Valutazione farmacoeconomica della prevenzione con picotamide vs acido acetilsalicilico dei pazienti diabetici con vasculopatia periferica

Type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM) and peripheral arterial disease (PAD) are two very relevant cardiovascular (CV) risk factors, which can often be found concurrently in the same patient. The DAVID trial, a double-blind, randomized, aspirin(ASA)-controlled study, has demonstrated that the use of picotamide, a thromboxane A2 synthase and receptor dual inhibitor, is associated with lesser CV morbidity and mortality in this type of patients in comparison to ASA, considered the standard antiplatelet agent. In order to estimate clinical and economic impacts of picotamide in the Italian health care setting, we developed a pharmacoeconomic model based on clinical data from DAVID and national economic parameters and demographics. The base case scenario, which reflects current prices and reimbursement policy (i.e. ASA fully paid for, picotamide out-of-pocket for patients) yielded an incremental cost/effectiveness ratio (ICER) of about 8,500 euro/year of life (YOL) saved, which falls below conventionally adopted willingness to pay thresholds. This cost, however, is totally born by the patient, while the savings on health care expenditures for avoided events (and less ASA) benefit the national health service (NHS). These results may help the physician in explaining the consequences of this choice to his/her patients, facilitating a fully-informed choice. The availability of a theoretical model allowed to explore some alternative scenarios, that indicate that the ICER can be further lowered and the economical burden better distributed through policy changes. In conclusion, the pharmacoeconomic model indicated that picotamide is likely to be a cost/effective option for CV mortality and morbidity prevention in patients with concurrent type 2 DM and PAD and that the level of adoption of this strategy will depend on willingness to pay and policy priorities of the NHS and patients themselves