[Pharmacoeconomic evaluation of pravastatin in the secondary prevention of coronary heart disease in patients with average cholesterol levels. An analysis for Germany based on the CARE study]

A Systematic Review of Cardiovascular Outcomes-Based Cost-Effectiveness Analyses of Lipid-Lowering Therapies

BACKGROUND

Previous reviews have evaluated economic analyses of lipid-lowering therapies using lipid levels as surrogate markers for cardiovascular disease. However, drug approval and health technology assessment agencies have stressed that surrogates should only be used in the absence of clinical endpoints.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this systematic review was to identify and summarise the methodologies, weaknesses and strengths of economic models based on atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease event rates.

METHODS

Cost-effectiveness evaluations of lipid-lowering therapies using cardiovascular event rates in adults with hyperlipidaemia were sought in Medline, Embase, Medline In-Process, PubMed and NHS EED and conference proceedings. Search results were independently screened, extracted and quality checked by two reviewers.

RESULTS

Searches until February 2016 retrieved 3443 records, from which 26 studies (29 publications) were selected. Twenty-two studies evaluated secondary prevention (four also assessed primary prevention), two considered only primary prevention and two included mixed primary and secondary prevention populations. Most studies (18) based treatment-effect estimates on single trials, although more recent evaluations deployed meta-analyses (5/10 over the last 10 years). Markov models (14 studies) were most commonly used and only one study employed discrete event simulation. Models varied particularly in terms of health states and treatment-effect duration. No studies used a systematic review to obtain utilities. Most studies took a healthcare perspective (21/26) and sourced resource use from key trials instead of local data. Overall, reporting quality was suboptimal.

CONCLUSIONS

This review reveals methodological changes over time, but reporting weaknesses remain, particularly with respect to transparency of model reporting.

Self-measurement of blood glucose in patients with type 2 diabetes: a health economic assessment

BACKGROUND

The clinical role and the potential benefit of self-measurement of blood glucose (SMBG) for patients with type 2 diabetes are still under discussion. Even less information is available on the cost-effectiveness of performing SMBG by this patient group. The goal of this study was to establish cost-effectiveness ratios of performing SMBG by patients afflicted by this disease.

METHODS

We assessed the benefit and cost-effectiveness of SMBG in type 2 diabetes from a third-party payer perspective based on results of both a large epidemiologic cohort study reflecting the reality of care, and a Markov model calculation.

RESULTS

Analysis of cohort study data revealed that total costs cumulated over the observation period of 8 years were lower in the SMBG group than in the non-SMBG group according to savings of euro 1'714 [oral antidiabetic drugs (OAD) only] and euro 13'815 (OAD + insulin) per patient. Several scenarios were considered in the model-based calculation. The cost-effectiveness ratio varied from euro 20'768/life year gained to domination of SMBG use compared to nonusers in OAD treated patients and from euro 59'057/life year gained to domination of SMBG use compared to nonusers in OAD + insulin treated patients.

CONCLUSION

Results indicate that SMBG in type 2 diabetes offers an excellent opportunity to get a high investment-outcome ratio in the treatment of this pandemic disease.

Effectiveness calculation in economic analysis: the case of statins for cardiovascular disease prevention

OBJECTIVES

This report aimed to evaluate the calculation of estimates of effectiveness in cost effectiveness analyses of statins for cardiovascular disease prevention.

METHODS

Methodological aspects were reviewed of seven primary studies (based on trial results) and 12 secondary modelling studies (extrapolated) on the cost effectiveness of statin treatment, published between 1995 and 2002. Estimates of life years gained were extracted and compared with estimates calculated using the Dutch male life table of 1996-2000.

RESULTS

Of the seven primary modelling analyses, six showed all the essential data. They estimated that 3 to 5.6 years (average 4.6 years) of statin treatment resulted in 0.15 to 0.41 years (average 0.3 years) saved over a lifetime time horizon. In contrast none of the 12 secondary modelling studies provided transparent results. They assumed lifelong treatment, leading to life table estimations of 2.4 and 2.0 (undiscounted) years saved for 40 and 60 year olds, with peak savings at around the mean age of death: 75-80 years. With 5% discounting, these effects reduced to 0.4 and 0.8 years respectively.

CONCLUSION

Reporting of essential data and assumptions on statin treatment was poor for secondary modelling analyses and satisfactory for primary modelling studies. Secondary modeling studies made assumptions on long term effectiveness that were hard to justify with the available evidence, and that led to the majority of life years saved at high ages. Further standardisation in economic analyses is important to guarantee transparency and reproducibility of results.

Cost effectiveness of statins in coronary heart disease

INTRODUCTION

Statin therapy reduces the rate of coronary heart disease, but high costs in combination with a large population eligible for treatment ask for priority setting. Although trials agree on the size of the benefit, economic analyses of statins report contradictory results. This article reviewed cost effectiveness analyses of statins and sought to synthesise cost effectiveness ratios for categories of risk of coronary heart disease and age.

METHODS

The review searched for studies comparing statins with no treatment for the prevention of either cardiovascular or coronary heart disease in men and presenting cost per years of life saved as outcome. Estimates were extracted, standardised for calendar year and currency, and stratified by categories of risk, age, and funding source

RESULTS

24 studies were included (from 50 retrieved), yielding 216 cost effectiveness ratios. Estimated ratios increase with decreasing risk. After stratification by risk, heterogeneity of ratios is large varying from savings to $59 000 per life year saved in the highest risk category and from 6500 dollars to 490,000 dollars in the lowest category. The pooled estimates show values of 21571 dollars per life year saved for a 10 year coronary heart disease risk of 20% and 16862 dollars per life year saved for 10 year risk of 30%.

CONCLUSION

Statin therapy is cost effective for high levels of risk, but inconsistencies exist at lower levels. Although the cost effectiveness of statins depends mainly on absolute risk, important heterogeneity remains after adjusting for absolute risk. Economic analyses need to increase their transparency to reduce their vulnerability to bias and increase their reproducibility.

Leitlinien der Lipidtherapie

Alterations in lipid metabolism play a major role in the pathogenesis of atherosclerosis and are an important risk factor for cardiovascular events. Lowering of LDL cholesterol by statins reduces morbidity and mortality in patients with coronary artery disease (CAD), both in primary and secondary prevention. The results of large controlled trials that included more than 50,000 patients are the basis for target values promoted by current guidelines. According to the NCEP-ATP III guidelines LDL cholesterol should be lowered to less than 100 mg/dl in high risk patients (CAD or CAD equivalent) and in very high risk patients optional to less than 70 mg/dl. Up to now even in high risk patients the recommended goals are not sufficiently achieved: Up to 80% of high risk patients do not receive a statin and only a minority of those being treated with a statin have a LDL cholesterol below 100 mg/dl. Furthermore, after a major event (e.g. myocardial infarction) the quality of lipid reduction decreases over time. Further efforts are required to improve this situation as a guide-line oriented approach may help to prevent up to 100,000 myocardial infarctions and deaths alone in high risk patients in Germany.

Cost-effectiveness of drotrecogin alfa (activated) for the treatment of severe sepsis in Germany

Drotrecogin alfa (activated) (Xigris; Eli Lilly and Company, Indianapolis, IN) significantly reduced mortality in severe sepsis in the PROWESS trial. We evaluate the cost-effectiveness of drotrecogin alfa (activated) as an adjunct to standard therapy from the German healthcare payer's perspective with respect to patients with 1) severe sepsis and 2) severe sepsis and multiple organ failure the approved European indication. Hospital resource use based on PROWESS was valued using German unit costs. German life-tables and long-term survival assumptions determined life-years gained. European and German healthcare resource use data are examined in the sensitivity analysis. We assumed a unit price of euro;237.50 for drotrecogin alfa (activated). Per patient treated, drotrecogin alfa (activated) increased costs by euro;7,500, and hospital costs by euro;900 for all patients (euro;7,400 and euro;1,500 respectively for the approved indication) and survival by 0.59 life years (0.87 life years respectively for the approved indication). Thus drotrecogin alfa (activated) cost euro;14,100 (euro;17,700 discounting life years at 3%) per life year gained for all patients (euro;10,200 and euro;12,900, respectively, for the approved indication). Testing the unit cost of drotrecogin alfa (activated), pattern of resource use, and survival benefit, demonstrated that cost-effectiveness lies well within the range of other life saving interventions in Germany representing good economic value.

Cost effectiveness of ramipril in patients at high risk for cardiovascular events : economic evaluation of the HOPE (Heart Outcomes Prevention Evaluation) study for Germany from the Statutory Health Insurance perspective

BACKGROUND

In the HOPE (Heart Outcomes Prevention Evaluation) trial, ramipril (compared with placebo) significantly reduced cardiovascular death and all-cause mortality as well as the incidence of costly cardiovascular events, such as myocardial infarction, revascularisation, stroke, cardiac arrest, hospitalisation due to heart failure and worsening angina pectoris, new-onset diabetes mellitus and microvascular diabetic complications.

OBJECTIVE

Data from the HOPE study were used in a cost-effectiveness analysis to determine the additional cost per life-year gained (LYG) when the ACE inhibitor ramipril was added to the current medication of patients at high risk for cardiovascular events. The aim was to establish the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of ramipril versus placebo from the perspective of the Statutory Health Insurance (SHI) provider in Germany, for both the study population as a whole and for the subgroup of patients with diabetes.

DESIGN

A modelling approach was used, based on secondary analysis of published data and retrospective application of costs. In the base-case analysis, average case-related expenses of the SHI were applied and LYG were quantified using the average of the difference between the survival rates in the ramipril and placebo groups during the HOPE trial. LYG beyond the trial duration were estimated by the method of declining exponential approximation of life expectancy.

RESULTS

After a treatment period of 4.5 years, the ICER of ramipril versus placebo was Euros 4074/LYG and Euros 2486/LYG (discounted at 5% per annum and in 1998-2002 values; Euro 1 approximately USD 0.88; first quarter 2002 values) for the HOPE study population as a whole and the subgroup of patients with diabetes, respectively. To test the model's robustness, the influence of the model variables on the results was quantified using a deterministic model, and a best-case/worst-case scenario analysis. The effect of random variables was investigated in a Monte Carlo simulation. The acquisition cost for ramipril had the greatest impact on the ICER of ramipril (2.2-fold greater than the impact of the number of LYG). In 95% of the 10,000 simulation steps, the ICER of ramipril after 4.5 years of treatment was between Euros 1290 and Euros 9005 per LYG for the entire HOPE study population and between Euros 290 and Euros 6115 per LYG in the diabetic subgroup.

CONCLUSIONS

Results of this evaluation suggest that ramipril is likely to be cost effective in secondary prevention of cardiovascular events from the perspective of the SHI (third-party payer) in Germany. The estimated ICER of ramipril compares well with other ICERs of widely accepted treatments used for the management of cardiovascular diseases, such as HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of n-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFA) after myocardial infarction: results from Gruppo Italiano per lo Studio della Sopravvivenza nell'Infarto (GISSI)-Prevenzione Trial

OBJECTIVE

To estimate the cost effectiveness of treatment with n-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFA) for secondary prevention after myocardial infarction (MI).

DESIGN AND SETTING

The cost-effectiveness analysis of n-3 PUFA treatment after MI was based on morbidity and mortality data and the use of resources obtained prospectively during the 3.5 year follow-up period of the Gruppo Italiano per lo Studio della Sopravvivenza nell'Infarto (GISSI)-Prevenzione study. The cost-effectiveness analysis took into account the incremental number of life-years gained and the incremental costs for hospital admissions, diagnostic tests and drugs, applying a 5% discount rate. The value for money of n-3 PUFA treatment was assessed using the cost-effectiveness ratio and the number needed to treat (NNT) approach.

PERSPECTIVE

Third-party payer.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES AND RESULTS

The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for n-3 PUFA in the basecase scenario was 24,603 euro (EUR, 1999 values) per life-year gained (95% confidence interval: 22,646 to 26,930). Sensitivity analysis included the analysis of extremes, producing estimates varying from EUR15,721 to EUR52,524 per life-year gained. 172 patients would need to be treated per year with n-3 PUFA, at an annual cost of EUR68,000, in order to save 1 patient. This is comparable with the NNT value, and associated annual cost for simvastatin, but less costly than that for pravastatin.

CONCLUSIONS

The cost effectiveness of long term treatment with n-3 PUFA is comparable with other drugs recently introduced in the routine care of secondary prevention after MI. Since the clinical benefit provided by n-3 PUFA is additive, this therapy should be added to the established routine practice, with additive costs.