Is it cost-effective to use a test to decide which individuals with an intermediate cardiovascular disease risk would benefit from statin treatment?

Cost-effectiveness of applying high-sensitivity troponin I to a score for cardiovascular risk prediction in asymptomatic population

INTRODUCTION

Risk stratification scores such as the European Systematic COronary Risk Evaluation (SCORE) are used to guide individuals on cardiovascular disease (CVD) prevention. Adding high-sensitivity troponin I (hsTnI) to such risk scores has the potential to improve accuracy of CVD prediction. We investigated how applying hsTnI in addition to SCORE may impact management, outcome, and cost-effectiveness.

METHODS

Characteristics of 72,190 apparently healthy individuals from the Biomarker for Cardiovascular Risk Assessment in Europe (BiomarCaRE) project were included into a discrete-event simulation comparing two strategies for assessing CVD risk. The standard strategy reflecting current practice employed SCORE (SCORE); the alternative strategy involved adding hsTnI information for further stratifying SCORE risk categories (S-SCORE). Individuals were followed over ten years from baseline examination to CVD event, death or end of follow-up. The model tracked the occurrence of events and calculated direct costs of screening, prevention, and treatment from a European health system perspective. Cost-effectiveness was expressed as incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) in € per quality-adjusted life year (QALYs) gained during 10 years of follow-up. Outputs were validated against observed rates, and results were tested in deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses.

RESULTS

S-SCORE yielded a change in management for 10.0% of individuals, and a reduction in CVD events (4.85% vs. 5.38%, p<0.001) and mortality (6.80% vs. 7.04%, p<0.001). S-SCORE led to 23 (95%CI: 20-26) additional event-free years and 7 (95%CI: 5-9) additional QALYs per 1,000 subjects screened, and resulted in a relative risk reduction for CVD of 9.9% (95%CI: 7.3-13.5%) with a number needed to screen to prevent one event of 183 (95%CI: 172 to 203). S-SCORE increased costs per subject by 187€ (95%CI: 177 € to 196 €), leading to an ICER of 27,440€/QALY gained. Sensitivity analysis was performed with eligibility for treatment being the most sensitive.

CONCLUSION

Adding a person's hsTnI value to SCORE can impact clinical decision making and eventually improves QALYs and is cost-effective compared to CVD prevention strategies using SCORE alone. Stratifying SCORE risk classes for hsTnI would likely offer cost-effective alternatives, particularly when targeting higher risk groups.

Cost-effectiveness of empagliflozin versus weekly semaglutide as add-on therapy for Type 2 diabetes

Aim: Perform a cost-effectiveness analysis of addition of subcutaneous semaglutide versus empagliflozin to usual treatment for patients with Type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease in US setting. Materials & methods: A Markov decision model estimated the impact of each strategy using cardiovascular complication rates based on EMPA-REG and SUSTAIN-6 trials. Modeled cohorts were followed for 3 years at 1-month intervals beginning at age 66. Results: Compared with empagliflozin, semaglutide resulted in cost of US$19,964 per quality-adjusted life-year gained. In one-way sensitivity analysis, only semaglutide cost >US$36.25/day (base case US$18.04) resulted in empagliflozin being preferred at a willingness-to-pay threshold of US$50,000/quality-adjusted life-year gained. Conclusion: For patients with Type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease, semaglutide is likely more cost-effective than empagliflozin added to usual treatment.

The Cost-Effectiveness and Cost-Utility of Statin Drug for the Treatment of Patients with Cardiovascular Disease, A Systematic Review

Cardiovascular diseases impose a burden of disease and economic burden on society. With regard to different drugs are used to treat cardiovascular disease; these interventions should be economically evaluated and them that the most cost-effective were selected. The aim of this study was to investigate the studies carried on the cost-effectiveness and cost-utility of statin drugs for the treatment of patients with cardiovascular disease between 2004 and 2020. Quality assessment of the articles was examined by Drummond's checklist. Given that the inclusion criteria, 26 articles included in the review. The results of this review showed that many articles related to the economic evaluation of statin drugs adhered international standards for performing economic evaluation studies. All the studies mentioned the source of effectiveness (the second criteria) and alternative options for the comparison (the third criteria). Atorvastatin and rosuvastatin drugs were the main options for the comparison in the studies. Although the results of the studies were different in some aspects, such as the type of modeling, costs items and the study perspective, they reached the same results which the use of statin drugs versus no-drug can decrease cost, cardiovascular events and deaths and increase QALY. The results were nearly different due to study design, time horizon, efficacy, and drug prices.

Estimating the cost-effectiveness of screening a general population for cardiovascular risk with high-sensitivity troponin-I

Aims 

To estimate the cost-effectiveness of using the cardiac specific marker high-sensitivity troponin-I (hsTnI) for assessing cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk in a general population.

Methods and results 

A discrete-event simulation model was developed from a societal perspective of a low-risk (Germany) and a high-risk (Kazakhstan) country. The model compared a Screen&Prevent strategy guided by hsTnI against a do-nothing strategy. Risk functions were derived from published data of a prospective cohort study [Nord-Trøndelag Health (HUNT) Study]. The model assessed the number of CVD events and deaths, healthy life years, direct and indirect costs in PPP 2018 Dollar, and quality-adjusted life years (QALY) over a time horizon of 10 years. Screen&Prevent reduced the number of CVD events per 1000 subjects by 5.1 and 5.0, equal to a number-needed-to-screen of 195 and 191 in Kazakhstan and Germany. Screen&Prevent was cost saving in Kazakhstan and cost-effective in Germany with an incremental-cost-effectiveness ratio of $6755 ($2294; $24 054) per QALY gained at an opportunity-cost based willingness-to-pay threshold of $27 373. Varying input variables in univariate and probabilistic sensitivity analyses confirmed the robustness of the analysis.

Conclusion 

Assessing the cardiovascular risk with hsTnI in a general population and subsequently referring those at high risk to preventive means would very likely be cost-effective or cost-saving by avoiding CVD events and associated direct and indirect costs. This conclusion is retained even if only the direct costs or only the costs for screening and prevention are considered. Future studies should evaluate the incremental cost-effectiveness of hsTnI-guided assessment strategies against established risk algorithms.

Impact of China's Low Centralized Medicine Procurement Prices on the Cost-Effectiveness of Statins for the Primary Prevention of Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease

Background:

Statin medications reduce the risk of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD). China’s new central government medicine procurement policy lowered statin prices by five-fold or more, which may impact the cost-effectiveness of statin therapy.

Objective:

To explore the impact of China’s 2019 centralized medicine procurement policy on the cost-effectiveness of statins treatment for primary ASCVD prevention.

Methods:

A microsimulation decision tree analytic model was built using individual participant data from ASCVD-free adults aged 35–64 years (n = 21,265) in the China Multi-provincial Cohort Study. ASCVD incidence, costs (2019 Int$), and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) over a 10-year period from health-care sector and societal perspectives were estimated. Effect and cost-effectiveness of low-dose statins (equivalent potency regimens of simvastatin 20 mg/day, atorvastatin 10 mg/day, or rosuvastatin 5 mg/day) and moderate-dose (double low dose) statins therapy were simulated. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of statin treatment was compared with no treatment by category of 10-year ASCVD risk. New lower prices of statins were from the centralized procurement policy bid-winning announcement file. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses quantified model uncertainty.

Results:

Low-dose statins interventions reduced 10-year ASCVD incidence by 4.1%, 9.7%, and 15.5% among people with low, moderate, and high risk comparing to no treatment. Lowering statin prices to the 2019 central government procurement policy level could lower the ICER of low-dose statins treatment for high-risk people from Int$ 141,000 to Int$ 51,300 per QALY gained from health-care sector perspective. Moderate-dose statin treatment lowered the ICER compared with the low-dose statins treatment in each ASCVD risk category (Int$ 43,100 vs. Int$ 51,300 per QALY gained from the health-care sector perspective for high risk people). Cost-effectiveness improved progressively with increased baseline ASCVD risk.

Conclusion:

Implementing low central government prices will substantially improve the cost-effectiveness of statins for primary ASCVD prevention in 35–64-year-old Chinese adults.

Quantifying Unmet Need in Statin-Treated Hyperlipidemia Patients and the Potential Benefit of Further LDL-C Reduction Through an EHR-Based Retrospective Cohort Study

BACKGROUND

Statins are effective in helping prevent cardiovascular disease (CVD). However, studies suggest that only 20%-64% of patients taking statins achieve reasonable low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) thresholds. On-treatment levels of LDL-C remain a key predictor of residual CVD event risk.

OBJECTIVES

To (a) determine how many patients on statins achieved the therapeutic threshold of LDL-C < 100 mg per dL (general cohort) and < 70 mg per dL (secondary prevention cohort, or subcohort, with preexisting CVD); (b) estimate the number of potentially avoidable CVD events if the threshold were reached; and (c) forecast potential cost savings.

METHODS

A retrospective, longitudinal cohort study using electronic health record data from the Indiana Network for Patient Care (INPC) was conducted. The INPC provides comprehensive information about patients in Indiana across health care organizations and care settings. Patients were aged > 45 years and seen between January 1, 2012, and October 31, 2016 (ensuring study of contemporary practice), were statin-naive for 12 months before the index date of initiating statin therapy, and had an LDL-C value recorded 6-18 months after the index date. Subsequent to descriptive cohort analysis, the theoretical CVD risk reduction achievable by reaching the threshold was calculated using Framingham Risk Score and Cholesterol Treatment Trialists' Collaboration formulas. Estimated potential cost savings used published first-year costs of CVD events, adjusted for inflation and discounted to the present day.

RESULTS

Of the 89,267 patients initiating statins, 30,083 (33.7%) did not achieve the LDL-C threshold (subcohort: 58.1%). In both groups, not achieving the threshold was associated with patients who were female, black, and those who had reduced medication adherence. Higher levels of preventive aspirin use and antihypertensive treatment were associated with threshold achievement. In both cohorts, approximately 64% of patients above the threshold were within 30 mg per dL of the respective threshold. Adherence to statin therapy regimen, judged by a medication possession ratio of ≥ 80%, was 57.4% in the general cohort and 56.7% in the subcohort. Of the patients who adhered to therapy, 23.7% of the general cohort and 50.5% of the subcohort had LDL-C levels that did not meet the threshold. 10-year CVD event risk in the at-or-above threshold group was 22.78% (SD = 17.24%) in the general cohort and 29.56% (SD = 18.19%) in the subcohort. By reducing LDL-C to the threshold, a potential relative risk reduction of 14.8% in the general cohort could avoid 1,173 CVD events over 10 years (subcohort: 15.7% and 454 events). Given first-year inpatient and follow-up costs of $37,300 per CVD event, this risk reduction could save about $1,455 per patient treated to reach the threshold (subcohort: $1,902; 2017 U.S. dollars) over a 10-year period.

CONCLUSIONS

Across multiple health care systems in Indiana, between 34% (general cohort) and 58% (secondary prevention cohort) of patients treated with statins did not achieve therapeutic LDL-C thresholds. Based on current CVD event risk and cost projections, such patients seem to be at increased risk and may represent an important and potentially preventable burden on health care costs.

DISCLOSURES

Funding support for this study was provided by Merck (Kenilworth, NJ). Chase and Boggs are employed by Merck. Simpson is a consultant to Merck and Pfizer. The other authors have nothing to disclose.