Dataset Information

The cost-effectiveness of drug-eluting stents: a systematic review.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Drug-eluting stents have been seen as an attractive alternative to bare-metal stents for percutaneous coronary interventions (PCIs) because of the decreased need for revascularization. However, comparative clinical trials have shown no difference in patient outcomes, and drug-eluting stents are considerably more expensive than their bare-metal counterparts. We conducted a systematic review of all published comparative cost-effectiveness analyses to identify the factors contributing to the heterogeneity of their conclusions.

Methods

We retrieved all articles published between Jan. 1, 2000, and July 31, 2006, in which the cost-effectiveness, from a third-party payer perspective, of drug-eluting stents was compared with that of bare-metal stents for PCI in unrestricted patient populations. Electronic databases, Web sites from health technology assessment groups and references of identified articles were searched. Our outcome variable was whether the study's conclusions favoured widespread use of drug-eluting stents, as assessed by 4 independent reviewers. Study characteristics such as quality, funding source, country and year of publication were extracted. Two-by-2 tables and Fisher's exact test were used to study the association between covariates and the outcome variable. A classification and regression tree (CART) model was used for multivariate analysis.

Results

We identified 19 cost-effectiveness analyses. Ten were in favour of widespread use of drug-eluting stents, and 9 favoured more restrained use. Only 1 of 9 high-quality studies supported widespread use, as compared with 9 of 10 lower quality studies (p < 0.001). All of the 7 sponsored studies argued in favour of widespread use, as compared with 3 of the 12 studies without sponsorship (p = 0.003). Studies from the United States were more likely than those from other countries to endorse unlimited use (p = 0.032). A CART model with 2 covariates--study quality and sponsorship--provided the best fit (error rate 10.5%).

Interpretation

Conclusions drawn by cost-effectiveness analyses of drug-eluting stents for PCI are associated with the study's quality, funding source and country of origin. Vigilance regarding these study characteristics is required when interpreting findings from cost-effectiveness analyses.

SUBMITTER: Ligthart S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC1764790 | biostudies-literature | 2007 Jan

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

The cost-effectiveness of drug-eluting stents: a systematic review.

Ligthart Suzanne S Vlemmix Floortje F Dendukuri Nandini N Brophy James M JM

CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne 20061219 2

<h4>Background</h4>Drug-eluting stents have been seen as an attractive alternative to bare-metal stents for percutaneous coronary interventions (PCIs) because of the decreased need for revascularization. However, comparative clinical trials have shown no difference in patient outcomes, and drug-eluting stents are considerably more expensive than their bare-metal counterparts. We conducted a systematic review of all published comparative cost-effectiveness analyses to identify the factors contrib ...[more]

PMID: 17179219

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveTo compare the efficacy and safety of biodegradable polymer drug eluting stents with those of bare metal stents and durable polymer drug eluting stents.DesignMixed treatment comparison meta-analysis of 258,544 patient years of follow-up from randomized trials.Data sources and study selectionPubMed, Embase, and Central were searched for randomized trials comparing any of the Food and Drug Administration approved durable polymer drug eluting stents (sirolimus eluting, paclitaxel eluting, cobalt chromium everolimus eluting, platinum chromium everolimus eluting, zotarolimus eluting-Endeavor, and zotarolimus eluting-Resolute) or biodegradable polymer drug eluting stents, with each other or against bare metal stents.OutcomesLong term efficacy (target vessel revascularization, target lesion revascularization) and safety (death, myocardial infarction, stent thrombosis). Landmark analysis at more than one year was evaluated to assess the potential late benefit of biodegradable polymer drug eluting stents.ResultsFrom 126 randomized trials and 258,544 patient years of follow-up, for long term efficacy (target vessel revascularization), biodegradable polymer drug eluting stents were superior to paclitaxel eluting stents (rate ratio 0.66, 95% credibility interval 0.57 to 0.78) and zotarolimus eluting stent-Endeavor (0.69, 0.56 to 0.84) but not to newer generation durable polymer drug eluting stents (for example: 1.03, 0.89 to 1.21 versus cobalt chromium everolimus eluting stents). Similarly, biodegradable polymer drug eluting stents were superior to paclitaxel eluting stents (rate ratio 0.61, 0.37 to 0.89) but inferior to cobalt chromium everolimus eluting stents (2.04, 1.27 to 3.35) for long term safety (definite stent thrombosis). In the landmark analysis after one year, biodegradable polymer drug eluting stents were superior to sirolimus eluting stents for definite stent thrombosis (rate ratio 0.29, 0.10 to 0.82) but were associated with increased mortality compared with cobalt chromium everolimus eluting stents (1.52, 1.02 to 2.22). Overall, among all stent types, the newer generation durable polymer drug eluting stents (zotarolimus eluting stent-Resolute, cobalt chromium everolimus eluting stents, and platinum chromium everolimus eluting stents) were the most efficacious (lowest target vessel revascularization rate) stents, and cobalt chromium everolimus eluting stents were the safest with significant reductions in definite stent thrombosis (rate ratio 0.35, 0.21 to 0.53), myocardial infarction (0.65, 0.55 to 0.75), and death (0.72, 0.58 to 0.90) compared with bare metal stents.ConclusionsBiodegradable polymer drug eluting stents are superior to first generation durable polymer drug eluting stents but not to newer generation durable polymer stents in reducing target vessel revascularization. Newer generation durable polymer stents, and especially cobalt chromium everolimus eluting stents, have the best combination of efficacy and safety. The utility of biodegradable polymer stents in the context of excellent clinical outcomes with newer generation durable polymer stents needs to be proven.

Project description:BackgroundThe optimal duration of dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) after percutaneous coronary intervention with drug-eluting stents remains uncertain. We compared short-term (<6-month) DAPT followed by aspirin or P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy; midterm (6-month) DAPT; 12-month DAPT; and extended-term (>12-month) DAPT after percutaneous coronary intervention with drug-eluting stents.MethodsTwenty-four randomized, controlled trials were selected using Medline, Embase, Cochrane library, and online databases through September 2019. The coprimary end points were myocardial infarction and major bleeding, which constituted the net clinical benefit. A frequentist network meta-analysis was conducted with a random-effects model.ResultsIn 79 073 patients, at a median follow-up of 18 months, extended-term DAPT was associated with a reduced risk of myocardial infarction in comparison with 12-month DAPT (absolute risk difference, -3.8 incident cases per 1000 person-years; relative risk, 0.68 [95% CI, 0.54-0.87]), midterm DAPT (absolute risk difference, -4.6 incident cases per 1000 person-years; relative risk, 0.61 [0.45-0.83]), and short-term DAPT followed by aspirin monotherapy (absolute risk difference, -6.1 incident cases per 1000 person-years; relative risk, 0.55 [0.37-0.83]), or P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy (absolute risk difference, -3.7 incident cases per 1000 person-years; relative risk, 0.69 [0.51-0.95]). Conversely, extended-term DAPT was associated with a higher risk of major bleeding than all other DAPT groups. In comparison with 12-month DAPT, no significant differences in the risks of ischemic end points or major bleeding were observed with midterm or short-term DAPT followed by aspirin monotherapy, with the exception that short-term DAPT followed by P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy was associated with a reduced risk of major bleeding. There were no significant differences with respect to mortality between the different DAPT strategies. In acute coronary syndrome, extended-term in comparison with 12-month DAPT was associated with a reduced risk of myocardial infarction without a significant increase in the risk of major bleeding.ConclusionsThe present network meta-analysis suggests that, in comparison with 12-month DAPT, short-term DAPT followed by P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy reduces major bleeding after percutaneous coronary intervention with drug-eluting stents, whereas extended-term DAPT reduces myocardial infarction at the expense of more bleeding events.

Dataset Information

The cost-effectiveness of drug-eluting stents: a systematic review.

Background

Methods

Results

Interpretation

Publications

The cost-effectiveness of drug-eluting stents: a systematic review.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets