.86, <0.001), private insurance/HMO (1.27, 1.20-1.34, <0.001), and elective admission (1.16, 1.05-1.29, <0.001). Highest quartile hospital (1.64, 1.25-2.16, <0.001) volume was associated with higher DES placement., Conclusion: There is significant between-hospital variation in DES utilization and a higher annual hospital volume is associated with higher utilization rate of DES. © 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc., (© 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.)

Aims: Recent cost-effectiveness analyses of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) versus coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) have been limited by a short time horizon or were restricted to the US healthcare perspective. We, therefore, used individual patient-level data from the SYNTAX trial to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of PCI versus CABG from a European (Dutch) perspective., Methods and Results: Between 2005 and 2007, 1800 patients with three-vessel or left main coronary artery disease were randomised to either CABG (n=897) or PCI with drug-eluting stents (DES; n=903). Costs were estimated for all patients based on observed healthcare resource usage over 5 years of follow-up. Health state utilities were evaluated with the EuroQOL questionnaire. A patient-level microsimulation model based on Dutch life-tables was used to extrapolate the 5-year in-trial data to a lifetime horizon. Although initial procedural costs were lower for CABG, total initial hospitalisation costs per patient were higher (€17 506 vs €14 037, p<0.001). PCI was more costly during the next 5 years of follow-up, due to more frequent hospitalisations, repeat revascularisation procedures and higher medication costs. Nevertheless, total 5-year costs remained €2465/patient higher with CABG. When the in-trial results were extrapolated to a lifetime horizon, CABG was projected to be economically attractive relative to DES-PCI, with gains in both life expectancy and quality-adjusted life expectancy. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) (€5390/quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained) was favourable and remained <€80 000/QALY in >90% of the bootstrap replicates. Outcomes were similar when incorporating the prognostic impact of non-fatal myocardial infarction and stroke, as well as across a broad range of assumptions regarding the effect of CABG on post-trial survival and costs. However, DES-PCI was economically dominant compared with CABG in patients with a SYNTAX Score ≤22 or in those with left main disease. In patients for whom the SYNTAX Score II favoured PCI based on lower predicted 4-year mortality, PCI was also economically dominant, whereas in those patients for whom the SYNTAX Score II favoured surgery, CABG was highly economically attractive (ICER range, €2967 to €3737/QALY gained)., Conclusions: For the broad population with three-vessel or left main disease who are candidates for either CABG or PCI, we found that CABG is a clinically and economically attractive revascularisation strategy compared with DES-PCI from a Dutch healthcare perspective. The cost-effectiveness of CABG versus PCI differed according to several anatomic factors, however. The newly developed SYNTAX Score II provides enhanced prognostic discrimination in this population, and may be a useful tool to guide resource allocation as well., Trial Registration Number: Clinical trial unique identifier: NCT00114972 (http://www.clinical-trials.gov)., (Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/)

Background: Few studies have analyzed the cost of treatment of chronic angina pectoris, especially in European countries., Aim: To determine, using a modeling approach, the cost of care in 2012 for 1year of treatment of patients with stable angina, according to four therapeutic options: optimal medical therapy (OMT); percutaneous coronary intervention with bare-metal stent (PCI-BMS); PCI with drug-eluting stent (PCI-DES); and coronary artery bypass graft (CABG)., Methods: Six different clinical scenarios that could occur over 1year were defined: clinical success; recurrence of symptoms without hospitalization; myocardial infarction (MI); subsequent revascularization; death from non-cardiac cause; and cardiac death. The probability of a patient being in one of the six clinical scenarios, according to the therapeutic options used, was determined from a literature search. A direct medical cost for each of the therapeutic options was calculated from the perspective of French statutory health insurance., Results: The annual costs per patient for each strategy, according to their efficacy results, were, in our models, €1567 with OMT, €5908 with PCI-BMS, €6623 with PCI-DES and €16,612 with CABG. These costs were significantly different (P<0.05). A part of these costs was related to management of complications (recurrence of symptoms, MI and death) during the year (between 3% and 38% depending on the therapeutic options studied); this part of the expenditure was lowest with the CABG therapeutic option., Conclusion: OMT appears to be the least costly option, and, if reasonable from a clinical point of view, might achieve appreciable savings in health expenditure., (Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.)

Background: Peripheral arterial disease is a condition in which atherosclerotic plaques partially or completely block blood flow to the legs. Although percutaneous transluminal angioplasty and metallic stenting have high immediate success rates in treating peripheral arterial disease, long-term patency and restenosis rates in long and complex lesions remain unsatisfactory., Objective: The objective of this analysis was to evaluate the clinical effectiveness, safety, cost-effectiveness and budget impact of Zilver paclitaxel self-expanding drug-eluting stents for the treatment of de novo or restenotic lesions in above-the-knee peripheral arterial disease., Data Sources: Literature searches were performed using Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid MEDLINE In-Process and Other Non-Indexed Citations, Ovid Embase, EBSCO Cumulative Index to Nursing & Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), and EBM Reviews. For the economic review, a search filter was applied to limit search results to economics-related literature. Data sources for the budget impact analysis included expert opinion, published literature, and Ontario administrative data., Review Methods: Systematic reviews, meta-analyses, randomized controlled trials, and observational studies were included in the clinical effectiveness review, and full economic evaluations were included in the economic literature review. Studies were included if they examined the effect of Zilver paclitaxel drug-eluting stents in de novo or restenotic lesions in above-the-knee arteries. For the budget impact analysis, 3 scenarios were constructed based on different assumptions., Results: One randomized controlled trial reported a significantly higher patency rate with Zilver paclitaxel drug-eluting stents for lesions ≤ 14 cm than with angioplasty or bare metal stents. One observational study showed no difference in patency rates between Zilver paclitaxel drug-eluting stents and paclitaxel drug-coated balloons. Zilver paclitaxel drug-eluting stents were associated with a significantly higher event-free survival rate than angioplasty, but the event-free survival rate was similar for Zilver paclitaxel drug-eluting stents and paclitaxel drug-coated balloons. No economic evaluations compared Zilver paclitaxel drug-eluting stents with bare metal stents or angioplasty for peripheral arterial disease. A budget impact analysis showed that the cost savings associated with funding of Zilver paclitaxel drug-eluting stents would be $470,000 to $640,000 per year, assuming that the use of the Zilver paclitaxel drug-eluting stent was associated with a lower risk of subsequent revascularization., Conclusions: Based on evidence of low to moderate quality, Zilver paclitaxel drug-eluting stents were associated with a higher patency rate than angioplasty or bare metal stents, and with fewer adverse events than angioplasty. The effectiveness and safety of Zilver paclitaxel drug-eluting stents and paclitaxel drug-coated balloons were similar.

Activated protein C (APC), an endogenous protein, inhibits inflammation and thrombosis and interrupts the coagulation cascade. Here, we investigated the effect of human recombinant APC on the development of neointimal hyperplasia in porcine coronary arteries. Yukon Choice bare metal stents were coated with 2.6 µg APC/mm(2). Under general anesthesia, APC-coated and bare stents were implanted in the left anterior descending and circumflex coronary arteries of 10 domestic pigs. During the 4-week follow-up, animals were treated with dual antiplatelet therapy and neointimal hyperplasia was evaluated via histology. Scanning electron microscopy indicated successful but unequal coating of stents with APC; nearly complete drug release occurred within 4 h. Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay revealed that intracoronary stent implantation rapidly increased the levels of monocyte chemoattractant protein-1, an effect that was inhibited by APC release from the coated stent. Fibrin deposition and adventitial inflammation were significantly decreased 1 month after implanting APC-coated stents versus bare stents, paralleled by significantly smaller neointimal area (0.98 ± 0.92 vs. 1.44 ± 0.91 mm(2), P = 0.028), higher lumen area (3.47 ± 0.94 vs. 3.06 ± 0.91 mm(2), P = 0.046), and lower stenosis area (22.2 ± 21.2% vs. 32.1 ± 20.1%, P = 0.034). Endothelialization was complete with APC-coated but not bare (90%) stents. P-selectin immunostaining revealed significantly fewer activated endothelial cells in the neointima in the APC group (4.6 ± 1.9 vs. 11.6 ± 4.1%, P < 0.001). Thus, short exposure of coronary arteries to APC reduced inflammatory responses, neointimal proliferation, and in-stent restenosis, offering a promising therapy to improve clinical outcomes of coronary stenting. However, coating stents with APC for prolonged, controlled drug release remains technically challenging.

Background: The value of drug-eluting stents in preventing cardiovascular events has not been investigated in Mexico., Objective: To conduct a cost-effectiveness analysis of early and new-generation drug-eluting stents from the perspective of a healthcare provider., Methods: We conducted a cost-effectiveness analysis of early and new-generation drug-eluting stents in patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy attending a Cardiology Hospital of the Mexican Social Security Institute. The health endpoint used was major acute cardiovascular events prevented. The effectiveness by stent type was obtained from the literature. A retrospective chart review study was conducted to collect cost data on cardiovascular events including seven cost categories. Average and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were estimated. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to test the robustness of estimates., Results: Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios in base-case were 28,910 and US$ 35,590 for early and new-generation stents, respectively. In an optimal scenario, incremental-cost effectiveness ratio was 24,776 and US$ 25,262 for early and new stents, respectively. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis suggested that 90% of cases were cost-effective when willingness-to-pay was 58,000 and US$ 66,000 for early and new-generation stents, respectively., Conclusions: The cost-effectiveness ratios of early and new-generation stents were significantly higher than corresponding bare-metal stents.