IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0201985.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Cost-effectiveness of everolimus-eluting versus bare-metal stents in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: An analysis from the EXAMINATION randomized controlled trial

Author

Listed:
  • Nadine Schur
  • Salvatore Brugaletta
  • Angel Cequier
  • Andrés Iñiguez
  • Antonio Serra
  • Pilar Jiménez-Quevedo
  • Vicente Mainar
  • Gianluca Campo
  • Maurizio Tespili
  • Peter den Heijer
  • Armando Bethencourt
  • Nicolás Vazquez
  • Marco Valgimigli
  • Patrick W Serruys
  • Zanfina Ademi
  • Matthias Schwenkglenks
  • Manel Sabaté

Abstract

Background: Use of everolimus-eluting stents (EES) has proven to be clinically effective and safe in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction but it remains unclear whether it is cost-effective compared to bare-metal stents (BMS) in the long-term. We sought to assess the cost-effectiveness of EES versus BMS based on the 5-year results of the EXAMINATION trial, from a Spanish health service perspective. Methods: Decision analysis of the use of EES versus BMS was based on the patient-level clinical outcome data of the EXAMINATION trial. The analysis adopted a lifelong time horizon, assuming that long-term survival was independent of the initial treatment strategy after the end of follow-up. Life-expectancy, health-state utility scores and unit costs were extracted from published literature and publicly available sources. Non-parametric bootstrapping was combined with probabilistic sensitivity analysis to co-assess the impact of patient-level variation and parameter uncertainty. The main outcomes were total costs and quality-adjusted life-years. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was expressed as cost per quality-adjusted life-years gained. Costs and effects were discounted at 3%. Results: The model predicted an average survival time in patients receiving EES and BMS of 10.52 and 10.38 undiscounted years, respectively. Over the life-long time horizon, the EES strategy was €430 more costly than BMS (€8,305 vs. €7,874), but went along with incremental gains of 0.10 quality-adjusted life-years. This resulted in an average incremental cost-effectiveness ratio over all simulations of €3,948 per quality-adjusted life-years gained and was below a willingness-to-pay threshold of €25,000 per quality-adjusted life-years gained in 86.9% of simulation runs. Conclusions: Despite higher total costs relative to BMS, EES appeared to be a cost-effective therapy for ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction patients due to their incremental effectiveness. Predicted incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were below generally acceptable threshold values.

Suggested Citation

  • Nadine Schur & Salvatore Brugaletta & Angel Cequier & Andrés Iñiguez & Antonio Serra & Pilar Jiménez-Quevedo & Vicente Mainar & Gianluca Campo & Maurizio Tespili & Peter den Heijer & Armando Bethencou, 2018. "Cost-effectiveness of everolimus-eluting versus bare-metal stents in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: An analysis from the EXAMINATION randomized controlled trial," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(8), pages 1-16, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0201985
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0201985
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0201985
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0201985&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0201985?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Thomas G Poder & Jihane Erraji & Lucien P Coulibaly & Kouamé Koffi, 2017. "Percutaneous coronary intervention with second-generation drug-eluting stent versus bare-metal stent: Systematic review and cost–benefit analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(5), pages 1-14, May.
    2. Joanne Lord & Maxwell A. Asante, 1999. "Estimating uncertainty ranges for costs by the bootstrap procedure combined with probabilistic sensitivity analysis," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 8(4), pages 323-333, June.
    3. C. Elizabeth McCarron & Eleanor M. Pullenayegum & Lehana Thabane & Ron Goeree & Jean-Eric Tarride, 2013. "The Impact of Using Informative Priors in a Bayesian Cost-Effectiveness Analysis," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 33(3), pages 437-450, April.
    4. McCabe, C & Claxton, K & Culyer, AJ, 2008. "The NICE Cost-Effectiveness Threshold: What it is and What that Means," MPRA Paper 26466, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Saha, Sanjib & Gerdtham, Ulf-G. & Toresson, Håkan & Minthon, Lennart & Jarl, Johan, 2018. "Economic Evaluation of Interventions for Screening of Dementia," Working Papers 2018:20, Lund University, Department of Economics.
    2. A. E. Ades & Karl Claxton & Mark Sculpher, 2006. "Evidence synthesis, parameter correlation and probabilistic sensitivity analysis," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 15(4), pages 373-381, April.
    3. Ryuichi Ohta & Yoshinori Ryu & Daisuke Kataoka & Chiaki Sano, 2021. "Effectiveness and Challenges in Local Self-Governance: Multifunctional Autonomy in Japan," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(2), pages 1-14, January.
    4. John Vernon & Robert Goldberg & Joseph Golec, 2009. "Economic Evaluation and Cost-Effectiveness Thresholds," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 27(10), pages 797-806, October.
    5. Scott Metcalfe & Rachel Grocott, 2010. "Comments on “Simoens, S. Health Economic Assessment: A Methodological Primer. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2009, 6, 2950-2966”—New Zealand in Fact Has No Cost-Effectiveness Threshold," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 7(4), pages 1-4, April.
    6. Marieke Krol & Jocé Papenburg & Siok Swan Tan & Werner Brouwer & Leona Hakkaart, 2016. "A noticeable difference? Productivity costs related to paid and unpaid work in economic evaluations on expensive drugs," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 17(4), pages 391-402, May.
    7. Thomas Grochtdreis & Hans-Helmut König & Alexander Dobruschkin & Gunhild von Amsberg & Judith Dams, 2018. "Cost-effectiveness analyses and cost analyses in castration-resistant prostate cancer: A systematic review," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(12), pages 1-25, December.
    8. Sanjib Saha & Ulf-G Gerdtham & Pia Johansson, 2010. "Economic Evaluation of Lifestyle Interventions for Preventing Diabetes and Cardiovascular Diseases," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 7(8), pages 1-46, August.
    9. Saha, Sanjib & Gerdtham, Ulf-G. & Toresson, Håkan & Minthon, Lennart & Jarl, Johan, 2018. "Economic Evaluation of Nonpharmacological Interventions for Dementia Patients and their Caregivers - A Systematic Literature Review," Working Papers 2018:10, Lund University, Department of Economics.
    10. Anna Nicolet & Antoinette D I van Asselt & Karin M Vermeulen & Paul F M Krabbe, 2020. "Value judgment of new medical treatments: Societal and patient perspectives to inform priority setting in The Netherlands," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(7), pages 1-18, July.
    11. Katharina Schremser & Wolf Rogowski & Sigrid Adler-Reichel & Amanda Tufman & Rudolf Huber & Björn Stollenwerk, 2015. "Cost-Effectiveness of an Individualized First-Line Treatment Strategy Offering Erlotinib Based on EGFR Mutation Testing in Advanced Lung Adenocarcinoma Patients in Germany," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 33(11), pages 1215-1228, November.
    12. James C. Felli & Gordon B. Hazen, 2004. "Javelin Diagrams: A Graphical Tool for Probabilistic Sensitivity Analysis," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 1(2), pages 93-107, June.
    13. Klingler, Corinna & Shah, Sara M.B. & Barron, Anthony J.G. & Wright, John S.F., 2013. "Regulatory space and the contextual mediation of common functional pressures: Analyzing the factors that led to the German Efficiency Frontier approach," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 109(3), pages 270-280.
    14. Rachel Elliott & Koen Putman & Matthew Franklin & Lieven Annemans & Nick Verhaeghe & Martin Eden & Jasdeep Hayre & Sarah Rodgers & Aziz Sheikh & Anthony Avery, 2014. "Cost Effectiveness of a Pharmacist-Led Information Technology Intervention for Reducing Rates of Clinically Important Errors in Medicines Management in General Practices (PINCER)," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 32(6), pages 573-590, June.
    15. Job F. H. Eijsink & Mohamed N. M. T. Al Khayat & Cornelis Boersma & Peter G. J. Horst & Jan C. Wilschut & Maarten J. Postma, 2021. "Cost-effectiveness of hepatitis C virus screening, and subsequent monitoring or treatment among pregnant women in the Netherlands," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 22(1), pages 75-88, February.
    16. Sofia Dias & Alex J. Sutton & Nicky J. Welton & A. E. Ades, 2013. "Evidence Synthesis for Decision Making 6," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 33(5), pages 671-678, July.
    17. Stefano Capri & Rosella Levaggi, 2011. "Shifting the risk in pricing and reimbursement schemes? A model of risk-sharing agreements for innovative drugs," DEP - series of economic working papers 2/2011, University of Genoa, Research Doctorate in Public Economics.
    18. Jonathan Karnon, 2003. "Alternative decision modelling techniques for the evaluation of health care technologies: Markov processes versus discrete event simulation," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 12(10), pages 837-848, October.
    19. Anne Girault & Chloe Gerves-Pinquie & Serena Phillips & Sarah Raskin & Mandi Pratt-Chapman, 2018. "Economic evaluation of patient navigation programs in colorectal cancer care, a systematic review," Post-Print hal-01973691, HAL.
    20. Chloé Gervès-Pinquié & Anne Girault & Serena Phillips & Sarah Raskin & Mandi Pratt-Chapman, 2018. "Economic evaluation of patient navigation programs in colorectal cancer care, a systematic review," Health Economics Review, Springer, vol. 8(1), pages 1-12, December.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0201985. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.