Economic evaluation of triflusal and aspirin in the treatment of acute myocardial infarction.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the costs to the Spanish healthcare system of 35 days' treatment with triflusal (600 mg/day) and aspirin (300 mg/day) in patients with confirmed acute myocardial infarction within 24 hours of onset of symptoms. DESIGN: A cost minimisation analysis based on the results of the Triflusal in Acute Myocardial Infarction study (TIM) was conducted. The hypothesis was that despite a higher acquisition cost of triflusal, savings would result because of differences in efficacy and safety outcome (non-fatal cerebrovascular event and haemorrhagic events). Diagnostic Related Groups were used as a proxy for determining hospital costs in Spain and the values were obtained from different sources and refer to year 2000 costs. Only direct medical costs were considered for the economic analysis. RESULTS: Although the acquisition cost of triflusal was more expensive than that of aspirin, the cost of prevented events - non-fatal ischaemic cerebrovascular events and cerebral haemorrhages - entirely compensated for the cost of triflusal. The overall cost of treating patients with triflusal, compared with aspirin, represented a net saving of 28.4% per patient treated. CONCLUSION: Our study showed that triflusal is cost saving compared with aspirin in the treatment of the acute phase of myocardial infarction.