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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: 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
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