Journals Library

An error has occurred in processing the XML document

An error occurred retrieving content to display, please try again.

Page not found (404)

Sorry - the page you requested could not be found.

Please choose a page from the navigation or try a website search above to find the information you need.

{{metadata.Title}}

{{metadata.Headline}}

An error has occurred in processing the XML document

{{author}}{{author}}{{($index < metadata.AuthorsAndEtalArray.length-1) ? ',' : '.'}}

An error has occurred in processing the XML document

An error has occurred in processing the XML document

{{metadata.Journal}} Volume: {{metadata.Volume}}, Issue:{{metadata.Issue}}, Published in {{metadata.PublicationDate | date:'MMMM yyyy'}}

https://dx.doi.org/{{metadata.DOI}}

Citation: {{author}}{{ (($index < metadata.AuthorsArray.length-1) && ($index <=6)) ? ', ' : '' }}{{(metadata.AuthorsArray.length <= 6) ? '.' : '' }} {{(metadata.AuthorsArray.length > 6) ? 'et al.' : ''}} {{metadata.Title}}. {{metadata.JournalShortName}} {{metadata.PublicationDate | date:'yyyy'}};{{metadata.Volume}}({{metadata.Issue}})

You might also be interested in:
{{classification.Category.Concept}}

Report Content

The full text of this issue is available as a PDF document from the Toolkit section on this page.

The full text of this issue is available as a PDF document from the Toolkit section on this page.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

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.

OBJECTIVE

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.

DATA SOURCE

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).

REVIEW METHODS

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%.

RESULTS

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).

CONCLUSIONS

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.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

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.

OBJECTIVE

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.

DATA SOURCE

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).

REVIEW METHODS

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%.

RESULTS

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).

CONCLUSIONS

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.

If you would like to receive a notification when this project publishes in the NIHR Journals Library, please submit your email address below.

An error has occurred in processing the XML document

 

Responses to this report

 

No responses have been published.

If you would like to submit a response to this publication, please do so using the form below.

Comments submitted to the NIHR Journals Library are electronic letters to the editor. They enable our readers to debate issues raised in research reports published in the Journals Library. We aim to post within 2 working days all responses that contribute substantially to the topic investigated, as determined by the Editors.

Your name and affiliations will be published with your comment.

Once published, you will not have the right to remove or edit your response. The Editors may add, remove, or edit comments at their absolute discretion.

By submitting your response, you are stating that you agree to the terms & conditions