Aim: Compared with second-generation durable polymer drug-eluting stents (DP-DES), the cost-effectiveness of biodegradable polymer drug-eluting stents (BP-DES) remains unclear in the real-world setting. We assessed the cost-effectiveness of BP-DES in patients with coronary artery disease undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).

Methods: We developed a decision-analytic model to compare the cost-effectiveness of BP-DES to DP-DES over 1 year and 5 years from healthcare payer perspective. Relative treatment effects during the first year post-PCI were obtained from a real-world population analysis while clinical event risks in the subsequent 4 years were derived from a meta-analysis of published studies.

Results: At 1 year, based on the clinical data analysis of 497 propensity-score matched pairs of patients, BP-DES were associated with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of USD20 503 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. At 5 years, BP-DES yielded an ICER of USD4062 per QALY gained. At the willingness-to-pay threshold of USD50 400 (one gross domestic product per capita in Singapore in 2015), BP-DES were cost-effective. Sensitivity analysis showed that the cost of stents had a significant impact on the cost-effectiveness of BP-DES. Threshold analysis demonstrated that if the cost difference between BP-DES and DP-DES exceeded USD493, BP-DES would not be cost-effective in patients with 1 year of follow-up.

Conclusions: Biodegradable polymer drug-eluting stents were cost-effective compared with DP-DES in patients with coronary artery disease at 1 year and 5 years after PCI. It is worth noting that the cost of stents had a significant impact on the findings.

Keywords: biodegradable polymer; coronary artery disease; cost-effectiveness analysis; drug-eluting stents; percutaneous coronary intervention.

Similar articles

A propensity score-matched comparison of biodegradable polymer vs second-generation durable polymer drug-eluting stents in a real-world population.
Zhao YJ, Teng M, Khoo AL, Ananthakrishna R, Yeo TC, Lim BP, Loh JP, Chan MY. Zhao YJ, et al. Cardiovasc Ther. 2018 Apr;36(2). doi: 10.1111/1755-5922.12319. Epub 2018 Jan 30. Cardiovasc Ther. 2018. PMID: 29316284
Cost-effectiveness of percutaneous coronary intervention versus bypass surgery from a Dutch perspective.
Osnabrugge RL, Magnuson EA, Serruys PW, Campos CM, Wang K, van Klaveren D, Farooq V, Abdallah MS, Li H, Vilain KA, Steyerberg EW, Morice MC, Dawkins KD, Mohr FW, Kappetein AP, Cohen DJ; SYNTAX trial investigators. Osnabrugge RL, et al. Heart. 2015 Dec;101(24):1980-8. doi: 10.1136/heartjnl-2015-307578. Epub 2015 Nov 9. Heart. 2015. PMID: 26552756 Clinical Trial.
Meta-Analysis of Randomized Clinical Trials Comparing Biodegradable Polymer Drug-Eluting Stent to Second-Generation Durable Polymer Drug-Eluting Stents.
El-Hayek G, Bangalore S, Casso Dominguez A, Devireddy C, Jaber W, Kumar G, Mavromatis K, Tamis-Holland J, Samady H. El-Hayek G, et al. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2017 Mar 13;10(5):462-473. doi: 10.1016/j.jcin.2016.12.002. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2017. PMID: 28279314 Review.
Health Economic Evaluation of an Ultrathin, Bioresorbable-Polymer Sirolimus-Eluting Coronary Stent Compared to a Thin, Durable-Polymer Everolimus-Eluting Stent.
Mattke S, Hanson M, Dallmann AC, Bentele M. Mattke S, et al. Cardiovasc Revasc Med. 2019 Sep;20(9):752-757. doi: 10.1016/j.carrev.2018.11.006. Epub 2018 Nov 20. Cardiovasc Revasc Med. 2019. PMID: 30638888
Biodegradable versus durable polymer drug eluting stents in coronary artery disease: insights from a meta-analysis of 5,834 patients.
Lupi A, Rognoni A, Secco GG, Lazzero M, Nardi F, Fattori R, Bongo AS, Agostoni P, Sheiban I. Lupi A, et al. Eur J Prev Cardiol. 2014 Apr;21(4):411-24. doi: 10.1177/2047487312467745. Epub 2012 Nov 14. Eur J Prev Cardiol. 2014. PMID: 23152364 Review.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of biodegradable polymer versus durable polymer drug-eluting stents incorporating real-world evidence

Abstract

Similar articles