Download PDF
Thromb Haemost 1998; 80(06): 887-893
DOI: 10.1055/s-0037-1615383
Letters to the Editor
Schattauer GmbH

A Cost-effectiveness Analysis of Aspirin versus Oral Anticoagulants after Acute Myocardial Infarction in Italy[*]

Equivalence of Costs as a Possible Case for Oral Anticoagulants
Jacopo Gianetti
1   Scuola Superiore di Studi Universitari e di Perfezionamento S. Anna and C.N.R. Institute of Clinical Physiology, Pisa, and Institute of Medical Clinic and Cardiology, the University of Florence, Florence, Italy
,
Gianfranco Gensini
1   Scuola Superiore di Studi Universitari e di Perfezionamento S. Anna and C.N.R. Institute of Clinical Physiology, Pisa, and Institute of Medical Clinic and Cardiology, the University of Florence, Florence, Italy
,
Raffaele De Caterina
1   Scuola Superiore di Studi Universitari e di Perfezionamento S. Anna and C.N.R. Institute of Clinical Physiology, Pisa, and Institute of Medical Clinic and Cardiology, the University of Florence, Florence, Italy
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

Received 27 October 1998

Accepted after revision 11 August 1998

Publication Date:
27 December 2017 (online)

Also available at
    Permissions and Reprints

Summary

Aims. The recent publication of two large trials of secondary prevention of coronary artery disease with oral anticoagulants (WARIS and ASPECT) has caused a revival of the interest for this antithrombotic therapy in a clinical setting where the use of aspirin is common medical practice. Despite this, the preferential use of aspirin has been supported by an American cost-effectiveness analysis (JAMA 1995; 273: 965). Methods and Results. Using the same parameters used in that analysis and incidence of events from the Antiplatelet Trialists Collaboration and the ASPECT study, we re-evaluated the economic odds in favor of aspirin or oral anticoagulants in the Italian Health System, which differs significantly in cost allocation from the United States system and is, conversely, similar to other European settings. Recalculated costs associated with each therapy were 2,150 ECU/ patient/year for oral anticoagulants and 2,187 ECU/patient/year for aspirin. In our analysis, the higher costs of oral anticoagulants versus aspirin due to a moderate excess of bleeding (about 10 ECU/ patient/year) and the monitoring of therapy (168 ECU/ patient/year) are more than offset by an alleged savings for recurrent ischemic syndromes and interventional procedures (249 ECU/ patient/year). Conclusions. Preference of aspirin vs. oral anticoagulants in a pharmaco-economical perspective is highly dependent on the geographical situation whereupon calculations are based. On a pure cost-effectiveness basis, and in the absence of data of direct comparisons between aspirin alone versus I.N.R.-adjusted oral anticoagulants, the latter are not more expensive than aspirin in Italy and, by cost comparisons, in other European countries in the setting of post-myocardial infarction.

* This work was conceived within the activities of the Working Group Thrombosis, Vascular Biology and Genetics of the Italian Society of Cardiology.


 

  • References

  • 1 Kassirer J, Angell M. The Journal‘s policy on cost-effectiveness analysis.. N Engl J Med 1994; 331: 669-70.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Ubel P, Dekay M, Baron J. Cost-effectiveness analysis in a setting of budget constraints.. N Engl J Med 1996; 334: 1174-7.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Fuster V, Badimon L, Badimon J, Chesebro J. The pathogenesis of coronary artery disease and the acute coronary syndromes.. N Engl J Med 1992; 326: 242-50.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 ISIS-2 (Second International Study of Infarct Survival) Collaborative Group.. Randomised trial of intravenous straptokinase, oral aspirin, both, or neither among 17187 cases of suspected acute myocardial infarction: ISIS-2.. Lancet 1988; ii: 349-60.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Antiplatelet Trialists Collaboration.. Collaborative overview of the randomized trials of antiplatelet therapy – I: Prevention of death, myocardial infarction, and stroke by prolonged antiplatelet therapy in various categories of patients.. Br Med J 1994; 308: 81-106.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Rouleau JL, Moye LA, Pfeffer MA, Arnold JM, Bernstein V, Cuddy TE, Dagenais GR, Geltman EM, Goldman S. Gordon D and the SAVE Investigators.. A comparison of management patterns after acute myocardial infarction in Canada and the United States.. N Engl J Med 1993; 328: 779-84.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Smith P, Arnesen H, Holme I. The effect of warfarin on mortality and reinfarction after myocardial infarction.. N Engl J Med 1990; 323: 147-52.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Anticoagulants in the Secondary Prevention of events in Coronary Thrombosis (ASPECT) Research Group.. Effect of long term oral anticoagulant treatment on mortality and cardiovascular morbidity after myocardial infarction.. Lancet 1994; 343: 499-503.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Turpie A, Gent M, Laupacis A. A comparison of aspirin with placebo in patients treated with warfarin after heart-valve replacement.. N Engl J Med 1993; 329: 524-9.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Cairns J, Markham B. Economics and efficacy in choosing oral anticoagulants or aspirin after myocardial infarction.. JAMA 1995; 273: 965-7.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Garattini L, Grilli R, Mantovani L, Scopelliti D. Good economic practices per gli studi di farmacoeconomia.. Ricerca & Pratica 1994; 60: 166-79.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 van Bergen P, Jonker J, von Hout B. Costs and effects of long term oral anticoagulant treatment after myocardial infarction.. JAMA 1995; 273: 925-8.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Regione Friuli Venezia Giulia.. DRG:: Istruzioni per l’uso.; 1995
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Jafri S, Mammen E, Masura J, Goldstein S. Effects of warfarin on markers of hypercoagulability in patients with heart failure.. Am Heart J 1997; 134: 27-31.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Meade TW, Miller GJ. Combined use of aspirin and warfarin in primary prevention of ischemic heart disease in men at high risk.. Am J Cardiol 1995; 75: 23B-26B.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 CARS Investigators.. Randomised double-blind trial of fixed low-dose warfarin with aspirin after myocardial infarction.. Lancet 1997; 350: 389-96.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 SPAF III Investigators.. Adjusted-dose warfarin versus low-intensity, fixed-dose warfarin plus aspirin for high-risk patients with atrial fibrillation: Stroke Prevention in Atrial Fibrillation III randomised clinical trial.. Lancet 1996; 348: 633-8.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Fuster V, Dyken ML, Vokonas PS, Hennekens C. Aspirin as a therapeutic agent in cardiovascular disease.. Circulation 1993; 83: 659-75.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Meijer A, Verheugt FW, Werter CJ, Lie KI, van der Pol JM, van Eenige. MJ: Aspirin versus coumadin in the prevention of reocclusion and recurrent ischemia after successful thrombolysis.. Results of the APRICOT study.. Circulation 1993; 87: 1524-30.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Julian DG, Chamberlain DA. Pocock SJ for the AFTER Study Group.. A compatison of aspirin and anticoagulation following thrombolysis for myocardial infarction (the AFTER study): a multicenter unblinded randomized clinical trial.. BMJ 1996; 313: 1429-31.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Vogel R. Aspirin and coronary disease.. N Engl J Med 1996; 335: 1161.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 4th American College of Chest Physicians Consensus Conference on Anti-thrombotic Therapy.. Tucson, Arizona, April 1995. Proceedings.. Chest 1995; 108 (Suppl. 04) 225S-522S.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Chimowitz MI, Kokkinos J, Strong J, Brown MB, Levine SR, Silliman S, Pessin MS, Weichel E, Sila CA, Furlan AJ. The Warfarin-Aspirin Symptomatic Intracranial Disease Study.. Neurology 1995; 45: 1488-93.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Drummond M, Stoddart G, Torrance G. Economic analysis alongside clinical trials.. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care 1991; 7: 561-73.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar