Ischaemic heart disease - coronary artery stents (review): appraisal consultation document
NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR HEALTH AND CLINICAL EXCELLENCE
Appraisal Consultation Document
Drug-eluting stents for the treatment of coronary artery disease (part review of NICE technology appraisal guidance 71)
|
The Department of Health and the Welsh Assembly Government have asked the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE or the Institute) to conduct an appraisal of drug-eluting stents and provide guidance on their use to the NHS in England and Wales. This is a part review of NICE technology appraisal guidance 71. The Appraisal Committee has had its first meeting to consider both the evidence submitted and the views put forward by the representatives nominated for this appraisal by professional organisations and patient/carer and service user organisations. The Committee has developed preliminary recommendations on the use of drug-eluting stents for the treatment of coronary artery disease. This document has been prepared for consultation with the formal consultees. It summarises the evidence and views that have been considered and sets out the preliminary recommendations developed by the Committee. The Institute is now inviting comments from the formal consultees in the appraisal process (the consultees for this appraisal are listed on the NICE website, www.nice.org.uk). This document should be read in conjunction with the evidence base for this appraisal (the evaluation report) which is available from www.nice.org.uk Note that this document does not constitute the Institute's formal guidance on these technologies.The recommendations made in section 1 are preliminary and may change after consultation. The process the Institute will follow after the consultation period is summarised below. For further details, see the 'Guide to the technology appraisal process' (this document is available on the Institute's website, www.nice.org.uk).
Subject to any appeal by consultees, the FAD may be used as the basis for the Institute's guidance on the use of the appraised technology in the NHS in England and Wales. The key dates for this appraisal are: Details of membership of the Appraisal Committee are given in appendix A and a list of the sources of evidence used in the preparation of this document is given in appendix B. |
| Note that this document does not constitute the Institute's formal guidance on this technology. The recommendations made in Section 1 are preliminary and may change after consultation. |
| 1 | Appraisal Committee's preliminary recommendations |
| This technology appraisal is a part review of technology appraisal 71 'Coronary artery stents'. The final guidance will replace sections 1.2 to 1.4 of the current guidance. | |
| 1.1 | Drug-eluting stents are not recommended for use in percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with coronary artery disease. |
| 2 | Clinical need and practice |
| 2.1 | Coronary artery disease is also known as coronary heart disease (CHD) and ischaemic heart disease. It is narrowing (stenosis) of the coronary arteries as a result of deposition of atherosclerotic plaque, which results in an insufficient supply of oxygen to the heart muscle. CHD may affect one or more arteries, which may be of different calibres; occlusion of arteries may be partial or total. Coronary artery stenosis may be asymptomatic or may lead to angina - a chest pain that may be severe enough to restrict or prevent exertion. A critical reduction of the blood supply to the heart may result in myocardial infarction (MI) or death. |
| 2.2 | Mortality rates from CHD are decreasing but it remains the most common cause of mortality in the UK. It accounted for nearly 117,500 deaths in the UK in 2002 (about 103,000 deaths in England and Wales). CHD is also the cause of considerable morbidity and loss of ability to lead a normal life. In the UK, annually, approximately 259,500 individuals experience an acute MI and approximately 341,500 new cases of angina (the most common form of CHD morbidity) are reported. In Europe, CHD has been estimated to account for 9.7% of total disability-adjusted life years lost. |
| 2.3 | Mortality and morbidity rates associated with CHD vary by socioeconomic group (being higher in lower socioeconomic groups), by geographical area (rates are highest in Wales, the North West, and the Northern and Yorkshire regions, and lowest in the South-East) and by ethnic group (for example, CHD rates are highest among people from the Indian subcontinent living in the UK). The prevalence of CHD also increases with age and is higher among males than females. The disease is more common in people with high serum cholesterol and/or high blood pressure, in those who have type 1 or type 2 diabetes mellitus, in those who smoke, and in those who are physically inactive and/or obese. |
| 2.4 | The symptoms and health risks associated with a stenosed artery may be treated medically, by modification of risk factors (for example, smoking, hyperlipidaemia, obesity and hyperglycaemia) and/or by drug treatment (for example, with beta-adrenergic blockers, nitrates, calcium channel blockers, antiplatelet agents and/or statins). |
| 2.5 | If these medical treatments fail or are inappropriate, two invasive therapies are available. The first, coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG), involves major cardiac surgery. The outcome of CABG versus the use of coronary artery stents (bare-metal and drug-eluting) was covered by NICE technology appraisal guidance 71 and is not dealt with in this review. The second, so-called balloon angioplasty, or percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty, involves a widening from within the artery using a balloon catheter. When inflated, the balloon increases the calibre of the artery. Most percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty procedures involve the use of stents. A stent is a thin wire-mesh tube loaded over an angioplasty balloon. When the balloon inflates, the stent expands like a scaffold to hold the vessel open, and is left behind after the balloon is deflated and withdrawn. Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is a generic term to encompass percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty with or without adjunct techniques such as stenting. |
| 2.6 | One of the main criteria for assessing the clinical effectiveness of PCI with stents compared with standard PCI (without stents) is the incidence of subsequent attacks of angina and major adverse coronary events (MACEs), which include death, MI and the need for further revascularisation procedures (CABG or repeat PCI). |
| 2.7 | The major problem with PCI is restenosis of the artery, which has three main causes. The first, recoil of the artery, happens when the balloon is deflated. It usually occurs immediately or within 24 hours of completion of the procedure, and it may require emergency CABG. Stents prevent recoil of the artery. The two other causes are contraction of the outer layer of an artery secondary to an injury reaction (3-6 months after the procedure) and proliferation of smooth muscle cells within the arterial wall (4-6 months after the procedure), leading to inflammation. As a consequence of restenosis, a repeat procedure may be required and the rate of reintervention is greater in patients who have arteries of small calibre ('small vessels'), saphenous vein grafts, long lesions or total occlusions, and in people with diabetes. |
| 2.8 | Stent technology (stent type and stent platform [this includes the design, alloy used and strut thickness]) has developed rapidly, and recent advances aim to reduce the likelihood of restenosis. Because restenosis is correlated with the degree of inflammation present at the time of angioplasty, drug-eluting stents (DESs) were developed. These are bare-metal stents (BMSs) coated with a drug (usually an immune suppressant or antimitotic) to reduce inflammation. The drug reaches therapeutic concentrations in local tissues only and may not be detectable systemically, thus avoiding systemic adverse effects. A subsequent development was the use of a drug-polymer mix where the drug is held temporarily in place within a polymer 'painted' onto the metallic stent, allowing the drug to elute slowly into surrounding tissues. Other than one trial (the ELUTES trial), there is little evidence to support coating the stent directly with an active drug (without a polymer). |
| 2.9 | According to British Cardiac Intervention Society data, approximately 70,000 PCI procedures were undertaken in the UK in 2005, equating to 1165 per million of the population. For England, the number of procedures per million of the population was 1169, and for Wales, 873. |
| 2.10 | The National Service Framework for coronary heart disease set a target in March 2000 for revascularisations (PCIs and CABGs), of at least 1500 per million of the population (750 for each type of intervention). |
| 2.11 | According to British Cardiac Intervention Society data, in the UK, the proportion of PCI procedures using stents rose steeply between 1993 and 1999, from below 10% to nearly 80%. It continued to increase, although more slowly, to about 94% in 2005. Data for DES use were not available before 2002. In 2003 it was reported that DES use was on average 17% in the UK. In 2005 this had risen to around 62% in the UK, 60% in England and 77% in Wales. Given the increases in PCI procedures, it may be that utilisation rates are now much higher than this. |
| 2.12 | There is a risk of stent thrombosis associated with the use of both types of stent (DESs and BMSs). To prevent thrombosis occurring, patients are required to use an antiplatelet drug, such as clopidogrel, in addition to aspirin during and after the implantation of a stent. Following data published in 2006, the United States Food and Drugs Administration's (FDA's) Circulatory Devices Systems Advisory Panel recommended that the duration of clopidogrel use should be extended in patients receiving a DES. The American College of Cardiologists/American Heart Association (in PCI guidelines also endorsed by the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography Interventions) and the British Cardiovascular Intervention Society have recommended that for patients receiving DESs the duration of clopidogrel use should be increased to 12 months. |
| 3 | The technologies |
| 3.1 | The current appraisal focuses on DESs only. The preceding appraisal of DESs (NICE technology appraisal guidance 71) considered only three devices (Taxus, Cypher and Dexamet) because these were the only ones at the time that had been granted C onformité E uropéene (CE) marking for use within EU countries. Eight new DESs have also been included in this review. |
| 3.2 | Each DES has an instruction for use (IFU) document that includes the indications for which the specific device can be used. The indications for use for each DES vary, although the majority include the sizes of vessels (diameter and length) to be treated and are in accordance with the CE marking that was granted for a particular DES. Also included in the IFU documents are details of side effects and specific contraindications for DESs. |
| 3.3 |
Different drugs elute from the stents that are included in this appraisal: paclitaxel is a broad-spectrum chemotherapeutic agent that inhibits cell division; sirolimus (previously known as rapamycin) is an immunosuppressive agent that reduces inflammation; ABT-578 is a synthetic analogue of sirolimus; everolimus is an antiproliferative drug that is closely related to sirolimus; tacrolimus is an immunosuppressive agent; and dexamethasone is a synthetic adrenocortical steroid that reduces inflammation. These drugs may elute at different rates, depending on the presence or absence of additional polymer coatings on the stent.
|
| 3.4 | The list prices stated exclude VAT. |
| 4 | Evidence and interpretation |
| The Appraisal Committee (appendix A) considered evidence from a number of sources (appendix B). | |
| 4.1 | Clinical effectiveness |
| DESs versus BMSs - evidence from randomised controlled trials | |
| 4.1.1 | Seventeen randomised controlled trials (RCTs) were identified that compared DESs with BMSs, and data from all 17 were included for at least one outcome in the meta-analysis. Ten of the studies compared an SES (Cypher) with the equivalent BMS, four compared a PES (Taxus) with the equivalent BMS, and one compared both an SES (Cypher) and a PES (Taxus) with a newer BMS. The ZES (Endeavor) was compared with the equivalent BMS, and the EES (Xience V) was compared with the equivalent BMS in one study each. No RCT evidence has yet been reported for the Axxion, CoStar, Dexamet or Janus stents. Limited RCT data were available for the Yukon stent. |
| 4.1.2 | Study outcomes used in the RCTs included rates of mortality, acute MI, target lesion revascularisation (TLR), target vessel revascularisation (TVR), composite events (major adverse coronary event [MACE] and/or target vessel failure [TVF]), angiographic binary restenosis and late luminal loss. Revascularisation was usually prompted by protocol-driven angiographic evidence of restenosis either for all participants or for a selected subgroup of participants. Only one trial (BASKET) explicitly reported that no protocol-driven angiographic follow up was included. This trial compared both SES (Cypher) and PES (Taxus) DESs with a newer BMS in a three-arm study. |
| 4.1.3 | All but three of the 17 RCTs were multicentre trials. Study size ranged from 60 to over 1300 patients. Eleven of the 17 trials included patients with only single lesions. The studies covered a range of vessel diameters from 2.25mm to 4.0 mm, although the lower range was not reported in some studies. Lesion length also varied, ranging from 10 mm to 33 mm, although again the data were not always reported. All studies permitted the inclusion of people with diabetes and all but three studies excluded acute or evolving MI. The presence of unprotected left main coronary artery excluded patients from many trials, as did severe calcification or tortuousity, total occlusion, bifurcation, the presence of thrombus in the target vessel, previous PCI within 30 days or PCI other than balloon required as part of the study intervention. |
| 4.1.4 | Twelve trials described the co-therapies used. Aspirin was prescribed before intervention in 11 of these studies and used after the procedure in all 12. Clopidogrel was used as an antiplatelet therapy in all of the 12 studies; ticlopidine was available for use as an alternative in five studies. In one trial, tirofiban used in combination with a DES was compared with abciximab used with a BMS. The duration of antiplatelet therapy after intervention ranged from 2 months in three trials to 1 year in one study. |
| 4.1.5 | Meta-analysis was carried out by the Assessment Group for rates of mortality, acute MI, TLR, TVR, composite event (MACE and/or TVF), angiographic binary restenosis and late luminal loss. Analysis of mortality, acute MI and event rates used pooled results from over 7000 participants. Data in the form of an odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (95% CI) were analysed using the Mantel-Haenszel method fixed-effect model. For continuous outcomes, weighted mean differences (WMDs) were analysed. Where there was significant heterogeneity, analysis using a random-effects model was also undertaken. |
| 4.1.6 | In addition to analyses of the individual studies, pooled estimates (giving the OR and 95% CI) were provided for each 'eluted drug' group (for example, comparing a PES [Taxus] and all BMSs in the paclitaxel studies). Data related to the SES (Cypher) and the sirolimus-analogue stent, ZES (Endeavor) in some instances were pooled and presented as pooled sirolimus eluting stents. All eluted drug groups were also pooled to obtain estimates for a meta-analysis of any-type DES compared with any-type BMS. The meta-analysis was performed for available data at follow ups of up to 1 month, 6-9 months, 1 year, 2 years and 3 years. The Assessment Group assumed, when making decisions about the appropriateness of combining data, that all BMSs are similar and, likewise, all DESs are similar except in the drug delivered; and that the stent design and the insertion system do not have an impact on clinical outcomes. |
| 4.1.7 | For rates of mortality and rates of acute MI, one study found a statistically significant difference in favour of the SES (Cypher) compared with the BMS for MI at 6-9 months (OR 0.19, 95% CI 0.04, 0.87). There were no statistically significant differences between the DES and the BMS in the individual studies for all other follow-up periods analysed to 3 years. There were no statistically significant differences between the DES and the BMS for the pooled eluted drug groups (PES (Taxus) and pooled sirolimus eluting stents) and for the pooled analyses of any-type DES compared with any-type BMS for any of the follow-up periods. |
| 4.1.8 | For event rate (MACE and TVF), the individual studies of PES (Taxus), SES (Cypher) and ZES (Endeavor), and the pooled eluted drug groups analysis showed statistically significant differences in favour of DESs over BMSs. This was also the case for the overall meta-analysis, which favoured any-type DES over any-type BMS at all follow-up time points: 6 -9 months (OR 0.46, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.53), 1 year (OR 0.39, 95% CI 0.33 to 0.47), 2 years (OR 0.43, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.54) and 3 years (OR 0.42, 95% CI 0.32 to 0.55). Statistical heterogeneity were indicated at the 6 -9 months follow up; a random-effect analysis for this time point showed only a small effect on the OR (OR 0.44, 95% CI 0.36 to 0.54). The difference between the EES (Xience V) and the BMS was not statistically significant at the only follow-up period, 6 -9 months. |
| 4.1.9 | For TVR, the individual studies of PES (Taxus) showed that not all of the studies showed statistical significance compared with BMSs for all time periods up to 3 years. The individual studies for SES (Cypher) and ZES (Endeavor) all showed statistical significance over BMS up to 3 years. The pooled eluted drug groups analysis showed statistically significant differences in favour of PES (Taxus) over BMS at follow-up time points up to 2 years: 6 -9 months (OR 0.54, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.68), 1 year (OR 0.40, 95% CI 0.29 to 0.55) and 2 years (OR 0.45, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.59). At 3 years, the difference was no longer statistically significant, but the data at this time point was derived from a single, relatively small study that may have been underpowered. TVR data for a SES (Cypher) versus a BMS were available for two trials at 6-9 months and for single trials at 1 and 3 years. These showed statistically significantly differences in favour of the SES (Cypher) compared with the BMS at: 6-9 months (OR 0.33, 95% CI 0.18, 0.62), 1 year (OR 0.34, 95% CI 0.19 to 0.60) and 3 years (OR 0.35, 95% CI 0.25 to 0.49). TVR data for the ZES (Endeavor) at 6-9 months, the only time period available, was statistically significant in favour of the ZES over the BMS (OR 0.41, 95% CI 0.27 to 0.63). There were no data for EES (Xience V) for this outcome measure. |
| 4.1.10 | Rates of revascularisation (TLR) at 1 year for procedures carried out with a DES within individual trials were less than 5%, and typically in the 10-25% range for procedures that used a BMS. For example, in three trials of PES (Taxus), the rates were 0%, 4.7% and 4.2% for the DES compared with 10.0%, 12.9% and 14.7% for the BMS, respectively. Rates at 1 year in three trials of SES (Cypher) were 4.6%, 0% and 4.9% for the DES compared with 24.9%, 13.6% and 20.0% for the BMS, respectively. For TLR, the pooled eluted drug groups analysis showed statistically significant differences in favour of PES (Taxus) over BMSs at follow-up periods of up to 2 years: 6 -9 months (OR 0.37, 95% CI 0.28 to 0.49), 1 year (OR 0.26, 95% CI 0.18 to 0.39) and 2 years (OR 0.28, 95% CI 0.20 to 0.40). At 3 years, the difference was no longer statistically significant, but the data at this time point was derived from a single, relatively small study that may have been underpowered. TLR data for an SES (Cypher) showed it to be statistically significantly more effective than a BMS at all time points up to 3 years: 6 -9 months (OR 0.21, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.30), 1 year (OR 0.17, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.25), 2 years (OR 0.22, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.30) and 3 years (OR 0.25, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.36). The data for the ZES (Endeavor) at the follow-up period 6-9 months showed it to be statistically significantly more effective than the BMS (OR 0.35, 95% CI 0.22, 0.56). Lower rates of TLR (3.8% versus 21.4%) were apparent for the EES (Xience V) group at 6 months (the only follow-up period) but the difference was not statistically significant. For TLR, the meta-analyses showed statistically significant differences in favour of any-type DES over any-type BMS, with improved rates of lesion revascularisation at all follow-up time points up to 3 years: 6 -9 months (OR 0.30, 95% CI 0.25 to 0.37), 1 year (OR 0.21, 95% CI 0.16 to 0.27), 2 years (OR 0.24, 95% CI 0.19 to 0.31) and 3 years (OR 0.25, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.35). |
| DES versus BMS - DESs with non-RCT data | |
| 4.1.11 | The TES (Janus) was examined in a non-controlled study as was the PES (Taxus Liberté). A range of formulations of the PES (CoStar) was evaluated in two non-randomised controlled studies, and the Yukon DES was evaluated in a dose-ranging non-randomised controlled study comparing Yukon coated with sirolimus with the same stent carrying no drug. The Dexamet DES was studied in one non-randomised study of Dexamet compared with a BMS and four non-controlled studies (including two registries). |
| 4.1.12 | Outcome data were limited for the PES (Taxus Liberté) study, 30 days for the TES stent, 4 months for one PES (CoStar) study and 1 year for the other PES (CoStar) study, up to 8 months for the Dexamet studies and up to 1 year for the SES ( Yukon) study. Angiographic outcomes, binary restenosis and/or late loss were reported for the PES (CoStar), Dexamet and the SES ( Yukon). Because of the variety of DESs considered in these studies, the methodological limits of the available studies, and the varied and limited follow-up, the Assessment Group did not consider pooled analysis to be appropriate. |
| 4.1.13 | For TES, limited data were reported; at 30 days no events (death, MI or TLR) had occurred. For PES (Taxus Liberté) the data available at 30 days were marked as commercial in confidence. For PES (CoStar), the only data available were for one of the two arms at 1 year for one trial and interim data from two of the four arms of the other ongoing study. |
| 4.1.14 | Data for the SES ( Yukon) were reported at 1 month and 1 year. No deaths occurred in the first month. Rates of acute MI up to 1 month were 1.8% in the SES group and 1.3% in the BMS group. At 1 year, the composite of death or non-fatal MI was 2.7% for the Yukon SES and 3.9% for the BMS. No statistically significant differences were detected. At 1 year, TLR was reported in 12.6% of the SES group and 21.5% of the BMS group, and the difference was statistically significant in favour of the SES (OR 0.53, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.81). |
| 4.1.15 | The non-randomised trial that compared Dexamet (DES) with a BMS reported no deaths among the 100 participants receiving either stent and only one incidence of acute MI, which was in the BMS group, up to a mean of 8 months' follow up. Revascularisations for this time period were 2% TLR in the DES group and 10% TLR (12% TVR) in the BMS group. Composite rates of MACEs, consisting entirely of revascularisations, were 2% for the DES and 12% for the BMS. Neither of these comparisons showed statistically significant differences. |
| DES versus DES | |
| 4.1.16 | Eight RCTs comparing different DES types were identified by the Assessment Group. Six RCTs compared a SES (Cypher) with a PES (Taxus) (including one trial that was also assessed in the DES versus BMS clinical section because it had a BMS arm as well as two DES arms), one studied SES (Cypher) in comparison with the newer SES (Cypher Select) and one compared the Yukon, as a SES, with a PES (Taxus). |
| 4.1.17 | Six trials were conducted in only one or two centres in European countries, and two were multicentre and multinational. Study sizes ranged from 200 to 1350 patients. Two trials were distinct in that they did not incorporate planned angiographic assessment of trial participants. Only two trials presented randomisation details and none of the studies presented adequate information on whether the RCTs were conducted under 'blind' conditions. One study did not present an intention-to-treat analysis, and for two studies it was unclear whether events were reported according to the original randomised allocations. |
| 4.1.18 | A meta-analysis was conducted according to which pairing of DES types was compared within trials (most commonly this was the SES [Cypher] versus the PES [Taxus]). No total pooled effect estimate was calculated across multiple groupings of DES versus DES trials. |
| 4.1.19 | There were no statistically significant differences in rates of mortality or acute MI for any of the pairings of DES types. |
| 4.1.20 | For TLR, one individual study showed a statistically significantly better rate of TLR, at 6-9 months, with the SES (Cypher) compared with the PES (Taxus) (OR 0.56, 95% CI 0.33 to 0.93). Only one RCT had data available beyond 9 months; in this study, rates of TLR at 1 year were 5.7% for the SES (Cypher) compared with 9.0% for the PES (Taxus); the difference was not statistically significant. The Assessment Group's pooled analysis of TLR up to 9 months was statistically significant in favour of the SES (Cypher) over the PES (Taxus) (OR 0.70, 95% CI 0.51 to 0.97). |
| 4.1.21 | A statistically significant reduction in TVR with the SES (Cypher) compared with the PES (Taxus) was determined from a meta-analysis of two trials at 6 -9 months (OR 0.59, 95% CI 0.39 to 0.89). A reduction in the composite event rate (MACE) at 6 -9 months was also statistically significant with the SES (Cypher) compared with the PES (Taxus) (OR 0.75, 95% CI 0.59 to 0.96). |
| Effects of DESs on the risks of thrombosis, MI and mortality | |
| 4.1.22 | In December 2006, following the publication of data on longer-term risks associated with DES (thrombosis, MI and mortality), the FDA convened a public meeting of its Circulatory System Devices Advisory Panel to review and analyse the available data and to provide recommendations for appropriate actions to address this issue. In January 2007 the Circulatory System Devices Advisory Panel made recommendations to the FDA. The Panel stated, 'When the DES, which are indicated for use in the USA (SES [Cypher]) and (PES [Taxus]), are used in accordance with their approved indications both are associated with a small increase in stent thrombosis compared with BMS at 1 year after stent implantation; the increased risk of stent thrombosis was not associated with an increased risk of death or MI compared with BMS; and the concerns about thrombosis do not outweigh the benefits of DES compared with BMS when DES are implanted within the limits of their approved indications for use'. The FDA recommended that a longer duration of antiplatelet therapy may be beneficial, which has led to the recommendation in the PCI guidelines of the American College of Cardiologists/American Heart Association (endorsed by the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography Interventions) that in patients receiving DESs the duration of clopidogrel use should be increased to 12 months. The British Cardiovascular Intervention Society has also recommended 12 months' use of clopidogrel in patients receiving a DES. |
| 4.1.23 | The Circulatory System Devices Advisory Panel also considered use of DESs in more complex patients and coronary lesions than those studied to support initial marketing approval ('off-label' use). The Panel agreed that use of DESs 'off-label' is associated with an increased risk of stent thrombosis, MI or death compared with 'on-label' use, and until more data are available DES labels (instructions for use) should state that when DESs are used off-label, patient outcomes may not be the same as the results observed in the clinical trials conducted to support marketing approval. The FDA has since defined off-label use to mean the use of a medical product for treatments other than for those which the product was initially approved; or use not explicitly included in product labelling (intended use and instructions for use). The UK Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency supports this definition of off-label use for the DESs that have been approved for use in Europe. |
| 4.1.24 | Each DES included in this appraisal has an individual instruction for use (IFU) document that lists the indications for which it can be used. The sizes of vessels (diameter and length) to be treated are stated in the majority of the instructions for use, as are the specific contraindications. The use of DESs in patients with diabetes is neither stated in the indication section nor under the contraindications for any of the DESs. The FDA considers that although patients with diabetes were included in the pivotal trials, the number of patients was insufficient for either the SES (Cypher) or the PES (Taxus) to earn a specific labelled indication for people with diabetes. The UK Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency supports the view of the FDA with regard to individuals with diabetes. |
| Summary | |
| 4.1.25 | No statistically significant differences were detected in the pooled subgroups and pooled any-type DES over any-type BMS analyses for death or acute MI. The pooled DES analysis indicated that revascularisation rates were reduced by approximately three quarters compared with BMSs, consistent across most studies of the PES (Taxus) and the SES (Cypher [Endeavor at 6-9 months]). The benefits of DESs over BMSs for TLR were seen at 1 year, and this significant difference was maintained up to 3 years. For the outcome TVR there were statistically significant differences in favour of any-type DES over BMS for most of the time points assessed. |
| 4.2 | Cost effectiveness |
| Published literature | |
| 4.2.1 | Ten full economic evaluations were included in the Assessment Report, all of which compared an SES with a BMS, although four evaluations also included a PES. One of the evaluations was conducted in the UK; the rest were conducted in the USA, Canada or the rest of Europe. Seven evaluations used a 1-year time horizon, one used 2 years, one used 6 months and one used a patient's lifetime. Of the 10 evaluations, nine estimated that the cost of DES incurred a price premium, which ranged from £233 to £1225. Four of the evaluations reported health outcomes in terms of quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Three evaluations provided incremental costs per QALY for a general population, and these costs ranged from US$27,450 to Can$96,523 (approximately US$£93,000). The fourth evaluation did not include a general population because subgroups were found to be too dissimilar for comparison. Two evaluations reported the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) per repeat revascularisation avoided; one estimated it to be US$1650 over 1 year and the other estimated it to be approximately US$7000 over 2 years. The majority of evaluations concluded that DESs are more cost effective than BMSs for patients with types of arteries that have a higher risk of restenosis, although there was great disparity between evaluations, with a variety of outcomes and a range of ICERs being reported. |
| 4.2.2 | Only one economic study, carried out alongside the BASKET RCT, reflected clinical practice because no protocol-driven angiographic follow-up was included. This study's results suggested that, at a threshold of E7800 per MACE avoided, DESs could potentially be cost effective in the following subgroups of patients: those older than 65 years; those with more than one segment treated; those with triple-vessel disease; those with a stent length of more than 20 mm; and those with small stent diameters. |
| Manufacturers' economic models | |
| 4.2.3 | Three models were submitted by DES manufacturers. |
| 4.2.4 | The decision analytic model from Boston Scientific compared the PES (Taxus) with the equivalent BMS, for a general population and for subgroups. The incremental costs per QALY at 1 year were given as £29,587 for the overall population and £1020 for patients with diabetes. For patients with small vessels and long lesions, the PES (Taxus) was dominant (both more effective and less costly than the BMS). At 2 years, the incremental cost per QALY for the overall population was given as £13,394, and the PES (Taxus) was dominant for patients with small vessels and those with diabetes. The model was highly sensitive to variations in the duration of clopidogrel therapy and the average number of stents used. In the manufacturer's sensitivity analyses, when the number of stents used per procedure was increased from 1.4 to 1.7, in line with the Assessment Group's model, the estimated cost per QALY at 1 year for the overall population increased to £56,731; however, the subgroup estimates were only marginally affected. If the duration of clopidogrel therapy after DES implantation was increased from 6 to 12 months, the cost per QALY at 12 months increased to £71,634 for the general population and to over £30,000 for the subgroup with diabetes. The Assessment Group found an error in the model calculations relating to the general population TLR rates which, when corrected, increased the ICERs. |
| 4.2.5 | The decision analytic model from Cordis compared the SES (Cypher) with the equivalent BMS for a 'no-risk-factor' population and for subgroups. The model was split into a two-way analysis of the BMS versus the SES (Cypher) and a three-way analysis of the BMS versus the PES (Taxus) versus the SES (Cypher). In extending the three-way analysis to 2 years, an indirect comparison was undertaken that made an assumption that the BMSs in both trials (Boston Scientific and Cordis BMS) are equivalent. The cost data for the technologies (the BMS and Taxus) were considered by the Assessment Group to be overestimated and when the Assessment Group re-ran the model increasing the SES (Cypher) price premium over the equivalent BMS from £433 to £695. The incremental cost per QALY thus increased from £29,259 to £69,613 for the 'no risk factor' subgroup; from £10,178 to £39,508 for the small-vessels subgroup; from £16,460 to £49,345 for the long-lesions subgroup; and from £9702 to £38,446 for the group with diabetes. |
| 4.2.6 | The Markov model presented by Medtronic compared the ZES (Endeavor [sirolimus analogue ABT-578]) with Medtronic's comparable BMS, for a general population. The submission measured costs and benefits at 5 years, extrapolating the 9-month trial data. In one scenario, the two arms were assumed to be equivalent in terms of risk of repeat revascularisations after 1 year. The incremental cost per QALY was estimated at £11,220. No subgroup analyses were undertaken. The Assessment Group found the model to be highly sensitive to baseline TVR rates and the number of index stents used. If baseline TVR rates were reduced below 12% (for both the BMS and the ZES), then the ICER exceeded £30,000. If the average number of stents used for the index procedure was increased to 1.4, the ICER increased to £39,174. The Assessment Group noted that the two factors to which the model was sensitive were taken from a single positive trial. |
| 4.2.7 | The submission from Kiwimed compared an SES ( Yukon) with the Kiwimed BMS for a general population. The effectiveness data were taken from the SES (Cypher) trials, so an untested assumption was made that the SES ( Yukon) has equivalent effectiveness to the SES (Cypher). Extrapolation from 2 to 5 years was undertaken using an assumption that patients remained in the same health state that they were in at the end of 1 year. Kiwimed's submission stated that the model results indicated that the SES ( Yukon) was dominant, compared with the BMS, in the general population. In a sensitivity analysis varying the cost of the stent and the probability of restenosis, the ICERs for the SES ( Yukon) were always under £30,000 per QALY. |
| Assessment Group model: methods | |
| 4.2.8 | The Assessment Group's model used the framework from the original appraisal with some minor modifications: the time horizon was restricted to 1 year, so no discounting was necessary, and particular subgroups were examined. The previous appraisal was not product-specific; in this review the Assessment Group model considered the SES (Cypher) and the PES (Taxus) separately against their comparable BMSs, but none of the other DESs was considered within the economic evaluation. |
| 4.2.9 | The only measures from any of the clinical trials to show evidence of differences between DESs and BMSs at 1 year were the two measures of repeat revascularisation (TLR and TVR) and the event rate (MACE and TVF). These showed strong evidence in favour of DESs over all follow-up periods to 3 years, although it was shown from the meta-analysis for this appraisal that the estimated benefit appears to be stable in the long term, suggesting that the greatest benefit accrues within the first year. |
| 4.2.10 | In the Assessment Group's model the most important factors in determining the incremental cost were the additional cost per DES implanted (price premium [the difference in cost between a given BMS and the drug-eluting form]) and the number of stents implanted per patient. The most important factors in determining benefit in the model were the absolute risk of revascularisation for patients treated with a BMS and the risk reduction attributable to the use of a DES. |
| 4.2.11 | The acquisition cost of a given stent may vary in different settings because of negotiated procurement discounts. The Assessment Group in their economic evaluation used the prices from a market survey of NHS purchasers. The survey was conducted by the NHS Purchasing and Supply Agency in May/June 2005 to identify the prices in contracts covering the period 2004/05 for both DESs and BMSs. The combined data for 12 purchasing bodies covering 20 hospital trusts provided consistent estimates of average unit prices and of the difference in price between DESs and BMSs. Results were provided for the two main suppliers of DESs: Boston Scientific (Taxus) and Cordis Corporation (Cypher). The effective sale price per Taxus PES (excluding VAT) was £815. Because there was only one recorded instance of a significant local volume discount agreement for Cypher in the survey, the average sample price for the Cypher SES (excluding VAT) was £937. The estimated average price for a BMS in the survey (excluding VAT) was £278, so the price premiums are £537 and £659 per DES for Taxus and Cypher, respectively. |
| 4.2.12 | To calculate the PCI procedure costs it was necessary to subtract the included costs of stents (DES and BMS) from the published PCI costs, and then to add back the model estimates of the number of stents, the type of stent and the cost per stent. In the final analyses, the Assessment Group assumed a wastage rate of 1%. |
| 4.2.13 | The Assessment Group used results from two observational studies of stented patients treated at the Cardiothoracic Centre, Liverpool, to convert the efficacy of any-type DES to effectiveness estimates for repeat revascularisations and lesions treated in repeat revascularisations. The Assessment Group found that 51% of patients who underwent a second PCI required repeat treatment to previously treated lesions only. An additional 17% of patients received repeat treatment to a target lesion at the same time as treatment to a previously untreated lesion in the same vessel; these are the patients in whom DESs can be expected to produce benefit. Applying these proportions to the relative risk reduction from the trials of 74.6% (for TLR obtained from the meta-analysis of any-type DES trials) yielded an expected risk reduction in all revascularisations at 12 months of between 38% (95% CI 32 to 44%) and 50% (95% CI 44 to 57%). The Assessment Group also considered the likely benefit that any-type DES may offer in reducing the number of lesions treated in repeat revascularisations. When applied to the TLR relative risk reductions from the meta-analysis, this suggested that the reduction in the number of lesions treated in subsequent interventions was between 37% (95% CI 31 to 42%) and 53% (95% CI 47 to 59%) based on TLR (the Assessment Group counted lesions treated but excluded cases undergoing CABG rather than PCI). The Assessment Group noted that the BASKET trial, which did not include protocol-driven angiography, reported a risk reduction for DESs of 41% at 6 months. The Assessment Group therefore used 41% for the risk reduction associated with DESs in its base-case analyses. |
| 4.2.14 | The Assessment Group stated that whether any-type DESs are cost effective compared with any-type BMSs depends on the relative risk reduction in revascularisations and on the absolute rate of revascularisation in the types of patients in whom they are used. The absolute rates of revascularisation were derived from the Liverpool Cardiothoracic Centre audit data, and the potential to benefit was reassessed on the basis of the audit data concerning those patients in whom the repeat procedure required treatment of new lesions, which resulted in an absolute rate of revascularisation for all patients of 7.43%. The Assessment Group also carried out sensitivity analyses varying rates of revascularisation for all patients up to 13%, based on trial data. |
| 4.2.15 | Using the Liverpool Cardiothoracic Centre audit data, risk factors for the patients were identified in the Assessment Report as being calcification, angulation greater than 45 degrees, restenotic lesion, triple-vessel disease, vessel diameter of less than 2 mm and prior CABG. In the final analyses, the absolute rates of repeat revascularisations for the conventional risk factors (long lesions, small vessels, diabetes and all combinations of these) were provided using the Liverpool audit data. The Assessment Group stated that, because none of these three factors in the multivariate model achieved conventional significance using the Liverpool audit data, the individual relative risks have wide confidence intervals and should be considered only as illustrative. The mean 12-month repeat revascularisation rate for all patients with small vessels was 15.25% (95% CI 9.38% to 22.24%), with a rate difference p = 0.02; for those with long lesions it was 10.23% (95% CI 8.10% to 12.57%), p = 0.09; and for those with diabetes it was 10.61% (95% CI 7.52% to 14.14%), p = 0.14. |
| 4.2.16 | The Assessment Group used patient survey data from the Health Outcomes Data Repository (HoDAR) database for its utility values. The difference in HoDAR health-related quality of life scores between patients with severe angina and those recovered from revascularisation (0.158) was similar to the ARTS trial result (0.16), which was used in the previous appraisal. The assumptions made by the Assessment Group in the final analyses for disutilities associated with CABG versus PCI in the 6-week period following the procedure were that for a 2-week post-operative period, patients undergoing CABG experience a severe loss of quality of life (0.0), and for the next 2 weeks the mean utility score recovers in a linear fashion achieving full benefit (0.660) by 4 weeks after the operation. Patients undergoing PCI were assumed to recover full benefit linearly over a 2-week period following the procedure. With regard to the mortality risk of CABG versus angioplasty, the Assessment Group concluded that there was no evidence for acute MI/mortality improvements with PCI. |
| 4.2.17 | The Assessment Group found, in the meta-analysis, a trend towards increased numbers of non-fatal acute MIs when BMSs were used. They concluded in their analyses that, based on the reviewed evidence, the maximum likely effect of this is equivalent to an overall cost saving of about £13 per patient, and a utility gain of about 0.00055 per patient when DESs are used. |
| 4.2.18 | The clinical evidence from the meta-analyses in the Assessment Report suggested that the SES (Cypher) reduces repeat revascularisations compared with the PES (Taxus). Because the evidence was limited mainly to 6-9 months' duration, the Assessment Group carried out the economic evaluation assuming clinical equivalence and distinguished between stents only on the basis of price. |
| 4.2.19 | In the additional analyses, undertaken at the request of the Committee, the Assessment Group undertook sensitivity analyses by varying a number of the parameters in the original model. The results of the sensitivity analyses were presented as a number of tables containing the ICERs for a range of price premiums, for a range of absolute risks of revascularisation of BMSs, for the general population of stented patients and the risk-factor groups (small vessel, long lesion, diabetes and all combinations of these). Tables were presented for different numbers of stents (mean number, 1, 2 or 3) per patient. |
| 4.2.20 | The Assessment Group also undertook new sensitivity analyses that took account of an additional 9 months use of clopidogrel in patients receiving DESs, in accordance with the recent British Cardiac Intervention Society recommendations. These additional costs were applied only to 56% of the patient population because it was suggested by Consultees that 44% of patients would have acute coronary syndrome and therefore already be receiving 12 months of clopidogrel in accordance with existing NICE technology appraisal guidance 80. |
| 4.2.21 | The British Cardiac Society and British Cardiovascular Intervention Society jointly submitted a document suggesting key parameters for use in the Assessment Group's model and estimated the resulting ICERs for price premiums up to £300. The values suggested for absolute risks of revascularisation using BMSs in the base case, small vessels, long lesions and diabetes were 13%, 22.8%, 17.5% and 19.7% respectively. For the relative risk reductions of DESs, the values for the base case, small vessels, long lesions and diabetes, respectively, were 63%, 69%, 70% and 61%. The Consultees assumed the mean number of stents to be 1.615 and the value of the other parameters were assumed to be in line with the Assessment Group's inputs. |
| 4.2.22 | The Assessment Group, at the request of the Committee, also provided estimates based on the final analyses using a relative risk reduction (in the revascularisation rate) with DESs of 55% as the base case and a sensitivity analysis of 65%. These relative risk reductions with DESs were used for a rate of revascularisation, using BMSs, of 11%, which was obtained from combining results for all patients (equivalent to 10% for elective and 13% for non-elective patients). The corresponding risk of revascularisation using BMSs for the risk groups and the mean number of stents were also calculated from the combined datasets for the elective and non-elective patients. |
| Assessment Group model: results | |
| 4.2.23 | Based on the Liverpool Cardiothoacic Centre audit data, the Assessment Group's base-case scenario assumes the overall repeat revascularisation rate for the general population of stented patients in the UK at 12 months after PCI with BMSs is 7.43%. Using 7.43% for all patients, the absolute rates of repeat revascularisation for the risk factors become: 7.8% for long lesions; 9.0% for diabetes; and 9.9% for small vessels. Using the overall mean number of stents implanted per patient from the Liverpool audit data (1.615) and assuming a price premium of £600 (approximate average of the price premium of the PES (Taxus) and the SES (Cypher), from the survey data) the resulting incremental costs per QALY for the each of the groups of elective patients are approximately: £407,000 for all patients; £380,000 for long lesions; £340,000 for diabetes; and £306,000 for small vessels. Using the overall mean number of stents implanted per patient for non-elective patients (1.467) the resulting incremental costs per QALY for each of the groups, at a price premium of £600, are: £282,000 for all patients; £250,000 for long lesions; £240,000 for diabetes; and £94,000 for small vessels. |
| 4.2.24 | Based on the Liverpool Cardiothoracic Centre audit data, the Assessment Group's re-analysis of the base-case scenario assumes the overall repeat revascularisation rate for the general population of stented patients in the UK at 12 months after PCI with BMSs is 11%. Using 11% for all patients, the absolute rates of repeat revascularisation for the risk factors become: 11.7% for long lesions; 11.6% for diabetes; and 19% for small vessels. The relative risk reduction with DESs is assumed to be 55%. Using the overall mean number of stents implanted per patient from the Liverpool audit data, both elective and non-elective (1.571) and assuming a price premium of £600 (approximate average of the price premium of the PES [Taxus] and the SES [Cypher], from the survey data) the resulting incremental costs per QALY for each of the groups of elective patients are approximately: £213,000 for all patients; £183,000 for long lesions; £180,000 for diabetes; and £146,000 for small vessels. |
| 4.2.25 | For the Assessment Group's sensitivity analysis for the combined elective and non-elective data, using a relative risk reduction with DESs of 65%, the resulting incremental costs per QALY, for a price premium of £600, for each of the groups of elective patients are approximately: £174,000 for all patients; £148,000 for long lesions; £146,000 for diabetes; and £116,000 for small vessels. |
| 4.3 | Consideration of the evidence |
| 4.3.1 | The Appraisal Committee reviewed the data available on the clinical and cost effectiveness of DESs, having considered evidence on the nature of the condition and the value placed on the benefits of DESs by people with coronary artery disease, those who represent them, and clinical specialists. It was also mindful of the need to take account of the effective use of NHS resources. |
| 4.3.2 | The Committee considered the evidence on the clinical effectiveness of DESs in the treatment of coronary heart disease. The Committee acknowledged that the clinical trials showed that the use of any-type DES reduced the rate of revascularisation in the target lesions and the target vessels, at all follow-up time points up to 3 years, compared with any-type BMS. The Committee noted not just the trial data, but also the recent discussions on the risk of DESs on thrombosis, MI, and mortality, and accepted the findings of the FDA review that DESs (any type) conferred no statistically significant benefits in mortality or acute MI rates over BMSs (any type). The Committee concluded that the key benefit of DESs is the reduction in rates of revascularisation in target lesions and target vessels compared with BMSs. |
| .4.3.3 | The Committee considered whether there was any evidence to suggest that there were differences in the clinical effectiveness of the various types of DESs. It noted that only four of the eleven DESs had been compared with each other in head-to-head RCTs. The majority of data comparing revascularisation rates were between the SES (Cypher) and the PES (Taxus). The Committee noted that the SES (Cypher) showed a statistically significant reduction in TLR, TVR and MACEs compared with the PES (Taxus), at 9 months. It was also noted that at 1 year, for the only outcome available, rates of TLR for the SES (Cypher) compared with the PES (Taxus) showed no statistically significant difference. The Committee heard testimony from the clinical specialists that comparator studies showed a comparable net effect and that, in practice, any of the DESs would be used, although those with the greater evidence-base would be first choice. |
| 4.3.4 | The Committee considered the evidence to suggest that there were groups of patients whose vessel anatomy was more likely to restenose. The absolute rate of revascularisation in these groups was greater than that of other patients and they therefore had the potential to gain a greater relative benefit from DESs than other patients. The Committee considered the risk factors derived by the Assessment Group using the Liverpool Cardiothoracic Centre audit data, but it heard testimony from the clinical specialists that small vessels (less than 3 mm in calibre), long lesions (longer than 15 mm) and diabetes were the risk factors most consistently reported and that made most sense clinically. The Committee noted that, although the Assessment Group's data did not prove that any of these were statistically significant risk factors, based on other studies, small-vessel disease and long lesions were more convincing independent factors than diabetes, and are particularly prevalent in patients with CAD who also have diabetes. The Committee was also mindful of the definition of 'off-label' use as stated by the regulatory authorities. The Committee concluded that small vessels and long lesions should be considered as separate risk factors. |
| 4.3.5 | The Committee noted that the Assessment Group's model was based on the Liverpool Cardiothoracic Centre audit data that distinguished elective and non-elective (emergency) patients. The Committee heard testimony from the clinical specialists that in practice there are no differences between these patient groups except around MI and unstable angina, and the issues of adjunctive therapy. The Committee concluded that elective and non-elective patients should not be considered separately and the estimates should therefore be merged. |
| 4.3.6 | In considering the cost effectiveness of DESs compared with BMSs, the Committee noted that the model structure proposed by the Assessment Group was appropriate. The Committee discussed the key parameters that drove the Assessment Group's economic model. The Committee considered the absolute rate of revascularisation of BMSs in the general population of stented patients and noted that the Assessment Group used 7.43% for patients in their base-case in the assessment report. The Committee heard testimony from the clinical specialists that, from the published evidence, the rate of revascularisation of BMSs was around 12%. The Committee noted that some of these trials included protocol-driven angiography and revascularisation and therefore were unlikely to be representative of actual repeat revascularisation rates in patients in the UK. The Committee noted that the Liverpool Cardiothoracic Centre audit rates were lower than those from other data sets including the BASKET trial (11%), which had not included protocol-driven angiography, and the Scottish Registry (11.5%). The Committee discussed the range of possible values for revascularisation and their relevance to UK practice and concluded that a rate of 11% for the absolute rate of revascularisation was a reasonable estimate for UK practice. |
| 4.3.7 | The Committee considered the relative reduction in the risk of target lesion revascularisation with DESs. The Committee noted that the trial data typically gave a relative risk reduction of 75%, but considered that this figure might over-estimate the real-life benefit of DESs because it is derived from the trials that included protocol-driven angiography and revascularisation. The Committee heard that the BASKET trial, which had not included protocol-driven angiography, had a relative risk reduction with DESs of 41% at 12 months. The Committee looked at the adjusted relative risk reduction with DESs used by the Assessment Group, and acknowledged that their approach reflected the number of patients, and not the target lesions, that would benefit from DESs. The Committee noted that the Assessment Group's figure was in line with the BASKET trial. The Committee heard from the clinical specialists that the relative risk reduction with DESs from the randomised controlled trials was likely to be in the range 50-60% for the base case and 69-70% for high-risk groups. The Committee considered a relative risk reduction with DESs over BMSs of 55% in the base case, and of 65% in a sensitivity analysis. |
| 4.3.8 | With regard to the number of stents used per patient, the Committee considered the mean number of stents used for each of the risk groups from the Liverpool Cardiothoracic Centre audit data and concluded that, the estimate of mean number of stents (1.6 for elective patients, 1.5 for non-elective patients) was a workable reflection of the number used in all patients and could be used as a base case for consideration of the benefits of DESs. |
| 4.3.9 | The Committee was mindful of data in the literature on the mortality and morbidity of CABG and repeat angiography. After reviewing the utility values in the Assessment Group's model the Committee acknowledged the possibility that there could be an additional disutility associated with CABG during the initial 6 weeks following the procedure compared with PCI. The Committee accepted the Assessment Group's revisions for this parameter. |
| 4.3.10 | The Committee noted the current UK recommendation that clopidogrel should be given for an additional 9 months in patients receiving a DES and they therefore considered it appropriate that this should be taken account of in the cost-effectiveness analysis. The Committee also accepted the suggestion from Consultees that patients with acute coronary syndrome would already be receiving 12 months clopidogrel and that no additional costs would be incurred in this population. |
| 4.3.11 |
After agreeing on the parameters to use in the Assessment Group's model, the Committee discussed the resulting ICERs for the base-case and risk groups, assuming:
At a relative risk reduction with DESs of 55%, the resulting ICERs for the general population of patients, patients with long lesions and patients with small vessels were associated with costs per QALYs of approximately £213,000, £183,000 and £146,000 respectively. At the same price premium, using a DES relative risk reduction of 65%, the resulting ICERs for the general population of patients, patients with long lesions and patients with small vessels were associated with costs per QALY of £174,000, £148,000 and £116,000 respectively. Given these ICERs, the Committee agreed that DESs could not be considered a cost-effective use of NHS resources. Therefore the Committee concluded that DESs should not be recommended for use in patients undergoing PCI in the NHS in England and Wales. |
| 4.3.12 | Reflecting the testimony of the clinical specialists, the Committee noted the small differences in the key parameters between those that the Committee had accepted and those submitted by the British Cardiac Society and the British Cardiovascular Intervention Society. The Committee discussed the ICERs resulting from inputting the values provided by the British Cardiac Society and the British Cardiovascular Intervention Society to the Assessment Group's model. It noted that a price premium of around £300 for a DES would be required for DESs to be considered cost effective in patients with small vessels or with long lesions. |
| 4.3.13 | The Committee heard testimony from the clinical specialists that in one area a procurement deal had resulted in a price premium of £300 for DESs. The Committee explored the effect of the price premium on the ICER and noted that if this were £300, and using the parameter values selected by the Committee, then the resulting ICERs for the general population of patients, patients with long lesions and patients with small vessels were associated with cost per QALYs of £101,000, £65,000 and £41,000 respectively. However, the Committee understood that there is no national procurement of DESs at a price premium that would fall below £300. Thus, the Committee was unable to alter its conclusion that DESs could not be considered a cost-effective use of NHS resources. |
| 5 | Implementation |
| 5.1 | The Healthcare Commission assesses the performance of NHS organisations in meeting core and developmental standards set by the Department of Health in 'Standards for better health' issued in July 2004. The Secretary of State has directed that the NHS provides funding and resources for medicines and treatments that have been recommended by NICE technology appraisals normally within 3 months from the date that NICE publishes the guidance. Core standard C5 states that healthcare organisations should ensure they conform to NICE technology appraisals. |
| 5.2 | 'Healthcare Standards for Wales' was issued by the Welsh Assembly Government in May 2005 and provides a framework both for self-assessment by healthcare organisations and for external review and investigation by Healthcare Inspectorate Wales. Standard 12a requires healthcare organisations to ensure that patients and service users are provided with effective treatment and care that conforms to NICE technology appraisal guidance. The Assembly Minister for Health and Social Services issued a Direction in October 2003, which requires Local Health Boards and NHS Trusts to make funding available to enable the implementation of NICE technology appraisal guidance, normally within 3 months. |
| 5.3 | NICE has developed tools to help organisations implement this guidance (listed below). These are available on our website (www.nice.org.uk/TA XXX). [Note: tools will be available when the final guidance is issued] |
| 6 | Proposed recommendations for further research |
| 6.1 | The Committee noted that there are a number of trials underway comparing the clinical effectiveness of DESs with their equivalent BMS and/or with other DESs. |
| 6.2 | Randomised controlled trials are required that compare particular DESs with their equivalent BMS for DESs that currently do not have these data. These trials should include a long follow-up period in order fully to take account of the risks and benefits of the technologies. |
| 6.3 | Given the advances in stent technologies, randomised controlled trials comparing DESs with newer BMSs should be conducted. These trials should include a long follow-up period in order fully to take account of the risks and benefits of the technologies. |
| 6.4 | Randomised controlled trials are required that compare established DESs with newer DESs to ascertain whether there are any differences in the clinical effect of the drugs being eluted. These trials should include a long follow-up period in order fully to take account of the risks and benefits of the technologies. |
| 6.5 | Further collection of registry data is recommended in order to obtain information on long-term outcomes and also facilitate the identification of subgroups that may benefit more from DESs. |
| 7 | Related NICE guidance |
|
The current appraisal is only a part-review of technology appraisal 71, and focuses on DESs only.
|
|
| 8 | Proposed date for review of guidance |
| 8.1 | The review date for a technology appraisal refers to the month and year in which the Guidance Executive will consider whether the technology should be reviewed. This decision will be taken in the light of information gathered by the Institute, and in consultation with consultees and commentators. |
| 8.2 | It is proposed that the guidance on this technology is considered for review in January 2011. The Institute would particularly welcome comment on this proposed date. |
| Andrew Stevens |
| Chair, Appraisal Committee |
| July 2007 |
| Appendix A. Appraisal Committee members and NICE project team | |
| A | Appraisal Committee members |
| The Appraisal Committee is a standing advisory committee of the Institute. Its members are appointed for a 3-year term. A list of the Committee members who took part in the discussions for this appraisal appears below. The Appraisal Committee meets three times a month except in December, when there are no meetings. The Committee membership is split into three branches, each with a chair and vice-chair. Each branch considers its own list of technologies and ongoing topics are not moved between the branches. | |
| Committee members are asked to declare any interests in the technology to be appraised. If it is considered there is a conflict of interest, the member is excluded from participating further in that appraisal. | |
| The minutes of each Appraisal Committee meeting, which include the names of the members who attended and their declarations of interests, are posted on the NICE website. | |
|
Professor Keith Abrams Dr Darren Ashcroft Dr Jeffrey Aronson Professor David Barnett Dr Peter Barry Mr Brian Buckley Professor Stirling Bryan Professor John Cairns Professor Mike Campbell Professor David Chadwick Dr Mark Chakravarty Dr Peter I Clark Dr Mike Davies Professor Jack Dowie Ms Lynn Field Professor Christopher Fowler Mrs Barbara Gerggains Dr Fergus Gleeson Ms Sally Gooch Mr Sanjay Gupta Professor Philip Home Dr Peter Jackson Professor Peter Jones Dr Mike Laker Dr George Levvy Ms Rachel Lewis Mr Terence Lewis Professor Gary McVeigh Professor Jonathan Michaels Dr Neil Milner Dr Ruairidh Milne Dr John Pounsford Dr Rosalind Ramsay Dr Stephen Saltissi Mr Miles Scott Dr Lindsay Smith Mr Roderick Smith Mr Cliff Snelling Dr Ken Stein Professor Andrew Stevens (Chair) |
|
| B | NICE project team |
| Each technology appraisal is assigned to a team consisting of one or more health technology analysts (who act as technical leads for the appraisal), a technical adviser and a project manager. | |
|
Joanna Richardson Dr Sarah Garner Reetan Patel |
|
| Appendix B. Sources of evidence considered by the Committee | |
| A |
The assessment report for this appraisal was prepared by Liverpool Reviews and Implementation Group, University of Liverpool.
|
| B | The following organisations accepted the invitation to participate in this appraisal. They were invited to comment on the draft scope, assessment report and the appraisal consultation document (ACD). Organisations listed in I and II were also invited to make written submissions and have the opportunity to appeal against the final appraisal determination. |
| I |
Manufacturers/sponsors:
|
| II |
Professional/specialist and patient/carer groups:
|
| III |
Other consultees
|
| IV |
Commentator organisations (without the right of appeal):
|
| C |
The following individuals were selected from clinical specialist and patient advocate nominations from the non-manufacturer/sponsor consultees and commentators. They participated in the Appraisal Committee discussions and provided evidence to inform the Appraisal Committee's deliberations. They gave their expert personal view on technology title by attending the initial Committee discussion and/or providing written evidence to the Committee. They are invited to comment on the ACD.
|
This page was last updated: 30 March 2010