Cost-effectiveness of bivalirudin versus heparin plus glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitor in the treatment of non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndromes

Value Health. 2011 Jan;14(1):24-33. doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2010.10.025.

Abstract

Objectives: This study sought to assess the cost-effectiveness of bivalirudin versus heparin plus glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitor (GPI) in thienopyridine-treated non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome (NSTE-ACS) patients undergoing early or urgent invasive management, from a United Kingdom National Health Service perspective.

Methods: A decision-analytic model with lifelong time horizon was populated with event risks and resource use parameters derived from the Acute Catheterization and Urgent Intervention Triage Strategy (ACUITY) trial raw data. In a parallel analysis, key comparator strategy inputs came from Global Registry of Acute Coronary Events (GRACE) patients enrolled in the United Kingdom. Upstream and catheter laboratory-initiated GPI were assumed to be tirofiban and abciximab, respectively. Life expectancy of first-year survivors, unit costs, and health-state utilities came from United Kingdom sources. Costs and effects were discounted at 3.5%. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were expressed as cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained.

Results: Higher acquisition costs for bivalirudin were partially offset by lower hospitalization and bleeding costs. In the ACUITY-based analysis, per-patient lifetime costs in the bivalirudin and heparin plus GPI strategies were £10,903 and £10,653, respectively. Patients survived 10.87 and 10.82 years on average, corresponding to 5.96 and 5.93 QALYs and resulting in an ICER of £9,906 per QALY gained. The GRACE-based ICER was £12,276 per QALY gained. In probabilistic sensitivity analysis, 72.1% and 67.0% of simulation results were more cost-effective than £20,000 per QALY gained, in the ACUITY-based and GRACE-based analyses, respectively. Additional scenario analyses implied that greater cost-effectiveness may be achieved in actual clinical practice.

Conclusions: Treating NSTE-ACS patients undergoing invasive management with bivalirudin is likely to represent a cost-effective option for the United Kingdom, when compared with the current practice of using heparin and a GPI.

Publication types

  • Comparative Study
  • Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

MeSH terms

  • Abciximab
  • Acute Coronary Syndrome / drug therapy*
  • Acute Coronary Syndrome / economics
  • Acute Coronary Syndrome / therapy
  • Antibodies, Monoclonal
  • Anticoagulants / economics*
  • Anticoagulants / therapeutic use
  • Cost-Benefit Analysis
  • Decision Trees
  • Drug Therapy, Combination
  • Female
  • Health Care Costs*
  • Heparin / economics*
  • Heparin / therapeutic use
  • Hirudins / economics*
  • Humans
  • Immunoglobulin Fab Fragments
  • Male
  • Middle Aged
  • Models, Econometric
  • Myocardial Revascularization
  • Peptide Fragments / economics*
  • Peptide Fragments / therapeutic use
  • Platelet Glycoprotein GPIIb-IIIa Complex / antagonists & inhibitors*
  • Pyridines
  • Quality-Adjusted Life Years
  • Recombinant Proteins / economics
  • Recombinant Proteins / therapeutic use
  • Survival Analysis
  • Tirofiban
  • Tyrosine / analogs & derivatives
  • United Kingdom

Substances

  • Antibodies, Monoclonal
  • Anticoagulants
  • Hirudins
  • Immunoglobulin Fab Fragments
  • Peptide Fragments
  • Platelet Glycoprotein GPIIb-IIIa Complex
  • Pyridines
  • Recombinant Proteins
  • thienopyridine
  • Tyrosine
  • Heparin
  • Tirofiban
  • bivalirudin
  • Abciximab