Cost-effectiveness analysis of ramipril in heart failure after myocardial infarction. Economic evaluation of the Acute Infarction Ramipril Efficacy (AIRE) study for Germany from the perspective of Statutory Health Insurance.

OBJECTIVE: Data from the Acute Infarction Ramipril Efficacy (AIRE) study were used in a cost-effectiveness analysis to determine the incremental cost per life-year gained (LYG) when the ACE inhibitor ramipril was added to conventional treatment in patients with heart failure after acute myocardial infarction. In the AIRE trial, the addition of ramipril significantly lowered rates of total mortality and rehospitalisation due to heart failure. DESIGN AND SETTING: The cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted from the perspective of the Statutory Health Insurance (SHI) provider in Germany. A modelling approach was used which was based on secondary analysis of existing data, and costs were those incurred by SHI (i.e. expenses of SHI). In the base-case analysis, average case-related expenses of SHI were applied and LYG were quantified by the method of Kaplan and Meier. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES AND RESULTS: The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of ramipril varied between 2500 and 8300 deutschmarks (DM) per LYG (1993 values for inpatient and 1995 values for outpatient treatment; DM1 approximately $US0.70), according to the treatment periods of 3.8 years and 1 year, respectively. In the sensitivity analysis, the robustness of the model and its results was shown when the extent of influence of different model variables on the base-case results was investigated. First, survival probability and LYG were estimated according to the Weibull method. Second, the dependency of the target variable (i.e. incremental cost per LYG) on random variables was described in a simulation. Third, the influence of the model variables on the target variable was quantified using a deterministic model. The variance of the target variable was broad and the hospitalisation impact of adding ramipril to conventional treatment was an independent variable with much greater influence on the target variable than the parameter of clinical effectiveness, i.e. the number of LYG. CONCLUSION: Results of this evaluation showed that ramipril has a favourable incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for the treatment of heart failure in post myocardial infarction patients and can be considered an economical therapeutic agent from the perspective of SHI (third-party payer) in Germany.     

Cost-effectiveness in Italy of preventive treatment with ramipril in patients at high risk of cardiovascular events

OBJECTIVES: A cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted in Italy of preventive treatment with ramipril (an angiotensin converting enzyme [ACE] inhibitor) compared to no treatment in patients at high risk of cardiovascular death. The analysis was based on data extracted from the HOPE trial. METHODS: The current life table method was used in order to model a lifetime time horizon for outcomes and costs. The cohorts used were 1000 subjects on ramipril, and 1000 subjects on placebo enrolled in the HOPE trial. Kaplan-Meier curves at 5 years of the clinical study were fitted using an exponential model over a lifetime horizon, the outcome variables being myocardial infarction, stroke, revascularization and death. Total direct medical costs have been considered from a third-party payer's perspective--the Italian National Health Service. Resources involved in each event/activity were estimated using the modified Delphi technique with a panel of six clinicians. Types of resources reported included drug therapies, laboratory and imaging tests, physician visits, outpatient and inpatient rehabilitation, as well as medical and surgical hospital admissions. The incremental cost per life year gained was the main measure of the analysis. RESULTS: ICER (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio) decreases with the length of the treatment period. After the first year the ICER is 55,062 euros and subsequently decreases to about 12,770 euros at 5 years, 5945 euros at 10 years and 3726 euros at 20 years. The two ways sensitivity analysis showed that at 5 years ICERs range from a saving of 4059 euros to a cost of 22,929 euros (at 20 years they are 1814 euros and 4434 euros), mainly depending on the cost of drug and cost of events. Previous analyses in other countries based on the HOPE study obtained ICER values which are comparable with our results, when taking into account the different cost structure of the health care systems. CONCLUSIONS: On the basis of these results, the use of ramipril is likely to represent an efficient use of public health expenditure in the Italian healthcare system.     

Cost-effectiveness in Italy of preventive treatment with ramipril in patients at high risk of cardiovascular events

ABSTRACT

Objectives: A cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted in Italy of preventive treatment with ramipril (an angiotensin converting enzyme [ACE] inhibitor) compared to no treatment in patients at high risk of cardiovascular death. The analysis was based on data extracted from the HOPE trial.

Methods: The current life table method was used in order to model a lifetime time horizon for outcomes and costs. The cohorts used were 1000 subjects on ramipril, and 1000 subjects on placebo enrolled in the HOPE trial. Kaplan–Meier curves at 5 years of the clinical study were fitted using an exponential model over a lifetime horizon, the outcome variables being myocardial infarction, stroke, revascularization and death. Total direct medical costs have been considered from a third-party payer's perspective – the Italian National Health Service. Resources involved in each event/activity were estimated using the modified Delphi technique with a panel of six clinicians. Types of resources reported included drug therapies, laboratory and imaging tests, physician visits, outpatient and inpatient rehabilitation, as well as medical and surgical hospital admissions. The incremental cost per life year gained was the main measure of the analysis.

Results: ICER (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio) decreases with the length of the treatment period. After the first year the ICER is €55?062 and subsequently decreases to about €12?770 at 5 years, €5945 at 10 years and €3726 at 20 years. The two ways sensitivity analysis showed that at 5 years ICERs range from a saving of €4059 to a cost of €22?929 (at 20 years they are €1814 and €4434), mainly depending on the cost of drug and cost of events. Previous analyses in other countries based on the HOPE study obtained ICER values which are comparable with our results, when taking into account the different cost structure of the health care systems.

Conclusions: On the basis of these results, the use of ramipril is likely to represent an efficient use of public health expenditure in the Italian healthcare system.     

The value of clopidogrel versus aspirin in reducing atherothrombotic events: the CAPRIE study

Atherothrombotic disease is a growing health problem, and is increasingly more costly to manage. Clopidogrel is an advanced, specific adenosine diphosphate receptor antagonist, which has been shown to be a highly potent antiplatelet agent. Data from the Clopidogrel versus Aspirin in Patients at Risk of Ischaemic Events (CAPRIE) study have demonstrated the significantly superior clinical benefit of clopidogrel over aspirin for secondary prevention of atherothrombotic disease, with a relative risk reduction in myocardial infarction, stroke or vascular death of 8.7% (95% confidence interval 0.3, 16.5; P = 0.043). Moreover, clopidogrel demonstrated an amplified clinical benefit versus aspirin in patients at high risk of atherothrombotic events, such as those with a previous history of symptomatic atherothrombotic disease or with major risk factors such as diabetes mellitus or hypercholesterolaemia. On the basis of commonly accepted threshold criteria (Euros 20000 per life-year gained; LYG), clopidogrel in comparison with aspirin is cost-effective for the secondary prevention of atherothrombotic disease (cost per LYG ranging from Euros 19462 to Euros 3256). Economic analyses have demonstrated consistent cost-effectiveness results with clopidogrel in different countries. Moreover, in high-risk patient subgroups the cost-effectiveness of clopidogrel in comparison with aspirin was evenbetter (cost per LYG ranging from Euros 5900 to Euros 6310). Compared with other treatment strategies used for the prevention of ischaemic or atherothrombotic events, the cost-effectiveness of clopidogrel in comparison with aspirin based on CAPRIE is favourable, with most analyses in the intermediate range of cost-effectiveness. The available data thus support the use of clopidogrel as a clinically efficient and cost-effective option for secondary prevention of atherothrombotic disease, particularly in high-risk patients.     

Estimating the Cost Effectiveness of Ramipril used for Specific Clinical Indications

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Economic analyses of drug therapies are highly dependent on the clinical indications for treatment. The cost effectiveness of ramipril has been evaluated in numerous studies, usually based on the results of one specific clinical trial. We estimated the cost effectiveness of this drug across a range of currently accepted therapeutic indications, using a single health economic model and adjusted for quality of life, to compare the different outcomes observed in four clinical trials. METHODS: The cardiovascular life expectancy model, a validated Markov model, was calibrated to accurately forecast the results of four trials including AIRE, HOPE, Micro-HOPE, and REIN. We then extrapolated these results over the remaining life expectancy of the patients enrolled in each study and adjusted for the quality of life associated with the observed outcomes. The cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) was then calculated from the perspective of the Canadian healthcare system incorporating the estimated direct healthcare costs associated with treatments and outcomes. RESULTS: After discounting all costs and outcomes 3% annually, the benefits associated with ramipril ranged from 0.74 QALYs in the AIRE study to 1.22 QALYs in Micro-HOPE. Treatment was estimated to be cost-saving for some patient groups, such as those in REIN. The highest cost-effectiveness ratio was observed among individuals enrolled in HOPE ($Can20 000 per QALY in 2002). CONCLUSION: Treatment with ramipril appears to be economically attractive across a wide range of patient groups, including those with increased coronary risk and/or diabetes mellitus (HOPE and Micro-HOPE), those with congestive heart failure (AIRE), and those with non-diabetic nephropathy (REIN).     

Ramipril: a review of its use in the prevention of cardiovascular outcomes

Ramipril, an angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor, is a prodrug which is rapidly hydrolysed after absorption to the active metabolite ramiprilat. Earlier trials have shown that ACE inhibitors, when given to patients with low ejection fractions, have reduced the relative risk of myocardial infarction (MI) and other ischaemic events by 14 to 23%. Subsequently, the double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled, multicentre Heart Outcomes Prevention Evaluation (HOPE) study has shown that, in patients who are not known to have low ejection fraction or heart failure but are at increased risk for developing cardiovascular events, ramipril reduced the incidence of stroke, MI and death due to cardiovascular disease. Results from the HOPE study, in which 9297 patients were randomised to receive either ramipril 10 mg/day or placebo for a mean of 4.5 years, indicate that ramipril reduced the relative risk of the composite outcome of MI, stroke and cardiovascular death by 22%. The incidence of the composite outcome was significantly lower in the ramipril group than in the placebo group (14.0 vs 17.8%). Patients who received ramipril, compared with placebo recipients, had a significantly decreased incidence of stroke, MI or death due to cardiovascular disease (3.4 vs 4.9%, 9.9 vs 12.3% and 6.1 vs 8.1%, respectively). The relative risk of death from any cause was reduced among patients who received ramipril. In addition, treatment with ramipril reduced as the incidence of revascularisation procedures, and, among patients with diabetes mellitus, ramipril reduced the incidence of complications related to diabetes mellitus, including the development of overt nephropathy. Moreover, in patients without a previous diagnosis of diabetes mellitus, ramipril, compared with placebo, significantly reduced the development of diabetes mellitus. Furthermore, compared with patients receiving placebo, patients receiving ramipril had a reduced rate of progression of carotid artery wall thickness. CONCLUSION: Ramipril 10 mg/day can significantly reduce the incidence of MI, stroke or death from cardiovascular causes in patients aged > or =55 years who are at increased risk for the development of ischaemic cardiovascular events due to a history of stroke, coronary artery disease (with controlled blood pressure), diabetes mellitus plus at least one other risk factor or peripheral vascular disease but no heart failure or low ejection fraction. Therefore, in addition to dietary and lifestyle modifications, ramipril should be an integral part of secondary prevention therapy in patients at increased risk for the development of cardiovascular events.     

Spotlight on Ramipril in the Prevention of Cardiovascular Outcomes

Ramipril (Altace®²), an angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor, is a prodrug which is rapidly hydrolyzed after absorption to the active metabolite ramiprilat. Earlier trials have shown that ACE inhibitors, when given to patients with low ejection fractions, have reduced the relative risk of myocardial infarction (MI) and other ischemic events by 14–23%. Subsequently, the double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, multicenter Heart Outcomes Prevention Evaluation (HOPE) study has shown that, in patients who are not known to have low ejection fraction or heart failure but are at increased risk for developing cardiovascular events, ramipril reduced the incidence of stroke, MI and death due to cardiovascular disease. Results from the HOPE study, in which 9297 patients were randomized to receive either ramipril 10 mg/day or placebo for a mean of 4.5 years, indicate that ramipril reduced the relative risk of the composite outcome of MI, stroke and cardiovascular death by 22%. The incidence of the composite outcome was significantly lower in the ramipril group than in the placebo group (14.0% vs 17.8%). Patients who received ramipril, compared with placebo recipients, had a significantly decreased incidence of stroke, MI or death due to cardiovascular disease (3.4% vs 4.9%, 9.9% vs 12.3% and 6.1% vs 8.1%, respectively). The relative risk of death from any cause was reduced among patients who received ramipril. In addition, treatment with ramipril reduced as the incidence of revascularization procedures, and, among patients with diabetes mellitus, ramipril reduced the incidence of complications related to diabetes mellitus, including the development of overt nephropathy. Moreover, in patients without a previous diagnosis of diabetes mellitus, ramipril, compared with placebo, significantly reduced the development of diabetes mellitus. Furthermore, compared with patients receiving placebo, patients receiving ramipril had a reduced rate of progression of carotid artery wall thickness. Conclusion: Ramipril 10 mg/day can significantly reduce the incidence of MI, stroke or death from cardiovascular causes in patients aged ≥55 years who are at increased risk for the development of ischemic cardiovascular events due to a history of stroke, coronary artery disease (with controlled blood pressure), diabetes mellitus plus at least one other risk factor or peripheral vascular disease but no heart failure or low ejection fraction. Therefore, in addition to dietary and lifestyle modifications, ramipril should be an integral part of secondary prevention therapy in patients at increased risk for the development of cardiovascular events.     

Atorvastatin: a pharmacoeconomic review of its use in the primary and secondary prevention of cardiovascular events

Atorvastatin is a lipid-lowering agent that has been evaluated in a number of primary and secondary intervention studies. In the primary prevention trials ASCOT-LLA and CARDS, atorvastatin 10 mg/day significantly reduced cardiovascular events compared with placebo. A prospectively conducted economic analysis of the 3.3-year ASCOT-LLA trial showed that atorvastatin was associated with incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) of euro11,693 (UK) and euro12,673 (Sweden) per event avoided (2002 values). Longer-term modelled analyses using data from CARDS showed ICERs of euro8046 (Spain) and 6471pound (UK) per QALY gained (2003/2004 values), and a US analysis showed atorvastatin was dominant versus no statin when modelled over the lifetime of a representative US diabetic primary prevention population. In a modelled analysis based on results of the IDEAL trial, which showed significant reductions in cardiovascular endpoints with high-dose atorvastatin (80 mg/day) compared with conventional-dose simvastatin in patients with stable coronary heart disease, ICER values were below the commonly used cost-effectiveness threshold of euro50,000 per QALY gained in Norway, Sweden and Denmark, but were above this threshold in Finland (2005 values). A modelled US analysis that also included data from IDEAL and other sources showed an ICER of $US33,400 per QALY gained, assuming the incremental difference in acquisition cost between high-dose atorvastatin and conventional-dose simvastatin was $US1.40/day (2005 value). Most cost-effectiveness analyses with atorvastatin in patients with acute coronary syndrome used data from the 16-week MIRACL study, which showed a significant reduction in cardiovascular events with high-dose atorvastatin compared with placebo. Analyses were conducted in North America and Europe and showed that 31-86% of the acquisition cost of high-dose atorvastatin was offset by reductions in costs associated with cardiovascular events. Across five countries, ICER values ranged from approximate $US850 to $US4100 per event avoided (2000/2001 values). Another analysis conducted in the US used longer-term data and showed that high-dose atorvastatin versus conventional-dose statin was associated with an ICER of $US12,900 per QALY gained, assuming the daily difference in acquisition cost was $US1.40 (2005 value). In conclusion, atorvastatin has demonstrated beneficial effects on various cardiovascular endpoints in large, well designed primary and secondary intervention trials. These benefits in moderate- to high-risk patients were achieved at a relatively low incremental cost and, across the economic analyses, a substantial proportion of atorvastatin acquisition costs was offset by reductions in healthcare resource use associated with cardiovascular events. Cost-effectiveness analyses based on major clinical trials comparing atorvastatin with placebo, usual medical care, simvastatin or pravastatin have generally shown that atorvastatin is associated with favourable ICER values, often well below commonly used cost-effectiveness thresholds. These modelled analyses have the inherent limitation that projecting long-term outcomes beyond the time period of a clinical trial imparts a degree of uncertainty to the results. Nevertheless, while some findings were sensitive to changes in model assumptions, such as the long-term benefits of statin therapy, most sensitivity analyses showed that results of the base-case analyses were robust to plausible changes in key parameters. Although a clear pattern is not evident from available data, intuitively, the value of atorvastatin would be expected to increase with the patient's risk for serious cardiovascular events.     

A multi-country health economic evaluation of highly concentrated N-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids in secondary prevention after myocardial infarction

BACKGROUND: Patients who survive an acute myocardial infarction (MI) are at an increased risk of subsequent major cardiovascular events and (often sudden) cardiac death. The use of highly concentrated and purified omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids (n-3 PUFAs), in addition to standard secondary prevention after MI, results in a significant reduction in the risk of sudden death versus no n-3 PUFAs. This study assessed the cost effectiveness of adding n-3 PUFAs to the current secondary prevention treatment versus standard prevention alone after acute MI in five countries: Australia, Belgium, Canada, Germany and Poland. METHODS: Based on the clinical outcomes of GISSI-P (Gruppo Italiano per lo Studio della Sopravvivenza nell'Infarto Miocardico - Prevenzione) [MI, stroke, revascularisation rate and mortality], a decision model was built in DataProtrade mark. The implications of adding n-3 PUFAs to standard treatment in patients aged 59 years with a recent history of MI were analysed from the healthcare payer's perspective. The time horizon was 3.5 years (identical to GISSI-Prevenzione) but the effects on life expectancy through avoidance of cardiac events were calculated lifelong. Event costs were based on literature data. Life expectancy data for survivors of cardiac disease were taken from the Saskatchewan database and then adjusted by country. Results are expressed as extra cost (Euro) per life-year gained (LYG). Annual discounting of 5% was applied to health effects and costs. RESULTS: Treatment with highly concentrated n-3 PUFAs yielded between 0.261 (Poland) and 0.284 (Australia) LYG, at an additional cost of 787 Euros(Canada) to 1,439 Euros(Belgium). The ICER varied between 2,788 Euros(Canada) and 5,097 Euros(Belgium) per LYG. Sensitivity analyses on effectiveness, cost of complications and discounting proved the robustness of the results. A second-order Monte Carlo simulation based on the 95% confidence intervals obtained from GISSI-P suggests that highly concentrated n-3 PUFAs are cost effective in 93% of simulations in Poland and in >98% of simulations in the other countries, assuming the country-specific societal willingness-to-pay threshold. Total costs were considerably increased by including healthcare costs incurred during the remaining life-years, but this had no impact on the ICER-based treatment recommendation. CONCLUSIONS: Adding highly concentrated n-3 PUFAs to standard treatment in the secondary prevention of MI appears to be cost effective versus standard treatment alone in the five countries studied.     

Cost Effectiveness of Eplerenone in Patients with Heart Failure after Acute Myocardial Infarction Who were Taking Both ACE Inhibitors and β-Blockers

Background

The EPHESUS (Eplerenone Post-Acute Myocardial Infarction Heart Failure and Survival Study) showed that the use of aldosterone blockade with eplerenone decreased mortality in patients with heart failure after acute myocardial infarction, and a subsequent analysis showed eplerenone to be highly cost effective in this population.

Objective

To assess the cost effectiveness of eplerenone in an EPHESUS subgroup population who were taking both ACE inhibitors and β-blockers (β-adrenoceptor antagonists) at baseline.

Intervention

In the EPHESUS, a total of 6632 patients were randomized to receive eplerenone 25–50 mg/day (n = 3319) or placebo (n = 3313) concurrently with standard therapy and were followed for up to 2.5 years. Of these, 4265 (64.3%) patients (eplerenone: n = 2113; placebo: n = 2152) were taking both ACE inhibitors and β-blockers at baseline.

Methods and Main Outcome Measures

Resource use after the initial hospitalization included additional hospitalizations, outpatient services, emergency room visits, and medications. Eplerenone was priced at an average wholesale price of $US3.60 per day (year 2004 value). Bootstrap methods were used to estimate the fraction of the joint distribution of the cost and effectiveness. A net-benefit regression model was used to derive the propensity score-adjusted cost-effectiveness curve. The incremental cost effectiveness of eplerenone in cost per life-year gained (LYG) and cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained beyond the trial period was estimated using data from the Framingham Heart Study, the Saskatchewan Health database, and the Worcester Heart Attack Registry. Both costs and effectiveness were discounted at 3%. Allthough not all resource use could be accounted for, the overall perspective was societal.

Results

As in the overall EPHESUS population, the total direct treatment costs were higher in the eplerenone arm than the placebo arm for patients who were taking both ACE inhibitors and β-blockers ($US14 563 vs $US12 850, difference = $US1713; 95% CI 721, 2684). The number of LYGs with eplerenone compared with placebo was 0.1665 based on the Framingham data, 0.0979 using the Saskatchewan data, and 0.2172 using the Worcester data. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was $US10 288/LYG with the Framingham data, $US17 506/LYG with the Saskatchewan data, and $US7888/LYG with the Worcester data (99% <$US50 000/LYG for all three sources). The ICERs were systematically higher when calculated as the cost per QALY gained ($US14 926, $US25 447, and $US11 393, respectively) as the utilities were below 1 with no difference between the treatment arms.

Conclusions

As for the overall EPHESUS population, aldosterone blockade with eplerenone is effective in reducing mortality and is cost effective in increasing years of life for the EPHESUS subgroup of patients who were taking both ACE inhibitors and β-blockers.     

Economic evaluation of sorafenib in the treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma in Canada

ABSTRACT

Background: A randomized phase III trial of sorafenib vs. placebo in hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) demonstrated that sorafenib significantly prolonged overall survival (OS) compared to placebo.

Research design and methods: A Markov model was developed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of sorafenib vs. best supportive care (BSC) in HCC from the perspective of the Canadian provincial Ministry of Health. The model followed survival and time to progression (TTP) in monthly cycles based on the extrapolation of patient level trial data. Health effects were expressed as life-years gained (LYG). Resource use included drugs, physician visits, laboratory tests, scans, and hospitalizations. Unit costs were gathered from public sources and were expressed in 2007 Canadian Dollars. Costs and effects were evaluated over a lifetime and discounted at 5%. Results were presented as mean ± standard deviation. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted.

Results: LYG was longer for sorafenib (1.52 ± 0.16 vs. 1.03 ± 0.09 LYG/patient for sorafenib and BSC, respectively). The lifetime total costs were $47 511 ± 3 656 for sorafenib and $10 376 ± 1 649 for BSC, resulting in an incremental cost–effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $75 821/LYG, and deterministic ICER of $75 759/LYG. The results were most sensitive to OS, TTP and BSC costs after progression. Sensitivity analyses results showed that the model was robust.

Conclusions: The economic evaluation indicates that sorafenib is cost-effective as compared to BSC in HCC. Limitations include multiple data sources, use of expert opinion for resource use, and the lack of utility data.     

Challenges in improving prognosis and therapy: the Ongoing Telmisartan Alone and in Combination with Ramipril Global End point Trial programme

Hypertension is one of the most important modifiable risk factors for cardiovascular pathology, such as atherosclerosis and cardiac left ventricular hypertrophy, including acute events such as stroke and myocardial infarction (MI). In particular, the risk of ischaemic and haemorrhagic stroke is directly and continuously related to high blood pressure levels. The renin-angiotensin system (RAS) plays an important role in volume homeostasis and blood pressure regulation. It also helps to prevent cell and organ damage from ischaemia during acute volume loss. However, angiotensin-II (A-II)--the main effector peptide of the RAS--also exerts a number of pathological effects, which are mediated by the AT 1 receptor. The Ongoing Telmisartan Alone and in Combination with Ramipril Global End point Trial (ONTARGET) programme consists of two parallel trials where ONTARGET as a large, long-term study compares the efficacy of the angiotensin-receptor antagonist, telmisartan, the renin-angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor, ramipril and combination therapy with telmisartan plus ramipril for reducing cardiovascular and cerebral risk. Telmisartan, due to its long duration of action, compares favourably with other angiotensin-receptor antagonists. In the Heart Outcomes Prevention Evaluation (HOPE) study, ramipril was shown to reduce the risk for MI and other cardiovascular events in patients at high risk for pathological cardiac events, but without heart failure or a low ejection fraction. The cardiovascular outcomes of high-risk patients using the same criteria as those of the HOPE study will be assessed in both trials. TRANSCEND differs from ONTARGET in that this trial will enrol patients who do not tolerate ACE inhibitors. This parallel study will therefore be able to compare telmisartan and placebo treatment. Both ONTARGET and TRANSCEND trials feature the same primary composite end point: death caused by cardiovascular disease, acute MI, stroke and hospitalisation because of congestive heart failure. The secondary end points will focus on reductions in the development of Type 2 diabetes mellitus, nephropathy, cognitive decrease and dementia as well as atrial fibrillation.     

Challenges in improving prognosis and therapy: The Ongoing Telmisartan Alone and in Combination with Ramipril Global End point Trial Programme

Hypertension is one of the most important modifiable risk factors for cardiovascular pathology, such as atherosclerosis and cardiac left ventricular hypertrophy, including acute events such as stroke and myocardial infarction (MI). In particular, the risk of ischaemic and haemorrhagic stroke is directly and continuously related to high blood pressure levels. The renin–angiotensin system (RAS) plays an important role in volume homeostasis and blood pressure regulation. It also helps to prevent cell and organ damage from ischaemia during acute volume loss. However, angiotensin-II (A-II) – the main effector peptide of the RAS – also exerts a number of pathological effects, which are mediated by the AT₁ receptor. The Ongoing Telmisartan Alone and in Combination with Ramipril Global End point Trial (ONTARGET) programme consists of two parallel trials where ONTARGET as a large, long-term study compares the efficacy of the angiotensin-receptor antagonist, telmisartan, the renin–angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor, ramipril and combination therapy with telmisartan plus ramipril for reducing cardiovascular and cerebral risk. Telmisartan, due to its long duration of action, compares favourably with other angiotensin-receptor antagonists. In the Heart Outcomes Prevention Evaluation (HOPE) study, ramipril was shown to reduce the risk for MI and other cardiovascular events in patients at high risk for pathological cardiac events, but without heart failure or a low ejection fraction. The cardiovascular outcomes of high-risk patients using the same criteria as those of the HOPE study will be assessed in both trials. TRANSCEND differs from ONTARGET in that this trial will enrol patients who do not tolerate ACE inhibitors. This parallel study will therefore be able to compare telmisartan and placebo treatment. Both ONTARGET and TRANSCEND trials feature the same primary composite end point: death caused by cardiovascular disease, acute MI, stroke and hospitalisation because of congestive heart failure. The secondary end points will focus on reductions in the development of Type 2 diabetes mellitus, nephropathy, cognitive decrease and dementia as well as atrial fibrillation.     

The value of clopidogrel in addition to standard therapy in reducing atherothrombotic events

The recent multinational, randomised, prospective studies Clopidogrel in Unstable Angina to Prevent Recurrent Events (CURE), Percutaneous Coronary Intervention substudy of CURE (PCI-CURE) and Clopidogrel for the Reduction of Events During Observation (CREDO) have demonstrated the clinical efficacy and safety of clopidogrel for the treatment of patients with non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndromes (ACS), including those undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. In these settings, clopidogrel significantly reduces the risk of atherothrombotic events, with relative risk reductions of 20-30% (absolute risk reduction 1.9-3.0%). Health economic evaluations based on data from these studies conducted in Europe and the United States have clearly demonstrated the cost-effectiveness of clopidogrel in combination with aspirin compared with aspirin alone for the management of ACS. Within-trial evaluations based on CURE and PCI-CURE data showed that treatment with clopidogrel on top of standard therapy reduced the cost of initial hospitalisation as well as the total cost associated with hospitalisations. Long-term economic analyses based on the CURE study demonstrate that clopidogrel is cost saving in the Netherlands and that the cost per life-year gained (LYG) in other European countries is between Euros 549 and Euros 5048. In the United States, the cost per LYG for clopidogrel has been assessed at US dollars 6173 on the basis of CURE, US dollars 5910 for PCI-CURE and US dollars 3685 for CREDO, all of which are considerably lower than that associated with common cardiovascular benchmarks. The results are robust and consistent across different countries using varying costing strategies and estimates of survival. In conclusion, these data demonstrate that clopidogrel in combination with aspirin for the management of ACS is both clinically effective and cost-effective in this setting.     

Oral antiplatelet therapy in secondary prevention of cardiovascular events: an assessment from the payer's perspective

BACKGROUND: A wide variety of oral antiplatelet trials have been carried out, and a large number of cost-effectiveness estimates based on them have been published. OBJECTIVE: To assess the cost effectiveness of oral antiplatelet treatments in the prevention of cardiovascular events. METHODS: A comprehensive literature search was carried out in PubMed and the Cochrane Library and the data reviewed. Cost-effectiveness or cost-utility studies of oral antiplatelets published since 2000 were selected. Cost-effectiveness analyses from the perspective of the UK NHS were then carried out using a Markov model with a 6-month cycle length and a lifetime horizon. Inputs from the CAPRIE, CHARISMA, (PCI)-CURE, CREDO, COMMIT, CLARITY, ESPS 2 and ESPRIT trials were included. All estimates of cost found (per event avoided, per QALY gained or per life-year gained) were included. Results were analysed in light of the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) guidelines for the use of antiplatelets for the prevention of cardiovascular events and all estimates were updated to pound (year 2006 values) for easy comparison. RESULTS: Of the initial 141 studies found, 21 were included in the initial review. The literature and the Markov model subsequently used suggest that aspirin (acetylsalicylic acid) dominates placebo for the secondary prevention of cardiovascular events, as it is effective, is also less costly and is as well tolerated as placebo. Additionally, in periods or patients with elevated risk, more intensive treatment with clopidogrel (alone or together with aspirin) is cost effective compared with aspirin alone for the secondary prevention of ischaemic events. For secondary stroke prevention, combination therapy with aspirin and dipyridamole has a favourable incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) when compared with aspirin alone and, based on an indirect comparison, also when compared with clopidogrel. CONCLUSIONS: The cost-effectiveness estimates presented in this article support the NICE guidelines for the use of antiplatelets for the prevention of cardiovascular events. Based on these pharmacoeconomic data alone, aspirin should be prescribed for primary or secondary prevention among patients at high risk of cardiovascular events, dipyridamole for the secondary prevention of stroke (for a maximum of 5 years), and clopidogrel for the treatment of symptomatic cardiovascular disease or acute coronary syndrome (for a maximum of 2 years). The cost effectiveness of antiplatelets hinges on the patient's initial risk, the risk reduction associated with treatment, and the price of the treatment. Evidence suggests that the cost effectiveness of antiplatelets can be optimized by individualising the treatment decision based on patient risk and expected risk reduction.     

Quantitative medical cost-effectiveness analysis of molecular-targeting cancer drugs in Japan

Background

In Japan, both incidence and mortality rates of cancers have continuously increased and medical costs are growing more rapidly than the overall economy of Japan. However, there is no consensus threshold for cost-effectiveness in medical care, and few studies have investigated cost-effectiveness of medical care in Japan. The present study was to determine the direct costs of molecular-targeting drugs that were recently approved in Japan through simple and quantitative calculations. Thus, we calculated an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) and the cost per life-year gained (LYG) by using reported data from randomized clinical trials for various cancers.

Methods

Between 2008 and 2011, we reviewed seven molecular-targeting drugs that were approved for treatment of five cancers in Japan. These drugs included Bevacizumab, sorafenib, sunitinib, temsirolimus, Lapatinib, and panitumumab. Direct cost, ICER, and LYG of the drugs were estimated from the randomized phase III clinical trial data referred to in package leaflets. Effectiveness was defined as the prolongation of both median overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS). Costs were calculated as those of molecular-targeting drugs. Subsequently, ICER was based on 1-month increases in both OS and PFS periods and 1% increases in OS, and LYG was determined.

Results

Direct costs ranged from ¥724,804 ($9,060) to ¥1,506,628 ($18,833). ICERs of the drugs ranged from ¥724,804 ($9,060) to ¥1,506,628 ($18,833) for a 1-month increase in OS. For each month of PFS, ICERs ranged from ¥372,243 ($4,653) to ¥7,399,877 ($92,498). The costs of Bevacizumab and sorafenib for treatment of HCC per 1% increase in OS were ¥376,657 ($4,708) and ¥313,733 ($3,922), respectively. LYG ranged from ¥8,697,650 ($108,721) to ¥18,079,530 ($225,994).

Conclusions

Some molecular-targeting drugs are not cost-effective. Considering ethical and moral issues, we should establish economic endpoints to approve new drugs in Japan.     

Cost effectiveness of combination therapy with pioglitazone for type 2 diabetes mellitus from a german statutory healthcare perspective

BACKGROUND: Pioglitazone has been approved in Europe for oral combination therapy for type 2 diabetes mellitus. Along with other agents of the thiazolidinedione class, it has a novel intracellular mechanism of action. Clinical trials with pioglitazone have confirmed a strong product profile in terms of control of blood glucose and lipids. However, the drug acquisition cost for pioglitazone is greater than standard medications for type 2 diabetes. Long-term data regarding the cost effectiveness of pioglitazone-based combination therapy are not available. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate, using a decision analysis model, the cost effectiveness of pioglitazone-based combination therapy compared with relevant alternative medications for the treatment of type 2 diabetes in Germany. METHODS: This study compared the clinical effects and costs of pioglitazone 30 mg added to metformin in patients who failed metformin monotherapy and pioglitazone added to a sulphonylurea in patients who failed sulphonylurea monotherapy, with the most relevant treatment alternatives. A published and validated Markov model was adapted to reflect the management of type 2 diabetes. This simulated the number of severe complications occurring and the mean life expectancy of a diabetic cohort, which was based on the overweight group of the UK Prospective Diabetes Study at year 6 of follow-up. Drug treatment costs, other costs for general management of type 2 diabetes and the costs of complications were combined to compute overall lifetime treatment costs from the perspective of the German statutory healthcare system in 2002. RESULTS: Combination therapy with pioglitazone/metformin was associated with a higher life expectancy (15.2 years) relative to sulphonylurea/metformin (14.9 years) or acarbose/metformin (14.7 years). Likewise, pioglitazone/sulphonylurea (15.5 years) was superior to metformin/sulphonylurea (14.9 years) and acarbose/sulphonylurea (14.8 years). Undiscounted incremental cost-effectiveness ratios in comparison to the next best strategy were euro20,002 per life-year gained (LYG) for pioglitazone/metformin versus sulphonylurea/metformin, and euro8707 per LYG for pioglitazone/sulphonylurea versus metformin/sulphonylurea. After discounting costs and life expectancy at 5% per year, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was euro47 636 per LYG for pioglitazone/metformin versus sulphonylurea/metformin, and euro19 745 per LYG for pioglitazone/sulphonylurea versus metformin/sulphonylurea. CONCLUSIONS: In this model, with its underlying assumptions and data, combination therapy with pioglitazone increased life expectancy in overweight type 2 diabetes patients at acceptable cost compared with other well established medications in Germany. These findings should be re-evaluated as soon as additional evidence becomes available from the currently ongoing long-term clinical and economic studies.     

Costs and effects of secondary prevention with perindopril in stable coronary heart disease in Poland: an analysis of the EUROPA study including 1251 Polish patients

OBJECTIVES: To estimate the long-term impact of treatment with perindopril on costs and health effects in patients with stable coronary artery disease in Poland. METHODS: The cost-effectiveness analysis was based on data from a randomized double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. A decision-tree analysis was employed, including Monte Carlo and bootstrapping techniques. This study was a sub-study of the EUROPA (European Trial on Reduction of Cardiac Events with Perindopril in Stable Coronary Artery Disease) trial (n = 12 218; mean follow-up 4.2 years). Resource use was based on data from Polish EUROPA study patients (n = 1251), while effectiveness was based on the whole EUROPA study. The health gain of perindopril in life-years was based on overall EUROPA study results, and the adapted Polish life expectancy of patients not dying during the trial. Costs were calculated in new Polish zloty (PLN), year 2003 values; euro1 = PLN4.053. Only direct healthcare costs related to cardiovascular events and medication use were studied. RESULTS: When observed mortality was combined with life expectancy beyond the end of the study, perindopril use showed a gain in life expectancy of 0.182 life-years (SD +/- 0.129) at a cost of PLN1983 (SD +/- 103) with discounting of 5% per annum on costs and no discounting on effects. This resulted in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of PLN10 896 per life-year gained. The probability that the ICER for perindopril was below the threshold of PLN60 000 was 88%. The overall results were insensitive to discount rates for costs and life-years. CONCLUSIONS: Perindopril leads to a reduction in the risk of coronary events among patients with stable heart disease. When the expected improvement in life expectancy is combined with associated medical costs, there is a high probability that perindopril is cost effective, given the threshold of PLN60 000 per life-year gained.     

Clopidogrel: a pharmacoeconomic review of its use in patients with non-ST elevation acute coronary syndromes

Clopidogrel (Plavix) is a selective inhibitor of adenosine diphosphate-induced platelet aggregation. In patients with acute coronary syndromes (ACS) [unstable angina or non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction], clopidogrel plus aspirin (acetylsalicylic acid) for up to 1 year significantly reduced the risk of cardiovascular events relative to placebo plus aspirin in the well designed clinical trial CURE (Clopidogrel in Unstable angina to prevent Recurrent Events) and its substudy in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) [PCI-CURE]. In pharmacoeconomic evaluations based on data from these trials conducted in a number of countries that used a variety of models, methods and/or type of costs, clopidogrel plus aspirin was consistently predicted to be cost effective relative to aspirin alone in the management of patients with ACS, including those undergoing PCI. Clopidogrel plus aspirin in patients with ACS reduced the incremental cost per cardiovascular event prevented and/or life-year gained (LYG) relative to aspirin alone in analyses using within-trial data (including longer-term analyses incorporating life-expectancy estimates) from the CURE or PCI-CURE studies. In Markov models of cost effectiveness with a lifetime horizon from a healthcare payer perspective based on the CURE trial, relative to aspirin alone, clopidogrel plus aspirin for 1 year was predicted to have incremental costs per LYG of 8132Euro in Spain (2003 values) and 1365Euro in Sweden (2000 values). In similar Swedish analyses from a healthcare payer perspective, clopidogrel plus aspirin for 1 year was predicted to have incremental costs per LYG of 10,993Euro (2004 values) relative to aspirin alone based on data from the PCI-CURE substudy. Broadly similar results have also been reported in modelled analyses from other countries. Cost-utility analyses based on the CURE trial suggest that, relative to lifelong aspirin alone, clopidogrel plus aspirin for 1 year followed by aspirin alone is associated with incremental costs per QALY gained that are below the traditional threshold of cost utility in Spain, the UK and the US. In patients with ACS, including those undergoing PCI, the addition of clopidogrel to standard therapy with aspirin is clinically effective in preventing cardiovascular events. Available pharmacoeconomic data from several countries, despite some inherent limitations, support the use of clopidogrel plus aspirin for up to 1 year as a cost-effective treatment relative to aspirin alone in this patient population.     

Eptifibatide: a pharmacoeconomic review of its use in percutaneous coronary intervention and acute coronary syndromes

Eptifibatide (Integrilin) is a selective inhibitor of platelet glycoprotein (GP) IIb/IIIa receptors used as adjunctive therapy for patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and for patients with acute coronary syndromes (ACS), particularly those requiring PCI. Most economic analyses of eptifibatide have incorporated clinical and healthcare resource use data from either the ESPRIT (Enhanced Suppression of the Platelet IIb/IIIa Receptor with Integrilin Therapy) study in low- to moderate-risk patients undergoing selective PCI with stent implantation or the PURSUIT (Platelet Glycoprotein IIb/IIIa in Unstable Angina: Receptor Suppression Using Integrilin Therapy) trial in patients with ACS. Eptifibatide achieved statistically significant reductions in combined endpoints of death and ischaemic complications in both of these large multicentre clinical trials, in which patients were randomised to receive intravenous eptifibatide or placebo as adjunctive therapy to heparin and aspirin (plus a thienopyridine in ESPRIT). In US economic analyses using ESPRIT trial data, approximately 40% and 70% of the acquisition cost of eptifibatide was offset by reduced medical resource consumption during the initial hospitalisation period and over a 1-year period, respectively. Eptifibatide was associated with a favourable cost-effectiveness ratio of $US1407 (year 2000 costs) per life-year gained (LYG) in a retrospective US cost-effectiveness analysis that incorporated data from the ESPRIT trial and modelled life expectancy using a large cardiovascular database.Several cost-effectiveness analyses used prospectively collected data from the PURSUIT trial and modelled survival projections using similar methods. These analyses, conducted in the US, Canada and Western Europe, also showed favourable results ($US3761-$US18 774 per LYG; various years of costing). Cost-utility ratios reported in US analyses varied somewhat, but remained <$US20 000 per quality-adjusted life-year gained (1996 values) when clinical efficacy data were derived from the US cohort of PURSUIT. CONCLUSION: Significant clinical benefits have been demonstrated with eptifibatide as adjunctive therapy in patients undergoing selective PCI with stent implantation in the ESPRIT trial and in patients with ACS in the PURSUIT trial. Pharmacoeconomic analyses using data from either ESPRIT or PURSUIT have demonstrated favourable cost-effectiveness ratios for both indications in various countries. ESPRIT-based results from the limited number of available economic analyses are particularly favourable. The cost-effectiveness of eptifibatide in ACS (i.e. PURSUIT-based results) may be further improved by targeting the drug for patients in whom catheterisation and PCI are planned, although further analyses are required to confirm this.