ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of drug-coated balloon (DCB) angioplasty versus standard percutaneous transluminal angioplasty (PTA). BACKGROUND: Recent trials have reported lower rates of target lesion revascularization with DCB angioplasty versus standard PTA. However, the cost-effectiveness of DCB angioplasty is unknown. METHODS: A prospective economic study was performed alongside the IN.PACT SFA II (IN.PACT Admiral Drug-Coated Balloon vs. Standard Balloon Angioplasty for the Treatment of Superficial Femoral Artery [SFA] and Proximal Popliteal Artery [PPA]) trial, which randomized 181 patients with femoropopliteal disease to the IN.PACT DCB versus standard PTA. Resource use data were collected over 2-year follow-up, and costs were assigned using resource-based accounting and billing data. Health utilities were assessed using the EuroQol 5-dimensions questionnaire. Cost-effectiveness was assessed as cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained using a decision-analytic model on the basis of empirical data from the trial assuming identical long-term mortality. RESULTS: Initial costs were $1,129 per patient higher with DCB angioplasty than standard PTA, driven by higher costs for the DCB itself. Between discharge and 24 months, target limb-related costs were $1,212 per patient lower with DCB angioplasty such that discounted 2-year costs were similar for the 2 groups ($11,277 vs. $11,359, p = 0.97), whereas QALYs tended to be greater among patients treated with DCBs (1.53 ± 0.44 vs. 1.47 ± 0.42, p = 0.40). The probability that DCB angioplasty is cost-effective compared with standard PTA was 70% using a threshold of $50,000 per QALY gained and 79% at a threshold of $150,000 per QALY gained. CONCLUSIONS: For patients with femoropopliteal disease, DCB angioplasty is associated with better 2-year outcomes and similar target limb-related costs compared with standard PTA. Formal cost-effectiveness analysis on the basis of these results suggests that use of the DCB angioplasty is likely to be economically attractive.
Subject(s)
Angioplasty, Balloon/economics , Angioplasty, Balloon/instrumentation , Cardiovascular Agents/economics , Coated Materials, Biocompatible/economics , Femoral Artery , Health Care Costs , Peripheral Arterial Disease/economics , Peripheral Arterial Disease/therapy , Popliteal Artery , Vascular Access Devices/economics , Aged , Angioplasty, Balloon/adverse effects , Cardiovascular Agents/administration & dosage , Constriction, Pathologic , Cost Savings , Cost-Benefit Analysis , Decision Support Techniques , Drug Costs , Equipment Design , Female , Femoral Artery/diagnostic imaging , Femoral Artery/physiopathology , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Models, Economic , Peripheral Arterial Disease/diagnostic imaging , Peripheral Arterial Disease/physiopathology , Popliteal Artery/diagnostic imaging , Popliteal Artery/physiopathology , Prospective Studies , Quality-Adjusted Life Years , Time Factors , Treatment Outcome , United StatesABSTRACT
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The Carotid Revascularization Endarterectomy versus Stenting Trial (CREST) demonstrated similar rates of the primary composite end point between carotid artery stenting (CAS) and carotid endarterectomy (CEA), although the risk of stroke was higher with CAS, and the risk of myocardial infarction was higher with CEA. Given the large number of patients who are candidates for these procedures, an understanding of their relative cost and cost-effectiveness may have important implications for health care policy and treatment guidelines. METHODS: We performed a formal economic evaluation alongside the CREST trial. Costs were estimated from all trial participants over the first year of follow-up using a combination of resource use data and hospital billing data. Patient-level health use scores were obtained using data from the SF-36. We then used a Markov disease-simulation model calibrated to the CREST results to project 10-year costs and quality-adjusted life expectancy for the 2 treatment groups. RESULTS: Although initial procedural costs were $1025/patient higher with CAS, postprocedure costs and physician costs were lower such that total costs for the index hospitalization were similar for the CAS and CEA groups ($15 055 versus $14 816; mean difference, $239/patient; 95% CI for difference, -$297 to $775). Neither follow-up costs after discharge nor total 1-year costs differed significantly. For the CREST population, model-based projections over a 10-year time horizon demonstrated that CAS would result in a mean incremental cost of $524/patient and a reduction in quality-adjusted life expectancy of 0.008 years compared with CEA. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis demonstrated that CEA was economically attractive at an incremental cost-effectiveness threshold of $50 000/quality-adjusted life-year gained in 54% of samples, whereas CAS was economically attractive in 46%. CONCLUSIONS: Despite slightly lower in-trial costs and lower rates of stroke with CEA compared with CAS, projected 10-year outcomes from this controlled clinical trial demonstrate only trivial differences in overall healthcare costs and quality-adjusted life expectancy between the 2 strategies. If the CREST results can be replicated in clinical practice, these findings suggest that factors other than cost-effectiveness should be considered when deciding between treatment options for carotid artery stenosis in patients at standard risk for surgical complications. Clinical Trial Registration- URL: http://clinicaltrials.gov. Unique Identifier: NCT00004732.
