Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rcrh6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T02:46:00.506Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Economic evaluation of drug-eluting stents: A systematic literature review and model-based cost–utility analysis

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 October 2007

Pekka Kuukasjärvi ,
Pirjo Räsänen ,
Antti Malmivaara ,
Pasi Aronen  and
Harri Sintonen
Pekka Kuukasjärvi
Affiliation:
Finnish Office for Health Technology Assessment (FinOHTA)
Pirjo Räsänen
Affiliation:
Finnish Office for Health Technology Assessment (FinOHTA)
Antti Malmivaara
Affiliation:
Finnish Office for Health Technology Assessment (FinOHTA)
Pasi Aronen
Affiliation:
Finnish Office for Health Technology Assessment (FinOHTA)
Harri Sintonen
Affiliation:
Finnish Office for Health Technology Assessment (FinOHTA)
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objectives: The aim of this study was to systematically review economic analyses comparing drug-eluting stents (DES) to bare metal stents (BMS) in patients who undergo percutaneous coronary intervention to form an overall view about cost-effectiveness of DES and to construct a simple decision analysis model to evaluate the cost–utility of DES.

Methods: Electronic databases searched from January 2004 to January 2006 were Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews; DARE, HTA, EED (NHS CRD); MEDLINE(R) In-Process, Other Non-Indexed Citations, MEDLINE(R). References of the papers identified were checked. We included randomized controlled trials (RCT) or model-based cost-effectiveness analyses comparing DES to BMS in patients with coronary artery disease. The methodological quality of the papers was assessed by Drummond's criteria. Baseline characteristics and results of the studies were extracted and data synthesized descriptively. A decision tree model was constructed to evaluate the cost–utility of DES in comparison to BMS, where health-related quality of life was measured by the 15D.

Results: We identified thirteen good-quality economic evaluations. In two of these based on RCTs, DES was found cost-effective. In six studies, it was concluded that DES might probably be a cost-effective strategy in some circumstances, but not as a single strategy, and four studies concluded that DES is not cost-effective. One study did not draw a clear conclusion. In our analysis, the overall incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was €98,827 per quality-adjusted life-years gained. Avoiding one revascularization with DES would cost €4,794, when revascularization with BMS costs €3,260.

Conclusions: The evidence is inconsistent of whether DES would be a cost-effective treatment compared with BMS in any healthcare system where evaluated. A marked restenosis risk reduction should be achieved before use of DES is justifiable at present prices. When considering adoption of a new health technology with a high incremental cost within a fixed budget, opportunity cost in terms of untreated patients should be seriously considered as a question of collective ethics.

Keywords

Coronary artery diseaseStentCost-effectivenessCost–utilityQuality-adjusted life-yearHealth-related quality of lifeSystematic review of literature
Type
GENERAL ESSAYS
Information
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care , Volume 23 , Issue 4 , October 2007 , pp. 473 - 479
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2007

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

1.Bagust, A, Grayson, AD, Palmer, ND, et al. Cost effectiveness of drug eluting coronary artery stenting in a UK setting: Cost-utility study. Heart. 2006;92:68–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2.Bowen, J, Hopkins, R, He, Y, et al. Systematic review and cost-effectiveness analysis of drug eluting stents compared to bare metal stents for percutaneous coronary interventions in Ontario. Interim Report for the Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-term Care. Program for Assessment of Technology in Health. Report No.: HTA002-0512. Ontario: McMaster University; 2005:170.Google Scholar
3.Brophy, JM, Erickson, LJ. Cost-effectiveness of drug-eluting coronary stents in Quebec, Canada. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2005;21:326–333.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
4.Cohen, DJ, Bakhai, A, Shi, C, et al. Cost-effectiveness of sirolimus-eluting stents for treatment of complex coronary stenoses: Results from the sirolimus-eluting balloon expandable stent in the treatment of patients with de novo native coronary artery lesions (SIRIUS) trial. Circulation. 2004;110:508–514.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
5.Drummond, M, Sculpher, M, Torrance, GW. Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6.Hill, R, Bagust, A, Bakhai, A et al. Coronary artery stents: A rapid systematic review and economic evaluation. Health Technol Assess. 2004;8:iii-iv, 1–242.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
7.Kaiser, C, Brunner-La Rocca, HP, Buser, PT, et al. Incremental cost-effectiveness of drug-eluting stents compared with a third-generation bare-metal stent in a real-world setting: Randomised Basel Stent Kosten Effektivitats Trial (BASKET). Lancet. 2005;366:921–929.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8.Kattainen, E, Sintonen, H, Kettunen, R, Merilainen, P. Health-related quality of life of coronary artery bypass grafting and percutaneous transluminal coronary artery angioplasty patients: 1-year follow-up. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2005;21:172–179.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
9.Kong, DF, Eisenstein, EL, Sketch, MH Jr, et al. Economic impact of drug-eluting stents on hospital systems: A disease-state model. Am Heart J. 2004;147:449–456.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
10.Medical Services Advisory C. Drug-eluting stents. Canberra: Medical Services Advisory Committee (MSAC); 2005.Google Scholar
11.Mittmann, N, Brown, A, Seung, SJ, et al. Economic evaluation of drug eluting stents. Ottawa: Canadian Coordinating Office for Health Technology Assessment (CCOHTA); 2005.Google Scholar
12.Moher, D, Cook, DJ, Eastwood, S, et al. Improving the quality of reports of meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials: The QUOROM statement. Quality of Reporting of Meta-analyses. Lancet. 1999;354:1896–1900.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
13.Oliva, G, Espallargues, M, Pons, JM. [Antiproliferative drug-eluting stents: Systematic review of the benefits and estimate of economic impact]. Rev Esp Cardiol. 2004;57:617–628.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
14.Shrive, FM, Manns, BJ, Galbraith, PD, et al. Economic evaluation of sirolimus-eluting stents. CMAJ. 2005;172:345–351.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
15.The Norwegian Knowledge Centre for the Health Services (NOKC); 2004. Prevention of restenosis (8/2004). Available at: http://www.kunnskapssenteret.no/filer/Rapport8-2004_siste_versjon.pdf.Google Scholar
16.van Hout, BA, Serruys, PW, Lemos, PA, et al. One year cost effectiveness of sirolimus eluting stents compared with bare metal stents in the treatment of single native de novo coronary lesions: An analysis from the RAVEL trial. Heart. 2005;91:507–512.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Supplementary material: File

Kuukasjarvi_tables

Kuukasjarvi_tables

Download Kuukasjarvi_tables(File)
File 112.6 KB