Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21484498›Full record

ArticleThe European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care2012

Cost-effectiveness of adjunctive eptifibatide in patients undergoing coronary stenting in Germany.

Sarah Dewilde, Bernd Brüggenjürgen, Christoph Nienaber, Jochen Senges, Robert Welte, Stefan N Willich

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
3.1field-weighted citation impact, top 7% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 5 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Clinical and economic studies of eptifibatide in coronary stenting.Therapeutics and clinical risk management · 2014
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.

Sarah DewildeServices in Health Economics, Rue des Eburons 55, 1000 Brussels, Belgium. sd@she-consuling.be
Bernd Brüggenjürgen
Christoph Nienaber
Jochen Senges
Robert Welte
Stefan N Willich
Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin · DEGlaxoSmithKline (Germany) · DEGoulburn Valley Health · AUStiftung Institut für Herzinfarktforschung · DEUniversity of Rostock · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo determine the cost-effectiveness of adding eptifibatide to the standard treatment for selected high-risk patients undergoing coronary stenting in Germany. Furthermore, to investigate the impact of several extrapolation methods on the results.

methodsA Markov model was developed to reflect the clinical events in this specific patient population, including target vessel revascularization, myocardial infarction, and death. To extrapolate clinical data beyond 1 year, a linear, an exponential, and a Weibull survival curves were estimated. Patient characteristics and transition probabilities were derived from a high-risk subgroup of the ESPRIT trial; patient-level utility data came from a published Dutch study. Costs were calculated from a hospital and from a third-party payer perspective.

resultsFor both perspectives, the additional treatment with eptifibatide is the considered dominant alternative. The incremental net benefit of its use exceeds €10,000 for both perspectives. Results proved stable in probabilistic sensitivity analysis as well as under the different extrapolation scenarios.

conclusionsEptifibatide is likely to be dominant strategy with 77.7 and 96.7% of the simulations leading to QALYs gained and generating cost savings from both the hospital and the third-party payer perspective. Eptifibatide offsets its additional treatment costs by avoiding costly repeat procedures and leads to positive QALY gains by preventing cardiovascular events lending themselves to transient or permanent lower quality of life. The method used to extrapolate the short-term risks did not impact on results, mainly due to similar clinical risk profiles between the two treatment groups in the long term.

Indexed as

StentsAngioplastyComorbidityCost-Benefit AnalysisDouble-Blind MethodEptifibatideFemaleGermanyHumansLength of StayMaleMarkov ChainsMiddle AgedMyocardial InfarctionMyocardial RevascularizationPeptidesEptifibatidePeptidesPlatelet Aggregation Inhibitors

Identifiers

PMID21484498
OpenAlexW2015963244

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.