Skip to main content
Log in

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Ramipril in Heart Failure after Myocardial Infarction

Economic Evaluation of the Acute Infarction Ramipril Efficacy (AIRE) Study for Germany from the Perspective of Statutory Health Insurance

  • Original Research Article
  • Published:
PharmacoEconomics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objective: Data from the Acute Infarction Ramipril Efficacy (AIRE) study were used in a cost-effectiveness analysis to determine the incremental cost per lifeyear gained (LYG) when the ACE inhibitor ramipril was added to conventional treatment in patients with heart failure after acute myocardial infarction. In the AIRE trial, the addition of ramipril significantly lowered rates of total mortality and rehospitalisation due to heart failure.

Design and Setting: The cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted from the perspective of the Statutory Health Insurance (SHI) provider in Germany. A modelling approach was used which was based on secondary analysis of existing data, and costs were those incurred by SHI (i.e. expenses of SHI). In the base-case analysis, average case-related expenses of SHI were applied and LYG were quantified by the method of Kaplan and Meier.

Main outcome measures and results: The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of ramipril varied between 2500 and 8300 deutschmarks (DM) per LYG (1993 values for inpatient and 1995 values for outpatient treatment; DM1 » $US0.70), according to the treatment periods of 3.8 years and 1 year, respectively. In the sensitivity analysis, the robustness of the model and its results was shown when the extent of influence of different model variables on the base-case results was investigated. First, survival probability and LYG were estimated according to the Weibull method. Second, the dependency of the target variable (i.e. incremental cost per LYG) on random variables was described in a simulation. Third, the influence of the model variables on the target variable was quantified using a deterministic model. The variance of the target variable was broad and the hospitalisation impact of adding ramipril to conventional treatment was an independent variable with much greater influence on the target variable than the parameter of clinical effectiveness, i.e. the number of LYG.

Conclusion: Results of this evaluation showed that ramipril has a favourable incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for the treatment of heart failure in post myocardial infarction patients and can be considered an economical therapeutic agent from the perspective of SHI (third-party payer) in Germany.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Peters DH, Benfield P. Metoprolol. A pharmacoeconomic and quality-of-life evaluation of its use in hypertension, postmyocardialinfarction and dilated cardiomyopathy. Pharmacoeconomics 1994; 6: 370–400

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Andersson B, Waagstein F. Spectrum and outcome of congestive heart failure in a hospitalized population. Am Heart J 1993; 126: 632–40

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Gillum RF. Epidemiology of heart failure in the United States. Am Heart J 1993; 126: 1042–7

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Statistisches Bundesamt, editor. Statistisches Jahrbuch 1993 für die Bundesrepublik Deutschland. Stuttgart: Metzler-Poeschel, 1993

    Google Scholar 

  5. AOK-Bundesverband, editor. Krankheitsartenstatistik 1991.Bonn: AOK-Bundesverband, 1993

    Google Scholar 

  6. Garg R, Yusuf S. Overview of randomized trials of angiotensinconverting enzyme inhibitors on mortality and morbidity inpatients with heart failure. JAMA 1995; 273: 1450–6

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Cohn JN Franciosa JA. Vasodilator therapy of cardiac failure (in two parts). N Engl J Med 1977; 297: 27–31, 254-258

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Cohn JN, Johnson G, Ziesche S, et al. A comparison of enalapril with hydralazine-isosorbide dinitrate in the treatment ofchronic congestive heart failure. N Engl J Med 1991; 325:303–10

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Garg R, Yusuf S. Epidemiology of congestive heart failure. In:Barnett D, Pouler H, Francis G, editors. Congestive cardiacheart failure: pathophysiology and treatment. New York: MarcelDekker, 1993: 9–25

    Google Scholar 

  10. Gottlieb S, Moss AJ, McDermott M, et al. Interrelation of left ventricular ejection fraction, pulmonary congestion and outcomein acute myocardial infarction. Am J Cardiol 1992; 69:977–84

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Hall AS, Winter C, Bogie SM, et al. The Acute Infarction Ramipril Efficacy (AIRE) Study: rationale, design, organization,and outcome definitions. J Cardiovasc Pharmacol 1991;18 Suppl. 2: S105–9

    Google Scholar 

  12. The Acute Infarction Ramipril Efficacy (AIRE) Study Investigators.Effect of ramipril on mortality and morbidity of survivorsof acute myocardial infarction with clinical evidenceof heart failure. Lancet 1993; 342: 821–8

    Google Scholar 

  13. Martinez C, Ball SG. Cost-effectiveness of ramipril therapy for patients with clinical evidence of heart failure after acute myocardial infarction. Br J Clin Pract 1995; 49 Suppl. 78:S26–32

    Google Scholar 

  14. Erhardt L, Ball S, Andersson F, et al. Cost effectiveness in the treatment of heart failure with ramipril. Pharmacoeconomics 1997; 12 (2 Pt 2): 256-66

    Google Scholar 

  15. Brecht JG, Jenke A, Köhler ME, et al. frEmpfehlungen der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Klinische Pharmakologie und Therapie zur Durchführung und Bewertung Pharmakoökonomischer Studien. Klin Pharmakol akt 1995; 6(1): 4–11

    Google Scholar 

  16. Glaeske G, von Stillfried D. frPharmakoökonomie als Entscheidungshilfe in der Arzneimittelversorgung: Perspektiven aus Sicht der GKV. Ersatzkasse 1995; 75: 298–307

    Google Scholar 

  17. Pharma Daig + Lauer, editor. Grobe Deutsche Spezialitäten-Taxe, Lauer®-Taxe mit Apotheken-Ein- und Verkaufspreisen. Fürth: Pharma Daig + Lauer, 1995

  18. frVerordnung des Bundesministers für Gesundheit über die Zuzahlung bei der Abgabe von Arznei- und Verbandmitteln in der vertragsärztlichen Versorgung vom 9. September 1993 über die packungsgröbenabhängige Zuzahlung des Versicherten bei Arzneimitteln

  19. frSozialgesetzbuch, Fünftes Buch, 1993 mit §§ 31 und 39 über Zuzahlungen von in der GKV Versicherten bei Arznei- und Verbandmitteln sowie bei Krankenhausbehandlung sowie § 130 über den Rabatt in Höhe von fünf Prozent auf den Arzneimittelabgabepreis, den die gesetzlichen Krankenkassen von den Apotheken erhalten

  20. AOK-Bundesverband, editor. Krankheitsartenstatistik 1992. Bonn: AOK-Bundesverband, 1995

    Google Scholar 

  21. Bundesministerium für Gesundheit, editor. Internationale Klassifikation der Krankheiten, Verletzungen und Todesursachen (ICD). 2., überarbeitete Auflage Stand 1. 1. 1993. Köln: W. Kohlhammer, 1986

    Google Scholar 

  22. Statistisches Bundesamt, editor. frKostennachweis der Krankenhäuser. Gesundheitswesen, Fachserie 12, Reihe 6.3. Stuttgart: Metzler-Poeschel, 1995

    Google Scholar 

  23. Kassenärztliche Bundesvereinigung, editor. Einheitlicher Bewertungsma bstab (EBM): Dienstauflage der Kassenärztlichen Bundesvereinigung. Köln: Deutscher Ärzte-Verlag, 1994

  24. Kaplan EL, Meier P. Non-parametric estimation from incomplete observation. J Am Stat Assoc 1958; 53: 457–81

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Coyle D, Tolley K. Discounting of health benefits in the pharmacoeconomic analysis of drug therapies: an issue for debate? Pharmacoeconomics 1992; 2: 153–62

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Davey PJ, Leeder SR. The cost of migraine: more than just a headache? Pharmacoeconomics 1992; 2: 5–7

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Drummond MF. Cost of illness studies: a major headache? Pharmacoeconomics 1992; 2: 1–4

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Weibull W. A statistical theory of the strength of materials. Ing Vetenkaps Akad Handl 1939; 151: 1–45

    Google Scholar 

  29. Martinez C, Noack R, Schinzel S, et al. Validity of methods to quantify life-years gained based on clinical mortality studies [abstract]. The Third European Conference on Health Economics. The Stockholm School of Economics; 1995 Aug 20-22; Stockholm, 55–6

    Google Scholar 

  30. Kleijnen JPC, editor. Statistical techniques in simulation: part I, II. New York: Marcel Dekker, 1975

    Google Scholar 

  31. Jöckel K.-H. Eigenschaften und effektive Anwendung von Monte-Carlo-Tests [dissertation]. Dortmund: University of Dortmund, 1982

    Google Scholar 

  32. Hartung J, Elpelt B, Klösener K.-H. Statistik: Lehr- und Handbuch der angewandten Statistik. 3 Auflage. München: Oldenbourg, 1985

    Google Scholar 

  33. Brecht JG, Jenke A, Becker E, et al. Auswertung der Krankenhaus- Diagnosestatistik Schleswig-Holstein. Gesundheitsforschung, Band 191. Bonn: Bundesministerium für Arbeit und Sozialordnung, 1990

    Google Scholar 

  34. Bronstein IN, Semendjajew KA. Taschenbuch der Mathematik. 25., durchgesehene Auflage. Stuttgart: Teubner, 1991

    Google Scholar 

  35. Langley PC. The future of pharmacoeconomics: a commentary. Clin Ther 1997; 19: 762–9

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Evans C. The use of consensus methods and expert panels in pharmacoeconomic studies: practical applications and methodological shortcomings. Pharmacoeconomics 1997; 12(2 Pt 1): 121–9

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Sozialgesetzbuch, Sechstes Buch, 1994 mit §§ 35 und 36

  38. Johannesson M, Jönsson B. Ekonomisk utvärdering av läkemedel. Stockholm: SNS Förlag, 1993

    Google Scholar 

  39. Mason J, Drummond M, Torrance G. Some guidelines on the use of cost-effectiveness league tables. BMJ 1993; 306: 570–2

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  40. Szucs T, Berger K, Schulte-Hillen J, et al. Die Wirtschaftlichkeit von Captopril nach Myokardinfarkt. Med Klin 1996; 91: 112–8

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  41. Pfeffer MA, Braunwald E, Moyé LA, et al. Effect of captopril on mortality and morbidity in patients with left ventricular dysfunction after myocardial infarction: results of the Survival and Ventricular Enlargement trial. N Engl J Med 1992; 327: 669–77

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  42. Beck JR, Kassirer JP, Pauker SG. A convenient approximation of life expectancy (the ‘DEALE’). I: tivalidation of the method. Am J Med 1982; 73: 883–8

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  43. Beck JR, Pauker SG, Gottlieb JE, et al. A convenient approximation of life expectancy (the ‘DEALE’). II: use in medical decision-making. Am J Med 1982; 73: 889–97

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  44. Hall AS, Murray GD, Ball SG, et al. Follow-up study of patients randomly allocated ramipril or placebo for heart failure after acute myocardial infarction: AIRE Extension (AIREX) study. Lancet 1997; 349: 1493–7

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  45. Löwel H, Lewis M, Gostomzyk J, et al. Bevölkerungsbezogenes Herzinfarktregister in der Region Augsburg: Möglichkeiten und Einschränkungen. Soz Präventivmed 1991; 136: 159–65

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Lewis M, Löwel H, Hörmann A. Die Arzneimittelbehandlung von Herzinfarktpatienten vor und nach dem Akutereignis: Ergebnisse des Herzinfarktregisters Augsburg. Soz Präventivmed 1994; 39: 75–85

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Schädlich, P.K., Huppertz, E. & Brecht, J.G. Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Ramipril in Heart Failure after Myocardial Infarction. Pharmacoeconomics 14, 653–669 (1998). https://doi.org/10.2165/00019053-199814060-00006

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.2165/00019053-199814060-00006

Keywords

Navigation