Cost-effectiveness of a paclitaxel-eluting stent (Eluvia) compared to Zilver PTX for endovascular femoropopliteal intervention

William A. Gray, Robert I. Griffiths, Peter W.M. Elroy, Stacey L. Amorosi, Alysha M. McGovern, Michael R. Jaff, Ron Akehurst, Stefan Müller-Hülsbeck

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

Abstract

Objectives: Antiproliferative therapies based on paclitaxel have been developed to extend the durability of endovascular interventions for lower-extremity atherosclerotic peripheral artery disease, resulting in improved primary vessel patency and fewer target lesion revascularizations. This study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of the sustained-release, paclitaxel-eluting Eluvia stent (Boston Scientific, Marlborough, MA) versus the paclitaxel-coated Zilver PTX stent (Cook Medical, Bloomington, IN) for endovascular intervention in the superficial femoral or proximal popliteal artery. Design: A microsimulation model was constructed from a United States Medicare perspective with a 24-month time horizon. Patients entering the model were assigned to initial endovascular intervention with either Eluvia or Zilver PTX. Each month patients were exposed to the risks of primary vessel patency loss, target lesion revascularization, amputation, and death. Clinical input parameters were taken from a randomized trial (IMPERIAL) comparing the two interventions at 24-months follow-up. Cost parameters were obtained from analyses of Medicare administrative and claims data. Cost-effectiveness analysis entailed sampling a complete set of clinical and cost parameters from their respective distributions, and then running cohorts of 10,000 patients through each intervention arm of the model. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed. Results: In the base case microsimulation, at 24 months, the modeled target lesion revascularization was 11.6% for Eluvia and 19.0% for Zilver PTX, and the mean total direct costs were $20,010 and $21,356, respectively (Eluvia average savings=$1,346). In probabilistic sensitivity analyses, Eluvia was cost-effective in 87.8% of all simulations at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $10,000 per target lesion revascularization prevented. Eluvia was more effective and less costly (dominant) than Zilver PTX in 73.6% of simulations. Conclusions: In this comparison of a paclitaxel-eluting to a paclitaxel-coated stent for endovascular femoropopliteal intervention, Eluvia was more effective and less costly (dominant) than Zilver PTX from a US Medicare perspective. These findings should be considered when formulating reimbursement policy and clinical practice guidelines.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)880-887
Number of pages8
JournalJournal of Medical Economics
Volume25
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - 2022
Externally publishedYes

Keywords

  • D
  • D6
  • D61
  • Eluvia
  • Endovascular intervention
  • I
  • I1
  • I10
  • Zilver PTX
  • cost-effectiveness
  • femoropopliteal

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Cost-effectiveness of a paclitaxel-eluting stent (Eluvia) compared to Zilver PTX for endovascular femoropopliteal intervention'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this