An economic analysis of the Survival and Ventricular Enlargement (SAVE) Study. Application to the United Kingdom.

Recent studies have shown that ACE inhibitors reduce morbidity and mortality after myocardial infarction (MI). While these trials have obvious clinical implications, the widespread introduction of a new treatment for a condition as common as MI also has clear cost implications. The results of the post-MI studies with ACE inhibitors suggest that restricted use of treatment-in high-risk patients-is likely to be most cost effective, whereas treatment of all MI survivors, many of whom are at low risk, will be least cost effective. An approach somewhere in between may maximise clinical benefit at an acceptable cost. Economic analysis may help in deciding how these drugs might be best used after MI. We have conducted a cost-effectiveness and cost-utility analysis of the Survival and Ventricular Enlargement (SAVE) study, which reported the benefit of ACE inhibitors in intermediate-risk patients. Assuming all MI survivors require measurement of left ventricular function before selection for treatment (the approach used in the SAVE study), the incremental cost per life-year gained (LYG), over 4 years, using prophylactic captopril is approximately 10000 pounds sterling (Pounds) [1994 to 1995 values]. The cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) is similar. These incremental cost per LYG and cost per QALY ratios compare favourably with other commonly used symptomatic and prophylactic treatments, and argue for extending post-MI use of ACE inhibitors to intermediate-as well as high-risk patients.