Reduced 6-month resource use and costs associated with cilostazol in patients after successful coronary stent implantation: results from the Cilostazol for RESTenosis (CREST) trial.
BACKGROUND
The CREST trial demonstrated that after successful coronary stent implantation, the 6-month rate of target vessel revascularization (TVR) was similar (15.4% vs 16%, P = .90) for the 2 treatment groups, but restenosis rate was lower (22.0% vs 34.5%, P = .002) in cilostazol-treated patients. We sought to evaluate resource use, cost, and cost-effectiveness of cilostazol in CREST.


METHODS
A total of 705 patients were randomized to cilostazol 100 mg twice daily (n = 354) versus placebo (n = 351) for 6 months. Resources included rehospitalizations, medications, and outpatient services. Costs were determined from the Medicare fee schedule. Cilostazol was priced at 1.64 dollars a day. Base-case cost and cost-effectiveness analysis was performed for the entire population using TVR as a measure of effectiveness. Sensitivity analysis was conducted among 526 patients because restenosis data were available only for this patient population. A bootstrap resample approach (5000 samples) was used to obtain confidence intervals for cost differences.


RESULTS
For the entire population, costs of rehospitalizations, concomitant medications, outpatient tests, and physician or emergency department visits were lower during follow-up for cilostazol-treated patients. Overall, total 6-month follow-up costs remained 447 dollars lower for cilostazol (4178 dollars vs 4625 dollars), although this difference did not reach significance (95% CI -1458 dollars to 515 dollars). Cilostazol is likely a cost-saving strategy (similar rate of TVR and lower costs). Sensitivity analysis showed that cilostazol is likely a dominant strategy (lower restenosis rate and costs, 85% dominant, 88.9% <1000 dollars per restenosis averted).


CONCLUSIONS
Treatment with cilostazol is likely a cost-saving or dominant strategy in patients with successful coronary bare metal stent implantation. Cilostazol may offer a low-cost alternative to restenosis prevention in patients who do not receive drug-eluting stents.
Zhang
Zefeng
Z
Christiana Care Health System, Newark, DE 19713, USA. zzhang@christianacare.org
Foster
Jovonne K
JK
Kolm
Paul
P
Jurkovitz
Claudine T
CT
Parker
Karen M
KM
Murrah
Nancy V
NV
Anderson
Grant T
GT
Douglas
John S
JS
Weintraub
William S
WS
D000328:Adult; D000077407:Cilostazol; D023903:Coronary Restenosis / Q000517:prevention & control*; D023921:Coronary Stenosis / Q000628:therapy*; D003362:Cost-Benefit Analysis; D004311:Double-Blind Method; D016527:Drug Costs; D017048:Health Care Costs; D006295:Health Resources / Q000706:statistics & numerical data*; D006801:Humans; D015337:Multicenter Studies as Topic; D010975:Platelet Aggregation Inhibitors / Q000191:economics / Q000627:therapeutic use*; D016032:Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; D015607:Stents; D013777:Tetrazoles / Q000191:economics / Q000627:therapeutic use*; D013997:Time Factors; D016896:Treatment Outcome
D010975:Platelet Aggregation Inhibitors; D013777:Tetrazoles; D000077407:Cilostazol