Why the study?
Is clopidogrel cost-effective compared to aspirin for the secondary prevention of ischaemic events in patients with atherothrombosis?
Is clopidogrel cost-effective compared to aspirin for the secondary prevention of ischaemic events in patients with atherothrombosis?
Clopidogrel is cost-effective compared to aspirin for secondary prevention of ischemic events in patients with atherothrombosis in the Belgian healthcare setting.
May support clopidogrel cost-effectiveness in Belgian secondary prevention; leaves open prospective confirmation before broader adoption.
SUMMARYClopidogrel has been shown to reduce the secondary risk of ischaemic events in vascular disease compared to aspirin. This article compares the economics of the two drugs for this condition, by providing an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (iCER) of clopidogrel versus aspirin, using Belgium as a case setting.A 2 year Markov model, in which patients with vascular disease were assumed to receive either clopidogrel or aspirin, was developed from a healthcare payer's perspective. Survival data were based on the Saskatchewan Health database. Costs included treatment and adverse events. Cost-effectiveness was expressed as the cost per life year gained (LYG).The iCER of clopidogrel versus aspirin was €13,390/LYG (95% CI: €6,990; €26,470). The robustness of these results was shown by univariate and probabilistic sensitivity analyses.This analysis shows that clopidogrel is cost-effective for the secondary prevention of ischaemic events in the Belgian setting.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Annemans et al. (2003) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 3 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: