Economic Evaluation of Ticagrelor for Secondary Prevention Following Acute Coronary Syndromes

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES: To estimate the cost-effectiveness and cost-utility of ticagrelor in the treatment of patients with acute coronary syndromes (unstable angina or myocardial infarction with or without ST-segment elevation), including patients treated medically and those undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention or coronary artery bypass grafting. METHODS: A short-term decision tree and a long-term Markov model were used to simulate the evolution of patients' life-cycles. Clinical effectiveness data were collected from the PLATO trial and resource use data were obtained from the Hospital de Santa Marta database, disease-related group legislation and the literature. RESULTS: Ticagrelor provides increases of 0.1276 life years and 0.1106 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) per patient. From a societal perspective these clinical gains entail an increase in expenditure of €610. Thus the incremental cost per life year saved is €4780 and the incremental cost per QALY is €5517. CONCLUSIONS: The simulation results show that ticagrelor reduces events compared to clopidogrel. The costs of ticagrelor are partially offset by lower costs arising from events prevented. The use of ticagrelor in clinical practice is therefore cost-effective compared to generic clopidogrel.

Health-Related Quality of Life Impact of a Triple Combination of Olmesartan Medoxomil, Amlodipine Besylate and Hydrochlorotiazide in Subjects with Hypertension

BACKGROUND: A post-hoc analysis was performed on the data from a 54 weeks phase III study (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00923091) to measure changes in the health-related quality of life (HRQoL) of 2,690 patients aged ≥18 with moderate-to-severe hypertension who received one of six doses of olmesartan/amlodipine/hydrochlorothiazide (OLM/AML/HCTZ), using the MINICHAL and EQ-5D instruments. METHODS: Descriptive statistics were used to assess blood pressure and HRQoL scores over the study period. Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was used to identify those factors that could possibly have influenced HRQoL. Linear regression was used to assess the relationship between changes in blood pressure and HRQoL scores. RESULTS: Patients' baseline MINICHAL mood and somatic domains scores were 5.5 and 2.6. Over the study period HRQoL improved as both MINICHAL scores decreased by 31-33%. Patients' baseline EQ-5D index and VAS scores were 0.9 and 73.4 respectively, increasing by 6% and 12% over the study period. Patients' QALY gain over the 54 weeks study period was estimated to be 0.029 QALYs. The ANCOVA showed that changes in patients' HRQoL was likely to have been influenced by patients' achievement of blood pressure control, the amount of concomitant medication and patients' last used dosage strength of antihypertensive. Linear regression showed that blood pressure improvement may have been associated with improved HRQoL. CONCLUSIONS: This study showed that OLM/AML/HCTZ reduced blood pressure and significantly increased blood pressure control whilst improving patients' HRQoL. Achieving blood pressure control, amount of concomitant medication and dosage strength of antihypertensive impacted on patients' HRQoL.

Cost-Effectiveness of Non-Vitamin K Antagonist Oral Anticoagulants for Atrial Fibrillation in Portugal

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES:Recently, three novel non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants received approval for reimbursement in Portugal for patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation (AF). It is therefore important to evaluate the relative cost-effectiveness of these new oral anticoagulants in Portuguese AF patients. METHODS: A Markov model was used to analyze disease progression over a lifetime horizon. Relative efficacy data for stroke (ischemic and hemorrhagic), bleeding (intracranial, other major bleeding and clinically relevant non-major bleeding), myocardial infarction and treatment discontinuation were obtained by pairwise indirect comparisons between apixaban, dabigatran and rivaroxaban using warfarin as a common comparator. Data on resource use were obtained from the database of diagnosis-related groups and an expert panel. Model outputs included life years gained, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), direct healthcare costs and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). RESULTS:Apixaban provided the most life years gained and QALYs. The ICERs of apixaban compared to warfarin and dabigatran were €5529/QALY and €9163/QALY, respectively. Apixaban was dominant over rivaroxaban (greater health gains and lower costs). The results were robust over a wide range of inputs in sensitivity analyses. Apixaban had a 70% probability of being cost-effective (at a threshold of €20 000/QALY) compared to all the other therapeutic options. CONCLUSIONS:Apixaban is a cost-effective alternative to warfarin and dabigatran and is dominant over rivaroxaban in AF patients from the perspective of the Portuguese national healthcare system. These conclusions are based on indirect comparisons, but despite this limitation, the information is useful for healthcare decision-makers.