Dataset Information

Treatment for stable coronary artery disease: a network meta-analysis of cost-effectiveness studies.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction and objectives

Numerous studies have assessed cost-effectiveness of different treatment modalities for stable angina. Direct comparisons, however, are uncommon. We therefore set out to compare the efficacy and mean cost per patient after 1 and 3 years of follow-up, of the following treatments as assessed in randomized controlled trials (RCT): medical therapy (MT), percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) without stent (PTCA), with bare-metal stent (BMS), with drug-eluting stent (DES), and elective coronary artery bypass graft (CABG).

Methods

RCT comparing at least two of the five treatments and reporting clinical and cost data were identified by a systematic search. Clinical end-points were mortality and myocardial infarction (MI). The costs described in the different trials were standardized and expressed in US $ 2008, based on purchasing power parity. A network meta-analysis was used to compare costs.

Results

Fifteen RCT were selected. Mortality and MI rates were similar in the five treatment groups both for 1-year and 3-year follow-up. Weighted cost per patient however differed markedly for the five treatment modalities, at both one year and three years (P<0.0001). MT was the least expensive treatment modality: US $3069 and 13 864 after one and three years of follow-up, while CABG was the most costly: US $27 003 and 28 670 after one and three years. PCI, whether with plain balloon, BMS or DES came in between, but was closer to the costs of CABG.

Conclusions

Appreciable savings in health expenditures can be achieved by using MT in the management of patients with stable angina.

SUBMITTER: Caruba T

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4045726 | biostudies-literature | 2014

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Treatment for stable coronary artery disease: a network meta-analysis of cost-effectiveness studies.

Caruba Thibaut T Katsahian Sandrine S Schramm Catherine C Charles Nelson Anaïs A Durieux Pierre P Bégué Dominique D Juillière Yves Y Dubourg Olivier O Danchin Nicolas N Sabatier Brigitte B

PloS one 20140604 6

<h4>Introduction and objectives</h4>Numerous studies have assessed cost-effectiveness of different treatment modalities for stable angina. Direct comparisons, however, are uncommon. We therefore set out to compare the efficacy and mean cost per patient after 1 and 3 years of follow-up, of the following treatments as assessed in randomized controlled trials (RCT): medical therapy (MT), percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) without stent (PTCA), with bare-metal stent (BMS), with drug-eluting st ...[more]

PMID: 24896266

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveTo investigate whether revascularisation improves prognosis compared with medical treatment among patients with stable coronary artery disease.DesignBayesian network meta-analyses to combine direct within trial comparisons between treatments with indirect evidence from other trials while maintaining randomisation.Eligibility criteria for selecting studiesA strategy of initial medical treatment compared with revascularisation by coronary artery bypass grafting or Food and Drug Administration approved techniques for percutaneous revascularization: balloon angioplasty, bare metal stent, early generation paclitaxel eluting stent, sirolimus eluting stent, and zotarolimus eluting (Endeavor) stent, and new generation everolimus eluting stent, and zotarolimus eluting (Resolute) stent among patients with stable coronary artery disease.Data sourcesMedline and Embase from 1980 to 2013 for randomised trials comparing medical treatment with revascularisation.Main outcome measureAll cause mortality.Results100 trials in 93,553 patients with 262,090 patient years of follow-up were included. Coronary artery bypass grafting was associated with a survival benefit (rate ratio 0.80, 95% credibility interval 0.70 to 0.91) compared with medical treatment. New generation drug eluting stents (everolimus: 0.75, 0.59 to 0.96; zotarolimus (Resolute): 0.65, 0.42 to 1.00) but not balloon angioplasty (0.85, 0.68 to 1.04), bare metal stents (0.92, 0.79 to 1.05), or early generation drug eluting stents (paclitaxel: 0.92, 0.75 to 1.12; sirolimus: 0.91, 0.75 to 1.10; zotarolimus (Endeavor): 0.88, 0.69 to 1.10) were associated with improved survival compared with medical treatment. Coronary artery bypass grafting reduced the risk of myocardial infarction compared with medical treatment (0.79, 0.63 to 0.99), and everolimus eluting stents showed a trend towards a reduced risk of myocardial infarction (0.75, 0.55 to 1.01). The risk of subsequent revascularisation was noticeably reduced by coronary artery bypass grafting (0.16, 0.13 to 0.20) followed by new generation drug eluting stents (zotarolimus (Resolute): 0.26, 0.17 to 0.40; everolimus: 0.27, 0.21 to 0.35), early generation drug eluting stents (zotarolimus (Endeavor): 0.37, 0.28 to 0.50; sirolimus: 0.29, 0.24 to 0.36; paclitaxel: 0.44, 0.35 to 0.54), and bare metal stents (0.69, 0.59 to 0.81) compared with medical treatment.ConclusionAmong patients with stable coronary artery disease, coronary artery bypass grafting reduces the risk of death, myocardial infarction, and subsequent revascularisation compared with medical treatment. All stent based coronary revascularisation technologies reduce the need for revascularisation to a variable degree. Our results provide evidence for improved survival with new generation drug eluting stents but no other percutaneous revascularisation technology compared with medical treatment.

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.

Project description:BackgroundRecent evidence indicates that Shexiang Baoxin Pill (MUSKARDIA), as an add-on treatment to standard therapy for stable coronary artery disease (CAD), is effective. Nevertheless, the cost-effectiveness of introducing the Shexiang Baoxin Pill (Abbreviation SBP) to the current standard treatment for patients with CAD in China remains unknown.ObjectiveThe objective of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of introducing SBP into the current standard treatment in China for patients with CAD.MethodThe effects of two treatment strategies-the SBP group (SBP combined with standard therapy) and the standard therapy group (placebo combined with standard therapy)-were simulated using a long-term Markov model. The simulation subjects might experience non-fatal MI and/or stroke or vascular or non-vascular death events. The study parameters were primarily derived from the MUSKARDIA trial, which was a multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase IV randomized clinical trial. Furthermore, age-related change, event costs, and event utilities were drawn from publicly available sources. Both costs and health outcomes were discounted at 5.0% per annum. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted to verify the robustness of the model. Based on the MUSKARDIA trial results, the risk with the events of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) was decreased (P < 0.05) in the female subgroup treated with SBP therapy compared with standard therapy. Consequently, a scenario analysis based on subgroups of Chinese females was conducted for this study. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were assessed for each strategy for costs per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) saved.ResultsAfter 30 years of simulation, the SBP group has added 0.32 QALYs, and the cost has been saved 841.00 CNY. Compared with the standard therapy, the ICER for the SBP therapy was -2628.13 CNY per QALY. Scenario analyses of Chinese females showed that, after 30 years of simulation, the SBP therapy has been increased by 0.82 QALYs, and the cost has been reduced by 19474.00 CNY. Compared with the standard therapy, the ICER for the SBP therapy was -26569.51 CNY per QALY. Similar results were obtained in various extensive sensitivity analyses.ConclusionsThis is the first study to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of SBP in the treatment of CAD. In conclusion, SBP as an add-on treatment to standard therapy appears to be a cost-effective strategy for CAD in Chinese patients.

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: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.

Dataset Information

Treatment for stable coronary artery disease: a network meta-analysis of cost-effectiveness studies.

Introduction and objectives

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Treatment for stable coronary artery disease: a network meta-analysis of cost-effectiveness studies.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets