Cost-effectiveness of platelet glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibition with eptifibatide in patients with non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndromes.

BACKGROUND: In the PURSUIT trial, eptifibatide significantly reduced the 30-day incidence of death and myocardial infarction relative to placebo in 9461 patients with an acute coronary syndrome (unstable angina or non-Q-wave myocardial infarction). METHODS AND RESULTS: We conducted a 2-part prospective economic substudy of the 3522 US patients enrolled in PURSUIT: (1) an empirical intention-to-treat comparison of medical costs (hospital plus physician) up to 6 months after hospitalization and (2) a lifetime cost-effectiveness analysis. The base-case cost-effectiveness ratio was expressed as the 1996 US dollars required to add 1 life-year with eptifibatide therapy. The 2 treatment arms had equivalent resource consumption and medical costs (exclusive of the cost of the eptifibatide regimen) during the index (enrollment) hospitalization (P=0.78) and up to 6 months afterward (P=0.60). The average wholesale price of the eptifibatide regimen was $1217, but a typical hospital discounted price was $1014. The estimated life expectancy from randomization in the US patients was 15.96 years for eptifibatide and 15.85 years for placebo, an incremental difference of 0.111. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for eptifibatide therapy in US PURSUIT patients was $16 491 per year of life saved. This result was robust through a wide range of sensitivity analyses. The cost-utility ratio for eptifibatide (using time trade-off defined utilities) was $19 693 per added quality-adjusted life-year. CONCLUSIONS: Based on the results observed in the US PURSUIT patients, the routine addition of eptifibatide to standard care for non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome patients is economically attractive by conventional standards.

Economic assessment of platelet glycoprotein IIb/IIIa receptor blockade with abciximab and low-dose heparin during percutaneous coronary revascularization: results from the EPILOG randomized trial. Evaluation in PTCA to Improve Long-term Outcome with abciximab GP IIb/IIIa blockade.

BACKGROUND: In the EPILOG trial (Evaluation in PTCA to Improve Long-term Outcome with abciximab GP IIb/IIIa blockade), abciximab administered with weight-adjusted heparin diminished the risk of ischemic complications within 30 days by 56% among patients undergoing percutaneous coronary revascularization, without increased bleeding complications. METHODS AND RESULTS: A prospective economic assessment was performed in the 2792 patients enrolled in EPILOG. Patients were randomized to receive placebo with standard-dose weight-adjusted heparin, abciximab with low-dose weight-adjusted heparin, or abciximab with standard-dose weight-adjusted heparin during percutaneous coronary intervention. Hospital billing data for the baseline hospitalization were collected for 2581 patients (92.4% of total) and imputed for the remainder, with physician fees estimated from the Medicare Fee Schedule. For the baseline hospitalization, medical costs (hospitalization and physician fees) averaged $9632 for the placebo arm compared with $8758 (P:=0.005) and $9092 (P:=0.176) for the abciximab with low-dose and standard-dose heparin arms, respectively. Inclusive of average drug cost ($1454 to $1457), the net incremental baseline cost of these 2 abciximab strategies was $583 with low-dose weight-adjusted heparin and $914 with standard-dose weight-adjusted heparin. During 6-month follow-up, average hospital costs were not significantly different in the 3 treatment groups; cumulative net incremental costs were $1236 and $1268 in the abciximab with low-dose and standard-dose heparin groups, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment with abciximab and low-dose, weight-adjusted heparin during percutaneous coronary revascularization reduces ischemic events and associated costs, thereby offsetting some of the cost of the drug. The suppression of bleeding complications associated with this agent by heparin dose reduction optimizes the economic attractiveness of this treatment strategy.

Economic assessment of low-molecular-weight heparin (enoxaparin) versus unfractionated heparin in acute coronary syndrome patients: results from the ESSENCE randomized trial. Efficacy and Safety of Subcutaneous Enoxaparin in Non-Q wave Coronary Events [unstable angina or non-Q-wave myocardial infarction].

BACKGROUND: In the ESSENCE trial, subcutaneous low-molecular-weight heparin (enoxaparin) reduced the 30-day incidence of death, myocardial infarction, and recurrent angina relative to intravenous unfractionated heparin in 3171 patients with acute coronary syndrome (unstable angina or non-Q-wave myocardial infarction). No increase in major bleeding was seen. METHODS AND RESULTS: Of the 936 ESSENCE patients randomized in the United States, 655 had hospital billing data collected. For the remainder, hospital costs were imputed with a multivariable linear regression model (R2=.86). Physician fees were estimated from the Medicare Fee Schedule. During the initial hospitalization, major resource use was reduced for enoxaparin patients, with the largest effect seen with coronary angioplasty (15% versus 20% for heparin, P=.04). At 30 days, these effects persisted, with the largest reductions seen in diagnostic catheterization (57% versus 63% for heparin, P=.04) and coronary angioplasty (18% versus 22%, P=.08). All resource use trends seen in the US cohort were also evident in the overall ESSENCE study population. In the United States, the mean cost of a course of enoxaparin therapy was $155, whereas that for heparin was $80. The total medical costs (hospital, physician, drug) for the initial hospitalization were $11 857 for enoxaparin and $12620 for heparin, a cost advantage for the enoxaparin arm of $763 (P=.18). At the end of 30 days, the cumulative cost savings associated with enoxaparin was $1172 (P=.04). In 200 bootstrap samples of the 30-day data, 94% of the samples showed a cost advantage for enoxaparin. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with acute coronary syndrome, low-molecular-weight heparin (enoxaparin) both improves important clinical outcomes and saves money relative to therapy with standard unfractionated heparin.

Economic implications of the prophylactic use of intraaortic balloon counterpulsation in the setting of acute myocardial infarction. The Randomized IABP Study Group. Intraaortic Balloon Pump.

Intraaortic balloon counterpulsation (IABP) has been shown to improve coronary artery patency and reduce the rates of recurrent myocardial ischemia and its sequelae in selected patients when used within 24 hours of acute myocardial infarction. The economic implications of prophylactic IABP use are unknown. We obtained hospital bills for 102 patients enrolled in the Randomized IABP Trial (56%) and converted charges to costs using each hospital's Medicare cost report. In-hospital costs for patients who had 48 hours of IABP were compared with those of patients who did not. The costs of angiographic and clinical complications were determined. Small differences in clinical and angiographic characteristics existed between patients in the economic substudy and the overall population, but overall angiographic and clinical outcomes were comparable. Costs for patients who had IABP versus control patients were similar: mean $22,357 +/- $14,369 versus $19,211 +/- $8,414, median (25th and 75th percentiles) $17,903 ($15,787, $22,147) versus $17,913 ($15,144, $21,433), p = 0.45. Hospital costs were higher with the development of recurrent ischemia: mean $23,125 +/- $7,690 versus $20,416 +/- $12,449, median $21,069 ($17,896, $26,885) versus $17,492 ($14,892, $20,998) p = 0.02. Patients who had an adverse clinical event (death, stroke, reinfarction, and emergency revascularization) also had higher hospital costs: mean $25,598 +/- $10,024 versus $19,790 +/- $12,045, median $21,877 ($18,380, $28,049) versus $17,364 ($14,773, $20,779), p = 0.002. The prophylactic use of IABP in patients at high risk of infarct artery reocclusion within 24 hours of acute myocardial infarction provides sustained clinical benefit without substantially increasing hospital costs.

Economic assessment of platelet glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibition for prevention of ischemic complications of high-risk coronary angioplasty. EPIC Investigators.

BACKGROUND: In the EPIC trial, c7E3 Fab, an antiplatelet IIb/ IIIa receptor antibody, reduced 30-day ischemic end points after high-risk coronary angioplasty by 35% and 6-month ischemic events by 23% but increased in-hospital bleeding episodes. METHODS AND RESULTS: Of the 2099 patients randomized in EPIC, data were collected on 2038 (97%) for prospective hospital cost and major resources. Physician fees were estimated from the Medicare Fee Schedule. Regression analysis was used to examine the economic tradeoff between reduced ischemic events and increased major bleeding during the initial hospitalization. A potential cost savings of $622 per patient during the initial hospitalization from reduced acute ischemic events with c7E3 Fab was offset by an equivalent rise ($521) in costs as the result of an increase in bleeding episodes. Baseline medical costs for the bolus and infusion c7E3 Fab arm averaged $13,577 (exclusive of drug cost) compared with $13,434 for placebo (P = .42). During the 6-month follow-up, c7E3 Fab decreased repeat hospitalization rates by 23% (P = .004) and repeat revascularization by 22% (P = .04), producing a mean $1270 savings per patient (exclusive of drug cost) (P = .018). With a cost of $1407 for the bolus and infusion c7E3 Fab regimen, the cumulative net 6-month cost to switch from standard care to routine c7E3 Fab averaged $293 per patient. CONCLUSIONS: In high-risk coronary angioplasty, aggressive platelet inhibition with c7E3 Fab, by significantly reducing ischemic events and repeat revascularization, recoups most of the cost of therapy and has the potential to pay for itself.

Baseline and 6-month costs of primary angioplasty therapy for acute myocardial infarction: results from the primary angioplasty registry.

OBJECTIVES: This study sought to describe the economic outcomes from a prospective multicenter registry of primary coronary angioplasty. BACKGROUND: Interest in coronary angioplasty without preceding thrombolytic therapy as a primary reperfusion strategy has increased as a result of three recent randomized trials showing outcomes equivalent to or better than standard thrombolytic therapy. METHODS: The Primary Angioplasty Registry enrolled 270 patients with acute myocardial infarction at six private tertiary care medical centers. Baseline and follow-up medical costs and counts of resources consumed were collected from enrollment to the 6-month follow-up visit. Correlates and predictors of cost were identified with multivariable linear regression modeling. RESULTS: Ninety-five percent of patients had a revascularization procedure during the baseline hospital period: 85% had coronary angioplasty only; 4% had coronary bypass surgery only; 6% had both procedures. The total mean baseline hospital cost (not charge) was $13,113, with mean physician fees of $5,694. During the follow-up period, repeat coronary angiography was performed in 21% of patients, whereas 13% had repeat angioplasty and 3% bypass surgery. Mean hospital follow-up costs were $3,174, with mean physician fees of $1,443. Independent correlates of higher baseline hospital costs included older age (p = 0.049), anterior infarction (p = 0.03), initial Killip class (p < 0.0001), more severe coronary disease (p = 0.0015), need for bypass surgery alone or in addition to angioplasty (p < 0.0001) and recurrent ischemia (p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Costs of primary angioplasty for patients with acute myocardial infarction eligible for thrombolysis were strongly influenced by infarction- and procedure-related complications but only modestly influenced by patient selection factors.