Cargando…
Cost-effectiveness of everolimus-eluting versus bare-metal stents in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: An analysis from the EXAMINATION randomized controlled trial
BACKGROUND: Use of everolimus-eluting stents (EES) has proven to be clinically effective and safe in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction but it remains unclear whether it is cost-effective compared to bare-metal stents (BMS) in the long-term. We sought to assess the cost-effecti...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Public Library of Science
2018
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6095536/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30114230 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0201985 |
_version_ | 1783347953791926272 |
---|---|
author | Schur, Nadine Brugaletta, Salvatore Cequier, Angel Iñiguez, Andrés Serra, Antonio Jiménez-Quevedo, Pilar Mainar, Vicente Campo, Gianluca Tespili, Maurizio den Heijer, Peter Bethencourt, Armando Vazquez, Nicolás Valgimigli, Marco Serruys, Patrick W. Ademi, Zanfina Schwenkglenks, Matthias Sabaté, Manel |
author_facet | Schur, Nadine Brugaletta, Salvatore Cequier, Angel Iñiguez, Andrés Serra, Antonio Jiménez-Quevedo, Pilar Mainar, Vicente Campo, Gianluca Tespili, Maurizio den Heijer, Peter Bethencourt, Armando Vazquez, Nicolás Valgimigli, Marco Serruys, Patrick W. Ademi, Zanfina Schwenkglenks, Matthias Sabaté, Manel |
author_sort | Schur, Nadine |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: Use of everolimus-eluting stents (EES) has proven to be clinically effective and safe in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction but it remains unclear whether it is cost-effective compared to bare-metal stents (BMS) in the long-term. We sought to assess the cost-effectiveness of EES versus BMS based on the 5-year results of the EXAMINATION trial, from a Spanish health service perspective. METHODS: Decision analysis of the use of EES versus BMS was based on the patient-level clinical outcome data of the EXAMINATION trial. The analysis adopted a lifelong time horizon, assuming that long-term survival was independent of the initial treatment strategy after the end of follow-up. Life-expectancy, health-state utility scores and unit costs were extracted from published literature and publicly available sources. Non-parametric bootstrapping was combined with probabilistic sensitivity analysis to co-assess the impact of patient-level variation and parameter uncertainty. The main outcomes were total costs and quality-adjusted life-years. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was expressed as cost per quality-adjusted life-years gained. Costs and effects were discounted at 3%. RESULTS: The model predicted an average survival time in patients receiving EES and BMS of 10.52 and 10.38 undiscounted years, respectively. Over the life-long time horizon, the EES strategy was €430 more costly than BMS (€8,305 vs. €7,874), but went along with incremental gains of 0.10 quality-adjusted life-years. This resulted in an average incremental cost-effectiveness ratio over all simulations of €3,948 per quality-adjusted life-years gained and was below a willingness-to-pay threshold of €25,000 per quality-adjusted life-years gained in 86.9% of simulation runs. CONCLUSIONS: Despite higher total costs relative to BMS, EES appeared to be a cost-effective therapy for ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction patients due to their incremental effectiveness. Predicted incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were below generally acceptable threshold values. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-6095536 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2018 |
publisher | Public Library of Science |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-60955362018-08-30 Cost-effectiveness of everolimus-eluting versus bare-metal stents in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: An analysis from the EXAMINATION randomized controlled trial Schur, Nadine Brugaletta, Salvatore Cequier, Angel Iñiguez, Andrés Serra, Antonio Jiménez-Quevedo, Pilar Mainar, Vicente Campo, Gianluca Tespili, Maurizio den Heijer, Peter Bethencourt, Armando Vazquez, Nicolás Valgimigli, Marco Serruys, Patrick W. Ademi, Zanfina Schwenkglenks, Matthias Sabaté, Manel PLoS One Research Article BACKGROUND: Use of everolimus-eluting stents (EES) has proven to be clinically effective and safe in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction but it remains unclear whether it is cost-effective compared to bare-metal stents (BMS) in the long-term. We sought to assess the cost-effectiveness of EES versus BMS based on the 5-year results of the EXAMINATION trial, from a Spanish health service perspective. METHODS: Decision analysis of the use of EES versus BMS was based on the patient-level clinical outcome data of the EXAMINATION trial. The analysis adopted a lifelong time horizon, assuming that long-term survival was independent of the initial treatment strategy after the end of follow-up. Life-expectancy, health-state utility scores and unit costs were extracted from published literature and publicly available sources. Non-parametric bootstrapping was combined with probabilistic sensitivity analysis to co-assess the impact of patient-level variation and parameter uncertainty. The main outcomes were total costs and quality-adjusted life-years. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was expressed as cost per quality-adjusted life-years gained. Costs and effects were discounted at 3%. RESULTS: The model predicted an average survival time in patients receiving EES and BMS of 10.52 and 10.38 undiscounted years, respectively. Over the life-long time horizon, the EES strategy was €430 more costly than BMS (€8,305 vs. €7,874), but went along with incremental gains of 0.10 quality-adjusted life-years. This resulted in an average incremental cost-effectiveness ratio over all simulations of €3,948 per quality-adjusted life-years gained and was below a willingness-to-pay threshold of €25,000 per quality-adjusted life-years gained in 86.9% of simulation runs. CONCLUSIONS: Despite higher total costs relative to BMS, EES appeared to be a cost-effective therapy for ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction patients due to their incremental effectiveness. Predicted incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were below generally acceptable threshold values. Public Library of Science 2018-08-16 /pmc/articles/PMC6095536/ /pubmed/30114230 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0201985 Text en © 2018 Schur et al http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. |
spellingShingle | Research Article Schur, Nadine Brugaletta, Salvatore Cequier, Angel Iñiguez, Andrés Serra, Antonio Jiménez-Quevedo, Pilar Mainar, Vicente Campo, Gianluca Tespili, Maurizio den Heijer, Peter Bethencourt, Armando Vazquez, Nicolás Valgimigli, Marco Serruys, Patrick W. Ademi, Zanfina Schwenkglenks, Matthias Sabaté, Manel Cost-effectiveness of everolimus-eluting versus bare-metal stents in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: An analysis from the EXAMINATION randomized controlled trial |
title | Cost-effectiveness of everolimus-eluting versus bare-metal stents in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: An analysis from the EXAMINATION randomized controlled trial |
title_full | Cost-effectiveness of everolimus-eluting versus bare-metal stents in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: An analysis from the EXAMINATION randomized controlled trial |
title_fullStr | Cost-effectiveness of everolimus-eluting versus bare-metal stents in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: An analysis from the EXAMINATION randomized controlled trial |
title_full_unstemmed | Cost-effectiveness of everolimus-eluting versus bare-metal stents in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: An analysis from the EXAMINATION randomized controlled trial |
title_short | Cost-effectiveness of everolimus-eluting versus bare-metal stents in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: An analysis from the EXAMINATION randomized controlled trial |
title_sort | cost-effectiveness of everolimus-eluting versus bare-metal stents in st-segment elevation myocardial infarction: an analysis from the examination randomized controlled trial |
topic | Research Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6095536/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30114230 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0201985 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT schurnadine costeffectivenessofeverolimuselutingversusbaremetalstentsinstsegmentelevationmyocardialinfarctionananalysisfromtheexaminationrandomizedcontrolledtrial AT brugalettasalvatore costeffectivenessofeverolimuselutingversusbaremetalstentsinstsegmentelevationmyocardialinfarctionananalysisfromtheexaminationrandomizedcontrolledtrial AT cequierangel costeffectivenessofeverolimuselutingversusbaremetalstentsinstsegmentelevationmyocardialinfarctionananalysisfromtheexaminationrandomizedcontrolledtrial AT iniguezandres costeffectivenessofeverolimuselutingversusbaremetalstentsinstsegmentelevationmyocardialinfarctionananalysisfromtheexaminationrandomizedcontrolledtrial AT serraantonio costeffectivenessofeverolimuselutingversusbaremetalstentsinstsegmentelevationmyocardialinfarctionananalysisfromtheexaminationrandomizedcontrolledtrial AT jimenezquevedopilar costeffectivenessofeverolimuselutingversusbaremetalstentsinstsegmentelevationmyocardialinfarctionananalysisfromtheexaminationrandomizedcontrolledtrial AT mainarvicente costeffectivenessofeverolimuselutingversusbaremetalstentsinstsegmentelevationmyocardialinfarctionananalysisfromtheexaminationrandomizedcontrolledtrial AT campogianluca costeffectivenessofeverolimuselutingversusbaremetalstentsinstsegmentelevationmyocardialinfarctionananalysisfromtheexaminationrandomizedcontrolledtrial AT tespilimaurizio costeffectivenessofeverolimuselutingversusbaremetalstentsinstsegmentelevationmyocardialinfarctionananalysisfromtheexaminationrandomizedcontrolledtrial AT denheijerpeter costeffectivenessofeverolimuselutingversusbaremetalstentsinstsegmentelevationmyocardialinfarctionananalysisfromtheexaminationrandomizedcontrolledtrial AT bethencourtarmando costeffectivenessofeverolimuselutingversusbaremetalstentsinstsegmentelevationmyocardialinfarctionananalysisfromtheexaminationrandomizedcontrolledtrial AT vazqueznicolas costeffectivenessofeverolimuselutingversusbaremetalstentsinstsegmentelevationmyocardialinfarctionananalysisfromtheexaminationrandomizedcontrolledtrial AT valgimiglimarco costeffectivenessofeverolimuselutingversusbaremetalstentsinstsegmentelevationmyocardialinfarctionananalysisfromtheexaminationrandomizedcontrolledtrial AT serruyspatrickw costeffectivenessofeverolimuselutingversusbaremetalstentsinstsegmentelevationmyocardialinfarctionananalysisfromtheexaminationrandomizedcontrolledtrial AT ademizanfina costeffectivenessofeverolimuselutingversusbaremetalstentsinstsegmentelevationmyocardialinfarctionananalysisfromtheexaminationrandomizedcontrolledtrial AT schwenkglenksmatthias costeffectivenessofeverolimuselutingversusbaremetalstentsinstsegmentelevationmyocardialinfarctionananalysisfromtheexaminationrandomizedcontrolledtrial AT sabatemanel costeffectivenessofeverolimuselutingversusbaremetalstentsinstsegmentelevationmyocardialinfarctionananalysisfromtheexaminationrandomizedcontrolledtrial |