Dataset Information

Variations in the use of an innovative technology by payer: the case of drug-eluting stents.

ABSTRACT: Despite receiving identical reimbursement for treating heart disease patients with bare metal stents (BMS) or drug-eluting coronary stents (DES), cardiologists' use of the new technology (DES) may have varied by patient payer type as DES diffused. Payer-related factors that differ between hospitals and/or differential treatment inside hospitals might explain any overall differences by payer type.To assess the association between payer and DES use and to examine between-hospital and within-hospital variation in DES use over time.We conducted a retrospective analysis of 4.1 million hospitalizations involving DES or BMS from 2003 to 2008 Nationwide Inpatient Sample. We estimated hybrid-fixed effects logit models and calculated the adjusted within-quarter, cross-payer differences in DES use.Coronary stent patients with Medicaid or without insurance were significantly less likely to receive DES than were patients with private insurance throughout the study period. The differences fluctuated over time as the popularity of DES relative to BMS increased and decreased. The within-hospital gaps paralleled the overall differences, and were largest in Q3 2003 (Medicaid: 11.9, uninsured: 10.9% points) and Q4 2008 (Medicaid: 12.8, uninsured: 20.7% points), and smallest in Q4 2004 (Medicaid: 1.4, uninsured: 1.1% points). The between-hospital adjusted differences in DES use by payer were small and rarely significant.We found substantial differences in DES use by payer within hospitals, suggesting physicians selected the new technology for patients in a manner associated with patients' payer type.

SUBMITTER: Epstein AJ

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3240810 | biostudies-literature | 2012 Jan

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Variations in the use of an innovative technology by payer: the case of drug-eluting stents.

Epstein Andrew J AJ Ketcham Jonathan D JD Rathore Saif S SS Groeneveld Peter W PW

Medical care 20120101 1

<h4>Background</h4>Despite receiving identical reimbursement for treating heart disease patients with bare metal stents (BMS) or drug-eluting coronary stents (DES), cardiologists' use of the new technology (DES) may have varied by patient payer type as DES diffused. Payer-related factors that differ between hospitals and/or differential treatment inside hospitals might explain any overall differences by payer type.<h4>Objectives</h4>To assess the association between payer and DES use and to exam ...[more]

PMID: 22167062

Similar Datasets

Project description:Peripheral arterial disease is a condition in which atherosclerotic plaques partially or completely block blood flow to the legs. Although percutaneous transluminal angioplasty and metallic stenting have high immediate success rates in treating peripheral arterial disease, long-term patency and restenosis rates in long and complex lesions remain unsatisfactory.The objective of this analysis was to evaluate the clinical effectiveness, safety, cost-effectiveness and budget impact of Zilver paclitaxel self-expanding drug-eluting stents for the treatment of de novo or restenotic lesions in above-the-knee peripheral arterial disease.Literature searches were performed using Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid MEDLINE In-Process and Other Non-Indexed Citations, Ovid Embase, EBSCO Cumulative Index to Nursing & Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), and EBM Reviews. For the economic review, a search filter was applied to limit search results to economics-related literature. Data sources for the budget impact analysis included expert opinion, published literature, and Ontario administrative data.Systematic reviews, meta-analyses, randomized controlled trials, and observational studies were included in the clinical effectiveness review, and full economic evaluations were included in the economic literature review. Studies were included if they examined the effect of Zilver paclitaxel drug-eluting stents in de novo or restenotic lesions in above-the-knee arteries. For the budget impact analysis, 3 scenarios were constructed based on different assumptions.One randomized controlled trial reported a significantly higher patency rate with Zilver paclitaxel drug-eluting stents for lesions ? 14 cm than with angioplasty or bare metal stents. One observational study showed no difference in patency rates between Zilver paclitaxel drug-eluting stents and paclitaxel drug-coated balloons. Zilver paclitaxel drug-eluting stents were associated with a significantly higher event-free survival rate than angioplasty, but the event-free survival rate was similar for Zilver paclitaxel drug-eluting stents and paclitaxel drug-coated balloons. No economic evaluations compared Zilver paclitaxel drug-eluting stents with bare metal stents or angioplasty for peripheral arterial disease. A budget impact analysis showed that the cost savings associated with funding of Zilver paclitaxel drug-eluting stents would be $470,000 to $640,000 per year, assuming that the use of the Zilver paclitaxel drug-eluting stent was associated with a lower risk of subsequent revascularization.Based on evidence of low to moderate quality, Zilver paclitaxel drug-eluting stents were associated with a higher patency rate than angioplasty or bare metal stents, and with fewer adverse events than angioplasty. The effectiveness and safety of Zilver paclitaxel drug-eluting stents and paclitaxel drug-coated balloons were similar.

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:BackgroundWe sought to establish the long-term safety of drug-eluting stents compared with bare-metal stents in a usual care setting.MethodsUsing data from a prospective multicentre registry, we compared rates of death and of death or repeat revascularization during 3 years of follow-up of 6440 consecutive patients who underwent angioplasty with either drug-eluting or bare-metal stents between Apr. 1, 2003, and Mar. 31, 2006.ResultsDrug-eluting stents were inserted in 1120 patients and bare-metal stents in 5320. The drug-eluting stents were selected for patients who had a greater burden of comorbid illness, including diabetes mellitus (32.8% v. 20.8% in the bare-metal group, p < 0.001) and renal disease (7.4% v. 5.0%, p = 0.001). At 1-year follow-up, the drug-eluting stents were associated with a mortality of 3.0%, as compared with 3.7% with the bare-metal stents (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 0.62, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.46-0.83). The rate of the composite outcome of death or repeat revascularization was 12.0% for the drug-eluting stents and 15.8% for the bare-metal stents (adjusted OR 0.40, 95% CI 0.33-0.49). In the subgroup of patients who had acute coronary syndromes, the adjusted OR for this composite outcome was 0.46 (95% CI 0.35-0.61). During the 3 years of observation, the relative risks for death and repeat revascularization varied over time. In year 1, there was an initial period of lower risk in the group with drug-eluting stents than in the group with bare-metal stents; this was followed by a shift toward outcome rates favouring bare-metal stents in years 2 and 3. The adjusted relative risk of the composite outcome of death or repeat revascularization associated with drug-eluting stents relative to bare-metal stents was 0.73 early in the first year of follow-up; it then rose gradually over time, to a peak of 2.24 at 3 years.InterpretationDrug-eluting stents are safe and effective in the first year following insertion. Thereafter, the possibility of longer term adverse events cannot be ruled out.

Dataset Information

Variations in the use of an innovative technology by payer: the case of drug-eluting stents.

Publications

Variations in the use of an innovative technology by payer: the case of drug-eluting stents.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets