Gastroprotection in low-dose aspirin users for primary and secondary prevention of ACS: results of a cost-effectiveness analysis including compliance.

de Groot NL, van Haalen HG, Spiegel BM, Laine L, Lanas A, Focks JJ, Siersema PD, van Oijen MG. Gastroprotection in low-dose aspirin users for primary and secondary prevention of ACS: results of a cost-effectiveness analysis including compliance. Cardiovascular drugs and therapy / sponsored by the International Society of Cardiovascular Pharmacotherapy. 2013 Aug 1; 27(4):341-57.

Dimensions for VA is a web-based tool available to VA staff that enables detailed searches of published research and research projects.

If you have VA-Intranet access, click here for more information vaww.hsrd.research.va.gov/dimensions/

VA staff not currently on the VA network can access Dimensions by registering for an account using their VA email address.    Search Dimensions for VA for this citation
* Don't have VA-internal network access or a VA email address? Try searching the free-to-the-public version of Dimensions

Search for Abstract from PubMed

---

Abstract:

PURPOSE: Low-dose aspirin (ASA) increases the risk of upper gastrointestinal (GI) complications. Proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) reduce these upper GI side effects, yet patient compliance to PPIs is low. We determined the cost-effectiveness of gastroprotective strategies in low-dose ASA users considering ASA and PPI compliance. METHODS: Using a Markov model we compared four strategies: no medication, ASA monotherapy, ASA+PPI co-therapy and a fixed combination of ASA and PPI for primary and secondary prevention of ACS. The risk of acute coronary syndrome (ACS), upper GI bleeding and dyspepsia was modeled as a function of compliance and the relative risk of developing these events while using medication. Costs, quality adjusted life years and number of ACS events were evaluated, applying a variable risk of upper GI bleeding. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed. RESULTS: For our base case patients using ASA for primary prevention of ACS no medication was superior to ASA monotherapy. PPI co-therapy was cost-effective (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio [ICER] €10,314) compared to no medication. In secondary prevention, PPI co-therapy was cost-effective (ICER €563) while the fixed combination yielded an ICER < €20,000 only in a population with elevated risk for upper GI bleeding or moderate PPI compliance. PPI co-therapy had the highest probability to be cost-effective in all scenarios. PPI use lowered the overall number of ACS. CONCLUSIONS: Considering compliance, PPI co-therapy is likely to be cost-effective in patients taking low dose ASA for primary and secondary prevention of ACS, given low PPI prices. In secondary prevention, a fixed combination seems cost-effective in patients with elevated risk for upper GI bleeding or in those with moderate PPI compliance. Both strategies reduced the number of ACS compared to ASA monotherapy.