Search

Background The CULPRIT-SHOCK trial compared two treatment strategies for patients with acute myocardial infarction and multivessel coronary artery disease complicated by cardiogenic shock: (a) culprit vessel only percutaneous coronary intervention (CO-PCI), with additional staged revascularisation if indicated, and (b) immediate multivessel PCI (MV-PCI). Methods A German societal and national health service perspective was considered for three different analyses. The cost utility analysis (CUA) estimated costs and quality adjusted life years (QALYs) based on a pre-trial decision analytic model taking a lifelong time horizon. In addition, a within trial CUA estimated QALYs and costs for 1 year. Finally, the cost effectiveness analysis (CEA) used the composite primary outcome, mortality and renal failure at 30-day follow-up, and the within trial costs. Econometric and survival analysis on the trial data was used for the estimation of the model parameters. Subgroup analysis was performed following an economic protocol. Results The lifelong CUA showed an incremental cost effectiveness ratio (ICER), CO-PCI vs. MV-PCI, of €7010 per QALY and a probability of CO-PCI being the most cost-effective strategy > 64% at a €30,000 threshold. The ICER for the within trial CUA was €14,600 and the incremental cost per case of death/renal failure avoided at 30-day follow-up was €9010. Cost-effectiveness improved with patient age and for those without diabetes. Conclusions The estimates of cost-effectiveness for CO-PCI vs. MV-PCI have been shown to change depending on the time horizon and type of economic evaluation performed. The results favoured a long-term horizon analysis for avoiding underestimation of QALY gains from the CO-PCI arm.

IntroductionEmergency 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 analysisThe 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 disseminationEthical 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 atwww.twitter.comandwww.researchgate.net.Trial registration numberNCT01927549; Pre-results.

We present data of a contingent valuation survey, testing the effect of evaluation mode on the monetary valuation of preventing road accidents. Half of the interviewees was asked to state their willingness to pay (WTP) to reduce the risk of having only 1 type of injury (separate evaluation, SE), and the other half of the sample was asked to state their WTP for 4 types of injuries evaluated simultaneously (joint evaluation, JE). In the SE group, we observed lack of sensitivity to scope while in the JE group WTP increased with the severity of the injury prevented. However, WTP values in this group were subject to context effects. Our results suggest that the traditional explanation of the disparity between SE and JE, namely, the so-called "evaluability," does not apply here. The paper presents new explanations based on the role of preference imprecision.

We analyze data of a Spanish nationally-representative survey where subjects reported their willingness to pay (WTP) for road safety improvements, specifically they hypothetically paid for a reduction of the risk of a road fatality and several injuries. Respondents also reported their current income (CI) and permanent income (PI). The latter refers to their normal income once they considered various stages of low/high earnings throughout their entire lives. Consequently, we define relative income as the comparison of CI with respect to PI. Three income frames are generated as explanatory variables: gain (with CIPI); neutral (with CI=PI); and loss scenario (with CIPI). Surprisingly, we find that conditional on current income, and on a set of characteristics, those respondents in gain frame reported higher WTP than those in neutral and loss scenario. Further analysis shows that the income frames effect is higher and more significant for the older half-sample (45), being about three or four times higher than for the younger subset. Possible interpretations of the role of PI as a reference point are considered given the results. A reference-dependent utility function of income, where PI is the reference point, is proposed to describe the monetary valuation of safety within the theoretical framework previously developed in the safety economics literature.