Cost-effectiveness of cilostazol, naftidrofuryl oxalate, and pentoxifylline for the treatment of intermittent claudication in people with peripheral arterial disease.

We assessed the cost-effectiveness of cilostazol, naftidrofuryl oxalate, and pentoxifylline for intermittent claudication due to peripheral arterial disease (PAD) in adults whose symptoms continue despite a period of conventional management. A Markov decision model was developed to assess the lifetime costs and benefits of each vasoactive drug compared to no vasoactive drug and with each other. Regression analysis was undertaken to model the relationship between maximum walking distance and utility. Resource use data were sourced from the literature and sensitivity analyses were undertaken. Naftidrofuryl oxalate is more effective and less costly than cilostazol and pentoxifylline and has an estimated cost per quality-adjusted life year gained of around £6070 compared to no vasoactive drug. The analysis uses effectiveness evidence from a network meta-analysis. In contrast to previous guidelines recommending cilostazol, the analysis suggests that naftidrofuryl oxalate is the only vasoactive drug for PAD which is likely to be cost-effective.

A systematic review and economic evaluation of cilostazol, naftidrofuryl oxalate, pentoxifylline and inositol nicotinate for the treatment of intermittent claudication in people with peripheral arterial disease.

BACKGROUND: Peripheral arterial disease (PAD) is a condition in which there is blockage or narrowing of the arteries that carry blood to the legs and arms. It is estimated to affect around 4.5% of people aged between 55 and 74 years within the UK. The most common symptom of PAD is intermittent claudication (IC), characterised by pain in the legs on walking that is relieved with rest. OBJECTIVE: To assess the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of cilostazol, naftidrofuryl oxalate, pentoxifylline and inositol nicotinate, compared with no vasoactive drugs, for IC due to PAD in adults whose symptoms continue despite a period of conventional management. DATA SOURCE: Electronic bibliographic databases were searched during April to June 2010 (MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, EMBASE, The Cochrane Library databases, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Web of Science, Conference Proceedings Citation Index, BIOSIS Previews). REVIEW METHODS: Effectiveness outcomes sought were maximal walking distance (MWD), pain-free walking distance (PFWD), ankle-brachial pressure index, cardiovascular events, mortality, adverse events (AEs) and health-related quality of life (HRQoL). A narrative synthesis was provided for all outcomes and a network meta-analysis was undertaken for the walking distance outcomes. A Markov model was developed to assess the relative cost-effectiveness of the interventions from a NHS perspective over a lifetime. The model has three states: vasoactive drug treatment, no vasoactive drug treatment and death. Each 1-week cycle, patients may continue with the drug, discontinue the drug or die. Regression analysis was undertaken to model the relationship between MWD and utility so that a cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) outcome measure could be presented. Univariate and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were undertaken. All costs and outcomes were discounted at 3.5%. RESULTS: Twenty-six randomised controlled trials were identified that met the inclusion criteria for the clinical effectiveness review. There was evidence that walking distance outcomes were significantly improved by both cilostazol and naftidrofuryl oxalate; the 95% credible intervals for the difference from placebo in the logarithm mean change MWD from baseline were 0.108 to 0.337 and 0.181 to 0.762, respectively. It was not possible to include inositol nicotinate within the meta-analysis of MWD and PFWD owing to the lack of 24-month data; however, the shorter-term data did not suggest a significant effect. AEs were minor for all drugs and included headaches and gastrointestinal difficulties. The incidence of serious adverse events (SAEs), including cardiovascular events and mortality, was not increased by the vasoactive drugs compared with placebo; however, most studies had a relatively short follow-up time to address this outcome. HRQoL data were limited. Two studies of limited quality were identified within the review of cost-effectiveness. The de novo model developed suggests that naftidrofuryl oxalate dominates cilostazol and pentoxifylline and has a cost per QALY gained of around £6070 compared with no vasoactive drug. This result is reasonably robust to changes within the key model assumptions. Inositol nicotinate was not included within the main analysis owing to lack of data. However, it is unlikely to be considered to be cost-effective due to its high acquisition cost (£900 vs £100-500 per year for the other drugs). CONCLUSIONS: Naftidrofuryl oxalate and cilostazol both appear to be effective treatments for this patient population, with minimal SAEs. However, naftidrofuryl oxalate is the only treatment that is likely to be considered cost-effective. The long-term effectiveness is uncertain and hence a trial comparing cilostazol, naftidrofuryl oxalate and placebo beyond 24 weeks would be beneficial. Outcomes associated with naftidrofuryl oxalate could also be compared with those associated with supervised exercise programmes and angioplasty.

Cost effectiveness of cilostazol compared with naftidrofuryl and pentoxifylline in the treatment of intermittent claudication in the UK.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the cost effectiveness of cilostazol (Pletal) compared to naftidrofuryl and pentoxifylline (Trental) in the treatment of intermittent claudication in the UK. DESIGN AND SETTING: This was a modelling study on the management of patients with intermittent claudication who are 40 years of age or above and have at least six months history of symptomatic intermittent claudication, secondary to lower extremity arterial occlusive disease. The study was performed from the perspective of the UK's National Health Service (NHS). METHODS: Clinical outcomes attributable to managing intermittent claudication were obtained from the published literature and resource utilisation estimates were derived from a panel of vascular surgeons. Using decision analytical techniques, a decision model was constructed depicting the management of intermittent claudication with cilostazol, naftidrofuryl and pentoxifylline over 24 weeks in the UK. The model was used to estimate the cost effectiveness (at 2002/2003 prices) of cilostazol relative to the other treatments. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES AND RESULTS: Starting treatment with cilostazol instead of naftidrofuryl is expected to increase the percentage improvement in maximal walking distance by 32% (from 57% to 75%) for a 12% increase in NHS costs (from 801 pounds sterling to 895 pounds sterling). Treatment with cilostazol instead of pentoxifylline is expected to increase the percentage improvement in maximal walking distance by 67% (from 45% to 75%) and reduce NHS costs by 2% (from 917 pounds sterling to 895 pounds sterling). Treatment with naftidrofuryl instead of pentoxifylline is expected to increase the percentage improvement in maximal walking distance by 27% (from 45% to 57%) and decrease NHS costs by 14% (from 917 pounds sterling to 801 pounds sterling). CONCLUSION: Within the limitations of our model, starting treatment with cilostazol is expected to be a clinically more effective strategy for improving maximal walking distance at 24 weeks than starting treatment with naftidrofuryl or pentoxifylline and potentially the most cost effective strategy. Moreover, the acquisition cost of a drug should not be used as an indication of the cost effectiveness of a given method of care.

Economic evaluation of drugs in peripheral vascular disease and stroke.

Increased pressures on health-care budgets mean that governments require good value for money from the resources devoted to health care. In many countries, measures have been introduced to increase efficiency or to contain health-care costs. These include price controls, limitations on reimbursement of health technologies, budgetary reform in health-care institutions, and the encouragement of competition. Given this changing environment, it is important that drugs and other health technologies be shown to give good value for money. The methods of economic evaluation, such as cost-benefit and cost-effectiveness analysis, can be used to assess the value of drugs and other health technologies. They have been widely applied. The economic evaluation of drugs in peripheral vascular disease and stroke would compare the cost of adding the drug with its benefits. These would include improvements in length and quality of life and the savings in treating vascular events that may be postponed, or lessened in intensity, by effective drug therapy. One study, following a clinical trial of naftidrofuryl in stroke, suggested that there would be significant reductions in costs through reductions in hospital stay if recovery was aided. Further research and a large multicenter trial are under way to confirm these findings. In peripheral artery disease there are no economic data collected alongside clinical trials. It is known, however, that the costs of leg ischemia can be significant. A study in the U.K. found that arterial construction would cost around pounds 7,750 per person (1989 prices) and amputation around pounds 11,000 per person.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)