OBJECTIVE: To assess the cost effectiveness of aspirin 25 mg plus dipyridamole 200 mg twice daily in the secondary prevention of ischaemic stroke, according to the French social security perspective, using efficacy data from the second European Stroke Prevention Study (ESPS-2). The ESPS-2 was a double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial which assessed the efficacy of four secondary prevention strategies: (i) placebo; (ii) aspirin (acetylsalicylic acid) 25 mg twice daily; (iii) dipyridamole 200 mg twice daily; and (iv) aspirin 25 mg plus dipyridamole 200 mg twice daily. METHOD: We performed a cost-effectiveness analysis with Monte Carlo simulations to compute confidence intervals. We combined data from various sources including the Dijon Stroke Registry, Institut National de la Statistique et des Etudes Economiques, Etude du Coût de l'Infarctus Cérébral (Study of the Cost of Cerebral Infarction [ECIC]) study and the ESPS-2 trial. RESULTS: According to our findings, a preventive strategy with aspirin 25 mg plus dipyridamole 200 mg twice daily is associated with net benefits per avoided stroke recurrence amounting to USD 23,932 (95% CI -USD 32,609, USD 35,772) compared with aspirin 25 mg twice daily alone, and USD 31,555 (95% CI USD 4921, USD 74,515) compared with dipyridamole alone (1997 values). Sensitivity analysis demonstrated that dipyridamole plus aspirin was still cost effective when the average cost of adverse effects per episode (ignored in the original estimation of the cost-effectiveness ratios due to a lack of data) was assumed to be USD 8600 (50,000 French francs); this cost is unlikely as most of the adverse effects associated with aspirin plus dipyridamole are only slight to moderate in severity. CONCLUSIONS: In the secondary prevention of stroke in France, this study suggests, given its underlying assumptions and data, that aspirin 25 mg plus dipyridamole 200 mg twice daily is likely to be a cost-effective strategy from the social security perspective, when compared with other relevant strategies that were evaluated in the ESPS-2 trial.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: To assess the cost effectiveness of aspirin 25 mg plus dipyridamole 200 mg twice daily in the secondary prevention of ischaemic stroke, according to the French social security perspective, using efficacy data from the second European Stroke Prevention Study (ESPS-2). The ESPS-2 was a double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial which assessed the efficacy of four secondary prevention strategies: (i) placebo; (ii) aspirin (acetylsalicylic acid) 25 mg twice daily; (iii) dipyridamole 200 mg twice daily; and (iv) aspirin 25 mg plus dipyridamole 200 mg twice daily. METHOD: We performed a cost-effectiveness analysis with Monte Carlo simulations to compute confidence intervals. We combined data from various sources including the Dijon Stroke Registry, Institut National de la Statistique et des Etudes Economiques, Etude du Coût de l'Infarctus Cérébral (Study of the Cost of Cerebral Infarction [ECIC]) study and the ESPS-2 trial. RESULTS: According to our findings, a preventive strategy with aspirin 25 mg plus dipyridamole 200 mg twice daily is associated with net benefits per avoided stroke recurrence amounting to USD 23,932 (95% CI -USD 32,609, USD 35,772) compared with aspirin 25 mg twice daily alone, and USD 31,555 (95% CI USD 4921, USD 74,515) compared with dipyridamole alone (1997 values). Sensitivity analysis demonstrated that dipyridamole plus aspirin was still cost effective when the average cost of adverse effects per episode (ignored in the original estimation of the cost-effectiveness ratios due to a lack of data) was assumed to be USD 8600 (50,000 French francs); this cost is unlikely as most of the adverse effects associated with aspirin plus dipyridamole are only slight to moderate in severity. CONCLUSIONS: In the secondary prevention of stroke in France, this study suggests, given its underlying assumptions and data, that aspirin 25 mg plus dipyridamole 200 mg twice daily is likely to be a cost-effective strategy from the social security perspective, when compared with other relevant strategies that were evaluated in the ESPS-2 trial.
Authors: P F van Bergen; J J Jonker; B A van Hout; R T van Domburg; J W Deckers; A J Azar; A Hofman Journal: JAMA Date: 1995 Mar 22-29 Impact factor: 56.272