Dataset Information

Rationale and design of the iCORONARY trial: improving the cost-effectiveness of coronary artery disease diagnosis.

ABSTRACT:

Background

In patients with stable coronary artery disease (CAD), revascularisation decisions are based mainly on the visual grading of the severity of coronary stenosis on invasive coronary angiography (ICA). However, invasive fractional flow reserve (FFR) is the current standard to determine the haemodynamic significance of coronary stenosis. Non-invasive and less-invasive imaging techniques such as computed-tomography-derived FFR (FFR-CT) and angiography-derived FFR (QFR) combine both anatomical and functional information in complex algorithms to calculate FFR.

Trial design

The iCORONARY trial is a prospective, multicentre, non-inferiority randomised controlled trial (RCT) with a blinded endpoint evaluation. It investigates the costs, effects and outcomes of different diagnostic strategies to evaluate the presence of CAD and the need for revascularisation in patients with stable angina pectoris who undergo coronary computed tomography angiography. Those with a Coronary Artery Disease-Reporting and Data System (CAD-RADS) score between 0-2 and 5 will be included in a prospective registry, whereas patients with CAD-RADS 3 or 4A will be enrolled in the RCT. The RCT consists of three randomised groups: (1) FFR-CT-guided strategy, (2) QFR-guided strategy or (3) standard of care including ICA and invasive pressure measurements for all intermediate stenoses. The primary endpoint will be the occurrence of major adverse cardiac events (death, myocardial infarction and repeat revascularisation) at 1 year.

Clinicaltrials

gov-identifier: NCT04939207.

Conclusion

The iCORONARY trial will assess whether a strategy of FFR-CT or QFR is non-inferior to invasive angiography to guide the need for revascularisation in patients with stable CAD. Non-inferiority to the standard of care implies that these techniques are attractive, less-invasive alternatives to current diagnostic pathways.

SUBMITTER: Peper J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC10033793 | biostudies-literature | 2023 Apr

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Rationale and design of the iCORONARY trial: improving the cost-effectiveness of coronary artery disease diagnosis.

Peper J J Becker L M LM Bruning T A TA Budde R P J RPJ van Dockum W G WG Frederix G W J GWJ Habets J J Henriques J P S JPS Houthuizen P P Mohamed Hoesein F A A FAA Planken R N RN Voskuil M M Bots M L ML Leiner T T Swaans M J MJ

Netherlands heart journal : monthly journal of the Netherlands Society of Cardiology and the Netherlands Heart Foundation 20230131 4

<h4>Background</h4>In patients with stable coronary artery disease (CAD), revascularisation decisions are based mainly on the visual grading of the severity of coronary stenosis on invasive coronary angiography (ICA). However, invasive fractional flow reserve (FFR) is the current standard to determine the haemodynamic significance of coronary stenosis. Non-invasive and less-invasive imaging techniques such as computed-tomography-derived FFR (FFR-CT) and angiography-derived FFR (QFR) combine both ...[more]

PMID: 36720801

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveTo evaluate the cost-effectiveness of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) compared with placebo in patients with single-vessel coronary artery disease and angina despite anti-anginal therapy.DesignA cost-effectiveness analysis comparing PCI with placebo. A Markov model was used to measure incremental cost-effectiveness, in cost per quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained, over 12 months. Health utility weights were estimated using responses to the EuroQol 5-level questionnaire, from the Objective Randomised Blinded Investigation with optimal medical Therapy of Angioplasty in stable angina trial and UK preference weights. Costs of procedures and follow-up consultations were derived from Healthcare Resource Group reference costs and drug costs from the National Health Service (NHS) drug tariff. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis was undertaken to test the robustness of results to parameter uncertainty. Scenario analyses were performed to test the effect on results of reduced pharmaceutical costs in patients undergoing PCI, and the effect of patients crossing over from placebo to PCI due to refractory angina within 12 months.SettingFive UK NHS hospitals.Participants200 adult patients with stable angina and angiographically severe single-vessel coronary artery disease on anti-anginal therapy.InterventionsAt recruitment, patients received 6 weeks of optimisation of medical therapy for angina after which they were randomised to PCI or a placebo procedure.Outcome measuresIncremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) expressed as cost (in £) per QALY gained for PCI compared with placebo.ResultsThe estimated ICER is £90 218/QALY gained when using PCI compared with placebo in patients receiving medical treatment for angina due to single-vessel coronary artery disease. Results were robust under sensitivity analyses.ConclusionsThe ICER for PCI compared with placebo, in patients with single-vessel coronary artery disease and angina on anti-anginal medication, exceeds the threshold of £30 000 used by the National Institute of Health and Care Excellence when undertaking health technology assessment for the NHS context.Trial registration: The ORBITA study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02062593.

Project description:IntroductionCurrently, 15-20% of individuals with coronary artery disease (chronic coronary syndrome [CCS]) or peripheral artery disease (PAD) receiving routine treatment experience cardiovascular events (CVEs) within 3-4 years. Using PICOSTEPS (Patients-Intervention-Comparators-Outcomes-Setting-Time-Effects-Perspective-Sensitivity analysis) reporting, we evaluated the cost-effectiveness of recently approved rivaroxaban 2.5 mg twice daily in combination with acetylsalicylic acid 100 mg daily (RIV + ASA) for the prevention of CVEs among Finns with CCS or symptomatic PAD.MethodsMyocardial infarction, ischemic stroke, intracranial hemorrhage, acute limb ischemia, amputations, major extracranial bleeding, venous thromboembolism, and cardiovascular deaths were modeled in a Markov model examining a cohort of patients with CCS or symptomatic PAD. Relative effects of the intervention (RIV + ASA) and comparator (ASA) were based on the COMPASS trial. The primary outcome was 3%/year discounted incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), defined as cost (2019 euros) per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained in the Finnish setting over a lifetime horizon. In addition to nonfatal and fatal CVEs, the effects factored Finnish non-CVE mortality, quality of life, and direct costs from a public payer perspective. Disaggregated costs and QALYs, costs per life year gained (LYG), and ischemic strokes avoided, net monetary benefit (NMB), expected value of perfect information (EVPI), economic value-added (EVA), cost-effectiveness table, and acceptability frontier were examined. Probabilistic and deterministic sensitivity analyses were conducted.ResultsIn the deterministic comparison with ASA over a lifetime horizon, RIV + ASA resulted in a benefit of 0.404 QALYs and 0.474 LYGs for an additional cost of €3241, resulting in an ICER of €8031/QALY. The probabilistic ICER was €4313/QALY (EVPI €1829/patient). RIV + ASA had positive NMB (€8791/patient), low EVPI (€88/patient), high EVA (€8703/patient), and 91% probability of cost-effectiveness using the willingness-to-pay of €25,254/QALY. The primary result was conservative and robust for RIV + ASA.ConclusionRIV + ASA was a cost-effective treatment alternative compared with ASA in patients with CCS or symptomatic PAD in Finland.

Project description:BackgroundAccording to recent guidelines, patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) should undergo revascularization if significant myocardial ischemia is present. Both, cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) and fractional flow reserve (FFR) allow for a reliable ischemia assessment and in combination with anatomical information provided by invasive coronary angiography (CXA), such a work-up sets the basis for a decision to revascularize or not. The cost-effectiveness ratio of these two strategies is compared.MethodsStrategy 1) CMR to assess ischemia followed by CXA in ischemia-positive patients (CMR?+?CXA), Strategy 2) CXA followed by FFR in angiographically positive stenoses (CXA?+?FFR). The costs, evaluated from the third party payer perspective in Switzerland, Germany, the United Kingdom (UK), and the United States (US), included public prices of the different outpatient procedures and costs induced by procedural complications and by diagnostic errors. The effectiveness criterion was the correct identification of hemodynamically significant coronary lesion(s) (= significant CAD) complemented by full anatomical information. Test performances were derived from the published literature. Cost-effectiveness ratios for both strategies were compared for hypothetical cohorts with different pretest likelihood of significant CAD.ResultsCMR + CXA and CXA + FFR were equally cost-effective at a pretest likelihood of CAD of 62% in Switzerland, 65% in Germany, 83% in the UK, and 82% in the US with costs of CHF 5'794, € 1'517, £ 2'680, and $ 2'179 per patient correctly diagnosed. Below these thresholds, CMR + CXA showed lower costs per patient correctly diagnosed than CXA + FFR.ConclusionsThe CMR?+?CXA strategy is more cost-effective than CXA?+?FFR below a CAD prevalence of 62%, 65%, 83%, and 82% for the Swiss, the German, the UK, and the US health care systems, respectively. These findings may help to optimize resource utilization in the diagnosis of CAD.

Project description:BackgroundTraditional cardiac rehabilitation programs are centre-based and clinically supervised, with their safety and effectiveness well established. Notwithstanding the established benefits, cardiac rehabilitation remains underutilised. A possible alternative would be a hybrid approach where both centre-based and tele-based methods are combined to deliver cardiac rehabilitation to eligible patients. The objective of this study was to determine the long-term cost-effectiveness of a hybrid cardiac telerehabilitation and if it should be recommended to be implemented in the Australian context.MethodsFollowing a comprehensive literature search, we chose the Telerehab III trial intervention that investigated the effectiveness of a long-term hybrid cardiac telerehabilitation program. We developed a decision analytic model to estimate the cost-effectiveness of the Telerehab III trial using a Markov process. The model included stable cardiac disease and hospitalisation health states and simulations were run using one-month cycles over a five-year time horizon. The threshold for cost-effectiveness was set at $AU 28,000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). For the base analysis, we assumed that 80% completed the programme. We tested the robustness of the results using probabilistic sensitivity and scenario analyses.ResultsTelerehab III intervention was more effective but more costly and was not cost-effective, at a threshold of $28,000 per QALY. For every 1,000 patients who undergo cardiac rehabilitation, employing the telerehabilitation intervention would cost $650,000 more, and 5.7 QALYs would be gained, over five years, compared to current practice. Under probabilistic sensitivity analysis, the intervention was cost-effective in only 18% of simulations. Similarly, if the intervention compliance was increased to 90%, it was still unlikely to be cost-effective.ConclusionHybrid cardiac telerehabilitation is highly unlikely to be cost-effective compared to the current practice in Australia. Exploration of alternative models of delivering cardiac telerehabilitation is still required. The results presented in this study are useful for policymakers wanting to make informed decisions about investment in hybrid cardiac telerehabilitation programs.

Project description:IntroductionMost patients with symptoms suggestive of chronic coronary syndrome (CCS) have no obstructive coronary artery disease (CAD) and better selection of patients to be referred for diagnostic tests is needed. The CAD-score is a non-invasive acoustic measure that, when added to pretest probability of CAD, has shown good rule-out capabilities. We aimed to test whether implementation of CAD-score in clinical practice reduces the use of diagnostic tests without increasing major adverse cardiac events (MACE) rates in patients with suspected CCS.Methods and analysisFILTER-SCAD is a randomised, controlled, multicenter trial aiming to include 2000 subjects aged ≥30 years without known CAD referred for outpatient assessment for symptoms suggestive of CCS. Subjects are randomised 1:1 to either the control group: standard diagnostic examination (SDE) according to the current guidelines, or the intervention group: SDE plus a CAD-score. The subjects are followed for 12 months for the primary endpoint of cumulative number of diagnostic tests and a safety endpoint (MACE). Angina symptoms, quality of life and risk factor modification will be assessed with questionnaires at baseline, 3 months and 12 months after randomisation. The study is powered to detect superiority in terms of a reduction of ≥15% in the primary endpoint between the two groups with a power of 80%, and non-inferiority on the secondary endpoint with a power of 90%. The significance level is 0.05. The non-inferiority margin is set to 1.5%. Randomisation began on October 2019. Follow-up is planned to be completed by December 2022.Ethics and disseminationThis study has been approved by the Danish Medical Agency (2019024326), Danish National Committee on Health Research Ethics (H-19012579) and Swedish Ethical Review Authority (Dnr 2019-04252). All patients participating in the study will sign an informed consent. All study results will be attempted to be published as soon as possible.Trial registration numberNCT04121949; Pre-results.

Project description:BackgroundMedical costs associated with cardiovascular disease are increasing considerably worldwide; therefore, an efficacious, cost-effective therapy which allows the effective use of medical resources is vital. There have been few economic evaluations of cardiac rehabilitation (CR), especially meta-analyses of medical cost versus patient outcome.MethodsThe target population in this meta-analysis included convalescent and comprehensive CR patients with coronary artery disease (CAD), the status most commonly observed postmyocardial infarction (MI). Here, we evaluated medical costs, quality-adjusted life year (QALY), cost-effectiveness, mortality, and life year (LY). Regarding cost-effectiveness analysis, we analyzed medical costs per QALY, medical costs per LY, and the incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR). We then examined the differences in effects for the 2 treatment arms (CR vs. usual care (UC)) using the risk ratio (RR) and standardized mean difference (SMD).ResultsWe reviewed 59 studies and identified 5 studies that matched our selection criteria. In total, 122,485 patients were included in the analysis. Meta-analysis results revealed that the CR arm significantly improved QALY (SMD: -1.78; 95% confidence interval (CI): -2.69, -0.87) compared with UC. Although medical costs tended to be higher in the CR arm compared to the UC arm (SMD: 0.02; 95% CI: -0.08, 0.13), cost/QALY was significantly improved in the CR arm compared with the UC arm (SMD: -0.31; 95% CI: -0.53, -0.09). The ICURs for the studies (4 RCTs and 1 model analysis) were as follows: -48,327.6 USD/QALY; -5,193.8 USD/QALY (dominant, CR is cheaper and more effective than UC); and 4,048.0 USD/QALY, 17,209.4 USD/QALY, and 26,888.7 USD/QALY (<50,000 USD/QALY, CR is costlier but more effective than UC), respectively. Therefore, there were 2 dominant and 3 effective results.ConclusionsWhile there are some limitations, primarily regarding data sources, our results suggest that CR is potentially cost-effective.

Dataset Information

Rationale and design of the iCORONARY trial: improving the cost-effectiveness of coronary artery disease diagnosis.

Background

Trial design

Clinicaltrials

Conclusion

Publications

Rationale and design of the iCORONARY trial: improving the cost-effectiveness of coronary artery disease diagnosis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets