Cost-effectiveness analysis of ocriplasmin versus watchful waiting for treatment of symptomatic vitreomacular adhesion in the US.

Aim: Evaluate the cost-effectiveness of ocriplasmin in symptomatic vitreomacular adhesion (VMA) with or without full-thickness macular hole ≤400 µm versus standard of care. Methods: A state-transition model simulated a cohort through disease health states; assignment of utilities to health states reflected the distribution of visual acuity. Efficacy of ocriplasmin was derived from logistic regression models using Ocriplasmin for Treatment for Symptomatic Vitreomacular Adhesion Including Macular Hole trial data. Model inputs were extracted from Phase III trials and published literature. The analysis was conducted from a US Medicare perspective. Results: Lifetime incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was US$4887 per quality-adjusted life year gained in the total population, US$4255 and US$10,167 in VMA subgroups without and with full-thickness macular hole, respectively. Conclusion: Ocriplasmin was cost effective compared with standard of care in symptomatic VMA.

Updated Cost-Effectiveness of Intravitreal Ocriplasmin for Vitreomacular Adhesion and Macular Hole.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study is to provide an updated assessment of cost-efficacy of intravitreal ocriplasmin (IVO) for vitreomacular adhesion (VMA) and macular holes (MH). PATIENTS AND METHODS: This was a single-center, multiple-physician, institutional review board-approved, retrospective, 15-month cost-effectiveness analysis study (January 2015 to April 2016). Clinical charts and billing records of 247 patients with VMA and MH were reviewed. Patients were divided into group 1 (VMA and MH treated by pars plana vitrectomy [PPV]), group 2 (VMA and MH treated by IVO), and group 3 (VMA treated by IVO). Success rates of interventions in each group were compared, including cost-effectiveness, cost per line-year, and cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). RESULTS: Success rates for initial intervention were 98% in group 1, 55.6% in group 2, and 67.7% in group 3. Cost of PPV at our institution was $6,538.00 and cost of IVO (2016) was $3,480.00. Using a cohort-based computer Markov model, the treatment decision tree demonstrated group 1 was less cost-effective, with cost per line of $2,654.39, cost per line-year saved of $185.62, and cost per QALY of $6,187.00. Group 2 was cost-effective with cost per line of $2,456.25, cost per line-year saved of $171.77, and cost per QALY of $5,726.00. The difference in cost-effectiveness showed IVO was more cost-effective than PPV, with a difference in cost per line of $198.14, cost per line-year saved of $13.85, and cost per QALY of $461.00. CONCLUSIONS: IVO is a more cost-effective intervention than vitrectomy for the treatment of VMA and MH in the setting of judicious use in appropriate patients. The success rate of IVO in our patient population was greater than currently published rates and most certainly impacted probability of cost-efficacy. Further research targeting optimizing IVO success rate is needed. [Ophthalmic Surg Lasers Imaging Retina. 2018;49:e240-e248.].

[Alternatives to heparin and protamine anticoagulation for cardiopulmonary bypass in cardiac surgery]. / Les différentes alternatives d'anticoagulation au couple héparine/protamine en chirurgie cardiaque sous circulation extra-corporelle.

PURPOSE: Heparin anticoagulation followed by protamine reversal is commonly used in cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) cardiac procedures, but this strategy has some limitations. The primary objective of this study was to determine the reliable alternatives for anticoagulation during CPB for cardiac surgery. For each drug proposed, the secondary objectives were to outline the main advantages and disadvantages, to propose a therapeutic protocol, and to provide a cost-benefit analysis. SOURCE: A systematic review of the literature was performed between September 2012 and December 2013. It was based on the protocol established by the "Cochrane collaboration Handbook". Twenty articles were analyzed. The Thériaque database from the University Hospital of Grenoble made the economic analysis possible. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Seven alternative anticoagulation strategies were considered: danaparoid sodium, lepirudin, argatroban, bivalirudin, ancrod, idraparinux, and EP217609. Danaparoid sodium has issues with individual variability. Several studies (EVOLUTION-ON, CHOOSE-ON) proposed a reliable therapeutic protocol for bivalirudin. Ancrod resulted in an increase in the transfusion of blood products. Direct thrombin inhibitors offer a promising alternative. EP217609 is a synthetic anticoagulant currently undergoing Phase IIa clinical trials. It is an indirect inhibitor of factor Xa, a direct inhibitor of free and bound thrombin, and can be neutralized by avidin. CONCLUSIONS: The ideal anticoagulation strategy for cardiac surgery with CPB does not exist. Heparin and protamine remain the gold standard for anticoagulation therapy. To date, bivalirudin is the most promising molecule despite its high cost and lack of a readily available antagonist.

Bivalirudin: a pharmacoeconomic profile of its use in patients with acute coronary syndromes.

Bivalirudin (Angiox®; Angiomax®), a direct thrombin inhibitor, is an intravenous anticoagulant. The efficacy of bivalirudin in the management of patients with non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndromes (NSTE-ACS) or ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) planned for invasive interventions has been shown in large, pivotal, open-label trials. Bivalirudin provided similar ischaemic protection to heparin plus a glycoprotein (GP) IIb/IIIa inhibitor, but with a significant reduction in bleeding events, in patients with NSTE-ACS planned for urgent or early intervention and those with STEMI planned for primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Mortality rates were also significantly lower in patients with STEMI receiving bivalirudin than in those receiving heparin plus a GP IIb/IIIa inhibitor in the key trial of patients with STEMI. Based on this clinical data, modelled cost-utility analyses from the perspective of various UK NHS providers have predicted that bivalirudin would be highly likely to be cost effective with regard to the cost per QALY gained relative to a heparin plus GP IIb/IIIa inhibitor-based strategy over a lifetime horizon in these patient populations. In patients with NSTE-ACS planned for urgent or early invasive intervention, a bivalirudin-based strategy was considered to be cost effective in the UK, Scotland and Wales. In patients with STEMI planned for primary PCI, a bivalirudin-based strategy was dominant in the UK and Scotland. Parallel and sensitivity analyses demonstrated that base-case conclusions were robust over a range of plausible changes in parameter estimates and assumptions, including changes made to more closely reflect current local clinical practice. In addition, budgetary impact analyses in several countries suggested that the implementation of a bivalirudin-based strategy, instead of a heparin plus GP IIb/IIIa inhibitor-based strategy, would be cost saving from a hospital perspective in patients with NSTE-ACS undergoing urgent or early PCI, as well as in patients with STEMI undergoing primary PCI. Likewise, prospective and retrospective treatment cost studies in the US indicated that treatment with bivalirudin was less costly than treatment with heparin plus a GP IIb/IIIa inhibitor in these indications. In conclusion, available pharmacoeconomic data from several countries, despite some inherent limitations, support the use of strategies based on bivalirudin over those based on heparin plus a GP IIb/IIIa inhibitor in patients with NSTE-ACS planned for urgent or early invasive intervention or STEMI planned for primary PCI. These pharmacoeconomic advantages primarily reflect that, relative to heparin plus a GP IIb/IIIa inhibitor, bivalirudin is associated with lower rates of bleeding over the short term, and is associated with lower rates of early mortality that are subsequently maintained over the longer term in patients with STEMI.

Economic impact of switching to bivalirudin for a primary percutaneous coronary intervention in a US hospital.

BACKGROUND: The addition of glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors (GPIs) to heparin in percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) procedures has been demonstrated to reduce ischemic complications; however, GPI use is known to increase the risk of bleeding events, which are linked to increased mortality, longer hospital length of stay, greater medical resource utilization, and increased costs. New antithrombotic therapies have the potential to improve clinical outcomes and decrease costs. The Harmonizing Outcomes with Revascularization and Stents in Acute Myocardial Infarction (HORIZONS-AMI) study of bivalirudin demonstrated significantly reduced clinical event rates (mortality and bleeding) compared with an unfractionated heparin (UFH)+GPI regimen. OBJECTIVE: The potential clinical and economic value of implementing a bivalirudin-based strategy for ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) patients receiving primary PCI (PPCI) is compared with current UFH+GPI-based practice from a US hospital perspective. METHODS: A budget impact model was developed to compare treatment of STEMI patients undergoing PPCI with a bivalirudin- or UFH+GPI-based strategy. Clinical data for the model were derived from the HORIZONS-AMI trial, and included 30-day event rates for major complications (eg, protocol bleeding, Q-wave MI, repeat PCI, and coronary artery bypass graft procedures). United States cost data and clinical practice data were derived from a Premier Perspective™ database analysis and published sources. RESULTS: Overall, average procedure costs per UFH+GPI-treated patient were $18,561. Treating patients with bivalirudin (incorporating 7.2% provisional GPI use per HORIZONS-AMI) may save $1690 per patient (average procedural cost, $16,872). In extrapolating these benefits to the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association recommended institutional minimum of 36 PPCIs annually, 1 major bleeding event (3.7%) and 3 minor bleeding events (6.8%) could be averted with use of bivalirudin. In addition, introducing a bivalirudin-based strategy to treat a minimum cohort of 36 STEMI patients would save the hospital budget $60,807 (9%) per year. CONCLUSION: Using a bivalirudin-based strategy in STEMI patients undergoing PPCI is associated with favorable clinical and economic outcomes when compared with an UFH+GPI-based strategy in a US hospital setting.

[Clinical and economical evaluation of bivalirudin during percutaneous coronary interventions]. / Evaluations clinique et économique de la bivalirudine au cours des procédures d'angioplasties coronaires.

Bivalirudin, with provisional GP IIb/IIIa inhibitor use allows the same protection against ischemic complications while reducing the hemorrhagic complications compared with the systematic association of a GP IIb/IIIa inhibitor plus heparin (The Randomized Evaluation in PCI Linking Angiomax to Reduced Clinical Events-2 [Replace-2]). In clinical practice, the use of heparin is not systematically associated with a GP IIb/IIIa inhibitor. That's why we studied the clinical and economic interest of bivalirudin only versus heparin (UFH) only. Opened pragmatic monocentric study carried out in 2007. We made a chronological matching: for each patient treated with bivalirudin, we included the next patient with the same clinical presentation treated with unfractionated heparin. Ninety-two patients were included (46 in each group). The need for a GP IIb/IIIa inhibitor during the PCI was not significantly different between the two groups (p=0.11). No major hemorrhagic complications were observed in the two groups. Prevalence of ecchymosis was not significantly different: 22 % in the UFH group versus 13 % in the bivalirudin group (p=0.27). The average troponin level the next day was significantly higher in the bivalirudin group (p=0,049), although the change in troponin levels before and after the procedure was similar in the two groups. The average cost by patient of anticoagulation by bivalirudin and HNF is very different, respectively 473+/-150 and 51+/-146 euro (p=0.0001). Bivalirudin can be an interesting alternative for patients with a high risk of having complications. But considering its cost this therapy must be used only for selected patients.

Economic evaluation of bivalirudin with or without glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibition versus heparin with routine glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibition for early invasive management of acute coronary syndromes.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to determine the economic impact of several anticoagulation strategies for moderate- and high-risk non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome (NSTE-ACS) patients managed invasively. BACKGROUND: The ACUITY (Acute Catheterization and Urgent Intervention Triage Strategy) trial demonstrated that bivalirudin monotherapy yields similar rates of ischemic complications and less bleeding than regimens incorporating glycoprotein IIb/IIIa receptor inhibitors (GPI) for moderate- and high-risk NSTE-ACS. METHODS: In ACUITY, 7,851 U.S. patients were randomized to: 1) heparin (unfractionated or enoxaparin) + GPI; 2) bivalirudin + GPI; or 3) bivalirudin monotherapy. Patients assigned to GPI were also randomized to upstream GPI before catheterization or selective GPI only with percutaneous coronary intervention. Resource use data were collected prospectively through 30-day follow-up. Costs were estimated with standard methods including resource-based accounting, hospital billing data, and the Medicare fee schedule. RESULTS: At 30 days, ischemic events were similar for all groups. Major bleeding was reduced with bivalirudin monotherapy compared with heparin + GPI or bivalirudin + GPI (p < 0.001). Length of stay was lowest with bivalirudin monotherapy or bivalirudin + catheterization laboratory GPI (p = 0.02). Despite higher drug costs, aggregate hospital stay costs were lowest with bivalirudin monotherapy (mean difference range: $184 to $1,081, p < 0.001 for overall comparison) and at 30 days (mean difference range: $123 to $938, p = 0.005). Regression modeling demonstrated that hospital savings were primarily due to less major and minor bleeding with bivalirudin ($8,658/event and $2,282/event, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Among U.S. patients in the ACUITY trial, bivalirudin monotherapy compared with heparin + GPI resulted in similar protection from ischemic events, reduced bleeding, and shorter length of stay. Despite higher drug costs, aggregate hospital and 30-day costs were lowest with bivalirudin monotherapy. Thus bivalirudin monotherapy seems to be an economically attractive alternative to heparin + GPI for patients with moderate- and high-risk NSTE-ACS. (Comparison of Angiomax Versus Heparin in Acute Coronary Syndromes [ACS]; NCT00093158).

Bivalirudin versus heparin plus glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors in drug-eluting stent implantations in the absence of acute myocardial infarction: clinical and economic results.

BACKGROUND: The use of bivalirudin in percutaneous coronary interventions has been shown to be clinically safe and effective, and may be associated with shorter hospital stays and lower costs than heparin + glycoprotein (GP) IIb/IIIa inhibition. This study compared the utilization, clinical outcomes and costs associated with the planned use of bivalirudin versus heparin + GP IIb/IIIa inhibition in drug-eluting stent (DES) patients without acute myocardial infarction (MI). METHODS: We retrospectively studied 1,842 patients who underwent DES placement between May 2003 and December 2004. Planned treatment with heparin + GP IIb/IIIa inhibition was administered to 1,305 and planned bivalirudin alone was administered to 537 patients. Clinical follow ups (mean = 782 +/- 204 days) were obtained via telephone or mailed surveys in 1,813 patients (98.4%). Propensity analysis was utilized to adjust for between-groups baseline differences. RESULTS: The unadjusted data revealed similar in-hospital outcomes in both groups. After propensity adjustment, the rate of vascular complications was significantly lower in the bivalirudin-treated group (0.2% vs. 1.2%; p = 0.04). At 1 year, clinical outcomes were similar in both groups. The overall unadjusted and adjusted cost analysis revealed similar mean hospital costs (11,384 U.S. dollars vs. 11,018 U.S. dollars; p = ns) and length of stay (2.9 days vs. 2.8 days; p = ns) in both groups. The unadjusted and adjusted mean hospital costs were significantly lower in patients treated with bivalirudin versus patients who received heparin + abciximab. CONCLUSIONS: These observations suggest that bivalirudin is a safe, cost-effective alternative to heparin + GP IIb/IIIa inhibition in patients undergoing DES in the absence of acute MI.

Focus on thrombin: alternative anticoagulants.

Unfractionated heparin and protamine have been integral to cardiopulmonary bypass since cardiac surgery was first undertaken. These drugs are inexpensive and well understood but are contraindicated in some individuals, and resistance to heparin can be problematic in others. The interplay between the endothelium, anticoagulants, the coagulation cascade, and the inflammatory response that characterizes cardiac surgery may contribute to some of the complications associated with cardiopulmonary bypass. Various alternative drugs and strategies have been used to manage patients unsuitable for heparin or protamine, but each has its own disadvantages. At present, direct thrombin inhibitors may offer the best available alternative to heparin in cardiac surgery, particularly the short-acting bivalirudin, but this class of anticoagulants is relatively expensive and has no reversal agent. Balanced anticoagulation using combinations of drugs that act at different stages in the coagulation system may improve the management of coagulation in cardiac surgery, but careful investigation of this concept is needed.

Outcomes of patients with acute coronary syndromes who are treated with bivalirudin during percutaneous coronary intervention: an analysis from the Randomized Evaluation in PCI Linking Angiomax to Reduced Clinical Events (REPLACE-2) trial.

BACKGROUND: The REPLACE-2 trial demonstrated that bivalirudin with provisional glycoprotein IIb/IIIa (GPIIb/IIIa) inhibition is not inferior to heparin plus GPIIb/IIIa inhibition in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. The extent to which this applies to patients with acute coronary syndromes (ACS) is unclear. Therefore, we sought to determine if bivalirudin has similar efficacy in ACS patients as compared with "stable" patients in the REPLACE-2 trial. METHODS: We analyzed the outcomes of ACS patients compared with stable patients and the outcomes of ACS patients according to whether or not they had received bivalirudin, including the economic costs. The trial enrolled 1351 ACS patients (myocardial infarction within 7 days or unstable angina within 48 hours, but not on ongoing GPIIb/IIIa or heparin therapy) and 4554 stable patients. RESULTS: Patients with ACS had a similar rate of death or myocardial infarction at 30 days compared to stable patients (7.2% vs 6.7%, P = .51) and death at 1 year (1.6% vs 2.2%, P = .169), but a higher rate of urgent coronary artery bypass graft at 30 days (1.0% vs 0.3%, P = .002). Patients with ACS treated with bivalirudin had a similar rate of 30-day death, myocardial infarction, or urgent revascularization compared with ACS patients treated with heparin and GPIIb/IIIa inhibitors (8.7% vs 8.0%, P = .616) and death at 1 year (1.5% vs 1.8%, P = .701), but a higher rate of revascularization at 6 months (12% vs 8.4%, P = .04). Patients with ACS treated with bivalirudin had less major bleeding than ACS patients treated with heparin and GPIIb/IIIa inhibitors, although this was not statistically significant (2.7% vs 4.5%, P = .07). Mean 30-day costs for patients with ACS were dollar 12415 for those treated with bivalirudin and dollar 12806 for those treated with heparin plus GPIIb/IIIa inhibitors (P = .022). CONCLUSION: Bivalirudin with provisional GPIIb/IIIa inhibitor use in low-risk ACS patients (not receiving preprocedural GPIIb/IIIa blockade) appears to provide similar protection against death and myocardial infarction as the combination of heparin and GPIIb/IIIa inhibitors, although we observed a higher rate of revascularization at 6 months.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of antithrombotic therapy in nonurgent percutaneous coronary intervention.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To perform a cost-effectiveness analysis comparing three treatment approaches during nonurgent percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI): bivalirudin with provisional glycoprotein (GP) IIb-IIIa inhibitor therapy, unfractionated heparin (UFH) with eptifibatide, and UFH with abciximab. DESIGN: Literature-based decision model from an institutional perspective. DATA SOURCE: Patient data from the Randomized Evaluation in PCI Linking Angiomax to Reduced Clinical Events (REPLACE)-2 study and three other randomized controlled trials that included UFH and routine GP IIb-IIIa inhibitor (eptifibatide or abciximab) therapy. All included studies were comparable based on patient population, procedural techniques, and general treatment approaches. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: We included patient populations undergoing contemporary nonurgent PCI to identify probabilities of success or complications (myocardial infarction, urgent revascularization, thrombocytopenia, and major or minor bleeding at 30 days). Costs were assigned to each outcome by incorporating diagnosis-related group-- and/or Current Procedural Terminology--associated costs, institutional drug acquisition costs, and unit replacement costs of platelets and red blood cells. In the base-case analysis, the use of bivalirudin with provisional GP IIb-IIIa inhibitor therapy dominated the UFH and planned GP IIb-IIIa inhibitor approach: UFH with eptifibatide was 74 US dollars more expensive and 1.2% less effective, and UFH with abciximab was 777 US dollars more expensive and 2.3% less effective. Sensitivity analyses indicated that the model results were robust, but also revealed that bivalirudin lost its cost-effectiveness, resulting in UFH with eptifibatide becoming more cost-effective, when two or more vials of bivalirudin were necessary in greater than 27% of cases or when the use of provisional GP IIb-IIIa inhibitor therapy exceeded 20%. CONCLUSION: This analysis indicates that bivalirudin with provisional GP IIb-IIIa inhibitor therapy is the most cost-effective antithrombotic treatment strategy in nonurgent PCI when its use and dosing are consistent with the REPLACE-2 trial.

Economic implications of bivalirudin in the cardiac catheterization laboratory.

More than 1.2 million percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) procedures are performed each year in the United States, with average hospital costs of more than $10,000 per procedure. Despite ongoing improvements in device technology and adjunct pharmacology, both ischemic complications (eg, periprocedural myocardial infarction) and bleeding complications remain relatively common and are associated with both increased costs (in the short term) and mortality (in the longer term). Recently, the Randomized Evaluation of PCI Linking Angiomax to Reduced Clinical Events (REPLACE)-2 clinical trial demonstrated that the use of the direct thrombin inhibitor, bivalirudin, with provisional glycoprotein (GP) IIb/IIIa inhibitor for selected patients in place of a conventional anticoagulation strategy of heparin and routine use of a GP IIb/IIIa inhibitor, resulted in comparable rates of ischemic complications and a significant reduction in the frequency of both major and minor bleeding complications. A prospectively designed economic analysis was performed using data from 4651 US patients who participated in REPLACE-2. In this analysis, patients who were assigned to the bivalirudin and provisional GP IIb/IIIa inhibitor strategy had anticoagulation costs during PCI that were approximately $400 per patient lower than those with heparin plus routine GP IIb/IIIa inhibition. Bivalirudin also produced corresponding decreases in total in-hospital costs and aggregate 30-day medical care costs. These cost savings derived both from the lower acquisition cost of the antithrombotic therapy and the reduced rate of bleeding complications, which accounted for approximately 20% of the cost offsets. These results suggest that for patients similar to those studied in REPLACE-2 (ie, low to moderate risk PCI procedures), use of bivalirudin and provisional GP IIb/IIIa inhibition compared with heparin and routine GP IIb/IIIa inhibition can result in similar rates of ischemic complications, reduced bleeding, and substantial cost savings to both hospitals and the healthcare system. Whether these benefits can be extended to higher risk patient subsets including patients with non-ST elevation or ST elevation myocardial infarction is currently under investigation.

Comparative cost-effectiveness of anticoagulation with bivalirudin or heparin with and without a glycoprotein IIb/IIIa-receptor inhibitor in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention in Sweden: a decision-analytic model.

OBJECTIVE: This study modeled the comparative costs and effectiveness of anticoagulation with bivalirudin alone, heparin alone, and heparin combined with a glycoprotein IIb/IIIa-receptor inhibitor (GPI) in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in Sweden. METHODS: GPIs are prescribed for -40% to 50% of patients undergoing PCI in Sweden. However, because treatment practices vary between hospitals, the model analyzed a cohort in which different proportions of patients (0%-100%) would receive a GPI in addition to heparin and the remaining patients would receive heparin monotherapy. This mixed cohort was compared with a cohort treated with bivalirudin. Abciximab was used as the GPI comparator, as this is the only GPI currently approved in Sweden for patients undergoing PCI. Pooled data from 3 studies (REPLACE-2 [second Randomized Evaluation of PCI Linking Angiomax to Reduced Clinical Events], ESPRIT [European/Australasian Stroke Prevention in Reversible Ischaemia Trial], and EPISTENT [Evaluation of Platelet IIb/IIIa Inhibitor for Stenting]) were used as the source for the probabilities of myocardial infarction (MI), urgent revascularization (UR), major and minor bleeding (Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction study definitions), and death. Treatment costs associated with these complications were obtained from 4 Swedish hospitals, and official drug prices were obtained from the Swedish Pharmacopoeia. All costs were presented in 2006 Swedish kronor (SEK). The model was evaluated over a 30-day time frame from the perspective of a Swedish hospital. The modeled patient population was 63 years old, weighed 78 kg, and was 75% male. RESULTS: Compared with a pattern in which heparin plus a GPI was used in 50% of all PCIs and heparin alone was used in the remaining 50%, bivalirudin treatment was associated with a significant reduction in all complications in the model (P < 0.05), including a mean of 18.2 fewer MIs, 1.6 fewer URs, 15.3 fewer bleeding events, and 1.3 fewer deaths per 1000 treated patients. Bivalirudin therapy also was associated with a significant reduction in total drug and health care costs per patient (SEK -1301; 95% Cl, -1367 to -1229). The benefit of bivalirudin was sensitive to the rate of GPI use: additional reductions in rates of MI, UR, and death were seen at lower rates of GPI use, and additional reductions in rates of bleeding and costs of drugs and health care utilization were seen at higher rates of GPI use. CONCLUSIONS: In this model, anticoagulation with bivalirudin in patients undergoing PCI was cost-effective compared with heparin alone and heparin plus a GPI. In a hypothetical Swedish hospital unit using equal proportions of heparin alone and heparin plus a GPI, a switch to bivalirudin would reduce the risk of both ischemic events and bleeding events, resulting in savings in total drug and health care costs.

Adoption of Angiomax at Christus Santa Rosa Medical Center decreases costs and increases satisfaction.

Angiomax allows for easier post-percutaneous coronary intervention care and enhanced throughput and has become the gold standard of care in our institution. This article describes how Angiomax was brought into our hospital; the rationale and science to support its use; and the resulting patient and staff satisfaction, improved throughput, and cost savings.

Bivalirudin: a review of its use in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention.

Bivalirudin (Angiox, Angiomax) is a synthetic 20-amino acid peptide analogue of hirudin. It is a direct thrombin inhibitor that binds specifically and reversibly to both fibrin-bound and unbound thrombin. Intravenous bivalirudin is approved in Europe for use as an anticoagulant in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). In the US, bivalirudin is approved in patients with unstable angina pectoris undergoing percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty (PTCA) and has recently been approved for use with provisional glycoprotein (GP) IIb/IIIa inhibition in patients undergoing PCI. Bivalirudin plus provisional GP IIb/IIIa inhibition is effective in patients undergoing PCI. The large, well controlled REPLACE-2 (Randomized Evaluation in PCI Linking Angiomax to Reduced Clinical Events) study showed that bivalirudin plus provisional GP IIb/IIIa inhibition was noninferior to heparin plus planned GP IIb/IIIa inhibition and that bivalirudin was associated with a reduced risk of bleeding complications. In patients with heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT), bivalirudin was effective against ischaemic events and there was a low incidence of bleeding complications. Bivalirudin should be considered as an alternative to heparin plus planned GP IIb/IIIa inhibition in any patient undergoing urgent or elective PCI, especially in any patient with a high risk of bleeding complications.

Economic evaluation of bivalirudin with provisional glycoprotein IIB/IIIA inhibition versus heparin with routine glycoprotein IIB/IIIA inhibition for percutaneous coronary intervention: results from the REPLACE-2 trial.

OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to compare the cost of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) using bivalirudin with provisional platelet glycoprotein (GP) IIb/IIIa inhibition with that of heparin + routine GP IIb/IIIa inhibition. BACKGROUND: Although GP IIb/IIIa inhibition has been shown to reduce ischemic complications in a broad range of patients undergoing PCI, many patients currently do not receive such therapy because of concerns about bleeding complications or cost. Recently, bivalirudin with provisional GP IIb/IIIa inhibition has been validated as an alternative to heparin + routine GP IIb/IIIa inhibition for patients undergoing PCI. However, the cost-effectiveness of this novel strategy is unknown. METHODS: In the Randomized Evaluation in PCI Linking Angiomax to Reduced Clinical Events (REPLACE)-2 trial, 4,651 U.S. patients undergoing non-emergent PCI were randomized to receive bivalirudin with provisional GP IIb/IIIa (n = 2,319) versus heparin + routine GP IIb/IIIa (n = 2,332). Resource utilization data were collected prospectively through 30-day follow-up on all U.S. patients. Medical care costs were estimated using standard methods including bottom-up accounting (for procedural costs), the Medicare fee schedule (for physician services), hospital billing data (for 2,821 of 4,862 admissions), and regression-based approaches for the remaining hospitalizations. RESULTS: Among the bivalirudin group, 7.7% required provisional GP IIb/IIIa. Thirty-day ischemic outcomes including death or myocardial infarction were similar for the bivalirudin and GP IIb/IIIa groups, but bivalirudin resulted in lower rates of major bleeding (2.8% vs. 4.5%, p = 0.002) and minor bleeding (15.1% vs. 28.1%, p < 0.001). Compared with routine GP IIb/IIIa, in-hospital and 30-day costs were reduced by $405 (95% confidence interval [CI] $37 to $773) and $374 (95% CI $61 to $688) per patient with bivalirudin (p < 0.001 for both). Regression modeling demonstrated that, in addition to the costs of the anticoagulants themselves, hospital savings were due primarily to reductions in major bleeding (cost savings = $107/patient), minor bleeding ($52/patient), and thrombocytopenia ($47/patient). CONCLUSIONS: Compared with heparin + routine GP IIb/IIIa inhibition, bivalirudin + provisional GP IIb/IIIa inhibition resulted in similar acute ischemic events and cost savings of $375 to $400/patient depending on the analytic perspective.

A practical cost analysis of bivalirudin.

Despite advances in percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) techniques and adjunctive therapies, the risks of ischemic and bleeding complications with PCI remain significant. These complications are associated with significant morbidity and mortality, as well as substantially higher costs. Bivalirudin is the only antithrombotic agent that has been shown to reduce both ischemic and hemorrhagic complications associated with PCI. Cost models drawn from the results of three clinical trials of bivalirudin have estimated its potential impact on total medical costs. In addition, the number needed to treat to avoid a bleeding complication has been calculated based on patients shown to have a heightened risk of bleeding in the Bivalirudin Angioplasty Trial. In all models assessed, the use of bivalirudin offset most of its own cost through reductions in bleeding and ischemic complications.

Bivalirudin: a direct thrombin inhibitor.

BACKGROUND: Studies of the anticoagulant effects of hirudin, which is derived from the saliva of the leech Hirudo medicinalis, led to the development of compounds that can directly inhibit thrombin activity without the need for additional cofactors. One of these is the direct thrombin inhibitor bivalirudin, which has recently been approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for use as an anticoagulant in patients with unstable angina undergoing percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty. OBJECTIVE: This is a review of the pharmacologic properties, efficacy, tolerability, and potential cost-effectiveness of bivalirudin in the treatment of ischemic coronary syndromes. METHODS: Articles were identified by searches of MEDLINE (1966-September 2001), International Pharmaceutical Abstracts (1970-September 2001), and the Iowa Drug Information Service (1966-September 2001) using the terms bivalirudin and Hirulog. The reference lists of retrieved articles were also reviewed for relevant articles. RESULTS: Bivalirudin is a synthetic polypeptide that directly inhibits thrombin by binding simultaneously to its active catalytic site and its substrate recognition site. After intravenous administration, peak plasma concentrations occur in 2 minutes. In patients given a 1.0-mg/kg bolus followed by a 2.5-mg/kg per hour infusion, a median activated clotting time of 346 seconds is achieved with little interpatient or intrapatient variability. Clearance of bivalirudin occurs through a combination of renal elimination and proteolytic cleavage, and doses may need to be decreased in the presence of renal dysfunction. In patients undergoing percutaneous coronary interventions, bivalirudin has been associated with equivalent efficacy but lower bleeding rates (P < 0.001) than unfractionated heparin (UFH). Data from the Hirulog Early Reperfusion/Occlusion-2 study suggest no reduction in mortality with bivalirudin compared with heparin when either is added to aspirin and streptokinase in patients with acute myocardial infarction, despite a lower reinfarction rate (P < 0.001). Experience with bivalirudin in patients with unstable angina and heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT), as well as in patients receiving glycoprotein IIb/IIIla inhibitors, is limited. The differences in bleeding rates between bivalirudin and heparin in published clinical trials probably reflect differences in levels of anticoagulation achieved in comparator groups. CONCLUSIONS: Given its high cost, bivalirudin should be reserved for use as an alternative to UFH, primarily in patients with HIT, until clinical trials have more clearly demonstrated its benefits in terms of efficacy or safety.