Coleman Craig I, Freemantle Nick, Kohn Christine G
University of Connecticut, School of Pharmacy and Evidence-Based Practice Center, Storrs, Connecticut, USA.
University College London, London, UK.
BMJ Open. 2015 Nov 6;5(11):e008861. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2015-008861.
To estimate the cost-effectiveness of ranolazine when added to standard-of-care (SoC) antianginals compared with SoC alone in patients with stable coronary disease experiencing ≥3 attacks/week.
An economic model utilising a UK health system perspective, a 1-month cycle-length and a 1-year time horizon.
Patients with stable coronary disease experiencing ≥3 attacks/week starting in 1 of 4 angina frequency health states based on Seattle Angina Questionnaire Angina Frequency (SAQAF) scores (100=no; 61-99=monthly; 31-60=weekly; 0-30=daily angina).
Ranolazine added to SoC or SoC alone. Patients were allowed to transition between SAQAF states (first cycle only) or death (any cycle) based on probabilities derived from the randomised, controlled Efficacy of Ranolazine in Chronic Angina trial and other studies. Patients not responding to ranolazine in month 1 (not improving ≥1 SAQAF health state) discontinued ranolazine and were assumed to behave like SoC patients.
Costs (£2014) and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) for patients receiving and not receiving ranolazine.
Ranolazine patients lived a mean of 0.701 QALYs at a cost of £5208. Those not receiving ranolazine lived 0.662 QALYs at a cost of £5318. The addition of ranolazine to SoC was therefore a dominant economic strategy. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was sensitive to ranolazine cost; exceeding £20,000/QALY when ranolazine's cost was >£203/month. Ranolazine remained a dominant strategy when indirect costs were included and mortality rates were assumed to increase with worsening severity of SAQAF health states. Monte Carlo simulation found ranolazine to be a dominant strategy in ∼71% of 10,000 iterations.
Although UK-specific data on ranolazine's efficacy and safety are lacking, our analysis suggest ranolazine added to SoC in patients with weekly or daily angina is likely cost-effective from a UK health system perspective.
评估在标准治疗(SoC)抗心绞痛药物基础上加用雷诺嗪与单用SoC相比,对每周发作≥3次的稳定型冠心病患者的成本效益。
采用英国卫生系统视角、1个月周期长度和1年时间范围的经济模型。
根据西雅图心绞痛问卷心绞痛发作频率(SAQAF)评分(100 = 无;61 - 99 = 每月;31 - 60 = 每周;0 - 30 = 每日心绞痛),从4种心绞痛发作频率健康状态中的1种开始,每周发作≥3次的稳定型冠心病患者。
在SoC基础上加用雷诺嗪或单用SoC。根据随机对照的雷诺嗪治疗慢性心绞痛试验及其他研究得出的概率,患者可在SAQAF状态之间转换(仅在第一个周期)或死亡(在任何周期)。在第1个月对雷诺嗪无反应(SAQAF健康状态改善未≥1级)的患者停用雷诺嗪,并假定其行为与SoC患者相同。
接受和未接受雷诺嗪治疗患者的成本(2014英镑)和质量调整生命年(QALYs)。
接受雷诺嗪治疗的患者平均获得0.701个QALYs,成本为5208英镑。未接受雷诺嗪治疗的患者获得0.662个QALYs,成本为5318英镑。因此,在SoC基础上加用雷诺嗪是一种占优的经济策略。增量成本效益比受雷诺嗪成本影响;当雷诺嗪成本>203英镑/月时,超过20,000英镑/QALY。当纳入间接成本且假定死亡率随SAQAF健康状态严重程度加重而增加时,雷诺嗪仍是占优策略。蒙特卡洛模拟发现,在10,000次迭代中,约71%的情况下雷诺嗪是占优策略。
尽管缺乏英国关于雷诺嗪疗效和安全性的特定数据,但我们的分析表明,从英国卫生系统角度来看,在每周或每日心绞痛患者的SoC基础上加用雷诺嗪可能具有成本效益。