IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/aphecp/v10y2012i4p261-271.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Economic Evaluation of Clopidogrel in Acute Coronary Syndrome Patients without ST-Segment Elevation in Greece

Author

Listed:
  • Georgia Kourlaba
  • Vassilis Fragoulakis
  • Nikos Maniadakis

Abstract

Background: Current guidelines recommend treatment with antiplatelet and anticoagulant therapy for the secondary prevention of atherothrombotic events among patients with non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) or unstable angina (UA). The CURE (Clopidogrel in Unstable angina to prevent Recurrent Events) trial has shown that clopidogrel alone or in combination with aspirin is more effective in reducing the risk of atherothrombotic events than aspirin alone in NSTEMI or UA patients. However, in the current climate of financial constraints, the effectiveness of a treatment should be considered in conjunction with its long-term economic costs to determine the best possible care. Objective: To evaluate the cost effectiveness of 1 year of treatment with clopidogrel in addition to aspirin in NSTEMI or UA patients from the third-party-payer perspective in Greece. Methods: An existing Markov model consisting of six states (NSTEMI/UA/no event, first year with stroke, history of stroke, first year with myocardial infarction [MI], history of MI and death) was adapted and extended to the Greek healthcare setting for year 2012. Utility values obtained from a Greek national study were assigned to each health state in order to estimate the quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). Costs assigned to each health state included antiplatelet treatment cost, cost for the management of adverse events and the costs for concomitant medication, hospitalization, outpatient visits, rehabilitation and nursing. Cost effectiveness and cost utility was expressed as the cost per life-year (LY) gained and QALY gained, respectively. A probabilistic sensitivity analysis was conducted. Results: The Markov analysis predicts a discounted survival of 8.27 years in the aspirin treatment group and 8.41 years in the aspirin plus clopidogrel treatment group. The corresponding discounted QALYs were 6.88 and 7.00, respectively. The cumulated lifetime costs per patient were €18 779 and €19191, for the aspirin and aspirin plus clopidogrel treatment arms, respectively. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) with the addition of clopidogrel was €2951 for each LY saved and €3541 for each QALY saved. Finally, clopidogrel plus aspirin was found to be cost effective in more than 95% of simulated samples at a threshold of €7000 per discounted QALY gained. Conclusion: One-year treatment with clopidogrel in addition to aspirin is a cost-effective treatment option for secondary prevention in patients with acute coronary syndrome without ST-segment elevation in Greece. Copyright Springer International Publishing AG 2012

Suggested Citation

  • Georgia Kourlaba & Vassilis Fragoulakis & Nikos Maniadakis, 2012. "Economic Evaluation of Clopidogrel in Acute Coronary Syndrome Patients without ST-Segment Elevation in Greece," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 10(4), pages 261-271, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:aphecp:v:10:y:2012:i:4:p:261-271
    DOI: 10.2165/11633820-000000000-00000
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.2165/11633820-000000000-00000
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.2165/11633820-000000000-00000?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. B. Brüggenjürgen & P. Lindgren & B. Ehlken & H.-J. Rupprecht & S. Willich, 2007. "Long-term cost-effectiveness of clopidogrel in patients with acute coronary syndrome without ST-segment elevation in Germany," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 8(1), pages 51-57, March.
    2. Nancy Devlin & David Parkin, 2004. "Does NICE have a cost‐effectiveness threshold and what other factors influence its decisions? A binary choice analysis," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 13(5), pages 437-452, May.
    3. Briggs, Andrew & Sculpher, Mark & Claxton, Karl, 2006. "Decision Modelling for Health Economic Evaluation," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780198526629.
    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. Mattias Ekman & Peter Lindgren & Carolin Miltenburger & Genevieve Meier & Julie Locklear & Mary Chatterton, 2012. "Cost Effectiveness of Quetiapine in Patients with Acute Bipolar Depression and in Maintenance Treatment after an Acute Depressive Episode," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 30(6), pages 513-530, June.
    2. Georgia Kourlaba & Vassilis Fragoulakis & Nikos Maniadakis, 2012. "Clopidogrel versus Aspirin in Patients with Atherothrombosis," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 10(5), pages 331-342, September.
    3. Kasper M. Johannesen & Karl Claxton & Mark J. Sculpher & Allan J. Wailoo, 2018. "How to design the cost‐effectiveness appraisal process of new healthcare technologies to maximise population health: A conceptual framework," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 27(2), pages 41-54, February.
    4. Wei Yang & Heather Gage & Daniel Jackson & Monique Raats, 2018. "The effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of plant sterol or stanol-enriched functional foods as a primary prevention strategy for people with cardiovascular disease risk in England: a modeling study," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 19(7), pages 909-922, September.
    5. Henry Glick, 2011. "Sample Size and Power for Cost-Effectiveness Analysis (Part 1)," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 29(3), pages 189-198, March.
    6. Naiyana Praditsitthikorn & Yot Teerawattananon & Sripen Tantivess & Supon Limwattananon & Arthorn Riewpaiboon & Saibua Chichareon & Nantakan Ieumwananonthachai & Viroj Tangcharoensathien, 2011. "Economic Evaluation of Policy Options for Prevention and Control of Cervical Cancer in Thailand," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 29(9), pages 781-806, September.
    7. Michał Jakubczyk & Bogumił Kamiński, 2017. "Fuzzy approach to decision analysis with multiple criteria and uncertainty in health technology assessment," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 251(1), pages 301-324, April.
    8. Chiranjeev Sanyal & Don Husereau, 2020. "Systematic Review of Economic Evaluations of Services Provided by Community Pharmacists," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 18(3), pages 375-392, June.
    9. Arantzazu Arrospide & Oliver Ibarrondo & Iván Castilla & Igor Larrañaga & Javier Mar, 2022. "Development and Validation of a Discrete Event Simulation Model to Evaluate the Cardiovascular Impact of Population Policies for Obesity," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 42(2), pages 241-254, February.
    10. Mark Oppe & Daniela Ortín-Sulbarán & Carlos Vila Silván & Anabel Estévez-Carrillo & Juan M. Ramos-Goñi, 2021. "Cost-effectiveness of adding Sativex® spray to spasticity care in Belgium: using bootstrapping instead of Monte Carlo simulation for probabilistic sensitivity analyses," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 22(5), pages 711-721, July.
    11. Kaitlyn Hastings & Clara Marquina & Jedidiah Morton & Dina Abushanab & Danielle Berkovic & Stella Talic & Ella Zomer & Danny Liew & Zanfina Ademi, 2022. "Projected New-Onset Cardiovascular Disease by Socioeconomic Group in Australia," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 40(4), pages 449-460, April.
    12. Mikael Svensson & Fredrik Nilsson & Karl Arnberg, 2015. "Reimbursement Decisions for Pharmaceuticals in Sweden: The Impact of Disease Severity and Cost Effectiveness," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 33(11), pages 1229-1236, November.
    13. John Vernon & Robert Goldberg & Joseph Golec, 2009. "Economic Evaluation and Cost-Effectiveness Thresholds," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 27(10), pages 797-806, October.
    14. Javad Moradpour & Aidan Hollis, 2021. "The economic theory of cost‐effectiveness thresholds in health: Domestic and international implications," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 30(5), pages 1139-1151, May.
    15. Andrea Marcellusi & Raffaella Viti & Loreta A. Kondili & Stefano Rosato & Stefano Vella & Francesco Saverio Mennini, 2019. "Economic Consequences of Investing in Anti-HCV Antiviral Treatment from the Italian NHS Perspective: A Real-World-Based Analysis of PITER Data," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 37(2), pages 255-266, February.
    16. Risha Gidwani & Louise B. Russell, 2020. "Estimating Transition Probabilities from Published Evidence: A Tutorial for Decision Modelers," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 38(11), pages 1153-1164, November.
    17. Cairns, John, 2006. "Providing guidance to the NHS: The Scottish Medicines Consortium and the National Institute for Clinical Excellence compared," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 76(2), pages 134-143, April.
    18. Dakin, Helen Angela & Devlin, Nancy J. & Odeyemi, Isaac A.O., 2006. ""Yes", "No" or "Yes, but"? Multinomial modelling of NICE decision-making," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 77(3), pages 352-367, August.
    19. Round, Jeff, 2012. "Is a QALY still a QALY at the end of life?," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 31(3), pages 521-527.
    20. repec:ces:ifodic:v:4:y:2006:i:2:p:14567506 is not listed on IDEAS
    21. Xinyue Dong & Xiaoning He & Jing Wu, 2022. "Cost Effectiveness of the First‐in‐Class ARNI (Sacubitril/Valsartan) for the Treatment of Essential Hypertension in a Chinese Setting," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 40(12), pages 1187-1205, 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:spr:aphecp:v:10:y:2012:i:4:p:261-271. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.