Cost-Effectiveness of Simvastatin Plus Ezetimibe for Cardiovascular Prevention in Patients With a History of Acute Coronary Syndrome: Analysis of Results of the IMPROVE-IT Trial

Cost-utility analysis of using high-intensity statin among post-hospitalized acute coronary syndrome patients

BACKGROUND

Post-hospitalized acute coronary syndrome (ACS) patients in Indonesia National Insurance does not pay for the use of high-intensity statin (HIS) for secondary prevention after ACS hospitalization. Moreover, a cost-utility analysis needs to be conducted to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of prescribing HIS and low-to-moderate-intensity statin (LMIS) per quality-adjusted life year (QALY). This study aimed to estimate the cost-utility of long-term HIS treatment in post-hospitalized ACS patients in Indonesia compared to current practice.

RESULTS

This study compared the economic outcomes of long-term HIS and LMIS in Indonesian post-hospitalized ACS patients. A lifetime Markov model predicted ACS-related events, costs, and QALY from a payer perspective. A systematic review estimated treatment-specific event probabilities, post-event survival, health-related quality of life, and Indonesia medical-care expenses from published sources. This study conducted probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) using 1000 independent Monte Carlo simulations and a series of one-way deterministic sensitivity analyses utilizing a tornado diagram. The economic evaluation model proved that intensive HIS treatment can increase per-patient QALYs and care expenditures compared to LMIS. The use of HIS among post-hospitalized ACS patients had ICER 31.843.492 IDR per QALY gained, below the Indonesia willingness-to-pay (WTP) for terminal disease and life-saving treatment.

CONCLUSION

From the Indonesia payer perspective, using HIS for post-hospitalized ACS patients in Indonesia is cost-effective at 31.843.492 IDR per QALY gained.

Cost-Effectiveness of Lipid-Lowering Therapies for Cardiovascular Prevention in Germany

PURPOSE

Novel pharmaceutical treatments reducing cardiovascular events in dyslipidaemia patients must demonstrate clinical efficacy and cost-effectiveness to promote long-term adoption by patients, physicians, and insurers.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the cost-effectiveness of statin monotherapy compared to additive lipid-lowering therapies for primary and secondary cardiovascular prevention from the perspective of Germany's healthcare system.

METHODS

Transition probabilities and hazard ratios were derived from cardiovascular outcome trials for statin combinations with icosapent ethyl (REDUCE-IT), evolocumab (FOURIER), alirocumab (ODYSSEY), ezetimibe (IMPROVE-IT), and fibrate (ACCORD). Costs and utilities were retrieved from previous literature. The incidence of major adverse cardiovascular events was simulated with a Markov cohort model. The main outcomes were the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) per quality adjusted life year (QALY) gained.

RESULTS

For primary prevention, the addition of icosapent ethyl to statin generated 0.81 QALY and €14,732 costs (ICER: 18,133), whereas fibrates yielded 0.63 QALY and € - 10,516 costs (ICER: - 16,632). For secondary prevention, the addition of ezetimibe to statin provided 0.61 QALY at savings of € - 5,796 (ICER: - 9,555) and icosapent ethyl yielded 0.99 QALY and €14,333 costs (ICER: 14,485). PCSK9 inhibitors offered 0.55 and 0.87 QALY at costs of €62,722 and €87,002 for evolocumab (ICER: 114,639) and alirocumab (ICER: 100,532), respectively. A 95% probability of cost-effectiveness was surpassed at €20,000 for icosapent ethyl (primary and secondary prevention), €119,000 for alirocumab, and €149,000 for evolocumab.

CONCLUSIONS

For primary cardiovascular prevention, a combination therapy of icosapent ethyl plus statin is a cost-effective use of resources compared to statin monotherapy. For secondary prevention, icosapent ethyl, ezetimibe, evolocumab, and alirocumab increase patient benefit at different economic costs.

Cost-effectiveness of Ezetimibe plus statin lipid-lowering therapy: A systematic review and meta-analysis of cost-utility studies

In addition to statin therapy, Ezetimibe, a non-statin lipid-modifying agent, is increasingly used to reduce low-density lipoprotein cholesterol and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease risk. Literature suggests the clinical effectiveness of Ezetimibe plus statin (EPS) therapy; however, primary evidence on its economic effectiveness is inconsistent. Hence, we pooled incremental net benefit to synthesise the cost-effectiveness of EPS therapy. We identified economic evaluation studies reporting outcomes of EPS therapy compared with other lipid-lowering therapeutic agents or placebo by searching PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Tufts Cost-Effective Analysis registry. Using random-effects meta-analysis, we pooled Incremental Net Benefit (INB) in the US $ with a 95% confidence interval (CI). We used the modified economic evaluations bias checklist and GRADE quality assessment for quality appraisal. The pooled INB from twenty-one eligible studies showed that EPS therapy was significantly cost-effective compared to other lipid-lowering therapeutic agents or placebo. The pooled INB (95% CI) was $4,274 (621 to 7,927), but there was considerable heterogeneity (I² = 84.21). On subgroup analysis EPS therapy is significantly cost-effective in high-income countries [$4,356 (621 to 8,092)], for primary prevention [$4,814 (2,523 to 7,106)], and for payers’ perspective [$3,255 (571 to 5,939)], and from lifetime horizon [$4,571 (746 to 8,395)]. EPS therapy is cost-effective compared to other lipid-lowering therapeutic agents or placebo in high-income countries and for primary prevention. However, there is a dearth of evidence from lower-middle-income countries and the societal perspective.

The Potential Benefits and Costs of an Intensified Approach to Low Density Lipoprotein Cholesterol Lowering in People with Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm

OBJECTIVE

The aims of this study were to assess the incidence of major vascular events (MVE) and peripheral vascular events (PVE) in people with a small asymptomatic abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) and model the theoretical benefits and costs of an intensified low density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) lowering programme.

METHODS

A total of 583 participants with AAAs measuring 30 - 54 mm were included in this study. The control of LDL-C and prescription of lipid lowering drugs were assessed by dividing participants into approximately equal tertiles depending on their year of recruitment into the study. The occurrence of MVE (myocardial infarction, stroke, cardiovascular death, and coronary or non-coronary revascularisation) and PVE (non-coronary revascularisation, AAA repair, and major amputation) were recorded prospectively, and the incidence of these events was calculated using Kaplan-Meier analysis. The relative risk reduction reported for these events in a previous randomised control trial (RCT) was then applied to these figures to model the absolute risk reduction and numbers needed to treat (NTT) that could theoretically be achieved with a mean LDL-C lowering of 1 mmol/L. The maximum allowable expense for a cost effective intensive LDL-C lowering programme was estimated using a cost utility analysis.

RESULTS

At entry, only 28.5% of participants had an LDL-C of < 1.8 mmol/L and only 18.5% were prescribed a high potency statin (atorvastatin 80 mg or rosuvastatin 40 mg). The five year incidences of MVE and PVE were 38.1% and 44.7%, respectively. It was estimated that if the mean LDL-C of the cohort had been reduced by 1 mmol/L, this could have reduced the absolute risk of MVE and PVE by 6.5% (95% CI 4.4 - 8.7; NNT 15) and 5.3% (95% CI 1.4 - 7.5; NNT 19), respectively. It was estimated that the maximum allowable expense for a cost effective LDL-C lowering programme would be between $1 239 AUD (€768) and $1 582 AUD (€981) per person per annum over a five year period.

CONCLUSION

People with a small asymptomatic AAA are at high risk of MVE and PVE. This study provides evidence of the possible benefits and allowable expense for a cost effective intensive LDL-C lowering programme in this population.

Modelling the cost-effectiveness of person-centred care for patients with acute coronary syndrome

BACKGROUND

Person-centred care has been shown to be cost-effective compared to usual care for several diseases, including acute coronary syndrome, in a short-term time perspective (< 2 years). The cost-effectiveness of person-centred care in a longer time perspective is largely unknown.

OBJECTIVES

To estimate the mid-term cost-effectiveness of person-centred care compared to usual care for patients (< 65) with acute coronary syndrome, using a 2-year and a 5-year time perspective.

METHODS

The mid-term cost-effectiveness of person-centred care compared to usual care was estimated by projecting the outcomes observed in a randomized-controlled trial together with data from health registers and data from the scientific literature, 3 years beyond the 2-year follow-up, using the developed simulation model. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed using Monte Carlo simulation.

RESULTS

Person-centred care entails lower costs and improved effectiveness as compared to usual care, for a 2-year time and a 5-year perspective. Monte Carlo simulations suggest that the likelihoods of the person-centred care being cost-effective compared to usual care were between 80 and 99% and between 75 and 90% for a 2-year and a 5-year time perspective (using a 500,000 SEK/QALY willingness-to-pay threshold).

CONCLUSIONS

Person-centred care was less costly and more effective compared to usual care in a 2-year and a 5-year time perspective for patients with acute coronary syndrome under the age of 65.

Novel Treatment Strategies for Secondary Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease: A Systematic Review of Cost-Effectiveness

BACKGROUND

New pharmacological therapies for the treatment of cardiovascular disease (CVD) have emerged in recent years. The high rates of CVD and the need for long-term treatment to decrease risk factors makes cost-effectiveness crucial for their successful long-term implementation.

OBJECTIVE

This study assessed cost-effectiveness studies of novel pharmacological treatments (ezetimibe, proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 [PCSK9] inhibitors, omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids [n-3 PUFAs], and the cardiovascular polypill) compared with standard care for the secondary prevention of CVD.

METHODS

We searched seven databases and the reference list of selected literature reviews for eligible cost-effective analyses (CEA) published between January 2009 and January 2020 that evaluated the above novel treatments versus standard care. Two independent reviewers performed the screening and evaluation in accordance with the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards statement. Cost results were adapted to 2018 US dollars (US$) to facilitate comparisons between studies. Consideration of cost-effectiveness was based on the original study criteria.

RESULTS

Thirty-two studies were included in this review, most of them adopting a healthcare perspective. Studies evaluating ezetimibe, PCSK9 inhibitors and n-3 PUFAs assessed their addition to standard care compared with standard care alone, while studies analysing the polypill evaluated the replacement of multiple monotherapies for a fixed-dose combination. Ten studies reported on ezetimibe, fifteen evaluated PCSK9 inhibitors, five focused on n-3 PUFAs and seven on the polypill. From a healthcare perspective, ezetimibe was cost effective in 62.5% of the studies (incremental cost-effectiveness ratios [ICERs] ranged from US$27,195 to US$204,140), n-3 PUFAs in 60% (ICERs from US$57,128 to US$139,082) and the cardiovascular polypill in 100% (ICERs from dominant to US$30,731) compared with standard care. Conversely, only 10% of the studies considered PCSK9 inhibitors cost effective compared with standard care from a healthcare perspective (ICERs ranged from US$231,119 to US$1,223,831). Additionally, ezetimibe was cost effective in 50% of the studies, PCSK9 inhibitors in 33% and the polypill in 50% of the studies adopting a societal perspective. The key model-related parameters predicting cost-effectiveness included drug cost, time horizon, and the baseline risk of cardiovascular events.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on current pricing and willingness-to-pay thresholds, most CEA studies considered ezetimibe, n-3 PUFAs and the polypill to be cost effective compared with standard care but not PCSK9 inhibitors for secondary prevention of CVD.

Are Current Reporting Standards Used to Describe Health State Utilities in Cost-Effectiveness Models Satisfactory?

OBJECTIVE

The aims of this study were to examine current reporting standards of health state utilities (HSU) using a review of published cost-effectiveness analyses in cardiovascular disease and to explore the impact of variation in model inputs used in these on estimated quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and cost-effectiveness.

METHODS

Key health/economics bibliographic databases were searched to identify relevant articles published after 2014. Any narrative or values relating to the HSU used in the model were extracted and reviewed. The HSUs were systematically applied to an existing model to explore the influence of different values on QALYs and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio.

RESULTS

Twenty-four peer-reviewed articles were identified. Only 2 studies referred to a literature review for the HSUs. Most (18 of 24) referenced previously published economic studies (as opposed to the original source) for at least 1 of the HSUs. Only 4 studies referenced the original sources and reported all of the HSUs accurately, and several did not provide all the HSUs. Little information was provided on the methods used to calculate QALYs, for example, the duration of time for acute HSUs, what the baseline HSU was, the method that was used to assign HSUs for subsequent different events, or how constant HSUs for clinical events were combined with age-adjusted baseline values. The huge differences in HSUs used in the studies produced substantial variations in the QALYs and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios generated from the cost-effectiveness model.

CONCLUSION

Current standards are poor, and there is a need for greater transparency in reporting the HSUs used in cost-effectiveness models.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Ezetimibe as the Add-on Treatment to Moderate-Dose Rosuvastatin versus High-Dose Rosuvastatin in the Secondary Prevention of Cardiovascular Diseases in China: A Markov Model Analysis

BACKGROUND

For patients with inadequate control of cholesterol using moderate-dose statins in the secondary prevention of cardiovascular diseases (CVD), either doubling the dose of statins or adding ezetimibe should be considered. The cost-effectiveness of them is unknown in the Chinese context. The aim of this study is to compare the cost and effectiveness of the two regimens, and estimate the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER).

METHODS

A Markov model of five health statuses were used to estimate long-term costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) of the two treatment regimens from the healthcare perspective. The effectiveness data used to calculate the transition probability was based on a previously published randomized trial. The utility data was gathered from literature and the costs were gathered from the electronic medical record system of West China Hospital in Chinese Yuan (CNY) in 2017 price. One-way sensitivity analysis and probabilistic sensitivity analysis were conducted.

RESULTS

The ICER for ezetimibe plus moderate-dose rosuvastatin was 47,102.99 CNY per QALY for 20 years simulation, which did not reach the threshold of per capita gross domestic product (GDP) of 59,660 CNY per QALY in 2017 in China. Non-CVD-related mortality and CVD-related mortality contributed most to the ICER.

CONCLUSION

Adding ezetimibe to the moderate-dose statin in secondary prevention for CVD is cost-effective, compared with the high-dose statin in the Chinese context whose low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-c) was not inadequately controlled by moderate-dose statin alone.

How Low to Go With Lipid-Lowering Therapies in a Cost-effective and Prudent Manner

The 2013 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association guideline on the treatment of blood cholesterol was a landmark document guiding health care professionals around the globe on how to administer lipid-lowering therapies. Those guidelines were primarily focused on statin therapy benefit groups. The writing committee found insufficient evidence for specific low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) treatment targets. There have been many important updates in the lipid literature since the publication of that document. Most importantly, clinical trials have provided definitive evidence for the pivotal role of LDL-C in atherogenesis and the improvement in clinical outcomes by means of aggressive LDL-C reduction. Ezetimibe, evolocumab, and alirocumab treatment resulted in substantial reductions in major adverse cardiovascular outcomes. These data encourage a discussion on whether LDL-C targets are warranted in primary and/or secondary prevention, and if so, how low should those targets be. In order to answer such questions, the costs and safety of such therapies, as well as the safety of very low levels of LDL-C need to be addressed. This review discusses the relationship between LDL-C lowering and cardiovascular risk reduction, the efficacy, safety, and cost-effectiveness of high-intensity lipid-lowering therapies, and the recommendations from the most recent lipid guidelines.