The Canadian journal of cardiology · 2017
Cost-Effectiveness of Different Durations of Dual-Antiplatelet Use After Percutaneous Coronary Intervention.
СтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Arbel Yaron, Bennell Maria C, Goodman Shaun G, Wijeysundera Harindra C
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: There is uncertainty regarding the optimal duration of dual-antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Our goal was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of different durations of DAPT.
METHODS: We created a probabilistic patient-level Markov microsimulation model to assess the discounted lifetime costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) of short duration (3-6 months: short-duration group) vs standard therapy (12 months: standard-duration group) vs prolonged therapy (30-36 months: long-duration group) in patients undergoing PCI.
RESULTS: The majority of patients in the model underwent PCI for stable angina (47.1%) with second-generation drug-eluting stents (62%) and were receiving clopidogrel (83.6%). Short-duration DAPT was the most effective strategy (7.163 ± 1.098 QALYs) compared with standard-duration DAPT (7.161 ± 1.097 QALYs) and long-duration DAPT (7.156 ± 1.097 QALYs). However, the magnitude of these differences was very small. Similarly, the average discounted lifetime cost was CAN$24,859 ± $6533 for short duration, $25,045 ± $6533 for standard duration, and $25,046 ± $6548 for long duration. Thus, in the base-case analysis, short duration was dominant, being more effective and less expensive. However, there was a moderate degree of uncertainty, because short duration was the preferred option in only ∼ 55% of simulations at a willingness to pay threshold of $50,000.
CONCLUSIONS: Based on a stable angina cohort receiving clopidogrel with second-generation stents, a short duration of DAPT was marginally better. However, the differences are minimal, and decisions about duration of therapy should be driven by clinical data, patient risk of adverse events, including bleeding, and cardiovascular events.
METHODS: We created a probabilistic patient-level Markov microsimulation model to assess the discounted lifetime costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) of short duration (3-6 months: short-duration group) vs standard therapy (12 months: standard-duration group) vs prolonged therapy (30-36 months: long-duration group) in patients undergoing PCI.
RESULTS: The majority of patients in the model underwent PCI for stable angina (47.1%) with second-generation drug-eluting stents (62%) and were receiving clopidogrel (83.6%). Short-duration DAPT was the most effective strategy (7.163 ± 1.098 QALYs) compared with standard-duration DAPT (7.161 ± 1.097 QALYs) and long-duration DAPT (7.156 ± 1.097 QALYs). However, the magnitude of these differences was very small. Similarly, the average discounted lifetime cost was CAN$24,859 ± $6533 for short duration, $25,045 ± $6533 for standard duration, and $25,046 ± $6548 for long duration. Thus, in the base-case analysis, short duration was dominant, being more effective and less expensive. However, there was a moderate degree of uncertainty, because short duration was the preferred option in only ∼ 55% of simulations at a willingness to pay threshold of $50,000.
CONCLUSIONS: Based on a stable angina cohort receiving clopidogrel with second-generation stents, a short duration of DAPT was marginally better. However, the differences are minimal, and decisions about duration of therapy should be driven by clinical data, patient risk of adverse events, including bleeding, and cardiovascular events.