Cost-effectiveness of a paclitaxel-eluting stent (Eluvia) compared to Zilver PTX for endovascular femoropopliteal intervention
William A. Gray,Robert I. Griffiths,Peter W. M. Elroy,Stacey L. Amorosi,Alysha M. McGovern,Michael R. Jaff,Ron Akehurst,Stefan Müller-Hülsbeck
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/13696998.2022.2088965
2022-06-29
Journal of Medical Economics
Abstract:Antiproliferative therapies based on paclitaxel have been developed to extend the durability of endovascular interventions for lower-extremity atherosclerotic peripheral artery disease, resulting in improved primary vessel patency and fewer target lesion revascularizations. This study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of the sustained-release, paclitaxel-eluting Eluvia stent (Boston Scientific, Marlborough, MA) versus the paclitaxel-coated Zilver PTX stent (Cook Medical, Bloomington, IN) for endovascular intervention in the superficial femoral or proximal popliteal artery. A microsimulation model was constructed from a United States Medicare perspective with a 24-month time horizon. Patients entering the model were assigned to initial endovascular intervention with either Eluvia or Zilver PTX. Each month patients were exposed to the risks of primary vessel patency loss, target lesion revascularization, amputation, and death. Clinical input parameters were taken from a randomized trial (IMPERIAL) comparing the two interventions at 24-months follow-up. Cost parameters were obtained from analyses of Medicare administrative and claims data. Cost-effectiveness analysis entailed sampling a complete set of clinical and cost parameters from their respective distributions, and then running cohorts of 10,000 patients through each intervention arm of the model. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed. In the base case microsimulation, at 24 months, the modeled target lesion revascularization was 11.6% for Eluvia and 19.0% for Zilver PTX, and the mean total direct costs were 21,356, respectively (Eluvia average savings= 10,000 per target lesion revascularization prevented. Eluvia was more effective and less costly (dominant) than Zilver PTX in 73.6% of simulations. In this comparison of a paclitaxel-eluting to a paclitaxel-coated stent for endovascular femoropopliteal intervention, Eluvia was more effective and less costly (dominant) than Zilver PTX from a US Medicare perspective. These findings should be considered when formulating reimbursement policy and clinical practice guidelines. Paclitaxel is a drug used in the treatment of peripheral artery disease (PAD) to help maintain primary vessel patency and reduce the need for revascularization procedures. This study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of the paclitaxel-eluting Eluvia stent (Boston Scientific, Marlborough, MA) versus the paclitaxel-coated Zilver PTX stent (Cook Medical, Bloomington, IN) in Medicare patients with PAD. Cost-effectiveness is defined as the degree to which a particular treatment option is effective relative to its costs. Therefore, this study compared both the effectiveness, in terms of target lesion revascularization rates, and the costs of Eluvia versus Zilver PTX over 24 months. A microsimulation model was developed from a United States Medicare perspective with a 24-month time horizon. Simulated patients entered the model and were assigned to receive either Eluvia or Zilver PTX. Monthly, patients were exposed to the risks of primary vessel patency loss, target lesion revascularization (TLR), amputation, and death. These risks were taken from a randomized controlled trial that compared Eluvia and Zilver PTX over 24 months. Patients also accrued costs over time. The costs used in the model were obtained from Medicare administrative and claims data analyses. In health economics, a treatment is considered to be the dominant treatment option if it is both more effective and less costly than the alternative treatment. In this case, Eluvia was found to be dominant over Zilver PTX because it was associated with lower TLR rates and lower costs. These findings should be considered when formulating reimbursement policy and clinical practice guidelines.
medicine, general & internal,health care sciences & services