Letter by Fan and He Regarding Article, “Cost-Effectiveness of Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in Patients With Stable Coronary Disease and Abnormal Fractional Flow Reserve”
This article requires a subscription to view the full text. If you have a subscription you may use the login form below to view the article. Access to this article can also be purchased.
To the Editor:
We take great interest in the article by Fearon et al1 with regard to the economic and quality of life implications of percutaneous coronary intervention among patients with stable angina. The study assessed patient utility with the use of the EQ-5D health survey in the Fractional Flow Reserve Versus Angiography for Multivessel Evaluation 2 (FAME 2) trial and found that percutaneous coronary intervention of coronary lesions with abnormal fractional flow reserve was more economically attractive than best medical therapy. However, we have some concerns with the statistical analysis.
Cost–utility analysis is a common comparative effectiveness methodology in current health economics research, and quality-adjusted life-year …