Despite advances in endovascular interventions, including the introduction of drug-eluting stents (DES), high target lesion revascularization (TLR) rates still burden the treatment of symptomatic lower-limb peripheral arterial disease (PAD). EluviaTM, a novel, sustained-release, paclitaxel-eluting DES, was shown to further reduce TLRs when compared with the paclitaxel-coated Zilver® PTX® stent, in the IMPERIAL randomized controlled trial. This evaluation estimated the cost-effectiveness of Eluvia when compared with Zilver PTX in Australia, based on 12-month clinical outcomes from the IMPERIAL trial.

A state-transition, decision-analytic model with a 12-month time horizon was developed from an Australian public healthcare system perspective. Cost parameters were obtained from the Australian National Hospital Cost Data Collection Cost Report (2016–17). All costs were captured in Australian dollars (AUD), where AUD 1 = USD 0.69 (June 2020). Complete sets of clinical parameters (primary patency loss, TLR, amputation, and death) and cost parameters from their respective distributions were bootstrapped in samples of 1,000 patients, for each intervention arm of the model. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed.

At 12 months, modeled TLR rates were 4.5 percent for Eluvia and 8.9 percent for Zilver PTX, and mean total direct costs were AUD 6,537 [USD 4,511] and AUD 6,908 [USD 4,767], respectively (Eluvia average per patient savings; overall cohort=AUD 371 [USD 256]; diabetic cohort=AUD 625 [USD 431]). In probabilistic sensitivity analyses, Eluvia was cost-effective relative to Zilver PTX in 92.0 percent of all simulations at a threshold of $10,000 per TLR avoided. Eluvia was more effective and less costly (dominant) than Zilver PTX in 76.0 percent of simulations.

In the first year after the intervention, Eluvia was more effective and less costly than Zilver PTX, making Eluvia the dominant treatment strategy for treatment of symptomatic lower-limb PAD, from an Australian public healthcare system perspective. These findings should be considered when formulating policy and practice guidelines in the context of priority setting and making evidence-based resource allocation decisions for treatment of PAD in Australia.