A systematic review and economic evaluation of cilostazol, naftidrofuryl oxalate, pentoxifylline and inositol nicotinate for the treatment of intermittent claudication in people with peripheral arterial disease
Authors: Squires H, Simpson E, Meng Y, Harnan S, Stevens J, Wong R, Thomas S, Michaels J, Stansby G
Journal: Health Technology Assessment Volume: 15 Issue: 40
Publication date: December 2011
A systematic review and economic evaluation of cilostazol, naftidrofuryl oxalate, pentoxifylline and inositol nicotinate for the treatment of intermittent claudication in people with peripheral arterial disease. Health Technol Assess 2011;15(40)
Download: Citation (for this publication as a .ris file) (4.5 KB)
Journal issues* can be purchased by completing the form.
The cost of reports varies according to number of pages and postage address. The minimum cost for a copy sent to a UK address is £30.00. We will contact you on receipt of your completed form to advise you of actual cost. If you have any queries, please contact firstname.lastname@example.org.
*We regret that unfortunately we are unable to supply bound print copies of Health Technology Assessment published before issue 12:31. However, PDFs are available to print from the "Downloads" tab of the issue page.
Peripheral arterial disease (PAD) is a condition in which there is blockage or narrowing of the arteries that carry blood to the legs and arms. It is estimated to affect around 4.5% of people aged between 55 and 74 years within the UK. The most common symptom of PAD is intermittent claudication (IC), characterised by pain in the legs on walking that is relieved with rest.
To assess the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of cilostazol, naftidrofuryl oxalate, pentoxifylline and inositol nicotinate, compared with no vasoactive drugs, for IC due to PAD in adults whose symptoms continue despite a period of conventional management.
Electronic bibliographic databases were searched during April to June 2010 (MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, EMBASE, The Cochrane Library databases, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Web of Science, Conference Proceedings Citation Index, BIOSIS Previews).
Effectiveness outcomes sought were maximal walking distance (MWD), pain-free walking distance (PFWD), ankle-brachial pressure index, cardiovascular events, mortality, adverse events (AEs) and health-related quality of life (HRQoL). A narrative synthesis was provided for all outcomes and a network meta-analysis was undertaken for the walking distance outcomes. A Markov model was developed to assess the relative cost-effectiveness of the interventions from a NHS perspective over a lifetime. The model has three states: vasoactive drug treatment, no vasoactive drug treatment and death. Each 1-week cycle, patients may continue with the drug, discontinue the drug or die. Regression analysis was undertaken to model the relationship between MWD and utility so that a cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) outcome measure could be presented. Univariate and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were undertaken. All costs and outcomes were discounted at 3.5%.
Twenty-six randomised controlled trials were identified that met the inclusion criteria for the clinical effectiveness review. There was evidence that walking distance outcomes were significantly improved by both cilostazol and naftidrofuryl oxalate; the 95% credible intervals for the difference from placebo in the logarithm mean change MWD from baseline were 0.108 to 0.337 and 0.181 to 0.762, respectively. It was not possible to include inositol nicotinate within the meta-analysis of MWD and PFWD owing to the lack of 24-month data; however, the shorter-term data did not suggest a significant effect. AEs were minor for all drugs and included headaches and gastrointestinal difficulties. The incidence of serious adverse events (SAEs), including cardiovascular events and mortality, was not increased by the vasoactive drugs compared with placebo; however, most studies had a relatively short follow-up time to address this outcome. HRQoL data were limited. Two studies of limited quality were identified within the review of cost-effectiveness. The de novo model developed suggests that naftidrofuryl oxalate dominates cilostazol and pentoxifylline and has a cost per QALY gained of around £6070 compared with no vasoactive drug. This result is reasonably robust to changes within the key model assumptions. Inositol nicotinate was not included within the main analysis owing to lack of data. However, it is unlikely to be considered to be cost-effective due to its high acquisition cost (£900 vs £100-500 per year for the other drugs).
Naftidrofuryl oxalate and cilostazol both appear to be effective treatments for this patient population, with minimal SAEs. However, naftidrofuryl oxalate is the only treatment that is likely to be considered cost-effective. The long-term effectiveness is uncertain and hence a trial comparing cilostazol, naftidrofuryl oxalate and placebo beyond 24 weeks would be beneficial. Outcomes associated with naftidrofuryl oxalate could also be compared with those associated with supervised exercise programmes and angioplasty.