Header

UZH-Logo

Maintenance Infos

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 (2018). Cost-effectiveness of everolimus-eluting versus bare-metal stents in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: An analysis from the EXAMINATION randomized controlled trial. PLoS ONE, 13(8):e0201985.

Abstract

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.

Abstract

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.

Statistics

Citations

Dimensions.ai Metrics

Altmetrics

Downloads

3 downloads since deposited on 04 Jan 2019
3 downloads since 12 months
Detailed statistics

Additional indexing

Item Type:Journal Article, refereed, original work
Communities & Collections:04 Faculty of Medicine > Epidemiology, Biostatistics and Prevention Institute (EBPI)
Dewey Decimal Classification:610 Medicine & health
Uncontrolled Keywords:General Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology, General Agricultural and Biological Sciences, General Medicine
Language:English
Date:16 August 2018
Deposited On:04 Jan 2019 14:02
Last Modified:09 Jan 2019 05:53
Publisher:Public Library of Science (PLoS)
ISSN:1932-6203
OA Status:Gold
Free access at:Publisher DOI. An embargo period may apply.
Publisher DOI:https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0201985
PubMed ID:30114230

Download

Download PDF  'Cost-effectiveness of everolimus-eluting versus bare-metal stents in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: An analysis from the EXAMINATION randomized controlled trial'.
Preview
Content: Published Version
Filetype: PDF
Size: 2MB
View at publisher
Licence: Creative Commons: Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0)