Cost-effectiveness of rehabilitation after an acute coronary event: a randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the incremental effects on cost and quality of life of cardiac rehabilitation after an acute coronary syndrome. DESIGN: Open randomised controlled trial with 1 year's follow-up. Analysis was on an intention-to-treat basis. SETTING: Two tertiary hospitals in Sydney. INTERVENTION: 18 sessions of comprehensive exercise-based outpatient cardiac rehabilitation or conventional care as provided by the treating doctor. PARTICIPANTS: 113 patients aged 41-75 years who were self-caring and literate in English. Patients with uncompensated heart failure, uncontrolled arrhythmias, severe and symptomatic aortic stenosis or physical impairment were excluded. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Costs (hospitalisations, medication use, outpatient visits, investigations, and personal expenses); and measures of quality of life. Incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) saved at 1 year (this estimate combines within-study utility effects with reported 1-year risk of survival and treatment effects of rehabilitation on mortality). Sensitivity analyses around a base case estimate included alternative assumptions of no treatment effect on survival, 3 years of treatment effect on survival and variations in utility. RESULTS: The estimated incremental cost per QALY saved for rehabilitation relative to standard care was 42,535 US dollars when modelling included the reported treatment effect on survival. This increased to 70,580 US dollars per QALY saved if treatment effect on survival was not included. The results were sensitive to variations in utility and ranged from 19,685 US dollars per QALY saved to rehabilitation not being cost-effective. CONCLUSIONS: The effects on quality of life tend to reinforce treatment advantages on survival for patients having postdischarge rehabilitation after an acute coronary syndrome. The estimated base case incremental cost per QALY saved is consistent with those historically accepted by decision making authorities such as the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee.

The benefits and costs of tamoxifen for breast cancer prevention.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the effects of key uncertainties on the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of breast cancer prevention with tamoxifen. METHODS: The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of tamoxifen therapy relative to placebo was estimated using decision analysis with Markov modelling of health states, outcomes and costs for a simulated cohort of women at high risk for breast cancer. Relative effects of tamoxifen's benefits and harms were estimated from meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials. Cost estimates were based on Australian treatment patterns and costs. The main outcome measure was cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained with costs and effects discounted at a 5% annual rate. RESULTS: Tamoxifen therapy over five years reduces the incidence of breast cancer by approximately 1.4%, which is offset by an increase in endometrial cancer of 0.7% and pulmonary embolism of 0.2%. If the reduction is permanent (preventing new breast cancers emerging over five years and no further treatment effect thereafter), the model estimates an increase in life expectancy of 0.057 QALYs and an extra cost of $2,193; or $38,271/QALY gained. A model assuming further treatment effects of tamoxifen preventing new breast cancers emerging for up to 10 years results in an incremental cost of $19,354/QALY. However, if five years of tamoxifen therapy merely delays when these breast cancers appear (such that by 10 years there is no longer a reduced incidence), the incremental cost per QALY saved is estimated to be $199,149. CONCLUSIONS: Tamoxifen is potentially cost-effective in preventing breast cancer in women at high risk. However, its cost-effectiveness as a preventive therapy is highly sensitive to whether these cancers are permanently prevented or their clinical presentation is only delayed. Long-term follow-up in randomised controlled trials is therefore crucial in forming health policy.

Cholesterol-lowering therapy with pravastatin in patients with average cholesterol levels and established ischaemic heart disease: is it cost-effective?

OBJECTIVE: To measure the cost-effectiveness of cholesterol-lowering therapy with pravastatin in patients with established ischaemic heart disease and average baseline cholesterol levels. DESIGN: Prospective economic evaluation within a double-blind randomised trial (Long-Term Intervention with Pravastatin in Ischaemic Disease [LIPID]), in which patients with a history of unstable angina or previous myocardial infarction were randomised to receive 40 mg of pravastatin daily or matching placebo. PATIENTS AND SETTING: 9014 patients aged 35-75 years from 85 centres in Australia and New Zealand, recruited from June 1990 to December 1992. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Cost per death averted, cost per life-year gained, and cost per quality-adjusted life-year gained, calculated from measures of hospitalisations, medication use, outpatient visits, and quality of life. RESULTS: The LIPID trial showed a 22% relative reduction in all-cause mortality (P < 0.001). Over a mean follow-up of 6 years, hospital admissions for coronary heart disease and coronary revascularisation were reduced by about 20%. Over this period, pravastatin cost $A4913 per patient, but reduced total hospitalisation costs by $A1385 per patient and other long-term medication costs by $A360 per patient. In a subsample of patients, average quality of life was 0.98 (where 0 = dead and 1 = normal good health); the treatment groups were not significantly different. The absolute reduction in all-cause mortality was 3.0% (95% CI, 1.6%-4.4%), and the incremental cost was $3246 per patient, resulting in a cost per life saved of $107 730 (95% CI, $68 626-$209 881) within the study period. Extrapolating long-term survival from the placebo group, the undiscounted cost per life-year saved was $7695 (and $10 938 with costs and life-years discounted at an annual rate of 5%). CONCLUSIONS: Pravastatin therapy for patients with a history of myocardial infarction or unstable angina and average cholesterol levels reduces all-cause mortality and appears cost effective compared with accepted treatments in high-income countries.