Aim
To estimate the cost effectiveness and cost utility ratios of a restrictive vs liberal transfusion strategy in acute myocardial infarction (AMI) patients with anemia.
Methods and Results
Patients (n = 666) with AMI and hemoglobin between 7-8 and 10 g/dL recruited in 35 hospitals in France and Spain were randomly assigned to a restrictive (n = 342) or a liberal (n = 324) transfusion strategy with 1-year prospective collection of resource utilization and quality of life using the EQ5D3L questionnaire. The economic evaluation was based upon 648 patients from the per-protocol population. The outcomes were 30-day and 1-year cost-effectiveness, with major adverse cardiovascular event averted (MACE) as the effectiveness outcome; and 1-year cost utility ratio.
The 30-day incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was €33,065€ saved per additional MACE averted with the restrictive versus the liberal strategy, with an 84% probability for the restrictive strategy to be cost-saving and MACE reducing (i.e.dominant). At 1-year, the point estimate of the cost-utility ratio was 191,500 € saved per QALY gained; however cumulated MACE were outside the pre-specified non-inferiority margin, resulting in a decremental cost effectiveness ratio with a point estimate of €72,000 saved per additional MACE with the restrictive strategy.
Conclusion
In patients with acute myocardial infarction and anemia, the restrictive transfusion strategy was dominant (cost-saving and outcome-improving) at 30 days. At 1 year, the restrictive strategy remained cost-saving but clinical noninferiority on MACE was no longer maintained.
TRIAL REGISTRATION ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02648113.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.