Key result
Drug-eluting stents are dominant over bare-metal stents in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention, providing an additional 0.541 major cardiac event-free survival years and a cost reduction of €184 over 5 years.
Why the study?
The cost-effectiveness of drug-eluting stents compared with bare-metal stents in patients undergoing PCI in France using recent meta-analysis data was uncertain.
Are drug-eluting stents cost-effective compared to bare-metal stents in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention?
Are drug-eluting stents cost-effective compared to bare-metal stents in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention?
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Drug-eluting stents are dominant over bare-metal stents, providing better event-free survival at lower overall costs in the French healthcare setting.
OBJECTIVE: To determine the cost-effectiveness of drug-eluting stents (DES) compared with bare-metal stents (BMS) in patients requiring a percutaneous coronary intervention in France, using a recent meta-analysis including second-generation DES. METHODS: A cost-effectiveness analysis was performed in the French National Health Insurance setting. Effectiveness settings were taken from a meta-analysis of 117 762 patient-years with 76 randomised trials. The main effectiveness criterion was major cardiac event-free survival. Effectiveness and costs were modelled over a 5-year horizon using a three-state Markov model. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios and a cost-effectiveness acceptability curve were calculated for a range of thresholds for willingness to pay per year without major cardiac event gain. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed. RESULTS: Base case results demonstrated that DES are dominant over BMS, with an increase in event-free survival and a cost-reduction of €184, primarily due to a diminution of second revascularisations, and an absence of myocardial infarction and stent thrombosis. These results are robust for uncertainty on one-way deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. Using a cost-effectiveness threshold of €7000 per major cardiac event-free year gained, DES has a >95% probability of being cost-effective versus BMS. CONCLUSIONS: Following DES price decrease, new-generation DES development and taking into account recent meta-analyses results, the DES can now be considered cost-effective regardless of selective indication in France, according to European recommendations.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Baschet et al. (2016) studied Coronary artery disease requiring percutaneous coronary intervention. Drug-eluting stents (DES) vs. Bare-metal stents (BMS) was evaluated on Cost per major cardiac event-free survival year gained (Dominant (cost reduction of €184 and 0.541 event-free years gained)). Drug-eluting stents are dominant over bare-metal stents in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention, providing an additional 0.541 major cardiac event-free survival years and a cost reduction of €184 over 5 years.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: