Cost Analysis From Two Randomized Trials of Sirolimus-Eluting Stents Versus Paclitaxel-Eluting Stents in High-Risk Patients With Coronary Artery Disease

Polymer-Free Drug-Coated Coronary Stents Are Cost-Effective in Patients at High Bleeding Risk: Economic Evaluation of the LEADERS FREE Trial

AIMS

In patients at high risk of bleeding who undergo PCI the biolimus A9 polymer-free drug coated stent (DCS) has superior efficacy and safety compared to a bare metal stent (BMS). We estimated the cost effectiveness of DCS vs. BMS.

METHODS AND RESULTS

The Leaders FREE-based economic evaluation estimated service use and quality of life data collected prospectively. The entire trial population was analysed using cost-weights from England, France, Germany, Italy, Scotland and Spain. Country-specific QALYs were derived from EQ-5D scores. We estimated cost per event averted and per QALY gained. DCS use resulted in -0.095 cardiac deaths, target vessel MI, stent thrombosis and revascularization per patient (0.152 vs. 0.237;p<0.001). One-year QALYs were non-significantly higher in the DCS group. Total costs for the index admission were similar between groups. One-year costs using cost-weights from each of the 6 countries, including the additional €300 per DCS stent, ranged from €4,664-8,593 for DCS and €4,845-9,742 for BMS and were lower in the DCS group (England:€-428, France:€-137, Germany:€-33, Italy:€-522, Scotland:€-298, Spain:€-854).

CONCLUSIONS

The probability that DCS dominated BMS was >50% in all countries. At a threshold of €10,000 per event averted DCS had a 98% probability of being cost-effective in all 6 countries.

Economic Outcomes of Bioresorbable Vascular Scaffolds Versus Everolimus-Eluting Stents in Patients Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: 1-Year Results From the ABSORB III Trial

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the economic impact of the Absorb bioresorbable vascular scaffold compared with the Xience everolimus-eluting stent in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention.

BACKGROUND

The ABSORB III trial (Everolimus-Eluting Bioresorbable Scaffolds for Coronary Artery Disease) demonstrated that the Absorb scaffold was noninferior to the Xience stent with respect to target lesion failure at 1 year. Whether health care costs differ between the Absorb scaffold and the Xience stent is unknown.

METHODS

We performed a prospective health economic study alongside the ABSORB III trial, in which patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention for stable or unstable angina were randomized to receive the Absorb scaffold (n = 1,322) or Xience stent (n = 686). Resource use data were collected through 1 year of follow-up. Costs were assessed using resource-based accounting (for procedures), MedPAR data (for other index hospitalization costs), and Medicare reimbursements (for follow-up costs and physician fees).

RESULTS

Initial procedural costs were higher with the Absorb scaffold than the Xience stent ($6,316 ± 1,892 vs. $6,103 ± 1,895; p = 0.02), driven mainly by greater balloon catheter use and the higher cost of the scaffold in the Absorb group. Nonetheless, index hospitalization costs ($15,035 ± 2,992 for Absorb vs. $14,903 ± 3,449 for Xience; p = 0.37) and total 1-year costs ($17,848 ± 6,110 for Absorb vs. $17,498 ± 7,411 for Xience; p = 0.29) were similar between the 2 groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Although initial procedural costs were higher with the Absorb scaffold, there were no differences in total 1-year health care costs between the 2 cohorts. Longer term follow-up is needed to determine whether meaningful cost savings emerge after scaffold resorption. (A Clinical Evaluation of Absorb™ BVS, the Everolimus-Eluting Bioresorbable Vascular Scaffold in the Treatment of Subjects With de Novo Native Coronary Artery Lesions; NCT01751906).

Cost-effectiveness of drug-eluting stents in patients at high or low risk of major cardiac events in the Basel Stent KostenEffektivitäts Trial (BASKET): an 18-month analysis

BACKGROUND

Our aim was to determine whether drug-eluting stents are good value for money in long-term, everyday practice.

METHODS

We did an 18-month cost-effectiveness analysis of the Basel Stent KostenEffektivitäts Trial (BASKET), which randomised 826 patients 2:1 to drug-eluting stents (n=545) or to bare-metal stents (281). We used non-parametric bootstrap techniques to determine incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) of drug-eluting versus bare-metal stents, to compare low-risk (> or =3.0 mm stents in native vessels; n=558, 68%) and high-risk patients (<3.0 mm stents/bypass graft stenting; n=268, 32%), and to do sensitivity analyses by altering costs and event rates in the whole study sample and in predefined subgroups. Quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were assessed by EQ-5D questionnaire (available in 703/826 patients).

FINDINGS

Overall costs were higher for patients with drug-eluting stents than in those with bare-metal stents (11,808 euros [SD 400] per patient with drug-eluting stents and 10,450 euros [592] per patient with bare-metal stents, mean difference 1358 euros [717], p<0.0001), due to higher stent costs. We calculated an ICER of 64,732 euros to prevent one major adverse cardiac event, and of 40,467 euros per QALY gained. Stent costs, number of events, and QALYs affected ICERs most, but unrealistic alterations would have been required to achieve acceptable cost-effectiveness. In low-risk patients, the probability of drug-eluting stents achieving an arbitrary ICER of 10,000 euros or less to prevent one major adverse cardiac event was 0.016; by contrast, it was 0.874 in high-risk patients.

INTERPRETATION

If used in all patients, drug-eluting stents are not good value for money, even if prices were substantially reduced. Drug-eluting stents are cost effective in patients needing small vessel or bypass graft stenting, but not in those who require large native vessel stenting.