G. Scott et Hm. Scott, APPLICATION OF THE FINDINGS OF THE EUROPEAN-STROKE-PREVENTION-STUDY-2(ESPS-2) TO A NEW-ZEALAND ISCHEMIC STROKE COST-ANALYSIS, PharmacoEconomics, 12(6), 1997, pp. 667-674
The aim of this study was to apply the findings of the European Stroke
Prevention Study 2 (ESPS-2) to a paper that quantified and described
the annual cost of ischaemic stroke in New Zealand, and to compare the
cost of alternative drug regimens in the secondary prevention of isch
aemic stroke. Comparisons were made between the costs of low-dosage as
pirin (acetylsalicylic acid) monotherapy and a combination of modified
-release dipyridamole and low-dosage aspirin. Differences in undiscoun
ted costs were calculated over a 2-year period. The New Zealand cost p
er stroke event was multiplied by the ESPS-2 incremental reduction in
stroke events to derive the cost of strokes avoided. As the focus of t
he paper was on direct medical costs, the primary perspective adopted
was that of a healthcare provider or funder, but a societal perspectiv
e was also considered by evaluation of direct nonmedical and indirect
costs. Compared with aspirin monotherapy, combination therapy generate
d incremental net direct costs of 18.22 New Zealand dollars ($NZ) per
patient or $NZ18 223 per 1000 patients. However, individually, each tr
eatment regimen resulted in direct cost savings when compared with pla
cebo: combination therapy $NZ905.16 per patient; aspirin monotherapy $
NZ923.39 per patient (a difference between the 2 regimens of $NZ18.22
per patient). Total direct and indirect incremental cost savings were
$NZ40.96 per patient, and $NZ40 963 per 1000 patients, for the combina
tion therapy. The analysis demonstrates that changing patients from lo
w-dosage aspirin to a combination therapy of modified-release dipyrida
mole plus low-dosage aspirin would result in a small rise in increment
al direct costs (using our conservative assumptions relating to hospit
al and continuing institutional care costs). If less conservative unit
cost assumptions were adopted, a more likely outcome would be a savin
g in direct incremental costs of up to $NZ400 per patient treated.