Cost-effectiveness of coronary stenting and abciximab for patients with acute myocardial infarction: results from the CADILLAC (Controlled Abciximab and Device Investigation to Lower Late Angioplasty Complications) trial

Circulation. 2003 Dec 9;108(23):2857-63. doi: 10.1161/01.CIR.0000103121.26241.FA. Epub 2003 Nov 10.

Abstract

Background: Both stenting and the glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitor abciximab improve outcomes for patients undergoing primary angioplasty for acute myocardial infarction (AMI). However, the cost-effectiveness of these strategies is unknown.

Methods and results: We performed a prospective cost-utility analysis among US participants in the CADILLAC trial. Patients with AMI (n=1703) were randomized to stenting versus balloon angioplasty (PTCA) and abciximab versus no abciximab according to a 2-by-2 factorial design. Total 1-year costs and lifetime incremental cost-effectiveness ratios, measured as cost per quality-adjusted year of life (QALY) gained, were calculated. Compared with PTCA, stenting increased procedural costs by 1148 dollars and initial hospital costs by 1384 dollars (both P<0.001). By 1-year, stenting led to fewer repeat revascularization procedures and reduced follow-up medical care costs by 1215 dollars, such that aggregate costs were similar for the PTCA and stent groups (18 690 dollars versus 18 859 dollars, P=0.75). The cost-effectiveness ratio for stenting versus PTCA was favorable at 11 237 dollars/QALY gained and remained <20 000 dollars/QALY in sensitivity analyses. Compared with standard anticoagulation, abciximab increased initial procedural costs by 1122 dollars (P<0.001). By facilitating accelerated hospital discharge, abciximab reduced length of stay by approximately 0.6 days, offsetting most of the drug costs. These cost offsets were not maintained, however; aggregate 1-year costs for the abciximab group were 1244 dollars greater than for standard therapy (19 389 dollars versus 18 145 dollars , P=0.02). Abciximab was reasonably cost-effective (cost-effectiveness ratio 21 305 dollars/QALY) only if nonsignificant differences in 1-year mortality (3.7% versus 4.3%, P=0.62) were incorporated in the analysis.

Conclusions: Primary stenting is a highly cost-effective treatment for AMI. The cost-effectiveness of abciximab in this setting is uncertain and depends primarily on whether long-term survival is enhanced.

Publication types

  • Clinical Trial
  • Comparative Study
  • Multicenter Study
  • Randomized Controlled Trial
  • Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

MeSH terms

  • Abciximab
  • Aged
  • Angioplasty, Balloon* / economics
  • Antibodies, Monoclonal / economics
  • Antibodies, Monoclonal / therapeutic use*
  • Anticoagulants / economics
  • Anticoagulants / therapeutic use*
  • Cardiac Catheterization / economics
  • Coronary Stenosis / therapy
  • Cost-Benefit Analysis
  • Drug Costs
  • Female
  • Follow-Up Studies
  • Health Care Costs / statistics & numerical data*
  • Hospital Costs
  • Humans
  • Immunoglobulin Fab Fragments / economics
  • Immunoglobulin Fab Fragments / therapeutic use*
  • Length of Stay / economics
  • Length of Stay / statistics & numerical data
  • Male
  • Middle Aged
  • Myocardial Infarction / drug therapy
  • Myocardial Infarction / mortality
  • Myocardial Infarction / surgery
  • Myocardial Infarction / therapy*
  • Myocardial Revascularization / economics
  • Myocardial Revascularization / statistics & numerical data
  • Prospective Studies
  • Recurrence
  • Stents* / economics
  • Survival Analysis

Substances

  • Antibodies, Monoclonal
  • Anticoagulants
  • Immunoglobulin Fab Fragments
  • Abciximab