The Appraisal Committee considered evidence from a number of sources.
Four randomised controlled trials (RCTs) were identified by the Assessment Group. Two of these were included in the previous NICE technology appraisal guidance 90 (CAPRIE and ESPS-2) and 2 were published later (ESPRIT and PRoFESS). The RCTs were considered by the Assessment Group to be of good quality. Three of the trials were double blind and 1 was an open-label study (ESPRIT).
CAPRIE (n=19,185) compared clopidogrel with aspirin and ESPRIT (n=2,736) compared modified-release dipyridamole plus aspirin with aspirin. ESPS-2 (n=6,602) had 4 groups and compared modified-release dipyridamole with modified-release dipyridamole plus aspirin, and with aspirin and with placebo. PRoFESS (n=20,332) made a head-to-head comparison of clopidogrel and modified-release dipyridamole plus aspirin. A wide range of dosages of aspirin were used in the trials.
All the trials included people who had experienced an ischaemic stroke and 2 trials included people who had experienced a transient ischaemic attack (ESPS-2 and ESPRIT). CAPRIE was the only trial to include people who had a prior myocardial infarction or who had peripheral arterial disease. The mean length of follow-up in the trials was between 1.91 and 3.5 years. The CAPRIE and ESPRIT trials each used composite endpoints of first occurrence of ischaemic stroke, myocardial infarction, or vascular death (CAPRIE); and first occurrence of death from all vascular causes, non-fatal stroke, non-fatal myocardial infarction, or major bleeding complication (ESPRIT). In the ESPS-2 trial, 3 discrete primary endpoints were reported: stroke, all-cause death, and stroke and/or all-cause death. The PRoFESS trial had a single primary endpoint of recurrent stroke.
The ESPS-2 trial compared modified-release dipyridamole with aspirin. The study reported no statistically significant differences in risk reduction for the primary outcomes of stroke (relative risk [RR] 1.02; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.85 to 1.22), stroke and/or all-cause death (RR 0.97; 95% CI 0.85 to 1.11), and all-cause death (RR 1.03; 95% CI 0.85 to 1.25). Additionally, no statistically significant differences were reported for secondary outcomes.
Two trials (ESPS-2 and ESPRIT) compared modified-release dipyridamole plus aspirin with aspirin.
In the ESPS-2 trial, people receiving modified-release dipyridamole plus aspirin had a reduced risk of stroke (RR 0.76; 95% CI 0.63 to 0.93) compared with the aspirin group. The other primary outcomes in this study did not report statistically significant results for stroke and/or all-cause death (RR 0.87; 95% CI 0.75 to 1.00) and all-cause death (RR 1.02; 95% CI 0.84 to 1.23). For the secondary outcomes, statistically significant results favouring the group receiving modified-release dipyridamole plus aspirin were reported for stroke or transient ischaemic attack (RR 0.80; 95% CI 0.70 to 0.92), other vascular events (RR 0.55; 95% CI 0.33 to 0.94), ischaemic events (RR 0.77; 95% CI 0.65 to 0.92) and vascular events (RR 0.78; 95% CI 0.67 to 0.91). For other outcomes, no statistically significant differences were reported between the treatments.
The ESPRIT trial reported a statistically significant result for the primary outcome (that is, first occurrence of non-fatal stroke, non-fatal myocardial infarction, major bleeding complication or death from all vascular causes), favouring people receiving modified-release dipyridamole plus aspirin (hazard ratio [HR] 0.80; 95%CI 0.66 to 0.98). For the secondary outcomes, statistically significant results were reported for death from all vascular causes and non-fatal stroke (HR 0.78; 95% CI 0.62 to 0.97) and all vascular events (HR 0.78; 95% CI 0.63 to 0.97). For other outcomes, no statistically significant differences were reported between the treatments.
In the ESPS-2 trial, modified-release dipyridamole plus aspirin compared with modified-release dipyridamole alone reduced the risk of stroke (RR 0.75; 95% CI 0.61 to 0.91). The other primary outcomes in this study did not report statistically significant results. These were stroke and/or all-cause death (RR 0.89; 95% CI 0.77 to 1.03) and all-cause death (RR 0.99; 95% CI 0.81 to 1.19). For the secondary outcomes, statistically significant results were reported for transient ischaemic attack (RR 0.80; 95% CI 0.66 to 0.97), ischaemic events (RR 0.76; 95% CI 0.64 to 0.90) and vascular events (RR 0.76; 95% CI 0.65 to 0.89). For other outcomes, no statistically significant differences were reported between the treatments.
The CAPRIE trial compared clopidogrel with aspirin. For the primary outcome, the trial reported that clopidogrel compared with aspirin reduced the risk of a first occurrence of ischaemic stroke, myocardial infarction or vascular death in 2 groups. These were the 'all patients' group (8.7% relative risk reduction; 95% CI 0.3 to 16.5) and a subgroup of people with peripheral arterial disease (23.8% relative risk reduction; 95% CI 8.9 to 36.2). No risk reduction was seen between treatments in subgroups defined by prior stroke (7.3% relative risk reduction; 95% CI -5.7 to 18.7) or by prior experience of a myocardial infarction (-3.7% relative risk reduction; 95% CI -22.1 to 12). For other outcomes, no statistically significant differences were reported between the treatments.
Data from the CAPRIE trial also allowed for a post-hoc subgroup analysis of data for people with multivascular disease (defined by the Assessment Group as people with experience of at least 2 of the following conditions: ischaemic stroke, myocardial infarction and symptomatic peripheral arterial disease). The analysis suggested that clopidogrel (compared with aspirin) reduced the risk of a first occurrence of ischaemic stroke, myocardial infarction or vascular death (14.9% relative risk reduction; 95% CI 0.3 to 27.3, p=0.045).
The PRoFESS trial investigated the non-inferiority of modified-release dipyridamole plus aspirin compared with clopidogrel. The trial reported no statistically significant difference in the primary outcome of recurrent stroke of any type (HR 1.01; 95% CI 0.92 to 1.11). For the secondary outcomes, there was a statistically significant reduction in the risk of events in the modified-release dipyridamole group compared with the clopidogrel group for new or worsening congestive heart failure (HR 0.78; 95% CI 0.62 to 0.96) and a statistically significant increase in the risk of events in the modified-release dipyridamole group compared with the clopidogrel group for intracranial haemorrhage (HR 1.42; 95% CI 1.11 to 1.83).
The Assessment Group completed an indirect comparison that compared clopidogrel, modified- release dipyridamole plus aspirin, modified-release dipyridamole alone and aspirin using data from the 4 RCTs. Comparisons were made in a population of people with a history of ischaemic stroke or transient ischaemic attack.
The Assessment Group reported that the results from the mixed treatment comparison showed no statistical difference between the pairs of drug interventions, except for the outcomes of 'any recurrent stroke' and major bleeding. Compared with people assigned to treatment with aspirin, there was evidence of a risk reduction for 'any recurrent stroke' in people taking either clopidogrel (RR 0.75; 95% CI 0.60 to 0.93) or modified-release dipyridamole plus aspirin (RR 0.76; 95% CI 0.62 to 0.92). People treated with modified-release dipyridamole alone were at statistically significant higher risk of 'any recurrent stroke' than people treated with either clopidogrel or modified-release dipyridamole plus aspirin. The direct and indirect evidence was consistent.
The Bristol-Myers Squibb and Sanofi-Aventis model estimated the cost effectiveness of 4 treatments for the secondary prevention of occlusive vascular events. These treatments were aspirin, clopidogrel, modified-release dipyridamole plus aspirin and modified-release dipyridamole alone. In line with the licensed indications for the products, all 4 treatments were compared for use in people with a prior ischaemic stroke. In people with a history of myocardial infarction, peripheral arterial disease or multivascular disease, clopidogrel was compared with aspirin.
The manufacturers submitted a Markov model that comprised 6 health states: no event in model, history of stroke, history of myocardial infarction, TA80 state (an intermediate state reflecting the previous NICE technology appraisal guidance 80 [now replaced by NICE's guideline on acute coronary syndromes], which recommended clopidogrel plus aspirin for up to 12 months after an NSTEMI event), history of stroke and myocardial infarction, and death (split into vascular and non-vascular death). People entering the model could remain stable, have a myocardial infarction or stroke, or die. The modelled patient population was aged 65 years. The model was run with 3-month cycles for 35 years. The perspective adopted was that of the UK NHS in line with the NICE reference case. Costs and utility values were discounted at a rate of 3.5%.
Each patient population was modelled in the same way, with the exception that the baseline risks of vascular events differed by cohort (ischaemic stroke, myocardial infarction, peripheral arterial disease and multivascular disease). Event rates were different for years 1, 2 and 3 of the model. Event rates in year 3 were used to inform the model from year 3 onwards. Relative treatment effects for clopidogrel, modified-release dipyridamole and modified-release dipyridamole plus aspirin were based on either direct evidence or indirect evidence, using a network meta-analysis. The non-treatment costs used in the model were based on information from published burden of illness studies. Treatment costs were sourced from MIMS. All costs were inflated to 2007 to 2008 prices, if necessary. The model included the branded price of clopidogrel. Utility values were derived from the published literature and were between 0.61 and 0.87. A disutility associated with adverse events of between −0.3 and −0.001 was also applied in the model.
In people who have had an ischaemic stroke, modified-release dipyridamole plus aspirin was associated with an additional cost of £107 and an additional quality-adjusted life year (QALY) of 0.45, producing an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of £237 per QALY gained compared with aspirin. Clopidogrel was associated with an additional cost of £2,324 and an additional QALY of 0.07, producing an ICER of £31,204 per QALY gained compared with aspirin. Clopidogrel was associated with greater costs and fewer QALYs than modified-release dipyridamole plus aspirin.
In people who have had a myocardial infarction, clopidogrel was associated with an additional cost of £2,643 and an additional QALY of 0.13, producing an ICER of £20,662 per QALY gained compared with aspirin. For people with peripheral arterial disease, clopidogrel was associated with an additional cost of £2,470 and an additional QALY of 0.13, producing an ICER of £18,854 per QALY gained compared with aspirin. For people with multivascular disease, clopidogrel was associated with an additional cost of £1,805 and an additional QALY of 0.12, producing an ICER of £15,524 per QALY gained compared with aspirin.
The Boehringer Ingelheim model estimated the cost effectiveness of modified-release dipyridamole plus aspirin compared with aspirin, clopidogrel and no treatment. The manufacturer did not estimate the cost effectiveness of modified-release dipyridamole alone, because no new trial data were available for this treatment since NICE technology appraisal guidance 90. Separate analyses were conducted for people who have had an ischaemic stroke, and for people who have had a transient ischaemic attack. Only people tolerant to aspirin were considered in the analysis.
The manufacturer submitted a Markov model based on the Assessment Group model from NICE technology appraisal guidance 90. The model had 5 health states: no recurrent stroke, haemorrhagic stroke, recurrent ischaemic stroke, vascular death and non-vascular death. People entered the model at the 'no recurrent stroke' state and after each cycle of 6 months could move to any of the other 4 states, or remain in the current state. After each cycle, transitions could occur to the other states.
The baseline age in the model was 66 years, with a time horizon of 50 years. The perspective adopted was that of the NHS and personal social services. Transition probabilities between the states in the model for the first 4 years were taken from the PRoFESS, ESPRIT and ESPS-2 trials. Different transition probabilities were calculated for each 6-month period over the 4 years. Transition probabilities in subsequent years for the stroke states were based on the final 6-month period of the 4 years. Transition probabilities to death were estimated based on a factor of 1.5 applied to Office for National Statistics death rate data for the general population.
Costs of stroke events were calculated from the literature and varied according to disabled or non-disabled status. Costs of hospital stay following congestive heart failure and other haemorrhagic events were sourced from the 2006 to 2007 National Reference Costs. Drug acquisition costs were based on branded drug costs for modified-release dipyridamole and aspirin, and clopidogrel, and on the generic price for aspirin (2009 prices). Utility data from the PRoFESS trial at 1 year were used, which was provided as commercial in confidence. A short-term disutility associated with different events was also included in the model. Costs and utility values were discounted at a rate of 3.5% per year.
In people who have had an ischaemic stroke, treatment with modified-release dipyridamole plus aspirin was associated with an additional cost of £704, and 0.131 additional QALYs per person with a corresponding ICER of £5,377 per QALY gained, compared with aspirin. Treatment with clopidogrel compared with modified-release dipyridamole plus aspirin was associated with additional costs of £1,808 and 0.015 additional QALYs per person with an ICER of £114,628 per QALY gained. The results were similar in people who have had a transient ischaemic attack. In this population, treatment with modified-release dipyridamole plus aspirin compared with aspirin was associated with an additional cost of £732 and 0.121 additional QALYs per person with an ICER of £6,053 per QALY gained. The manufacturer reported that its model suggested that at a cost-effectiveness threshold of £20,000 per QALY gained, modified-release dipyridamole plus aspirin would no longer be cost effective compared with clopidogrel if the price of generic clopidogrel reduced to approximately 50% of that of branded clopidogrel.
The Assessment Group developed an individual patient sampling model, in which a series of individual profiles were generated whose combined characteristics were representative of the specified population. Analyses were split by population: ischaemic stroke, myocardial infarction, peripheral arterial disease and multivascular disease. The ischaemic stroke and transient ischaemic attack populations were assumed to be equivalent in risk and outcomes and so were modelled together. Within the myocardial infarction group, treatment strategies as described in NICE's previous guidelines on STEMI and NSTEMI (now replaced by NICE's guideline on acute coronary syndromes) were modelled initially. Once initial treatment was completed according to the guidelines, potential treatment strategies for this appraisal were considered as follow-on treatment.
The Assessment Group presented different treatment strategies, depending on the population and intolerances. The Assessment Group considered that this approach reflected the real world, because people may switch between different treatments. For each person in the model, age, sex and disability status was set. According to these variables, estimates of time to first event were applied. These events determined the event history of the person and included a fatal or new non-fatal ischaemic stroke event, a fatal or new non-fatal non-ischaemic stroke event, a fatal or new non-fatal myocardial infarction, death from other vascular causes, death from non-vascular causes and person discontinues current preventive medication for any reason. Only 1 event could occur at any 1 time. If the event was non-fatal then the person continued in the model, with an updated age, sex and disability status and updated risks, with the potential to incur additional events over time, moving through the model over a lifetime. Each person was modelled in the same way. Data provided by the manufacturers from the CAPRIE and PRoFESS trials were used to develop risk models for the economic model and to work out event fatality. An exponential survival function was used to model medication continuance over time. Adverse events were incorporated into the model.
Resource use was measured in terms of clinical events and time spent in chronic states, and differed by disability status. Drug costs were taken from the BNF58 and from the NHS Drug Tariff (January 2010) for generic clopidogrel, which at that point reported that the price of 30 tablets was £10.90. Unit costs were drawn from various sources, including the manufacturers' submissions, and inflated if necessary to 2009. The costs were £6,410 for non-fatal ischaemic or haemorrhagic stroke if the person was not disabled and £13,647 if they were disabled, £8,768 for fatal ischaemic or haemorrhagic stroke, £5,762 for non-fatal myocardial infarction, £2,218 for fatal myocardial infarction and £2,225 for other vascular or non-vascular death.
Utility values were also drawn from a variety of sources, including the manufacturers' submissions and additional analyses requested from the manufacturer. Mean utility values were assigned to each chronic health state and a specific utility decrement effect was applied for each modelled event. Utility values for the myocardial infarction and peripheral arterial disease groups were 0.87 and 0.80 respectively. Utility values for the ischaemic stroke group and all utility decrements were taken from the Boehringer Ingelheim submission. Discounting at 3.5% was applied to costs and benefits after the first year. A lifetime horizon was used.
Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted to explore the impact of uncertainty on the cost-effectiveness estimates.
For people who have had an ischaemic stroke or transient ischaemic attack, when the branded price for clopidogrel was used, the Assessment Group reported that the optimal treatment strategy was modified-release dipyridamole plus aspirin, followed by aspirin and finally clopidogrel. This produced an ICER of £16,894 per QALY gained and incremental costs of £354 and 0.021 QALYs compared with treatment with the next best strategy of modified-release dipyridamole plus aspirin, followed by aspirin.
When the generic price for clopidogrel was used, the optimal treatment strategy changed so that it began with clopidogrel, followed by modified-release dipyridamole plus aspirin and finally aspirin. This produced an ICER of £13,558 per QALY gained, compared with the next best strategy of clopidogrel, followed by aspirin, followed by modified-release dipyridamole plus aspirin. This strategy was associated with an additional cost of £334 and 0.024 additional QALYs.
For people with intolerance to aspirin, clopidogrel followed by modified-release dipyridamole was the optimal treatment strategy with an ICER of £7,142 per QALY gained compared with treatment with clopidogrel alone. This strategy was associated with an additional cost of £616 and 0.086 additional QALYs. It could be calculated from the data that for people with intolerance to aspirin and clopidogrel or for whom clopidogrel was not licensed, the optimal treatment strategy was modified-release dipyridamole alone with an ICER of £314 per QALY gained compared with no preventive treatment. This strategy was associated with an additional cost of £167 and 0.531 additional QALYs.
For people with intolerance to modified-release dipyridamole, the optimal treatment strategy depended on the price of clopidogrel. At the branded price, the preferred strategy was aspirin followed by clopidogrel with an ICER of £6,797 per QALY gained, compared with clopidogrel alone. This strategy was associated with an additional cost of £628 and 0.092 additional QALYs. At the generic price, the optimal strategy was clopidogrel followed by aspirin, compared with aspirin followed by clopidogrel, with an ICER of £3,970 per QALY gained, an additional cost of £224 and 0.056 additional QALYs. For people with intolerance to both aspirin and modified-release dipyridamole, only clopidogrel is available for long-term prevention. It was considered optimal by the Assessment Group compared with no preventive therapy, with an ICER of £275 per QALY gained. This strategy was associated with an additional cost of £163 and 0.591 additional QALYs.
From the Assessment Group's analysis of the ischaemic stroke data, the ICERs could be calculated for people with intolerance to clopidogrel or for whom treatment with clopidogrel is not licensed, such as people who have had a transient ischaemic attack. Treatment with modified-release dipyridamole plus aspirin followed by aspirin had an ICER of £9,145 per QALY gained, compared with treatment with aspirin followed by modified-release dipyridamole. This strategy was associated with an additional cost of £567 and 0.062 additional QALYs.
The Assessment Group reported that for people who have had a myocardial infarction the optimal treatment strategies were the same regardless of the price of clopidogrel. Aspirin followed by clopidogrel, compared with aspirin alone, was the optimal strategy for this population, with an ICER of £1,964 per QALY gained (using the price of generic clopidogrel) and a difference in costs of £185 and QALYs of 0.094. For people with intolerance to aspirin, treatment with clopidogrel was likely to be the optimal treatment, compared with no preventive therapy, with an ICER of £2,020 per QALY gained (using the price of generic clopidogrel) and a difference in cost of £468 and 0.232 additional QALYs.
After consultation on the appraisal consultation document, the Assessment Group provided a reanalysis of the data for people who have had a myocardial infarction. This analysis used a price of clopidogrel of £5.13, reflecting the NHS tariff price for August 2010. The results showed that the lower price had no effect on the optimal treatment strategy: aspirin followed by clopidogrel remained the optimal treatment strategy.
The Assessment Group reported that for people with peripheral arterial disease the optimal treatment strategies were the same regardless of the price of clopidogrel. Clopidogrel followed by aspirin was the optimal strategy for this group, with an ICER of £2,815 per QALY gained. It was associated with an additional cost of £983 and an additional 0.349 QALYs compared with treatment with aspirin alone followed by treatment with clopidogrel. In people with intolerance to aspirin, clopidogrel alone was the optimal treatment strategy. Compared with no preventive therapy, clopidogrel gave an additional 0.773 QALYs at a cost of £557, with an ICER of £721 per QALY gained.
The Assessment Group reported that for people with multivascular disease the optimal treatment strategies were the same regardless of the price of clopidogrel. Clopidogrel followed by aspirin was the optimal strategy for this group, compared with aspirin followed by clopidogrel. For the optimal strategy, treatment was associated with an ICER of £2,604 per QALY gained, and incremental costs of £595 and incremental QALYs of 0.228. In people with intolerance to aspirin, clopidogrel alone was the optimal treatment strategy and was associated with lower total costs of -£548 compared with no preventive therapy, 0.723 additional QALYS and a corresponding ICER of -£758 per QALY gained.
The Appraisal Committee reviewed the data available on the clinical and cost effectiveness of clopidogrel and modified-release dipyridamole, having considered evidence on the nature of occlusive vascular events and peripheral arterial disease and the value placed on the benefits of clopidogrel and modified-release dipyridamole by people who have had an occlusive vascular event or are at risk of one, those who represent them, and clinical specialists. It also took into account the effective use of NHS resources.
The Committee discussed current clinical management for the prevention of occlusive vascular events. The Committee heard from clinical specialists that they would value clear, straightforward guidance so that treatment could be started at the earliest possible point, when the risk of recurrent events is highest. Patient experts explained that treatment with clopidogrel or modified-release dipyridamole plus aspirin was an important part of treatment for the prevention of occlusive vascular events but is just 1 part of a wider programme of management involving both pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatment. The Committee heard from the patient experts that people are often on a number of treatments and would value a reduction in the number of tablets that need to be taken. The Committee heard from the patient experts that they considered that clopidogrel had fewer severe side effects than aspirin or modified-release dipyridamole. The Committee recognised that antiplatelet therapy such as clopidogrel and modified-release dipyridamole was 1 part of clinical management and that people valued treatments with ease of administration and few side effects.
The Committee discussed the results of the ESPRIT and PRoFESS trials, which became available after the publication of NICE technology appraisal guidance 90. The Committee noted that these trials included people who have had an ischaemic stroke or a transient ischaemic attack and there was no new evidence for people with peripheral arterial disease or for people who have had a myocardial infarction. The Committee discussed the results of the PRoFESS trial and considered that it had not shown that clopidogrel provided greater benefits than modified-release dipyridamole plus aspirin. But the Committee also considered that the trial had not shown that modified-release dipyridamole plus aspirin provided greater benefits than clopidogrel. The Committee noted comments made in the consultation on the appraisal consultation document about the exclusion of the MATCH and CHARISMA trials, but considered that these trials studied a combination of clopidogrel plus aspirin that was outside the scope of this appraisal. Likewise, it noted comments made about the EARLY trial that compared early and standard initiation of treatment, but considered that this had been appropriately excluded from the Assessment Group's review. The Committee concluded that the data published after NICE technology appraisal guidance 90 supported the conclusions in that guidance.
The Committee specifically discussed the duration of follow-up in the ESPRIT and PRoFESS trials, recognising that in NICE technology appraisal guidance 90 the evidence was limited to 2 years' follow-up. It noted that the ESPRIT trial had a mean follow-up of 3.5 years and the PRoFESS trial had a mean follow-up of 2.5 years. The Committee heard from the clinical specialists that in clinical practice the length of time people stayed on treatment varied, but it could be longer than 2 years. The clinical specialists discussed evidence from the ESPRIT trial that showed that Kaplan-Meier curves by treatment group continued to diverge over time. While the clinical specialists recognised that the study and its results have limitations, they considered that this provided evidence of a continued treatment effect beyond the 2 years used in NICE technology appraisal guidance 90. The Committee was persuaded that it was appropriate to examine the Assessment Group's analyses of cost effectiveness without specifying a limit on the duration of treatment.
The Committee considered the subgroup of people with multivascular disease. It noted that there is a range of definitions of multivascular disease, but heard from the clinical specialists that identifying the subgroup of people with multivascular disease was important and clinically meaningful. The Committee discussed the post-hoc analyses from the CAPRIE trial that suggested that this group is at high risk of occlusive vascular events and may need more intensive treatment. The Committee was aware of the limitations of post-hoc analyses but noted that the subgroups were based on large numbers of people. On balance, it considered multivascular disease to be appropriate to consider in the cost-effectiveness analysis.
The Committee recognised that after the publication of NICE technology appraisal guidance 90, clopidogrel became available in a number of generic preparations. The Assessment Group's analyses used both the branded and generic prices. The Committee was aware that after the assessment report was written the price of clopidogrel was reduced further from approximately £10 to approximately £5 per month. It noted that this would affect the cost-effectiveness results, because treatment with generic clopidogrel would cost less than previously stated. The Committee considered that it was appropriate to take account of the generic price of clopidogrel in its considerations and that any treatment with clopidogrel should use the least costly licensed preparation.
The Committee discussed the cost-effectiveness results from the 2 manufacturers' models. The Committee considered the Boehringer Ingelheim model, which reported that in people who have had an ischaemic stroke or a transient ischaemic attack, treatment with modified-release dipyridamole plus aspirin was cost effective compared with aspirin, with ICERs of around £5,400 and £6,100 per QALY gained, respectively. The Committee considered the Bristol-Myers Squibb and Sanofi-Aventis model, which found that in people who have had an ischaemic stroke, treatment with modified-release dipyridamole plus aspirin was cost effective with an ICER of around £240 per QALY gained compared with aspirin. In people who have had a myocardial infarction, or who have peripheral arterial disease and for people with multivascular disease, the ICERs were all below £21,000 per QALY gained, compared with aspirin. The Committee discussed the limitations of the models, noting that in the submissions neither model used the generic price of clopidogrel. However, the Committee was aware that the manufacturer of modified-release dipyridamole had commented that at a cost-effectiveness threshold of £20,000 per QALY gained, if the price of generic clopidogrel was about 50% of that of branded clopidogrel, modified-release dipyridamole plus aspirin would no longer be cost effective compared with clopidogrel. Furthermore, the Committee was aware of comments in response to consultation on the Assessment Report from the manufacturer of clopidogrel that for people who have had an ischaemic stroke, using a price of £10.90 for clopidogrel produced an ICER of under £500 per QALY gained for clopidogrel in comparison with modified-release dipyridamole.
The Committee discussed the results of the Assessment Group's model for the subgroup of people with peripheral arterial disease. It noted that a treatment strategy of clopidogrel followed by aspirin had an ICER of around £2,800 per QALY gained, compared with aspirin alone. For people with intolerance to aspirin, treatment with clopidogrel had an ICER of around £720 per QALY gained compared with no preventive therapy. The Committee considered that for people with peripheral arterial disease clopidogrel was a cost-effective use of NHS resources.
The Committee discussed the results of the Assessment Group's model for the subgroup of people with multivascular disease. It noted that a treatment strategy of clopidogrel followed by aspirin had an ICER of around £2,600 per QALY gained, compared with aspirin alone. In people with intolerance to aspirin, clopidogrel was a cost-saving strategy, costing less and producing more benefits than no preventive therapy. The Committee considered that for people with multivascular disease clopidogrel was a cost-effective use of NHS resources.
The Committee discussed the results of the Assessment Group's model for the subgroup of people who have had a myocardial infarction. It recognised that the model had incorporated NICE's previous guidelines on the use of clopidogrel plus aspirin for treating STEMI and NSTEMI (now replaced by NICE's guideline on acute coronary syndromes), and modelled the use of clopidogrel monotherapy after its use as a combination therapy for acute coronary syndromes. The treatment strategy of aspirin followed by clopidogrel had an ICER of £2,000 per QALY gained, compared with aspirin alone. A treatment strategy of clopidogrel followed by aspirin was associated with greater costs and fewer QALYs than starting with aspirin. In people with intolerance to aspirin, clopidogrel had an ICER of £2,000 per QALY gained compared with no preventive therapy. The Committee discussed the re-analysis provided by the Assessment Group after the consultation on the appraisal consultation document, which showed that the further reduction of the price of clopidogrel to £5.13 (the price in July 2010) had no effect on the optimal treatment strategy. The Committee concluded that for people who have had a myocardial infarction, when treatment with combined clopidogrel and aspirin therapy is no longer appropriate, clopidogrel was a cost-effective use of NHS resources only for people who have a contraindication to aspirin or intolerance to it.
The Committee discussed the results of the Assessment Group's model for people who have had an ischaemic stroke. The Committee noted that the optimal treatment strategy changed depending on whether the branded or generic price of clopidogrel was used. When the generic price of clopidogrel was used, the Assessment Group model found that clopidogrel followed by modified-release dipyridamole plus aspirin and then aspirin alone had an ICER of £13,600 per QALY gained, compared with clopidogrel followed by aspirin, followed by modified-release dipyridamole plus aspirin. In people with intolerance to modified-release dipyridamole, clopidogrel followed by aspirin had an ICER of £4,000 per QALY gained compared with aspirin alone. In people with intolerance to aspirin, clopidogrel followed by modified-release dipyridamole alone had an ICER of £7,100 per QALY gained, compared with treatment with clopidogrel alone. For people who had intolerance to clopidogrel and aspirin, treatment with modified-release dipyridamole alone had an ICER of £314 per QALY gained in comparison with no preventive treatment. The Committee recognised that the differences in the total costs and QALYs for the different treatment strategies each including clopidogrel, modified-release dipyridamole plus aspirin and aspirin were small. However, it noted that these were consistent in all analyses, and with a further reduction in the price of clopidogrel the differences in costs would be larger. The Committee concluded that using clopidogrel at the generic price was a cost-effective use of NHS resources. Modified-release dipyridamole plus aspirin was a cost-effective use of NHS resources only when it was used for people who had a contraindication or intolerance to clopidogrel. Modified-release dipyridamole alone was a cost-effective use of NHS resources only when it was used in people who had a contraindication or intolerance to aspirin and clopidogrel.
The Committee heard from the clinical specialists that people who have had a transient ischaemic attack are sometimes treated with clopidogrel. However, the Committee recognised that recommendations could not be made for the use of clopidogrel for people who have had a transient ischaemic attack because clopidogrel is not licensed for this indication. For people who have had a transient ischaemic attack, treatment with modified-release dipyridamole plus aspirin followed by aspirin had an ICER of £9,100 per QALY gained compared with treatment with aspirin alone. For people who had intolerance to aspirin, treatment with modified-release dipyridamole alone had an ICER of £314 per QALY gained in comparison with no preventive treatment. The Committee considered that for people who have had a transient ischaemic attack, treatment with modified-release dipyridamole plus aspirin could be considered a cost-effective use of NHS resources. Modified-release dipyridamole alone was considered to be a cost-effective use of NHS resources for people who have had a transient ischaemic attack only if aspirin is contraindicated or not tolerated.