IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/hecrev/v12y2022i1d10.1186_s13561-022-00401-y.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The clinical value and cost-effectiveness of treatments for patients with coronary artery disease

Author

Listed:
  • Huang Weiting

    (National Heart Centre)

  • Alwin Zhang Yaoxian

    (Health Services Research Centre, SingHealth)

  • Yeo Khung Keong

    (National Heart Centre)

  • Shao Wei Lam

    (Duke NUS Medical School)

  • Lau Yee How

    (Health Services Research Centre, SingHealth)

  • Anders Olof Sahlén

    (National Heart Centre)

  • Ahmadreza Pourghaderi

    (NUS)

  • Matthew Che

    (Health Services Research Centre, SingHealth)

  • Chua Siang Jin Terrance

    (National Heart Centre)

  • Nicholas Graves

    (Duke NUS Medical School)

Abstract

Background The clinical value and cost-effectiveness of invasive treatments for patients with coronary artery disease is unclear. Invasive treatments such as coronary artery bypass grafting and percutaneous coronary intervention are frequently used as a starting treatment, yet they are much more costly than optimal medical therapy. While patients may transition into other treatments over time, the choices of starting treatments are likely important determinants of costs and health outcomes. The aim is to predict by how much costs and health outcomes will change from a decision to use different starting treatments for patients with coronary artery disease in an Asian setting. Methods A cost-effectiveness study using a Markov model informed by data from Singapore General Hospital was done. All patients with initial presentations of stable coronary disease and no acute coronary syndromes who received medical treatments and interventional therapies were included. We compare existing practice, where the starting treatment can be medical therapy or stent percutaneous coronary interventions or coronary artery bypass grafting, with alternate starting treatment strategies. Results When compared to ‘existing practice’ a policy of starting 14% of patients with coronary artery bypass grafting and 86% with optimal medical therapy showed savings of $1,743 per patient and 0.23 additional quality adjusted life years. A change to policy nationwide would save $10 million and generate 1,380 quality adjusted life years. Conclusions Increasing coronary artery bypass grafting and use of medical therapy in the setting of coronary artery disease is likely to saves costs and improve health outcomes. A definitive study to address the question we investigate would be very difficult to undertake and so using existing data to model the expected outcomes is a useful tool. There are likely to be large and complex barriers to the implementation of any policy change based on the findings of this study.

Suggested Citation

  • Huang Weiting & Alwin Zhang Yaoxian & Yeo Khung Keong & Shao Wei Lam & Lau Yee How & Anders Olof Sahlén & Ahmadreza Pourghaderi & Matthew Che & Chua Siang Jin Terrance & Nicholas Graves, 2022. "The clinical value and cost-effectiveness of treatments for patients with coronary artery disease," Health Economics Review, Springer, vol. 12(1), pages 1-8, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:hecrev:v:12:y:2022:i:1:d:10.1186_s13561-022-00401-y
    DOI: 10.1186/s13561-022-00401-y
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1186/s13561-022-00401-y
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1186/s13561-022-00401-y?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Yin, Jason Dean-Chen & He, Alex Jingwei, 2018. "Health insurance reforms in Singapore and Hong Kong: How the two ageing asian tigers respond to health financing challenges?," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 122(7), pages 693-697.
    2. Gregory Merlo & Katie Page & Julie Ratcliffe & Kate Halton & Nicholas Graves, 2015. "Bridging the Gap: Exploring the Barriers to Using Economic Evidence in Healthcare Decision Making and Strategies for Improving Uptake," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 13(3), pages 303-309, June.
    3. Williams, Iestyn & Bryan, Stirling, 2007. "Understanding the limited impact of economic evaluation in health care resource allocation: A conceptual framework," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 80(1), pages 135-143, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Elias Asfaw Zegeye & Josue Mbonigaba & Sylvia Blanche Kaye & Thomas Wilkinson, 2017. "Economic Evaluation in Ethiopian Healthcare Sector Decision Making: Perception, Practice and Barriers," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 15(1), pages 33-43, February.
    2. Katie Breheny & Emma Frew & Iestyn Williams & Sandra Passmore & Joanna Coast, 2020. "Use of Economic Evidence When Prioritising Public Health Interventions in Schools: A Qualitative Study with School Staff," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(23), pages 1-11, December.
    3. Maximilian H. M. Hatz & Jonas Schreyögg & Aleksandra Torbica & Giuseppe Boriani & Carl R. B. Blankart, 2017. "Adoption Decisions for Medical Devices in the Field of Cardiology: Results from a European Survey," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 26(S1), pages 124-144, February.
    4. Ava John-Baptiste & Marilyn M. Schapira & Catherine Cravens & James D. Chambers & Peter J. Neumann & Joanna Siegel & William Lawrence, 2016. "The Role of Decision Models in Health Care Policy," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 36(5), pages 666-679, July.
    5. Wranik, Wiesława Dominika & Zielińska, Dorota Anna & Gambold, Liesl & Sevgur, Serperi, 2019. "Threats to the value of Health Technology Assessment: Qualitative evidence from Canada and Poland," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 123(2), pages 191-202.
    6. Cheung, Kei Long & Evers, Silvia M.A.A. & Hiligsmann, Mickaël & Vokó, Zoltán & Pokhrel, Subhash & Jones, Teresa & Muñoz, Celia & Wolfenstetter, Silke B. & Józwiak-Hagymásy, Judit & de Vries, Hein, 2016. "Understanding the stakeholders’ intention to use economic decision-support tools: A cross-sectional study with the tobacco return on investment tool," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 120(1), pages 46-54.
    7. Torbica, Aleksandra & Fattore, Giovanni, 2010. "Understanding the impact of economic evidence on clinical decision making: A discrete choice experiment in cardiology," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 70(10), pages 1536-1543, May.
    8. Mara Airoldi & Alec Morton & Jenifer A. E. Smith & Gwyn Bevan, 2014. "STAR—People-Powered Prioritization," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 34(8), pages 965-975, November.
    9. Irmgard C. Schiller-Frühwirth & Beate Jahn & Marjan Arvandi & Uwe Siebert, 2017. "Cost-Effectiveness Models in Breast Cancer Screening in the General Population: A Systematic Review," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 15(3), pages 333-351, June.
    10. Holmes, Richard D. & Bate, Angela & Steele, Jimmy G. & Donaldson, Cam, 2009. "Commissioning NHS dentistry in England: Issues for decision-makers managing the new contract with finite resources," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 91(1), pages 79-88, June.
    11. Gregory Merlo & Katie Page & Pauline Zardo & Nicholas Graves, 2019. "Applying an Implementation Framework to the Use of Evidence from Economic Evaluations in Making Healthcare Decisions," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 17(4), pages 533-543, August.
    12. W. Dominika Wranik & Liesl Gambold & Natasha Hanson & Adrian Levy, 2017. "The evolution of the cancer formulary review in Canada: Can centralization improve the use of economic evaluation?," International Journal of Health Planning and Management, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 32(2), pages 232-260, April.
    13. Nayak, Bishwajit & Bhattacharyya, Som Sekhar & Krishnamoorthy, Bala, 2021. "Explicating the role of emerging technologies and firm capabilities towards attainment of competitive advantage in health insurance service firms," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 170(C).
    14. Abdulaziz Ibrahim Alzarea & Yusra Habib Khan & Abdullah Salah Alanazi & Muhammad Hammad Butt & Ziyad Saeed Almalki & Abdullah K. AlAhmari & Saud Alsahali & Tauqeer Hussain Mallhi, 2022. "Barriers and Facilitators of Pharmacoeconomic Studies: A Review of Evidence from the Middle Eastern Countries," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(13), pages 1-18, June.
    15. Grundy, Quinn, 2016. "“Whether something cool is good enough”: The role of evidence, sales representatives and nurses' expertise in hospital purchasing decisions," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 165(C), pages 82-91.
    16. Addo, Rebecca & Hall, Jane & Haas, Marion & Goodall, Stephen, 2020. "The knowledge and attitude of Ghanaian decision-makers and researchers towards health technology assessment," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 250(C).
    17. Gregory Merlo & Katie Page & Julie Ratcliffe & Kate Halton & Nicholas Graves, 2015. "Bridging the Gap: Exploring the Barriers to Using Economic Evidence in Healthcare Decision Making and Strategies for Improving Uptake," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 13(3), pages 303-309, June.
    18. Williams, Iestyn P. & Bryan, Stirling, 2007. "Cost-effectiveness analysis and formulary decision making in England: Findings from research," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 65(10), pages 2116-2129, November.
    19. Neale Smith & Craig Mitton & Stuart Peacock, 2009. "Qualitative methodologies in health‐care priority setting research," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 18(10), pages 1163-1175, October.
    20. Gugushvili, Alexi, 2007. "The advantages and disadvantages of needs-based resource allocation in integrated health systems and market systems of health care provider reimbursement," MPRA Paper 3354, University Library of Munich, Germany.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:hecrev:v:12:y:2022:i:1:d:10.1186_s13561-022-00401-y. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com/economics/journal/13561 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.