Protocol for an economic evaluation of the randomised controlled trial of culprit lesion only PCI versus immediate multivessel PCI in acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock: CULPRIT-SHOCK trial

Zahidul Quayyum, Andrew Briggs, Jose Robles-Zurita, Keith Oldroyd, Uwe Zeymer, Steffen Desch, Suzanne de Waha, Holger Thiele, Zahidul Quayyum, Andrew Briggs, Jose Robles-Zurita, Keith Oldroyd, Uwe Zeymer, Steffen Desch, Suzanne de Waha, Holger Thiele

Abstract

Introduction: Emergency percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) of the culprit lesion for patients with acute myocardial infarctions is an accepted practice. A majority of patients present with multivessel disease with additional relevant stenoses apart from the culprit lesion. In haemodynamically stable patients, there is increasing evidence from randomised trials to support the practice of immediate complete revascularisation. However, in the presence of cardiogenic shock, the optimal management strategy for additional non-culprit lesions is unknown. A multicentre randomised controlled trial, CULPRIT-SHOCK, is examining whether culprit vessel only PCI with potentially subsequent staged revascularisation is more effective than immediate multivessel PCI. This paper describes the intended economic evaluation of the trial.

Methods and analysis: The economic evaluation will be conducted using a pre-trial decision model and within-trial analysis. The modelling-based analysis will provide expected costs and health outcomes, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio over the lifetime for the cohort of patients included in the trial. The within-trial analysis will provide estimates of cost per life saved at 30 days and in 1 year, and estimates of health-related quality of life. Bootstrapping and cost-effectiveness acceptability curves will be used to address any uncertainty around these estimates. Different types of regression models within a generalised estimating equation framework will be used to examine how the total cost and quality-adjusted life years are explained by patients' characteristics, revascularisation strategy, country and centre. The cost-effectiveness analysis will be from the perspective of each country's national health services, where costs will be expressed in euros adjusted for purchasing power parity.

Ethics and dissemination: Ethical approval for the study was granted by the local Ethics Committee at each recruiting centre. The economic evaluation analyses will be published in peer-reviewed journals of the concerned literature and communicated through the profiles of the authors at www.twitter.com and www.researchgate.net.

Trial registration number: NCT01927549; Pre-results.

Keywords: cardiogenic shock; cost-effectiveness; myocardial infarction.

Conflict of interest statement

Competing interests: None declared.

© Article author(s) (or their employer(s) unless otherwise stated in the text of the article) 2017. All rights reserved. No commercial use is permitted unless otherwise expressly granted.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Post index revascularisation, from 30 days to 1 year. AMI, acute myocardial infarction; MACE, major advanced cardiac events.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Post 1 year and end of life—Markov model. MACE, major advanced cardiac events.

References

    1. O’Gara PT, Kushner FG, Ascheim DD, et al. . 2013 ACCF/AHA Guideline for the Management of ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction: Executive Summary: A Report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines. Circulation 2013;127:529–55. 10.1161/CIR.0b013e3182742c84
    1. Aissaoui N, Puymirat E, Tabone X, et al. . Improved outcome of cardiogenic shock at the acute stage of myocardial infarction: a report from the USIK 1995, USIC 2000, and FAST-MI French nationwide registries. Eur Heart J 2012;33:2535–43. 10.1093/eurheartj/ehs264
    1. Jeger RV, Radovanovic D, Hunziker PR, et al. . Ten-year trends in the incidence and treatment of cardiogenic shock. Ann Intern Med 2008;149:618–26. 10.7326/0003-4819-149-9-200811040-00005
    1. Thiele H, Allam B, Chatellier G, et al. . Shock in acute myocardial infarction: the Cape Horn for trials? Eur Heart J 2010;31:1828–35. 10.1093/eurheartj/ehq220
    1. Thiele H, Ohman EM, Desch S, et al. . Management of cardiogenic shock. Eur Heart J 2015;36:1223–30. 10.1093/eurheartj/ehv051
    1. Thiele H, Zeymer U, Neumann FJ, et al. . Intra-aortic balloon counterpulsation in acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock (IABP-SHOCK II): final 12 month results of a randomised, open-label trial. Lancet 2013;382:1638–45. 10.1016/S0140-6736(13)61783-3
    1. Thiele H, Zeymer U, Neumann FJ, et al. . Intraaortic balloon support for myocardial infarction with cardiogenic shock. N Engl J Med 2012;367:1287–96. 10.1056/NEJMoa1208410
    1. Thiele H, Desch S, Piek JJ, et al. . Multivessel versus culprit lesion only percutaneous revascularization plus potential staged revascularization in patients with acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock: Design and rationale of CULPRIT-SHOCK trial. Am Heart J 2016;172:160–9. 10.1016/j.ahj.2015.11.006
    1. Steg PG, James SK, Atar D, et al. . ESC Guidelines for the management of acute myocardial infarction in patients presenting with ST-segment elevation. Eur Heart J 2012;33:2569–619. 10.1093/eurheartj/ehs215
    1. Windecker S, Kolh P, Alfonso F, et al. . ESC/EACTS guidelines on myocardial revascularization. European Heart Journal 20142014;35:2541–619.
    1. IQWiG. General methods. Version 4.2 of 22 April 2015. Secondary General methods. Version 4.2 of 22 April 2015 2015. .
    1. Brooks R. EuroQol: the current state of play. Health Policy 1996;37:53–72. 10.1016/0168-8510(96)00822-6
    1. Manca A, Hawkins N, Sculpher MJ. Estimating mean QALYs in trial-based cost-effectiveness analysis: the importance of controlling for baseline utility. Health Econ 2005;14:487–96. 10.1002/hec.944
    1. Reed SD, Anstrom KJ, Bakhai A, et al. . Conducting economic evaluations alongside multinational clinical trials: toward a research consensus. Am Heart J 2005;149:434–43. 10.1016/j.ahj.2004.11.001
    1. Willke RJ, Glick HA, Polsky D, et al. . Estimating country-specific cost-effectiveness from multinational clinical trials. Health Econ 1998;7:481–93. 10.1002/(SICI)1099-1050(199809)7:6<481::AID-HEC353>;2-K
    1. Weinstein MC, O’Brien B, Hornberger J, et al. . Principles of good practice for decision analytic modeling in health-care evaluation: report of the ISPOR Task Force on Good Research Practices--Modeling Studies. Value Health 2003;6:9–17. 10.1046/j.1524-4733.2003.00234.x
    1. Gomes M, Díaz-Ordaz K, Grieve R, et al. . Multiple imputation methods for handling missing data in cost-effectiveness analyses that use data from hierarchical studies: an application to cluster randomized trials. Med Decis Making 2013;33:1051–63. 10.1177/0272989X13492203
    1. Oostenbrink JB, Al MJ, Rutten-van Mölken MP. Methods to analyse cost data of patients who withdraw in a clinical trial setting. Pharmacoeconomics 2003;21:1103–12. 10.2165/00019053-200321150-00004
    1. Ramsey S, Willke R, Briggs A, et al. . Good research practices for cost-effectiveness analysis alongside clinical trials: the ISPOR RCT-CEA Task Force report. Value Health 2005;8:521–33. 10.1111/j.1524-4733.2005.00045.x
    1. Briggs A, Clark T, Wolstenholme J, et al. . Missing presumed at random: cost-analysis of incomplete data. Health Econ 2003;12:377–92. 10.1002/hec.766
    1. Drummond MF, Jefferson TO. Guidelines for authors and peer reviewers of economic submissions to the BMJ. BMJ 1996;313:275–83. 10.1136/bmj.313.7052.275
    1. Faria R, Gomes M, Epstein D, et al. . A guide to handling missing data in cost-effectiveness analysis conducted within randomised controlled trials. Pharmacoeconomics 2014;32:1157–70. 10.1007/s40273-014-0193-3
    1. Nixon RM, Thompson SG. Methods for incorporating covariate adjustment, subgroup analysis and between-centre differences into cost-effectiveness evaluations. Health Econ 2005;14:1217–29. 10.1002/hec.1008
    1. Marshall DA, Hux M. Design and analysis issues for economic analysis alongside clinical trials. Med Care 2009;47:S14–S20. 10.1097/MLR.0b013e3181a31971
    1. Fenwick E, Claxton K, Sculpher M. Representing uncertainty: the role of cost-effectiveness acceptability curves. Health Econ 2001;10:779–87. 10.1002/hec.635
    1. Briggs AH, Wonderling DE, Mooney CZ. Pulling cost-effectiveness analysis up by its bootstraps: a non-parametric approach to confidence interval estimation. Health Econ 1997;6:327–40. 10.1002/(SICI)1099-1050(199707)6:4<327::AID-HEC282>;2-W
    1. Claxton K, Posnett J. An economic approach to clinical trial design and research priority-setting. Health Econ 1996;5:513–24. 10.1002/(SICI)1099-1050(199611)5:6<513::AID-HEC237>;2-9

Source: PubMed

Sponsorer och medarbetare

Medicinska tillstånd

Läkemedelsinterventioner

3
Prenumerera