Schönermark Mp

CT coronary angiography vs. invasive coronary angiography in CHD.

Scientific background Various diagnostic tests including conventional invasive coronary angiography and non-invasive computed tomography (CT) coronary angiography are used in the diagnosis of coronary heart disease (CHD). Research questions The present report aims to evaluate the clinical efficacy, diagnostic accuracy, prognostic value cost-effectiveness as well as the ethical, social and legal implications of CT coronary angiography versus invasive coronary angiography in the diagnosis of CHD. Methods A systematic literature search was conducted in electronic data bases (MEDLINE, EMBASE etc.) in October 2010 and was completed with a manual search. The literature search was restricted to articles published from 2006 in German or English. Two independent reviewers were involved in the selection of the relevant publications. The medical evaluation was based on systematic reviews of diagnostic studies with invasive coronary angiography as the reference standard and on diagnostic studies with intracoronary pressure measurement as the reference standard. Study results were combined in a meta-analysis with 95 % confidence intervals (CI). Additionally, data on radiation doses from current non-systematic reviews were taken into account. A health economic evaluation was performed by modelling from the social perspective with clinical assumptions derived from the meta-analysis and economic assumptions derived from contemporary German sources. Data on special indications (bypass or in-stent-restenosis) were not included in the evaluation. Only data obtained using CT scanners with at least 64 slices were considered. Results No studies were found regarding the clinical efficacy or prognostic value of CT coronary angiography versus conventional invasive coronary angiography in the diagnosis of CHD. Overall, 15 systematic reviews with data from 44 diagnostic studies using invasive coronary angiography as the reference standard (identification of obstructive stenoses) and two diagnostic studies using intracoronary pressure measurement as the reference standard (identification of functionally relevant stenoses) were included in the medical evaluation. Meta-analysis of the nine studies of higher methodological quality showed that, CT coronary angiography with invasive coronary angiography as the reference standard, had a sensitivity of 96 % (95 % CI: 93 % to 98 %), specificity of 86 % (95 % CI: 83 % to 89 %), positive likelihood ratio of 6.38 (95 % CI: 5.18 to 7.87) and negative likelihood ratio of 0.06 (95 % CI: 0.03 to 0.10). However, due to non-diagnostic CT images approximately 3.6 % of the examined patients required a subsequent invasive coronary angiography. Using intracoronary pressure measurement as the reference standard, CT coronary angiography compared to invasive coronary angiography had a sensitivity of 80 % (95 % CI: 61 % to 92 %) versus 67 % (95 % CI: 51 % to 78 %), a specificity of 67 % (95 % CI: 47 % to 83 %) versus 75 % (95 % CI: 60 % to 86 %), an average positive likelihood ratio of 2.3 versus 2.6, and an average negative likelihood ratio 0.3 versus 0.4, respectively. Compared to invasive coronary angiography, the average effective radiation dose of CT coronary angiography was higher with retrospective electrocardiogram (ECG) gating and relatively similar with prospective ECG gating. The health economic model using invasive coronary angiography as the reference standard showed that at a pretest probability of CHD of 50 % or lower, CT coronary angiography resulted in lower cost per patient with true positive diagnosis. At a pretest probability of CHD of 70 % or higher, invasive coronary angiography was associated with lower cost per patient with true positive diagnosis. Using intracoronary pressure measurement as the reference standard, both types of coronary angiographies resulted in substantially higher cost per patient with true positive diagnosis. Two publications dealing explicitly with ethical aspects were identified. The first addressed ethical aspects regarding the principles of beneficence, autonomy and justice, and the second addressed those regarding radiation exposition, especially when used within studies. Discussion The discriminatory power of CT coronary angiography to identify patients with obstructive (above 50 %) coronary stenoses should be regarded as “high diagnostic evidence”, to identify patients without coronary stenoses as “persuasive diagnostic evidence”. The discriminatory power of both types of coronary angiography to identify patients with or without functionally relevant coronary stenoses should be regarded as “weak diagnostic evidence”. It can be assumed that patients with a high pretest probability of CHD will need invasive coronary angiography and patients with a low pretest probability of CHD will not need subsequent revascularisation. Therefore, CT coronary angiography may be used before performing invasive coronary angiography in patients with an intermediate pretest probability of CHD. For identifying or excluding of obstructive coronary stenosis, CT coronary angiography was shown to be more cost-saving at a pretest probability of CHD of 50 % or lower, and invasive coronary angiography at a pretest probability of CHD of 70 % or higher. The use of both types of coronary angiography to identify or to exclude functionally relevant coronary stenoses should be regarded as highly cost-consuming. With regard to ethical, social or legal aspects, the following possible implications were identified: under-provision or over-provision of health care, unnecessary complications, anxiety, social stigmatisation, restriction of self-determination, unequal access to health care, unfair resource distribution and legal disputes. Conclusion From a medical point of view, CT coronary angiography using scanners with at least 64 slices should be recommended as a test to rule out obstructive coronary stenoses in order to avoid inappropriate invasive coronary angiography in patients with an intermediate pretest probability of CHD. From a health economic point of view, this recommendation should be limited to patients with a pretest probability of CHD of 50 % or lower. From a medical and health economic point of view, neither CT coronary angiography using scanners with at least 64 slices nor invasive coronary angiography may be recommended as a single diagnostic test for identifying or ruling out functionally relevant coronary stenoses. To minimise any potential negative ethical, social and legal implications, the general ethical and moral principles of benefit, autonomy and justice should be considered.

Specific immunotherapy (SIT) in the treatment of allergic rhinitis

Scientific background Allergic rhinitis (AR) exhibits a prevalence of approx. 20% in Germany and causes enormous costs in the health care system. Specific immunotherapy (SIT) is considered to be the only potentially causal therapy for AR and mainly administered by two routes, subcutaneous (SCIT) and sublinguale (SLIT). SIT promises a reduction of symptoms and the need for medication in patients with AR. Research questions The question arises, to what extent is SIT effective and cost effective in the treatment of AR and which ethical-social and legal aspects have to be considered regarding its application. Methods The literature search was accomplished in the electronic data bases MEDLINE, EMBASE etc. in February 2008. The medical evaluation was based on systematic reviews of blinded, randomised controlled studies (RCT). The economic evaluation included health-economic studies on the basis of RCT. Additionally, it was also searched for publications explicitly addressing ethical-social and legal aspects of the use of SIT. Results Medical evaluation Two reviews on SCIT and three on SLIT were included in the medical evaluation. For the evaluation of SIT with grass pollen results for short and medium-term effects are considered from several studies, for SIT with other seasonal allergens (e. g. tree pollen) and with house dust mite allergens from clearly fewer studies and for SIT with other perennial allergens only from a few. The reviews report a significant reduction of the symptom and medication score in favour of SCIT with seasonal allergens and recognise the effectiveness at least for grass pollen allergens. Also for other seasonal allergens SCIT is appraised as effective. The reviews about SLIT determine a significant reduction of the symptom and the medication score in favour of SLIT vs. placebo in short and medium term follow-up in evaluations across all allergens. The subgroup analyses show a significant reduction of the symptom and medication score only in favour of SLIT with seasonal allergens. Health economic evaluation Four publications about two health economic studies are identified, one of these publications on Alutard-SQ® injections (SCIT) and three on GRAZAX® tablets (SLIT). The studies provide more (on Alutard-SQ®) or less (on GRAZAX®) robust information, but no evidence on cost effectiveness of these SIT administration forms in patients with AR. Discussion The topic of the report is very broad, so that the evidence is summarised using systematic reviews. In particular the statistic heterogeneity of the studies found in the reviews considerably limits the strength of the findings. The included health economic studies show different methodical flaws, the largest potential bias is the projection of the magnitude of the medium-term clinical effects on the time period of nine years. Conclusions The effectiveness of SIT in patients with AR is not equally proven for all SIT administration forms and allergens. For SCIT and SLIT with grass pollen allergens short and medium-term effectiveness can be regarded as proven. These therapy forms should be used if the indication is appropriate and if no contraindications are present. Also SCIT and SLIT with other seasonal allergens such as tree pollen allergens can be an effective treatment option, but used with a certain restraint due to insufficient data especially in the case of SLIT. For SIT with house dust mite allergens and further perennial allergens no consistent proof of effectiveness are to be determined from the available information. Further research addressing non-grass pollen-associated SIT, allergen and manufacturer specific evaluations as well as asthma prevention is needed. Due to the lack of evidence the use of SIT can not be seen proven as cost effective. To provide such evidence further health economic studies with a long term follow-up are needed. The informed consent of the patients is an important ethical requirement within the use of SIT.

Methods for assessment of innovative medical technologies during early stages of development.

Conventional Health Technology Assessment (HTA) is usually conducted at a point in time at which the development of the respective technology may no longer be influenced. By this time developers and/or purchasers may have misinvested resources. Thus the demand for Technology Assessment (TA) which incorporates appropriate methods during early development stages of a technology becomes apparent. Against this health political background, the present report describes methods for a development-accompanying assessment of innovative medical technologies. Furthermore, international research programmes set out to identify or apply such methods will be outlined. A systematic literature search as well as an extensive manual literature search are carried out in order to obtain literature and information. The greatest units of the identified methods consist of assessment concepts, decision support methods, modelling approaches and methods focusing on users and their knowledge. Additionally, several general-purpose concepts have been identified. The identified research programmes INNO-HTA and MATCH (Multidisciplinary-Assessment-of-Technology-Centre-for-Healthcare) are to be seen as pilot projects which so far have not been able to generate final results. MATCH focuses almost entirely on the incorporation of the user-perspective regarding the development of non-pharmaceutical technologies, whereas INNO-HTA is basically concerned with the identification and possible advancement of methods for the early, socially-oriented technology assessment. Most references offer only very vague descriptions of the respective method and the application of greatly differing methods seldom exceeds the character of a pilot implementation. A standardisation much less an institutionalisation of development-accompanying assessment cannot be recognized. It must be noted that there is no singular method with which development-accompanying assessment should be carried out. Instead, a technology and evaluation specific method selection seem to be necessary as medical innovations are diverse and none of the methods are exhaustive. Because of a variety of issues (e. g. ideal time of evaluation, lack of data and uncertainty of data) a development-accompanying assessment should not replace a comprehensive HTA, but rather form a possible preceding step in a multi-staged HTA-process. A final appraisal of the methods for development-accompanying assessment cannot be made based on the available sources. However, the present review may serve as a starting point for further development and application of these methods as well as further examination of the concept of development-accompanying assessment. There is a substantial need for further research concerning the application, validation and comparison of the various methods for development-accompanying assessment.

Bone graft substitutes for the treatment of traumatic fractures of the extremities.

Health political and scientific background Bone graft substitutes are increasingly being used as supplements to standard care or as alternative to bone grafts in the treatment of traumatic fractures. Research questions The efficacy and cost-effectiveness of bone graft substitutes for the treatment of traumatic fractures as well as the ethical, social and legal implications of their use are the main research questions addressed. Methods A systematic literature search was conducted in electronic medical databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE etc.) in December 2009. Randomised controlled trials (RCT), where applicable also containing relevant health economic evaluations and publications addressing the ethical, social and legal aspects of using bone graft substitutes for fracture treatment were included in the analysis. After assessment of study quality the information synthesis of the medical data was performed using metaanalysis, the synthesis of the health economic data was performed descriptively. Results 14 RCT were included in the medical analysis, and two in the heath economic evaluation. No relevant publications on the ethical, social and legal implications of the bone graft substitute use were found. In the RCT on fracture treatment with bone morphogenetic protein-2 (BMP-2) versus standard care without bone grafting (RCT with an elevated high risk of bias) there was a significant difference in favour of BMP-2 for several outcome measures. The RCT of calcium phosphate (CaP) cement and bone marrow-based composite materials versus autogenous bone grafts (RCT with a high risk of bias) revealed significant differences in favour of bone graft substitutes for some outcome measures. Regarding the other bone graft substitutes, almost all comparisons demonstrated no significant difference. The use of BMP-2 in addition to standard care without bone grafting led in the study to increased treatment costs considering all patients with traumatic open fractures. However, cost savings through the additional use of BMP-2 were calculated in a patient subgroup with high-grade open fractures (Gustilo-Anderson grade IIIB). Cost-effectiveness for BMP-2 versus standard care with autologous bone grafts as well as for other bone graft substitutes in fracture treatment has not been determined yet. Discussion Although there were some significant differences in favour of BMP-2, due to the overall poor quality of the studies the evidence can only be interpreted as suggestive for efficacy. In the case of CaP cements and bone marrow-based bone substitute materials, the evidence is only weakly suggestive for efficacy. From an overall economic perspective, the transferability of the results of the health economic evaluations to the current situation in Germany is limited. Conclusions The current evidence is insufficient to evaluate entirely the use of different bone graft substitutes for fracture treatment. From a medical point of view, BMP-2 is a viable alternative for treatment of open fractures of the tibia, especially in cases where bone grafting is not possible. Autologous bone grafting is preferable comparing to the use of OP-1. Possible advantages of CaP cements and composites containing bone marrow over autogenous bone grafting should be taken into account in clinical decision making. The use of the hydroxyapatite material and allograft bone chips compared to autologous bone grafts cannot be recommended. From a health economic perspective, the use of BMP-2 in addition to standard care without bone grafting is recommended as cost-saving in patients with high-grade open fractures (Gustilo-Anderson grade IIIB). Based on the current evidence no further recommendations can be made regarding the use of bone graft substitutes for the treatment of fractures. To avoid legal implications, use of bone graft substitutes outside their approved indications should be avoided.

Arthroplasty register for Germany.

Scientific background The annual number of joint replacement operations in Germany is high. The introduction of an arthroplasty register promises an important contribution to the improvement of the quality of patient’s care. Research questions The presented report addresses the questions on organization and functioning, benefits and cost-benefits as well as on legal, ethical and social aspects of the arthroplasty registers. Methods A systematic literature search was conducted in September 2008 in the medical databases MEDLINE, EMBASE etc. and was complemented with a hand search. Documents describing arthroplasty registers and/or their relevance as well as papers on legal, ethical and social aspects of such registers were included in the evaluation. The most important information was extracted and analysed. Results Data concerning 30 arthroplasty registers in 19 countries as well as one international arthroplasty register were identified. Most of the arthroplasty registers are maintained by national orthopedic societies, others by health authorities or by their cooperation. Mostly, registries are financially supported by governments and rarely by other sources. The participation of the orthopedists in the data collection process of the arthroplasty registry is voluntary in most countries. The consent of the patients is usually required. The unique patient identification is ensured in nearly all registers. Each data set consists of patient and clinic identification numbers, data on diagnosis, the performed intervention, the operation date and implanted prostheses. The use of clinical scores, patient-reported questionnaires and radiological documentation is rare. Methods for data documentation and transfer are paper form, electronic entry as well as scanning of the data using bar codes. The data are mostly being checked for their completeness and validity. Most registers offer results of the data evaluation to the treating orthopedists and/or hospitals, provide annual reports and publish scientific articles and/or presentations. The effects of the arthroplasty registers on clinical practice and on health political decisions in the time after the introduction of these registers are documented in some countries. The influence on cost savings for health services is also reported. Discussion The most important legal and ethical aspect is the patient’s data protection and, therefore, the requirement of patient’s consent. The involvement of the physicians in the data collection process is a further organisational and legal challenge. The 100% data collection, which is the aim of the registers due to their definition, should not cause disadvantages for certain groups of patients. Conclusion The arthroplasty registers have a large medical and health-economic potential. Aspects of the patient’s data protection and the guaranteed financial support of the registers should be clarified before the introduction of a register.

Percutaneous coronary intervention with optimal medical therapy vs. optimal medical therapy alone for patients with stable angina pectoris.

Scientific background Stable Angina Pectoris (AP) is a main syndrome of chronic coronary artery disease (CAD), a disease with enormous epidemiological and health economic relevance. Medical therapy and percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI) are the most important methods used in the treatment of chronic CAD. Research questions The evaluation addresses questions on medical efficacy, incremental cost-effectiveness as well as ethic, social and legal aspects in the use of PCI in CAD patients in comparison to optimal medical therapy alone. Methods A systematic literature search was conducted in June 2010 in the electronic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE etc.) and was completed by a hand search. The medical analysis was initially based on systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials (RCT) and was followed by the evaluation of RCT with use of current optimal medical therapy. The results of the RCT were combined using meta-analysis. The strength and the applicability of the determined evidence were appraised. The health economic analysis was initially focused on the published studies. Additionally, a health economic modelling was performed with clinical assumptions derived from the conducted meta-analysis and economic assumptions derived from the German Diagnosis Related Groups 2011. Results Seven systematic reviews (applicability of the evidence low) and three RCT with use of optimal medical therapy (applicability of the evidence for the endpoints AP and revascularisations moderate, for further endpoints high) were included in the medical analysis. The results from RCT are used as a base of the evaluation. The routine use of the PCI reduces the proportion of patients with AP attacks in the follow-up after one and after three years in comparison with optimal medical therapy alone (evidence strength moderate); however, this effect was not demonstrated in the follow-up after five years (evidence strength low). The difference in effect in the follow-up after four to five years was not found for the further investigated clinical endpoints: death, cardiac death, myocardial infarction and stroke (evidence strength high) as well as for severe heart failure (evidence strength moderate). Two studies were included in the health economic analysis. The costs estimations from these studies are not directly transferable to the corresponding costs in Germany. The average difference in the total costs for PCI in comparison with optimal medical therapy alone, which was calculated in the modelling, was found to be 4,217 Euro per patient. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio per life-year of a patient with avoided AP attacks was estimated to be 24,805 Euro (evidence strength moderate). No publication was identified concerning ethical, social or legal aspects. Discussion Important methodical problems of the studies are a lack of blinding of the patients and incomplete data for several endpoints in the follow-up. The determined incremental cost-effectiveness ratio per life-year of a patient with avoided AP attacks was appraised not to be cost-effective. Conclusions From a medical point of view the routine use of PCI in addition to the optimal medicinal therapy in patients with stable AP can be recommended for the reduction of the proportion of patients with AP attacks after one year and after three years (recommendation degree weak). Otherwise, PCI is to be performed in patients with refractory or progressing AP despite of optimal medical therapy use; in this case PCI is expected to be applied in 27% to 30% of patients in five years. From the health economic view the routine use of PCI in addition to an optimal medical therapy in patients with stable AP cannot be recommended. No special considerations can be made concerning special ethical, social or legal aspects in the routine use of PCI in addition to optimal medical therapy in patients with stable AP.

Kosteneffektivitätsbewertung Prädiktiver Molekulardiagnostik am Beispiel des Hereditären Nichtpolypösen Kolorektalkarzinoms (HNPCC)

STUDY OBJECTIVE Four different diagnostic strategies, with and without various molecular diagnostic tests, are compared and contrasted not only by years gained and the cost of therapy and diagnosis, but also by the cost-effectiveness of the diagnostic strategies. METHODOLOGY A fictitious cohort of 100,000 people, whose genetic pre-disposition leading to the development of colorectal cancer corresponds to a representative average amongst the current population, will be studied from their 1st to their 85th year. This data will be then put through Markov models specifically developed for the study. At the end of the Markov process, it will then be possible to compile a cost-effectiveness report in regard to the various diagnostic and treatment strategies. RESULTS A tiered diagnosis (with family case history, micro-satellite instability, molecular diagnostic diagnosis of an index person and subsequent genetic analysis of all people at risk) represents the most cost-effective method at a rate of euro 3,867 per year gained. The cost-effectiveness of a purely clinical diagnosis has a rate of euro 4,397 per year gained and is followed by the cost of direct gene testing of people at risk from families at risk at a rate of euro 6,208. The worst level of cost-effectiveness, with a rate of euro 15,705, was shown by nationwide gene screening. The incremental cost-effectiveness of Strategy IV and Strategy II is euro 124,168 per gained year. CONCLUSIONS With the scenarios put forward we can show that a 65% reduction in gene test costs is necessary in order for a cost-effective nationwide gene screening for HNPCC to take place. The break-even level, however, depends only on a few cost-effectiveness drivers such as screening and therapy costs, proportion of HNPCC of all colorectal cancer and discounting rate. Should these changes (e.g., through a restructured medical environment), then we would see such a change in the break-even cost of a gene test and that a cost-effective nationwide gene screening could be made plausible. In a final evaluation of the use of predictive molecular diagnostics, other dimensions (such as possible psychological problems and discriminatory risks) apart from cost-effectiveness should also be included.

Assessments tools for risk prediction of cardiovascular diseases.

Scientific background Cardiovascular diseases have an enormous epidemiological and economic importance. For the selection of persons with increased total cardiovascular risk for individual-targeted (e. g. drug-based) prevention interventions different risk prognosis instruments (equations, point scores and table charts) were derived from studies or databases. The transferability of these prognostic instruments on the populations not examined in these data sources as well as their comparability are not clear. Research questions The evaluation addresses the questions on the existence of instruments for risk prediction of cardiovascular diseases, their transferability and comparability. Methods A systematic literature search was performed in the medical electronic databases in April 2008 beginning from 2004 and was completed with a hand search. Publications on the prognostic instruments for cardiovascular diseases as well as publications addressing external validity and/or comparing prognostic instruments were included in the evaluation. Results The systematic lierature search yielded 734 hits. Three systematic reviews, 38 publications with descriptions of prognostic instruments and 29 publications with data on the validity of the prognosis instruments were identified. Most risk prognosis instruments are based on the Framingham cohort of the USA. Only the PROCAM study is completely based on the German reference population. Almost all prognostic instruments use the variables sex, age, smoking, different parameters of the lipid status and of the blood pressure. Different cardiovascular events are considered to be an end parameter in the prognosis instruments. The time span for predicted events in the studies mostly comprises ten years. Data on calibration of the prognosis instruments (a quotient of the predicted by the observed risk) are presented in nearly half of the studies on the validation, however in no study from Germany. Only single studies find the levels of calibration between 0.9 and 1.1. Many studies on the transferability of the prognosis instruments show a value of the discrimination (correct differentiation of persons with different risk levels, best value 1.0) between 0.7 and 0.8, few studies between 0.8 and 0.9 and no study over 0.9. The studies addressing the discrimination of the prognostic instruments on the German population almost always find values between 0.7 and 0.8. The comparison of the validity of different risk prognosis instruments shows a trend for a better calibration and a better discrimination for the prognosis instruments examined on the derivation and/or validation cohorts of one of the compared prognostic instruments. Comparing the prognostic instruments on other cohorts, the newly derived Framingham prognostic instruments show a better discrimination in comparison with previously derived instruments. No studies exists comparing different prognostic instruments on the German population. Discussion The geographic variance of the cardiovascular morbidity and mortality supposed to be the most important factor limiting the transferability of the prognostic instruments. An appropriate recalibration is considered to be an approach for the improvement of the transferability. Conclusions The identified instruments for the risk prediction of cardiovascular diseases are insufficiently validated on the German population. Their use can lead to false risk estimation for a single person. Therefore, the existing prognostic instruments should be used for the informed decision-making and for the therapy selection in Germany only with critical caution.

Gesundheitsökonomische Modellierung zum Einsatz von Medikamente freisetzenden Stents im Vergleich zu Bypassoperationen bei koronarer Herzkrankheit

ZusammenfassungHintergrund und Fragestellung:Wichtige Behandlungsmethoden bei koronarer Herzkrankheit (KHK) sind Bypassoperationen (CABG) und perkutane Revaskularisationen mit Implantation eines Medikamente freisetzenden Stent (DES). Es stellt sich die Frage nach der Kostenwirksamkeit beim Einsatz von DES versus CABG bei KHK-Patienten.Methodik:Eine gesundheitsökonomische Modellierung wurde aus einer eingeschränkten gesellschaftlichen Perspektive mit einem Zeithorizont von 1 bzw. 3 Jahren durchgeführt. Klinische Wahrscheinlichkeitsannahmen wurden für CABG der ARTS-I- und für DES der ARTS-II-Studie entnommen. Für die Kostenannahmen wurden die Bewertungsrelationen aus den deutschen Fallpauschalen (G-DRG-2007) herangezogen. Als Basisfallwert wurden 2 800 Euro angenommen. Der Preis für einen DES wurde mit 1 200 Euro, die Anzahl der angewendeten Stents pro Patient mit 3,7 und die Tagestherapiekosten für Clopidogrel mit 2,57 Euro pro Patient angesetzt, die angenommene Therapiedauer mit Clopidogrel betrug 12 Monate.Ergebnisse:Die Gesamtkosten pro Patient 1 Jahr bzw. 3 Jahre nach CABG betrugen 13 373 bzw. 13 630 Euro und nach DES 10 443 bzw. 10 905 Euro, d.h., es ergab sich ein Kostenunterschied von 2 930 bzw. 2 725 Euro zugunsten der DES-Implantation. Bei den durchgeführten Sensitivitätsanalysen kam es zu keiner Umkehr des Kostenunterschieds.Schlussfolgerung:Der vorliegende Hinweis auf einen möglichen ökonomischen Vorteil von DES-Implantationen im Vergleich zu CABG sollte im langfristigen Follow-up und in randomisiert-kontrollierten Studien überprüft werden.AbstractBackground and Purpose:The therapy of coronary heart disease (CHD) leads to an enormous economic burden on health-care systems. Coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) and percutaneous revascularizations with implantation of drug-eluting stents (DES) are important treatment methods in CHD. The presented evaluation addresses cost efficacy of the use of DES versus CABG in CHD patients.Methods:A health-economic model considering linear resource use was performed from a restricted societal perspective for time periods of 1 and 3 years. Because of the short time horizon discounting was not applied. The clinical assumptions for event rates at 1 and 3 years were derived from the ARTS-I study for CABG, and from the ARTS-II study for DES (sirolimus-eluting stents). Cost assumptions for the resources used were based on the German Diagnosis Related Groups 2007 (G-DRG-2007). The base case value was assumed to be 2,800 Euros, the average DES price 1,200 Euros, and the average DES use per patient 3.7. The average per-patient daily clopidogrel costs were assumed to be 2.57 Euros, and the duration of the clopidogrel therapy 12 months. Within the scope of sensitivity analyses, different model parameters were varied and the evaluation was tested for its robustness.Results:The average costs for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) without DES were found to be 4,420 Euros, for CABG 12,840 Euros, and for DES intervention 8,860 Euros (Table 4). 1-year clopidogrel intake resulted in 938 Euros, the treatment of patients with myocardial infarction during follow-up in 3,989 Euros.The 1-year per-patient total costs after CABG were calculated to be 13,373 Euros and after DES 10,443 Euros, leading to a difference of 2,930 Euros in favor of DES implantation (Table 6). The 3-year per-patient total costs after CABG were estimated to be 13,630 Euros and after DES 10,905 Euros, showing a Rehabilitationsmaßcost difference of 2,725 Euros in favor of DES implantation (Table 6). Changes in cost-weights of G-DRG-2007 for CABG and PCI, DES price and DES use per patient as well as in the duration of the clopidogrel therapy influenced the cost differences considerably; however, they did not reach a break-even point (Figures 2 and 3).Changes in the clinical follow-up assumptions showed a lower effect on the difference in total costs (Figures 2 and 3).Conclusion:The presented data, indicating a possible economic middle-term advantage of DES versus CABG, should be proven with clinical assumptions derived from randomized clinical trials.BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE The therapy of coronary heart disease (CHD) leads to an enormous economic burden on health-care systems. Coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) and percutaneous revascularizations with implantation of drug-eluting stents (DES) are important treatment methods in CHD. The presented evaluation addresses cost efficacy of the use of DES versus CABG in CHD patients. METHODS A health-economic model considering linear resource use was performed from a restricted societal perspective for time periods of 1 and 3 years. Because of the short time horizon discounting was not applied. The clinical assumptions for event rates at 1 and 3 years were derived from the ARTS-I study for CABG, and from the ARTS-II study for DES (sirolimus-eluting stents). Cost assumptions for the resources used were based on the German Diagnosis Related Groups 2007 (G-DRG-2007). The base case value was assumed to be 2,800 Euros, the average DES price 1,200 Euros, and the average DES use per patient 3.7. The average per-patient daily clopidogrel costs were assumed to be 2.57 Euros, and the duration of the clopidogrel therapy 12 months. Within the scope of sensitivity analyses, different model parameters were varied and the evaluation was tested for its robustness. RESULTS The average costs for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) without DES were found to be 4,420 Euros, for CABG 12,840 Euros, and for DES intervention 8,860 Euros (Table 4). 1-year clopidogrel intake resulted in 938 Euros, the treatment of patients with myocardial infarction during follow-up in 3,989 Euros. The 1-year per-patient total costs after CABG were calculated to be 13,373 Euros and after DES 10,443 Euros, leading to a difference of 2,930 Euros in favor of DES implantation (Table 6). The 3-year per-patient total costs after CABG were estimated to be 13,630 Euros and after DES 10,905 Euros, showing a Rehabilitationsmasscost difference of 2,725 Euros in favor of DES implantation (Table 6). Changes in cost-weights of G-DRG-2007 for CABG and PCI, DES price and DES use per patient as well as in the duration of the clopidogrel therapy influenced the cost differences considerably; however, they did not reach a break-even point (Figures 2 and 3). Changes in the clinical follow-up assumptions showed a lower effect on the difference in total costs (Figures 2 and 3). CONCLUSION The presented data, indicating a possible economic middle-term advantage of DES versus CABG, should be proven with clinical assumptions derived from randomized clinical trials.

[Health-economic modeling on the use of drug-eluting stents versus coronary artery bypass graft surgery in coronary heart disease].

ZusammenfassungHintergrund und Fragestellung:Wichtige Behandlungsmethoden bei koronarer Herzkrankheit (KHK) sind Bypassoperationen (CABG) und perkutane Revaskularisationen mit Implantation eines Medikamente freisetzenden Stent (DES). Es stellt sich die Frage nach der Kostenwirksamkeit beim Einsatz von DES versus CABG bei KHK-Patienten.Methodik:Eine gesundheitsökonomische Modellierung wurde aus einer eingeschränkten gesellschaftlichen Perspektive mit einem Zeithorizont von 1 bzw. 3 Jahren durchgeführt. Klinische Wahrscheinlichkeitsannahmen wurden für CABG der ARTS-I- und für DES der ARTS-II-Studie entnommen. Für die Kostenannahmen wurden die Bewertungsrelationen aus den deutschen Fallpauschalen (G-DRG-2007) herangezogen. Als Basisfallwert wurden 2 800 Euro angenommen. Der Preis für einen DES wurde mit 1 200 Euro, die Anzahl der angewendeten Stents pro Patient mit 3,7 und die Tagestherapiekosten für Clopidogrel mit 2,57 Euro pro Patient angesetzt, die angenommene Therapiedauer mit Clopidogrel betrug 12 Monate.Ergebnisse:Die Gesamtkosten pro Patient 1 Jahr bzw. 3 Jahre nach CABG betrugen 13 373 bzw. 13 630 Euro und nach DES 10 443 bzw. 10 905 Euro, d.h., es ergab sich ein Kostenunterschied von 2 930 bzw. 2 725 Euro zugunsten der DES-Implantation. Bei den durchgeführten Sensitivitätsanalysen kam es zu keiner Umkehr des Kostenunterschieds.Schlussfolgerung:Der vorliegende Hinweis auf einen möglichen ökonomischen Vorteil von DES-Implantationen im Vergleich zu CABG sollte im langfristigen Follow-up und in randomisiert-kontrollierten Studien überprüft werden.AbstractBackground and Purpose:The therapy of coronary heart disease (CHD) leads to an enormous economic burden on health-care systems. Coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) and percutaneous revascularizations with implantation of drug-eluting stents (DES) are important treatment methods in CHD. The presented evaluation addresses cost efficacy of the use of DES versus CABG in CHD patients.Methods:A health-economic model considering linear resource use was performed from a restricted societal perspective for time periods of 1 and 3 years. Because of the short time horizon discounting was not applied. The clinical assumptions for event rates at 1 and 3 years were derived from the ARTS-I study for CABG, and from the ARTS-II study for DES (sirolimus-eluting stents). Cost assumptions for the resources used were based on the German Diagnosis Related Groups 2007 (G-DRG-2007). The base case value was assumed to be 2,800 Euros, the average DES price 1,200 Euros, and the average DES use per patient 3.7. The average per-patient daily clopidogrel costs were assumed to be 2.57 Euros, and the duration of the clopidogrel therapy 12 months. Within the scope of sensitivity analyses, different model parameters were varied and the evaluation was tested for its robustness.Results:The average costs for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) without DES were found to be 4,420 Euros, for CABG 12,840 Euros, and for DES intervention 8,860 Euros (Table 4). 1-year clopidogrel intake resulted in 938 Euros, the treatment of patients with myocardial infarction during follow-up in 3,989 Euros.The 1-year per-patient total costs after CABG were calculated to be 13,373 Euros and after DES 10,443 Euros, leading to a difference of 2,930 Euros in favor of DES implantation (Table 6). The 3-year per-patient total costs after CABG were estimated to be 13,630 Euros and after DES 10,905 Euros, showing a Rehabilitationsmaßcost difference of 2,725 Euros in favor of DES implantation (Table 6). Changes in cost-weights of G-DRG-2007 for CABG and PCI, DES price and DES use per patient as well as in the duration of the clopidogrel therapy influenced the cost differences considerably; however, they did not reach a break-even point (Figures 2 and 3).Changes in the clinical follow-up assumptions showed a lower effect on the difference in total costs (Figures 2 and 3).Conclusion:The presented data, indicating a possible economic middle-term advantage of DES versus CABG, should be proven with clinical assumptions derived from randomized clinical trials.BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE The therapy of coronary heart disease (CHD) leads to an enormous economic burden on health-care systems. Coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) and percutaneous revascularizations with implantation of drug-eluting stents (DES) are important treatment methods in CHD. The presented evaluation addresses cost efficacy of the use of DES versus CABG in CHD patients. METHODS A health-economic model considering linear resource use was performed from a restricted societal perspective for time periods of 1 and 3 years. Because of the short time horizon discounting was not applied. The clinical assumptions for event rates at 1 and 3 years were derived from the ARTS-I study for CABG, and from the ARTS-II study for DES (sirolimus-eluting stents). Cost assumptions for the resources used were based on the German Diagnosis Related Groups 2007 (G-DRG-2007). The base case value was assumed to be 2,800 Euros, the average DES price 1,200 Euros, and the average DES use per patient 3.7. The average per-patient daily clopidogrel costs were assumed to be 2.57 Euros, and the duration of the clopidogrel therapy 12 months. Within the scope of sensitivity analyses, different model parameters were varied and the evaluation was tested for its robustness. RESULTS The average costs for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) without DES were found to be 4,420 Euros, for CABG 12,840 Euros, and for DES intervention 8,860 Euros (Table 4). 1-year clopidogrel intake resulted in 938 Euros, the treatment of patients with myocardial infarction during follow-up in 3,989 Euros. The 1-year per-patient total costs after CABG were calculated to be 13,373 Euros and after DES 10,443 Euros, leading to a difference of 2,930 Euros in favor of DES implantation (Table 6). The 3-year per-patient total costs after CABG were estimated to be 13,630 Euros and after DES 10,905 Euros, showing a Rehabilitationsmasscost difference of 2,725 Euros in favor of DES implantation (Table 6). Changes in cost-weights of G-DRG-2007 for CABG and PCI, DES price and DES use per patient as well as in the duration of the clopidogrel therapy influenced the cost differences considerably; however, they did not reach a break-even point (Figures 2 and 3). Changes in the clinical follow-up assumptions showed a lower effect on the difference in total costs (Figures 2 and 3). CONCLUSION The presented data, indicating a possible economic middle-term advantage of DES versus CABG, should be proven with clinical assumptions derived from randomized clinical trials.