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

Interventions for primary prevention of cardiovascular disease: umbrella review of systematic reviews

Background

Cardiovascular diseases are the leading cause of death globally. The aim of this overview of systematic reviews was to compare the effectiveness of different pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease.

Methods

A structured search of the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects archive was conducted to find systematic reviews that reported the effect of various pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease from inception to March 2021. References of included studies were also checked. The included systematic reviews' methodological quality was assessed using the Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews 2 instrument (range, 0-16). The outcomes of each included review's meta-analysis were extracted and described narratively.

Results

This study analysed 95 systematic reviews, including 41 on non-pharmacological interventions and 54 on pharmacological interventions for cardiovascular health. The majority of the reviews focused on lipid-lowering interventions (n = 25) and antiplatelet medications (n = 21), followed by nutritional supplements, dietary interventions, physical activity, health promotion and other interventions. Only 1 of the 10 reviews addressing cardiovascular mortality showed a potential benefit, while the others found no effect. Antiplatelets were found to have a beneficial effect on all-cause mortality in 2 out of 12 meta-analyses and on major cardiovascular disease events in 8 out of 17 reviews. Lipid-lowering interventions showed beneficial effects on cardiovascular disease mortality, all-cause mortality and major cardiovascular disease events in varying numbers of the reviews. Glucose-lowering medications demonstrated significant benefits for major cardiovascular events, coronary heart disease events and mortality. However, the combination of dietary interventions, physical activities, nutritional supplements and polypills showed little or no significant benefit for major cardiovascular outcomes or mortality.

Future work and limitations

More research is needed to determine whether the effect of treatment varies depending on population characteristics. The findings of this review should be interpreted with caution because the majority of studies of non-pharmacological interventions compare primary prevention with usual care, which may include recommended pharmacological treatment in higher-risk patients (e.g. statins and/or antihypertensive medications, etc.). In addition, randomised controlled trial evidence may be better suited to the study of pharmacological interventions than dietary and lifestyle interventions.

Conclusions

This umbrella review captured the variability in different interventions on randomised controlled trial evidence on interventions for primary prevention of cardiovascular disease and identified areas that may benefit from further research. Specifically, this review focused on randomised controlled trial evidence on interventions for primary prevention of cardiovascular disease. Researchers may use these findings as a resource to direct new intervention studies and network meta-analyses to compare the efficacy of various interventions based on these findings.

Funding

This article presents independent research funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment (HTA) programme as award number 17/148/05.

Comparison of Evolocumab and Ezetimibe, Both Combined with Statin Therapy, for Patients with Recent Acute Coronary Syndrome: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis from the Chinese Healthcare Perspective

PURPOSE

To assess the cost-effectiveness of evolocumab, a PCSK9 (proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9) inhibitor, compared with ezetimibe, both added to background statin therapy in patients with recent acute coronary syndrome (ACS) events (in the past 12 months) and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels ≥ 100 mg/dL in China.

METHODS

A health economic evaluation was performed from a Chinese healthcare perspective, using a Markov model over a lifetime horizon based on a baseline cardiovascular (CV) event rate from claims database data and efficacy from the FOURIER trial. The health benefit was reflected in the decrease of LDL-C level, which led to a decrease of cardiovascular events. The costs of cardiovascular events and the utility value of each health state were derived from the published literature. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to evaluate the effects of uncertainty in parameters and the robustness of the model. The cost-effectiveness of evolocumab was also explored in patients with recent myocardial infarction (MI), at very high risk (VHR) of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD), and homozygous familiar hypercholesterolemia (HoFH).

RESULTS

In patients with recent ACS, evolocumab was associated with incremental quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) of 1.33 and incremental costs of 115,782 yuan versus ezetimibe, both with background statin therapy, resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of 87,050 yuan per QALY gained. The probability of evolocumab + statins being cost-effective at a threshold of 217,341 yuan (three times per capita GDP, 2020), compared with ezetimibe + statins, was 100% in patients with recent ACS, recent MI, VHR ASCVD, and HoFH.

CONCLUSION

Compared with ezetimibe + statins, the combination of evolocumab + statins was found to be cost-effective at a threshold of 217,341 yuan (three times per capita GDP, 2020) in patients with recent ACS events in China.

Cost-effectiveness of the CNIC-Polypill versus separate monocomponents in cardiovascular secondary prevention in Spain

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES

Despite advances in treatment, cardiovascular disease is the second leading cause of death in Spain. The objective of this study was to determine the cost-effectiveness of the CNIC-Polypill strategy (acetylsalicylic acid 100 mg, atorvastatin 20/40 mg, ramipril 2.5/5/10 mg) compared with the same separate monocomponents for the secondary prevention of recurrent cardiovascular events in adults in Spain.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A Markov cost-utility model was adapted considering 4 health states (stable, subsequent major adverse cardiovascular event, subsequent ischemic stroke and death) and the SMART risk equation over a lifetime horizon from the perspective of the Spanish National Healthcare System. The CNIC-Polypill strategy was compared with monocomponents in a hypothetical cohort of 1,000 secondary prevention patients. The NEPTUNO study, official databases, and the literature were reviewed to identify effectiveness, epidemiological, costs and utility data. Outcomes were costs (in 2021 euros) per life-year (LY) and quality-adjusted LY (QALY) gained. A 3% discount rate was applied. Deterministic one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses evaluated the robustness of the model.

RESULTS

The CNIC-Polypill strategy in secondary prevention results in more LY (13.22) and QALY (11.64) gains at a lower cost than monocomponents. The CNIC-Polypill is dominant and saves є280.68 per patient compared with monocomponents. The probabilistic sensitivity analysis shows that 82.4% of the simulations are below the threshold of є25,000 per QALY gained.

CONCLUSIONS

The CNIC-Polypill strategy in secondary cardiovascular prevention is cost-effective compared with the same separate monocomponents, resulting in a cost-saving strategy to the Spanish National Healthcare System.

Cost-Effectiveness of the CNIC-Polypill Strategy Compared With Separate Monocomponents in Secondary Prevention of Cardiovascular and Cerebrovascular Disease in Portugal: The MERCURY Study

Background: Cardiovascular (CV) diseases remain a leading and costly cause of death globally. Patients with previous CV events are at high risk of recurrence. Secondary prevention therapies improve CV risk factor control and reduce disease costs. Objectives: To assess the cost-effectiveness of a CV polypill strategy (CNIC-Polypill) compared with the loose combination of monocomponents to improve the control of CV risk factors in patients with previous coronary heart disease or stroke. Methods: A Markov model cost-utility analysis was developed using 4 health states, SMART risk equation, and 3-month cycles for year 1 and annual cycles thereafter, over a lifetime horizon from the perspective of the National Health System in Portugal (base case). The NEPTUNO study, Portuguese registries, mortality tables, official reports, and the literature were consulted to define effectiveness, epidemiological costs, and utility data. Outcomes were costs (estimated in 2020 euros) per life-year (LY) and quality-adjusted LY (QALY) gained. A 4% discount rate was applied. Alternative scenarios and one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses tested the consistency and robustness of results. Results: The CNIC-Polypill strategy in secondary prevention provides more LY and QALY, at a higher cost, than monocomponents. The incremental cost-utility ratio is €1557/QALY gained. Assuming a willingness-to-pay threshold of €30 000/QALY gained, there is a 79.7% and a 44.4% probability of the CNIC-Polypill being cost-effective and cost-saving, respectively, compared with the loose combination of monocomponents. Results remain consistent in the alternative scenarios and robust in the sensitivity analyses. Discussion: The model reflects increments in the number of years patients would live and in quality of life with the CNIC-Polypill. The clinical effectiveness of the CNIC-Polypill strategy initially demonstrated in the NEPTUNO study has been recently corroborated in the SECURE trial. The incremental cost of the CNIC-Polypill strategy emerges slightly above the comparator, but willingness-to-pay estimates and sensitivity analyses indicate that the CNIC-Polypill strategy is consistently cost-effective compared with monocomponents and remains within acceptable affordability margins. Conclusion: The CNIC-Polypill is a cost-effective secondary prevention strategy. In patients with histories of coronary heart disease or stroke, the CNIC-Polypill more effectively controls CV risk factors compared with monocomponents.

A Systematic Review of Cost-Effectiveness of Non-Statin Lipid-Lowering Drugs for Primary and Secondary Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus

Although studies of non-statin lipid-lowering therapies (NSLLTs) have demonstrated cardiovascular benefits; whether these benefits provide good value has not been evaluated in type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) patients. A systematic review was performed to include studies on the cost-effectiveness of NSLLTs in T2DM patients with/without cardiovascular disease (CVD). Thirteen studies were included; ezetimibe (n=8), proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 (PCSK9) inhibitors (n=4), fenofibrate (n=2), nicotinic acid (n=1), extended-release niacin/laropiprant (ER- ERN/LRPT) (n=1), and icosapent ethyl (n=1). Six studies considered ezetimibe+statin to be a cost-effective compared to statins monotherapy, three studies suggested that PCSK9 inhibitors+statins were not cost-effective compared to statin+ezetimibe. Fenofibrate was a cost-effective either as monotherapy or combined with a statin compared to statin or fenofibrate monotherapy. Nicotinic acid and ER- ERN/LRPT compared to statin monotherapy were also cost-effective. Icosapent ethyl using the solid-state relay was cost-effective compared to standard care but not using the wholesale acquisition cost.

Analisi di costo-utilità di evolocumab in pazienti con ASCVD in Italia

Objective:

The aim of this work was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of evolocumab in addition to standard statin therapy with or without ezetimibe in the treatment of patients with clinically evident atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) with levels of LDL-C above 100 mg/dL.

Method:

A theoretical cohort of patients was forecast by a Markov model that includes 11 health states for a lifetime horizon. In the base-case, the standard therapy was characterized by statins with or without ezetimibe. Two sub-populations have been considered, Recent MI (Myocardial Infarction in the last year) and Multiple events (population with multiple MI). The results were also presented for a subset of the Multiple events populations consisting of patients who have experienced a myocardial infarction (MI) in the last year.

Results:

For the Recent MI and Multiple events populations, ICER values of € 39,547 and € 35,744 respectively were estimated. The value of ICER was lower for the Multiple events with MI < 1 year population (€ 29,949). Considering statins with ezetimibe as standard therapy, ICER values were found to be equal to € 39,781, € 35,986 and € 30,190 respectively for the populations Recent MI, Multiple events and Multiple events with MI < 1 year.

Conclusions:

The estimated ICER values for the Recent MI, Multiple events and Multiple events populations with MI < 1 year were below the cost-effectiveness threshold of € 40,000, suggesting therefore how the treatment with evolocumab in addition to the standard therapy can be a cost-effective treatment both compared to standard therapy with statins and standard therapy with statins + ezetimibe.

Using Published Health Utilities in Cost-Utility Analyses: Discrepancies and Issues in Cardiovascular Disease

Background

Health utilities are commonly used as quality weights to calculate quality-adjusted life years in cost-utility analysis (CUA). However, if published health utilities are not properly used, the credibility of CUA could be affected.

Objectives

To identify discrepancies in using published health utilities in CUAs for cardiovascular disease (CVD).

Methods

CVD CUAs in the Tufts Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Registry that reported health utilities were included in the analysis. References cited for health utilities in these CUAs were reviewed to identify the original health utility studies. The description and value of health utilities used in the CUA were compared with those reported in the original utility studies. Logistic regression was used to identify the factors that can predict the discrepancy.

Results

A total of 585 eligible CUAs published between 1977 and 2016 were identified and reviewed. Of these studies, 74.5% were published between 2007 and 2016. 442 CUAs that used a total of 2235 health utilities published in 203 original utility studies were included for the comparison. As compared with those utilities originally reported, only 596 (26.7%) health utilities had the same description and value, whereas 991 health utilities (44.3%) differed in both description and value. Of 1290 health utilities with a different description, 69.1% were due to different severity or disease. No explanation or justification was provided for 1171 (87.4%) of 1340 health utilities with different value.

Conclusions

There are concerning discrepancies in using published health utilities for CVD CUAs. Given the important role health utilities play in CUAs, authors of CUAs should always refer to the original studies for health utilities and be transparent about how published health utilities are selected and incorporated into CUAs.

The cost-effectiveness of omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids - The Australian healthcare perspective

OBJECTIVES

To examine the cost-effectiveness of a triglyceride lowering medication-icosapent ethyl added on to statin from Australian healthcare system perspective.

METHODS

A Markov-model was developed using data from the pivotal trial of icosapent ethyl in a secondary prevention population. Probabilities of CVD events were derived and extrapolated from the published Kaplan-Meier curve using a valid algorithm. Management cost of CVD, health-related quality of life, and background non-CVD mortality were extracted from publicly available sources. Acquisition cost of icosapent ethyl from the United States was used in the current analysis. Australian patients with histories of CVD were modelled for a 25 year time horizon and costs and benefits were discounted. Sensitivity analyses (SA) were undertaken. Value of perfect information (VPI) was quantified.

RESULTS

Treatment with icosapent ethyl was associated with both higher costs and benefits (i.e. quality-adjusted life year [QALY] and life year [LY]), resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of AUD59,036/QALY or AUD54,358/LY. Using the often quoted willingness-to-pay (WTP)/QALY of AUD50,000/QALY, icosapent ethyl was not considered cost-effective. SA showed that time horizon, drug cost, and discount rate were the key drivers of the ICER. Total monetary VPI for icosapent ethyl was over AUD15 million over 5 years.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with established CVD in whom level of triglycerides is high would benefit from the treatment using icosapent ethyl, however, it is not a cost-effective from an Australian healthcare system perspective. The government may consider subsidising this medication given the clinical need but at a discounted acquisition cost.

Cost-effectiveness of evolocumab in treatment of heterozygous familial hypercholesterolaemia in Bulgaria: measuring health benefit by effectively treated patient-years

Background: An elevated level of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) constitutes one of the most important modifiable risk factors for cardiovascular disease (CVD). Individuals with heterozygous familial hypercholesterolaemia (HeFH) are particularly vulnerable to CVD events. The addition of evolocumab to statins has shown marked reductions in LDL-C levels. The objective of this analysis is to demonstrate the clinical and economic value of LDL-C lowering with evolocumab from the Bulgarian public health care perspective. Methods: A disease-specific measure of health benefit was devised: Effectively treated patient-years (ETPYs) combine length of life with the likelihood of attaining best-practice recommendations on LDL-C lowering. "Effective treatment" was defined as a reduction in LDL-C levels of ≥50%. A Markov cohort state-transition model was adapted, considering a life-long treatment duration. Demographics, baseline characteristics and efficacy data were taken from the RUTHERFORD-2 trial. The model uses the relationship between LDL-C lowering and reduced CVD event rates observed in the meta-analyses conducted by the Cholesterol Treatment Trialists' Collaboration. Outcomes and costs (from year 2015) were discounted at an annual rate of 5%. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess uncertainty surrounding the results. Results: The total incremental costs of evolocumab added to statins versus statins alone are BGN 120,329 while adding 9.30 ETPYs over lifetime. These results imply an incremental cost per ETPY of BGN 12,937 (US$ 7,215; € 6,604). The use of evolocumab is associated with a relative reduction in the CVD event rate by 38% (18% per 1 mmol/L). Conclusions: Adding evolocumab to statins may be considered cost-effective in light of an additional expense per patient-year gained in which individuals with HeFH receive effective treatment under the terms of international prevention guidelines. ETPYs are an intuitive and clinically meaningful measure of patient benefit that, in relation to costs, can support health care decision-making that considers quality of care.