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.
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.
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.
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.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- A systematic review of the quality of economic models comparing thrombosis inhibitors in patients with acute coronary syndrome undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention.PharmacoEconomics · 2014Pooled it
- Eptifibatide bridging therapy for staged carotid artery stenting and cardiac surgery: Safety and feasibility.Vascular · 2024Article
- Clinical and economic studies of eptifibatide in coronary stenting.Therapeutics and clinical risk management · 2014Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.