Exploring the potential cost-effectiveness of a novel platelet assay for guiding dual antiplatelet therapy duration in acute coronary syndrome patients following percutaneous coronary intervention.

OBJECTIVE: Duration of dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) influences ischemic and bleeding events. Platelet expression of constant fragment of immunoglobulin, low affinity IIa, receptor (FcγRIIa) independently predicts risk of ischemic complications and is proposed as a tool to guide individualized care. METHODS: We used a Markov model to predict lifetime ischemic and bleeding events and healthcare costs in acute myocardial infarction (MI) patients treated with PCI and DAPT and to project cost-effectiveness of platelet FcγRIIa-assay-guided care (30:3 months DAPT for patients at high: low ischemic risk) versus current standard care (12 months DAPT) from the perspective of the US healthcare system. Model inputs included assay sensitivity and specificity, ischemic and bleeding event rates, and impacts on quality of life, mortality, and costs. Assay cost was $90. Sensitivity analyses were conducted over a range of plausible clinical and cost assumptions. RESULTS: Under base case assumptions, platelet FcγRIIa-assay-guided DAPT duration was projected to increase lifetime costs by $19 versus standard care, with an associated incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $436 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. Assay-guided DAPT duration was consistent with high-value care (ICER < $50 000/QALY gained) over a broad range of alternative assumptions. CONCLUSION: Based on a decision-analytic model, for patients with MI treated with PCI, the additional costs of the platelet FcγRIIa assay for guiding DAPT duration would be largely offset by reductions in downstream event-related costs, and assay-guided care would be highly cost-effective by current standards. These findings require confirmation in prospective studies and in a randomized clinical trial of assay-guided versus nonassay-guided DAPT duration.

Weighing the potential late benefits versus early hazard associated with bioresorbable vascular scaffolds in percutaneous coronary interventions: a Markov decision analytic model.

OBJECTIVE: Use of poly-L-lactic acid-based bioresorbable scaffolds (BRS) has been associated with increased risk of device thrombosis during the first 3 years after implantation as compared to metallic everolimus-eluting stents (EES). The long-term performance of BRS relative to EES remains unknown. METHODS: We used a Markov decision analysis model to evaluate the effectiveness of BRS vs. EES over a lifetime horizon. In addition to one-way sensitivity analyses of key variables, we evaluated the impact of optimal implantation technique and limiting procedures to larger vessels (>2.6 mm in diameter) on model results. RESULTS: Assuming no risk of target lesion revascularization for BRS after 3 years, we found a small increment in quality-adjusted life expectancy (QALE) of 0.02 with the use of BRS relative to EES, with benefit being observed after 21.8 years. Optimal implantation technique and limiting to larger vessels resulted in larger gains in QALE (0.08 and 0.06, respectively) with BRS and shorter times to equipoise (6.7 and 8.3 years, respectively). Model results were highly sensitive to variations in the relative risk of stent thrombosis (BRS vs. EES). CONCLUSIONS: Based on currently available data, it would take approximately 21.8 years for the presumed late benefits of current BRS relative to EES to overcome the early hazard associated with their use under favorable assumptions. Optimal implantation technique and limiting procedures to larger vessels improved BRS performance and reduced time to equipoise. Eliminating the higher BRS thrombosis risk is necessary in developing future generations of BRS as an acceptable alternative to EES.

Cost-Effectiveness of Edoxaban vs. Warfarin in Patients with Atrial Fibrillation Based on Results of the ENGAGE AF - TIMI 48 Trial: Taiwanese Perspective.

BACKGROUND: Novel anticoagulants, such as factor Xa inhibitors, have entered clinical practice as alternatives to warfarin for the prevention of stroke and systemic embolic event (SEE) in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). It is not known whether edoxaban, the fourth-to-market factor Xa inhibitor approved for this indication, will be cost-effective in Taiwan, where the cost of warfarin monitoring is prohibitive. METHODS: A Markov model projecting lifetime results of edoxaban 60 mg/30 mg dose-reduced versus warfarin in patients with nonvalvular AF, based on the ENGAGE AF - TIMI 48 trial, found edoxaban to be of high value relative to warfarin, from the perspective of the US health care system. We applied Taiwan-specific cost inputs to this model structure to assess the relative cost-effectiveness of edoxaban versus warfarin from the perspective of the Taiwanese health care system. Event rates and hazard ratios from the ENGAGE AF - TIMI 48 East Asian subpopulation were explored in sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: Edoxaban was found to be highly cost-effective compared with warfarin, based on guidelines proposed by the World Health Organization (WHO), with a base case incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $12,902 per quality-adjusted life year gained. These results were robust to variation of key model parameters, including assumptions regarding the cost and quality-of-life impact of stroke and bleeding events, and assuming East Asian-specific (as opposed to full-trial-population) rates for combinations of ischemic stroke, SEE, and major bleeding. CONCLUSIONS: Despite its higher acquisition cost, edoxaban is an economically attractive alternative to warfarin for the prevention of stroke and SEE in patients with AF in Taiwan.

Cost-Effectiveness of Solitaire Stent Retriever Thrombectomy for Acute Ischemic Stroke: Results From the SWIFT-PRIME Trial (Solitaire With the Intention for Thrombectomy as Primary Endovascular Treatment for Acute Ischemic Stroke).

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Clinical trials have demonstrated improved 90-day outcomes for patients with acute ischemic stroke treated with stent retriever thrombectomy plus tissue-type plasminogen activator (SST+tPA) compared with tPA. Previous studies suggested that this strategy may be cost-effective, but models were derived from pooled data and older assumptions. METHODS: In this prospective economic substudy conducted alongside the SWIFT-PRIME trial (Solitaire With the Intention for Thrombectomy as Primary Endovascular Treatment for Acute Ischemic Stroke), in-trial costs were measured for patients using detailed medical resource utilization and hospital billing data. Utility weights were assessed at 30 and 90 days using the EuroQol-5 dimension questionnaire. Post-trial costs and life-expectancy were estimated for each surviving patient using a model based on trial data and inputs derived from a contemporary cohort of ischemic stroke survivors. RESULTS: Index hospitalization costs were $17 183 per patient higher for SST+tPA than for tPA ($45 761 versus $28 578; P<0.001), driven by initial procedure costs. Between discharge and 90 days, costs were $4904 per patient lower for SST+tPA than for tPA ($11 270 versus $16 174; P=0.014); total 90-day costs remained higher with SST+tPA ($57 031 versus $44 752; P<0.001). Higher utility values for SST+tPA led to higher in-trial quality-adjusted life years (0.131 versus 0.105; P=0.005). In lifetime projections, SST+tPA was associated with substantial gains in quality-adjusted life years (6.79 versus 5.05), cost savings of $23 203 per patient and was economically dominant when compared with tPA in 90% of bootstrap replicates. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with acute ischemic stroke enrolled in the SWIFT-PRIME trial, SST increased initial treatment costs, but was projected to improve quality-adjusted life-expectancy and reduce healthcare costs over a lifetime horizon compared with tPA. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01657461.

Cost-Effectiveness of Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement With a Self-Expanding Prosthesis Versus Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement.

BACKGROUND: Previous studies of the cost-effectiveness of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) have been based primarily on a single balloon-expandable system. OBJECTIVES: The goal of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of TAVR with a self-expanding prosthesis compared with surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) for patients with severe aortic stenosis and high surgical risk. METHODS: We performed a formal economic analysis on the basis of individual, patient-level data from the CoreValve U.S. High Risk Pivotal Trial. Empirical data regarding survival and quality of life over 2 years, and medical resource use and hospital costs through 12 months were used to project life expectancy, quality-adjusted life expectancy, and lifetime medical costs in order to estimate the incremental cost-effectiveness of TAVR versus SAVR from a U.S. RESULTS: Relative to SAVR, TAVR reduced initial length of stay an average of 4.4 days, decreased the need for rehabilitation services at discharge, and resulted in superior 1-month quality of life. Index admission and projected lifetime costs were higher with TAVR than with SAVR (differences $11,260 and $17,849 per patient, respectively), whereas TAVR was projected to provide a lifetime gain of 0.32 quality-adjusted life-years ([QALY]; 0.41 LY) with 3% discounting. Lifetime incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were $55,090 per QALY gained and $43,114 per LY gained. Sensitivity analyses indicated that a reduction in the initial cost of TAVR by ∼$1,650 would lead to an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio <$50,000/QALY gained. CONCLUSIONS: In a high-risk clinical trial population, TAVR with a self-expanding prosthesis provided meaningful clinical benefits compared with SAVR, with incremental costs considered acceptable by current U.S. STANDARDS: With expected modest reductions in the cost of index TAVR admissions, the value of TAVR compared with SAVR in this patient population would become high. (Safety and Efficacy Study of the Medtronic CoreValve System in the Treatment of Symptomatic Severe Aortic Stenosis in High Risk and Very High Risk Subjects Who Need Aortic Valve Replacement [Medtronic CoreValve U.S. Pivotal Trial]; NCT01240902).

Cost-effectiveness of percutaneous coronary intervention versus bypass surgery from a Dutch perspective.

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).

Cost-effectiveness of percutaneous coronary intervention with drug-eluting stents versus bypass surgery for patients with 3-vessel or left main coronary artery disease: final results from the Synergy Between Percutaneous Coronary Intervention With TAXUS and Cardiac Surgery (SYNTAX) trial.

BACKGROUND: The Synergy Between Percutaneous Coronary Intervention With TAXUS and Cardiac Surgery (SYNTAX) trial demonstrated that in patients with 3-vessel or left main coronary artery disease, coronary artery bypass graft surgery (CABG) was associated with a lower rate of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, stroke, or repeat revascularization compared with percutaneous coronary revascularization with drug-eluting stents (DES-PCI)). The long-term cost-effectiveness of these strategies is unknown. METHODS AND RESULTS: Between 2005 and 2007, 1800 patients with left main or 3-vessel coronary artery disease were randomized to CABG (n=897) or DES-PCI (n=903). Costs were assessed from a US perspective, and health state utilities were evaluated with the EuroQOL questionnaire. A patient-level microsimulation model based on the 5-year in-trial data was used to extrapolate costs, life expectancy, and quality-adjusted life expectancy over a lifetime horizon. Although initial procedural costs were $3415 per patient lower with CABG, total hospitalization costs were $10 036 per patient higher. Over the next 5 years, follow-up costs were higher with DES-PCI as a result of more frequent hospitalizations, revascularization procedures, and higher medication costs. Over a lifetime horizon, CABG remained more costly than DES-PCI, but the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was favorable ($16 537 per quality-adjusted life-year gained) and remained <$20 000 per quality-adjusted life-year in most bootstrap replicates. Results were consistent across a wide range of assumptions about the long-term effect of CABG versus DES-PCI on events and costs. In patients with left main disease or a SYNTAX score ≤22, however, DES-PCI was economically dominant compared with CABG, although these findings were less certain. CONCLUSIONS: For most patients with 3-vessel or left main coronary artery disease, CABG is a clinically and economically attractive revascularization strategy compared with DES-PCI. However, among patients with less complex disease, DES-PCI may be preferred on both clinical and economic grounds. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION URL: www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00114972.