Ranolazine for the symptomatic treatment of patients with chronic angina pectoris in Greece: a cost-utility study.

BACKGROUND: To conduct an economic evaluation comparing ranolazine as add-on therapy to standard-of-care (SoC) with SoC alone in patients with stable angina who did not respond adequately to first line therapy, in Greece. METHODS: A decision tree model was locally adapted in the Greek setting to evaluate the cost-utility of ranolazine during a 6-month period. The analysis was conducted from a third-party payer perspective. The clinical inputs were extracted from the published literature. The cost inputs considered in the model reflect drug acquisition, hospitalizations, vascular interventions and monitoring of patients. The resource utilization data were obtained from 3 local experts. All costs refer to the year 2014. Cost-effectiveness was assessed by means of the incremental cost per quality adjusted life year (QALY) gained with the ranolazine as add-on therapy relative to SoC alone (ICER). Probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) was performed. RESULTS: Ranolazine as add-on therapy was more costly compared to SoC alone, as the 6-month total cost per patient was €1170 and € 984, respectively. Patients received ranolazine plus SoC and SoC alone gained 0.3155 QALYs and 0.2752 QALYs, respectively. Ranolazine plus SoC resulted in an ICER equal to €4620 per QALY gained, well below the threshold of €34,000 per QALY gained. The PSA showed that the likelihood of ranolazine plus SoC being cost-effective at the threshold of €34,000 per QALY gained was 100 %. CONCLUSIONS: Τhe results suggest that ranolazine as add-on treatment may be a cost-effective alternative for the symptomatic treatment of patients with chronic stable angina in Greece.

Stent for Life Initiative--the Greek experience.

Primary percutaneous coronary intervention (p-PCI) is considered the gold standard reperfusion strategy for patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). In the last two years, the Stent for Life (SFL) Initiative has aimed at expanding the use of p-PCI in Greece and several other European countries. During this short period of time, intensive efforts towards propagating the main objectives of the programme in Greece and important actions on the organisation and activation of two p-PCI networks in Athens, the Greek capital, and Patras in south-western Greece, have led to a dramatic nationwide increase of p-PCI rates among STEMI patients (from 9% to 32%). Especially in Athens, p-PCI is implemented in almost 60% of the cases with a diagnosis of STEMI. Recent data from the Greek national registry on acute coronary syndromes underscore the need to improve p-PCI time delays which are partially attributed to inter-hospital delays from hospitals with no p-PCI facilities to p-PCI hospitals. A national public campaign for the promotion of p-PCI is progressing very fast, while specific planning for the recruitment of additional hospitals in urban and rural areas to join old, or to form new p-PCI networks is still developing.

Intra-aortic balloon counterpulsation and delayed revascularization for myocardial infarction and shock in the absence of primary angioplasty: a treatment strategy with or without thrombolysis?

OBJECTIVE: When revascularization facilities are not available, thrombolytic therapy (TT) added to intra-aortic balloon counterpulsation (IABC) has been proposed as initial therapy for the management of patients presenting with postmyocardial infarction (MI) cardiogenic shock, followed by prompt transfer to another institution for revascularization. The use of TT in this setting, however, remains controversial. METHODS: We reviewed the records of 81 consecutive patients admitted with cardiogenic shock after acute MI and compared the outcomes of patients initially stabilized, including IABC as an adjunct to TT (IABC+TT group, n=40), with those patients initially stabilized with IABC and no TT (IABC group, n=41). RESULTS: The baseline characteristics of the two study groups were similar. The in-hospital and 6-month survival rates were 47.5 and 33.3% in the IABC+TT group versus 43.9 and 31.6% in the IABC group, respectively (NS). Except for mechanical ventilation more frequently required in the IABC group, other outcome measures were similar in both groups. The in-hospital (76.5 vs. 36.5%, P=0.008) and 6-month (60 vs. 25.4%, P=0.01) survival rates were significantly higher in patients who underwent delayed invasive revascularization, than in patients who underwent no invasive revascularization attempt. CONCLUSION: In patients presenting with acute MI and cardiogenic shock, TT as an adjunct to IABC added no therapeutic benefit when compared with IABC alone. In contrast, the survival of patients was significantly increased by delayed invasive revascularization in both treatment groups. These observations suggest that, when revascularization facilities are not available, stabilization with IABC, followed by prompt transfer for delayed revascularization to a tertiary care hospital, might be the preferred management strategy for patients presenting with post-MI cardiogenic shock.