Schleinitz Mark D, Weiss J Peter, Owens Douglas K
Department of Medicine (JPW), Stanford University, Palo Alto, California, USA.
Am J Med. 2004 Jun 15;116(12):797-806. doi: 10.1016/j.amjmed.2004.01.014.
Clopidogrel is more effective than aspirin in preventing recurrent vascular events, but concerns about its cost-effectiveness have limited its use. We evaluated the cost-effectiveness of clopidogrel and aspirin as secondary prevention in patients with a prior myocardial infarction, a prior stroke, or peripheral arterial disease.
We constructed Markov models assuming a societal perspective, and based analyses on the lifetime treatment of a 63-year-old patient facing event probabilities derived from the Clopidogrel versus Aspirin in Patients at Risk of Ischemic Events (CAPRIE) trial as the base case. Outcome measures included costs, life expectancy in quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), incremental cost-effectiveness ratios, and events averted.
In patients with peripheral arterial disease, clopidogrel increased life expectancy by 0.55 QALYs at an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $25,100 per QALY, as compared with aspirin. In poststroke patients, clopidogrel increased life expectancy by 0.17 QALYs at a cost of $31,200 per QALY. Aspirin was both less expensive and more effective than clopidogrel in post-myocardial infarction patients. In probabilistic sensitivity analyses, our evaluation for patients with peripheral vascular disease was robust. Evaluations of stroke and myocardial infarction patients were sensitive predominantly to the cost and efficacy of clopidogrel, with aspirin therapy more effective and less expensive in 153 of 1000 simulations (15.3%) in poststroke patients and clopidogrel more effective in 119 of 1000 simulations (11.9%) in the myocardial infarction sample.
Clopidogrel provides a substantial increase in quality-adjusted life expectancy at a cost that is within traditional societal limits for patients with either peripheral arterial disease or a recent stroke. Current evidence does not support increased efficacy with clopidogrel relative to aspirin in patients following myocardial infarction.
氯吡格雷在预防复发性血管事件方面比阿司匹林更有效,但对其成本效益的担忧限制了其使用。我们评估了氯吡格雷和阿司匹林作为心肌梗死、中风或外周动脉疾病患者二级预防措施的成本效益。
我们构建了马尔可夫模型,假设从社会角度出发,并基于对一名63岁患者的终身治疗进行分析,该患者面临的事件概率源自缺血性事件风险患者中氯吡格雷与阿司匹林对比试验(CAPRIE),以此作为基础案例。结果指标包括成本、质量调整生命年(QALY)中的预期寿命、增量成本效益比以及避免的事件。
在外周动脉疾病患者中,与阿司匹林相比,氯吡格雷使预期寿命增加了0.55个QALY,增量成本效益比为每QALY 25,100美元。在中风后患者中,氯吡格雷使预期寿命增加了0.17个QALY,成本为每QALY 31,200美元。在心肌梗死后患者中,阿司匹林比氯吡格雷更便宜且更有效。在概率敏感性分析中,我们对周围血管疾病患者的评估结果较为可靠。对中风和心肌梗死患者的评估主要对氯吡格雷的成本和疗效敏感,在中风后患者的1000次模拟中有153次(15.3%)显示阿司匹林治疗更有效且成本更低,在心肌梗死样本的1000次模拟中有119次(11.9%)显示氯吡格雷更有效。
对于外周动脉疾病或近期中风患者,氯吡格雷能显著提高质量调整后的预期寿命,且成本在传统社会可承受范围内。目前的证据不支持心肌梗死后患者使用氯吡格雷相对于阿司匹林有更高的疗效。