Title of article :
Reduced 6-month resource use and costs associated with cilostazol in patients after successful coronary stent implantation: Results from the Cilostazol for RESTenosis (CREST) trial
Author/Authors :
Zefeng Zhang، نويسنده , , Jovonne K. Foster، نويسنده , , Paul Kolm، نويسنده , , Claudine T. Jurkovitz، نويسنده , , Karen M. Parker، نويسنده , , Nancy V. Murrah، نويسنده , , Grant T. Anderson، نويسنده , , John S. Douglas Jr.، نويسنده , , William S. Weintraub، نويسنده ,
Issue Information :
روزنامه با شماره پیاپی سال 2006
Abstract :
Background
The CREST trial demonstrated that after successful coronary stent implantation, the 6-month rate of target vessel revascularization (TVR) was similar (15.4% vs 16%, P = .90) for the 2 treatment groups, but restenosis rate was lower (22.0% vs 34.5%, P = .002) in cilostazol-treated patients. We sought to evaluate resource use, cost, and cost-effectiveness of cilostazol in CREST.
Methods
A total of 705 patients were randomized to cilostazol 100 mg twice daily (n = 354) versus placebo (n = 351) for 6 months. Resources included rehospitalizations, medications, and outpatient services. Costs were determined from the Medicare fee schedule. Cilostazol was priced at $1.64 a day. Base-case cost and cost-effectiveness analysis was performed for the entire population using TVR as a measure of effectiveness. Sensitivity analysis was conducted among 526 patients because restenosis data were available only for this patient population. A bootstrap resample approach (5000 samples) was used to obtain confidence intervals for cost differences.
Results
For the entire population, costs of rehospitalizations, concomitant medications, outpatient tests, and physician or emergency department visits were lower during follow-up for cilostazol-treated patients. Overall, total 6-month follow-up costs remained $447 lower for cilostazol ($4178 vs $4625), although this difference did not reach significance (95% CI −$1458 to $515). Cilostazol is likely a cost-saving strategy (similar rate of TVR and lower costs). Sensitivity analysis showed that cilostazol is likely a dominant strategy (lower restenosis rate and costs, 85% dominant, 88.9% <$1000 per restenosis averted).
Conclusions
Treatment with cilostazol is likely a cost-saving or dominant strategy in patients with successful coronary bare metal stent implantation. Cilostazol may offer a low-cost alternative to restenosis prevention in patients who do not receive drug-eluting stents.
Journal title :
American Heart Journal
Journal title :
American Heart Journal