Contemporary Context of Drug-Eluting Stents in Brazil: A Cost Utility Study.

BACKGROUND

Although drug-eluting stents (DES) have been widely incorporated into clinical practice in developed countries, several countries restrict their use mainly because of their high cost and unfavorable incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER).

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of DES in comparison with bare-metal stents (BMS) for treatment of coronary artery disease (CAD).

DESIGN

Markov model.

DATA SOURCES

Published literature, government database, and CAD patient cohort.

TARGET POPULATION

Single-vessel CAD patients.

TIME HORIZON

One year and lifetime.

PERSPECTIVE

Brazilian Public Health System (SUS).

INTERVENTION

Six strategies composed of percutaneous intervention with a BMS or 1 of 5 DES (paclitaxel, sirolimus, everolimus, zotarolimus, and zotarolimus resolute).

OUTCOME MEASURES

Cost for target vessel revascularization avoided and cost for quality-adjusted life year gained.

BASE CASE ANALYSIS

In the short-term analysis, sirolimus was the most effective and least costly among DES (ICER of I$20,642 per target vessel revascularization avoided), with all others DES dominated by sirolimus. Lifetime cumulative costs ranged from I$18,765 to I$21,400. In the base case analysis, zotarolimus resolute had the most favorable ICER among the DES (ICER I$62,761), with sirolimus, paclitaxel, and zotarolimus being absolute dominated and everolimus extended dominated by zotarolimus resolute, although all the results were above the willingness-to-pay threshold of 3 times the gross domestic product per capita (I$35,307).

SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS

In deterministic sensitivity analysis, results were sensitive to cost of DES, number of stents used per patient, baseline probability, and duration of stent thrombosis risk. The probabilistic sensitivity analysis demonstrated a probability of 81% for BMS being the strategy of choice, with 9% for everolimus and 9% zotarolimus resolute, at the willingness-to-pay threshold.

CONCLUSION

DES is not a good value for money in SUS perspective, despite its benefit in reducing target vessel revascularization. Since the cost-effectiveness of DES is mainly driven by the stents' cost difference, they should cost less than twice the BMS price to become a cost-effective alternative.