Fractional flow reserve (FFR) versus angiography in guiding management to optimise outcomes in non-ST segment elevation myocardial infarction (FAMOUS-NSTEMI) developmental trial: Cost-effectiveness using a mixed trialand model-based methods

Julian Nam, Andrew Briggs, Jamie Layland, Keith G. Oldroyd, Nick Curzen, Arvind Sood, Kanarath Balachandran, Raj Das, Shahid Junejo, Hany Eteiba, Mark C. Petrie, Mitchell Lindsay, Stuart Watkins, Simon Corbett, Brian O'Rourke, Anna O'Donnell, Andrew Stewart, Andrew Hannah, Alex McConnachie, Robert HendersonColin Berry

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

8 Citations (Scopus)


Background: In the Fractional flow reserve (FFR) versus angiography in guiding management to optimise outcomes in non-ST elevation myocardial infarction (FAMOUS) clinical trial, FFR was shown to significantly reduce coronary revascularisation, compared to visual interpretation of standard coronary angiography without FFR. We estimated the cost-effectiveness from a UK National Health Service perspective, based on the results of FAMOUS. Methods: A mixed trial-and model-based approach using decision and statistical modelling was used. Within-trial (1-year) costs and QALYs were assembled at the individual level and then modelled on subsequent management strategy [coronary artery bypass graft (CABG), percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) or medical therapy (MT)] and major adverse coronary events (death, MI, stroke and revascularisation). One-year resource uses included: Material, hospitalisation, medical, health professional service use and events. Utilities were derived from individual EQ5D responses. Unit costs were derived from the literature. Outcomes were extended to a lifetime on the basis of MACE during the 1st year. Costs and QALYs were modelled using generalized linear models whilst MACE was modelled using logistic regression. The analysis adopted a payer perspective. Costs and outcomes were discounted at 3.5 %. Results: Costs were related to the subsequent management strategy and MACE whilst QALYs were not. FFR led to a modest cost increase, albeit an imprecise increase, over both the trial [£112 (-£129 to £357)] and lifetime horizons [£133 (-£199 to £499)]. FFR led to a small, albeit imprecise, increase in QALYs over both the trial [0.02 (-0.03 to 0.06)] and lifetime horizons [0.03 (-0.21 to 0.28)]. The mean ICER was £7516/QALY and £4290/QALY over the trial and lifetime horizons, respectively. Decision remained high; FFR had 64 and 59 % probability of cost-effectiveness over trial and lifetime horizons, respectively. Conclusions: FFR was cost-effective at the mean, albeit with considerable decision uncertainty. Uncertainty can be reduced with more information on long-term health events.

Original languageEnglish
Article number19
Number of pages9
JournalCost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation
Issue number1
Publication statusPublished - 14 Nov 2015
Externally publishedYes

Cite this