Cost-Effectiveness of Alirocumab in Patients With Acute Coronary Syndromes: The ODYSSEY OUTCOMES Trial

Optimizing Post-Acute Coronary Syndrome Dyslipidemia Management: Insights from the North American Acute Coronary Syndrome Reflective III

INTRODUCTION

Despite contemporary practice guidelines, a substantial number of post-acute coronary syndrome (ACS) patients fail to achieve guideline-recommended LDL-C thresholds. Our study aimed to investigate this guideline recommendations-to-practice care gap. Specifically, we aimed to identify opportunities where additional lipid-lowering therapies are indicated and explore reasons for the non-prescription of guideline-recommended therapies.

METHODS

ACS patients with LDL-C ≥1.81 mmol/L (70 mg/dL) despite maximally tolerated statin ± ezetimibe therapy (including those intolerant of ≥2 statins) were enrolled 1-12 months post-event from 27 Canadian and US sites from September 2018 to October 2020 and followed up for three visits during the 12 months post-event. We determined the proportion of patients who did not achieve Canadian/US guideline-recommended LDL-C thresholds, the number of patients who would have been eligible for additional lipid-lowering therapies, and reasons behind lack of escalation in lipid-lowering therapies when indicated. Individual patient and aggregate practice feedback, including guideline-recommended intensification suggestions, were provided to each physician.

RESULTS

Of the 248 patients enrolled in the pilot study (median age 64 [57, 73] years, 31.5% female and STEMI 27.4%), 75.4% were on high-intensity statins on the first visit. A total of 18.5% of those who attended all 3 visits had an LDL-C measured only at the first visit which was above the threshold. After 1 year of follow-up, 51.9% of patients achieved LDL-C thresholds at either visit 2 or 3. In the context of feedback reminding physicians about guideline-directed LDL-C-modifying therapy in their individual participating patients, we observed an increase in the use of ezetimibe and PCSK9 inhibitor therapy at 3-12 months. This was associated with a significant lowering of the mean LDL-C (from 2.93 mmol/L [baseline] to 2.09 mmol/L [3-6 months] to 1.87 mmol/L [6-12 months]) and a significantly greater proportion of patients (from 0% [baseline] to 38.6% [3-6 months] to 53.4% [6-12 months]) achieving guideline-recommended LDL-C thresholds. The most prevalent reasons behind the non-intensification of LDL-C-lowering therapy with ezetimibe and/or PCSK9i were LDL-C levels being close to target, the pre-existing use of other lipid-lowering therapies, patient refusal, and cost.

CONCLUSION

Although most patients post-ACS were on high-intensity statin therapy, almost 50% failed to achieve guideline-recommended LDL-C thresholds by 1-year follow-up. Furthermore, additional lipid-lowering therapies in this high-risk group were underprescribed, and this might be linked to several factors including potential gaps in physician knowledge, treatment inertia, patient refusal, and cost.

Impact of New Cardiovascular Events on Quality of Life and Hospital Costs in People With Cardiovascular Disease in the United Kingdom and United States

BACKGROUND

Despite optimized risk factor control, people with prior cardiovascular disease remain at high cardiovascular disease risk. We assess the immediate- and longer-term impacts of new vascular and nonvascular events on quality of life (QoL) and hospital costs among participants in the REVEAL (Randomized Evaluation of the Effects of Anacetrapib Through Lipid Modification) trial in secondary prevention.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Data on demographic and clinical characteristics, health-related quality of life (QoL: EuroQoL 5-Dimension-5-Level), adverse events, and hospital admissions during the 4-year follow-up of the 21 820 participants recruited in Europe and North America informed assessments of the impacts of new adverse events on QoL and hospital costs from the UK and US health systems' perspectives using generalized linear regression models. Reductions in QoL were estimated in the years of event occurrence for nonhemorrhagic stroke (-0.067 [United Kingdom], -0.069 [US]), heart failure admission (-0.072 [United Kingdom], -0.103 [US]), incident cancer (-0.064 [United Kingdom], -0.068 [US]), and noncoronary revascularization (-0.071 [United Kingdom], -0.061 [US]), as well as in subsequent years following these events. Myocardial infarction and coronary revascularization (CRV) procedures were not found to affect QoL. All adverse events were associated with additional hospital costs in the years of events and in subsequent years, with the highest additional costs in the years of noncoronary revascularization (£5830 [United Kingdom], $14 133 [US Medicare]), of myocardial infarction with urgent CRV procedure (£5614, $24722), and of urgent/nonurgent CRV procedure without myocardial infarction (£4674/£4651 and $15 251/$17 539).

CONCLUSIONS

Stroke, heart failure, and noncoronary revascularization procedures substantially reduce QoL, and all cardiovascular disease events increase hospital costs. These estimates are useful in informing cost-effectiveness of interventions to reduce cardiovascular disease risk in secondary prevention.

REGISTRATION

URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT01252953; https://www.Isrctn.com. Unique identifier: ISRCTN48678192; https://www.clinicaltrialsregister.eu. Unique identifier: 2010-023467-18.

Cost-Effectiveness of Vericiguat in Patients With Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction: The VICTORIA Randomized Clinical Trial

BACKGROUND

The VICTORIA trial (Vericiguat Global Study in Subjects With Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction) demonstrated that, in patients with high-risk heart failure, vericiguat reduced the primary composite outcome of cardiovascular death or heart failure hospitalization relative to placebo. The hazard ratio for all-cause mortality was 0.95 (95% CI, 0.84-1.07). In a prespecified analysis, treatment effects varied substantially as a function of baseline NT-proBNP (N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide) levels, with survival benefit for vericiguat in the lower NT-proBNP quartiles (hazard ratio, 0.82 [95% CI, 0.69-0.97]) and no benefit in the highest NT-proBNP quartile (hazard ratio, 1.14 [95% CI, 0.95-1.38]). An economic analysis was a major secondary objective of the VICTORIA research program.

METHODS

Medical resource use data were collected for all VICTORIA patients (N=5050). Costs were estimated by applying externally derived US cost weights to resource use counts. Life expectancy was projected from patient-level empirical trial survival results with the use of age-based survival modeling methods. Quality-of-life adjustments were based on prospectively collected EQ-5D-based utilities. The primary outcome was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, comparing vericiguat with placebo, assessed from the US health care sector perspective over a lifetime horizon. Cost-effectiveness was estimated using the total VICTORIA cohort, both with and without interaction between treatment and baseline NT-proBNP.

RESULTS

Life expectancy modeling results varied according to whether the observed heterogeneity of treatment effect by baseline NT-proBNP values was incorporated into the modeling. Including the interaction term, the vericiguat arm had an estimated quality-adjusted life expectancy of 4.56 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) compared with 4.13 QALYs for placebo (incremental discounted QALY, 0.43). Without the treatment heterogeneity/interaction term, vericiguat had 4.50 QALYs compared with 4.33 QALYs for placebo (incremental discounted QALY, 0.17). Incremental discounted costs (vericiguat minus placebo) were $28 546 with the treatment interaction and $20 948 without it. Corresponding incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were $66 509 per QALY allowing for treatment heterogeneity and $124 512 without heterogeneity.

CONCLUSIONS

Vericiguat use in the VICTORIA trial met criteria for intermediate value, but the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio estimates were sensitive to whether the analysis accounted for observed NT-proBNP treatment effect heterogeneity. The cost-effectiveness of vericiguat was driven by the projected incremental life expectancy among patients in the lowest 3 quartiles of NT-proBNP.

REGISTRATION

URL: https://www.

CLINICALTRIALS

gov; Unique identifier: NCT02861534.

The Societal Impact of Inclisiran in England: Evidence From a Population Health Approach

OBJECTIVES

As first-in-class cholesterol-lowering small interfering ribonucleic acid, inclisiran provides effective reductions in low-density lipoprotein-cholesterol to achieve better cardiovascular (CV) health. We estimate the health and socioeconomic effects of introducing inclisiran according to a population health agreement in England.

METHODS

Building on the inclisiran cost-effectiveness model, a Markov model simulates health gains in terms of avoided CV events and CV deaths because of add-on inclisiran treatment for patients aged 50 years and older with pre-existing atherosclerotic CV disease. These are translated into socioeconomic effects, defined as societal impact. To that end, we quantify avoided productivity losses in terms of paid and unpaid work productivity and monetize them according to gross value added. Furthermore, we calculate value chain effects for paid work activities, drawing on value-added multipliers based on input-output tables. The derived value-invest ratio compares avoided productivity losses against the increased healthcare costs.

RESULTS

Our results show that 138 647 CV events could be avoided over a period of 10 years. The resulting societal impact amounts to £8.17 billion, whereas additional healthcare costs are estimated at £7.94 billion. This translates into a value-invest ratio of 1.03.

CONCLUSIONS

Our estimates demonstrate the potential health and socioeconomic value of inclisiran. Thereby, we highlight the importance to treat CVD and illustrate the impact that a large-scale intervention can have on population health and the economy.

2023 AHA/ACC/ACCP/ASPC/NLA/PCNA Guideline for the Management of Patients With Chronic Coronary Disease: A Report of the American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines

AIM

The "2023 AHA/ACC/ACCP/ASPC/NLA/PCNA Guideline for the Management of Patients With Chronic Coronary Disease" provides an update to and consolidates new evidence since the "2012 ACCF/AHA/ACP/AATS/PCNA/SCAI/STS Guideline for the Diagnosis and Management of Patients With Stable Ischemic Heart Disease" and the corresponding "2014 ACC/AHA/AATS/PCNA/SCAI/STS Focused Update of the Guideline for the Diagnosis and Management of Patients With Stable Ischemic Heart Disease."

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was conducted from September 2021 to May 2022. Clinical studies, systematic reviews and meta-analyses, and other evidence conducted on human participants were identified that were published in English from MEDLINE (through PubMed), EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and other selected databases relevant to this guideline.

STRUCTURE

This guideline provides an evidenced-based and patient-centered approach to management of patients with chronic coronary disease, considering social determinants of health and incorporating the principles of shared decision-making and team-based care. Relevant topics include general approaches to treatment decisions, guideline-directed management and therapy to reduce symptoms and future cardiovascular events, decision-making pertaining to revascularization in patients with chronic coronary disease, recommendations for management in special populations, patient follow-up and monitoring, evidence gaps, and areas in need of future research. Where applicable, and based on availability of cost-effectiveness data, cost-value recommendations are also provided for clinicians. Many recommendations from previously published guidelines have been updated with new evidence, and new recommendations have been created when supported by published data.

2023 AHA/ACC/ACCP/ASPC/NLA/PCNA Guideline for the Management of Patients With Chronic Coronary Disease: A Report of the American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines

AIM

The "2023 AHA/ACC/ACCP/ASPC/NLA/PCNA Guideline for the Management of Patients With Chronic Coronary Disease" provides an update to and consolidates new evidence since the "2012 ACCF/AHA/ACP/AATS/PCNA/SCAI/STS Guideline for the Diagnosis and Management of Patients With Stable Ischemic Heart Disease" and the corresponding "2014 ACC/AHA/AATS/PCNA/SCAI/STS Focused Update of the Guideline for the Diagnosis and Management of Patients With Stable Ischemic Heart Disease."

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was conducted from September 2021 to May 2022. Clinical studies, systematic reviews and meta-analyses, and other evidence conducted on human participants were identified that were published in English from MEDLINE (through PubMed), EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and other selected databases relevant to this guideline.

STRUCTURE

This guideline provides an evidenced-based and patient-centered approach to management of patients with chronic coronary disease, considering social determinants of health and incorporating the principles of shared decision-making and team-based care. Relevant topics include general approaches to treatment decisions, guideline-directed management and therapy to reduce symptoms and future cardiovascular events, decision-making pertaining to revascularization in patients with chronic coronary disease, recommendations for management in special populations, patient follow-up and monitoring, evidence gaps, and areas in need of future research. Where applicable, and based on availability of cost-effectiveness data, cost-value recommendations are also provided for clinicians. Many recommendations from previously published guidelines have been updated with new evidence, and new recommendations have been created when supported by published data.

The cost-effectiveness of rivaroxaban with or without aspirin in the COMPASS trial

AIMS

The Cardiovascular Outcomes for People Using Anticoagulation Strategies (COMPASS) trial demonstrated that rivaroxaban 2.5 mg BID with aspirin 100 mg was more effective than aspirin 100 mg daily alone for the prevention of cardiovascular (CV) death, stroke, or myocardial infarction in patients with stable coronary artery disease (CAD) or peripheral artery disease (PAD). We aimed to examine the cost-effectiveness of rivaroxaban using patient-level data from the COMPASS trial.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We performed an in-trial analysis and extrapolated our results for 33 years using a two-state Markov model with a 1-year cycle length. Hospitalization events, procedures, and study drugs were documented for patients. We applied country-specific (Canada, France, and Germany) direct healthcare system costs (in USD) to healthcare resources consumed by patients. Average cost per patient during the trial (mean follow-up of 23 months), quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and lifetime cost-effectiveness were calculated. Costs of events and procedures were reduced with rivaroxaban 2.5 mg BID with aspirin. The addition of rivaroxaban 2.5 mg BID increased total costs for the combination group. Over a lifetime horizon (in trial +33 years), rivaroxaban plus aspirin was associated with 1.17 QALYs gained, yielding an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $3946/QALY, $9962/QALY, and $10 264/QALY in Canada, France, and Germany, respectively. PAD and polyvascular disease subgroups had lower ICERs.

CONCLUSION

Rivaroxaban 2.5 mg twice daily plus aspirin compared with aspirin alone reduces direct healthcare costs. After acquisition costs of rivaroxaban, the lifetime cost-effectiveness of 2.5 mg twice daily plus aspirin is highly cost-effective in Canada, France, and Germany.(COMPASS ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01776424).

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.

Feasibility of Short-Term Aggressive Lipid-Lowering Therapy with the PCSK9 Antibody in Acute Coronary Syndrome

BACKGROUND

The guideline-recommended low-density lipoprotein cholesterol target level of <70 mg/dL may not be achieved with statin administration in some patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS). Therefore, the proprotein convertase subtilisin-kexin type 9 (PCSK9) antibody can be added to high-risk patients with ACS. Nevertheless, the optimal duration of PCSK9 antibody administration remains unclear.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Patients were randomized to receive either 3 months of lipid lowering therapy (LLT) with the PCSK9 antibody followed by conventional LLT (with-PCSK9-antibody group) or 12 months of conventional LLT alone (without-PCSK9-antibody group). The primary endpoint was the composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, stroke, unstable angina, and ischemia-driven revascularization. A total of 124 patients treated with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) were randomly assigned to the two groups (n = 62 in each). The primary composite outcome occurred in 9.7% and 14.5% of the patients in the with- and without-PCSK9-antibody groups, respectively (hazard ratio: 0.70; 95% confidence interval: 0.25 to 1.97; p = 0.498). The two groups showed no significant differences in hospitalization for worsening heart failure and adverse events.

CONCLUSIONS

In ACS patients who underwent PCI, short-term PCSK9 antibody therapy with conventional LLT was feasible in this pilot clinical trial. Long-term follow-up in a larger scale clinical trial is warranted.

Hypercholesterolemia diagnosis, treatment patterns and target achievement in patients with acute coronary syndromes in Germany

BACKGROUND

Patients who experience an acute coronary syndrome (ACS) are at high risk of further cardiovascular events. Long-term treatment of cardiovascular risk factors, such as hyperlipidemia, is critical to prevent progression of coronary heart disease. However, many patients do not reach recommended target levels for low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol, despite receiving lipid-lowering therapy.

OBJECTIVE

To obtain an insight into the current treatment situation for very high-risk patients after an initial ACS in Germany.

METHODS

The multicenter HYDRA-ACS registry study was initiated to document the clinical characteristics of very high-risk patients with ACS and hyperlipidemia in clinical practice. In addition, lipid profiles, lipid-lowering therapy, and lipid target achievement during treatment were documented over 1 year.

RESULTS

353 patients who were documented had a mean age of 57.3 years, mean body mass index was 28.6 kg/m², and 73.4% were male; 52.4% had a family history of myocardial infarction (MI) and 32.6% a family history of coronary heart disease (CHD). Patients' medical histories commonly included CHD (32.9%), percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI; 25.5%), and previous ACS (23.0%). Common comorbidities included hypertension (68.6%), diabetes (17.3%), heart failure (16.7%), and stable angina pectoris (15.9%). The proportion of patients receiving lipid-lowering therapy increased from 65.7% at baseline to 100% at the 12-month follow-up (p < 0.0001). Substantial increases in use were seen for statins (85.0% vs. 36.5%, p = 0.0002) and cholesterol resorption inhibitors (32.9% vs. 8.6%, p = 0.0003). Use of combination therapy increased. The proportion of patients undertaking physical exercise increased (p < 0.0001), as did consumption of fruit and vegetables (p = 0.0222) and fish (p = 0.0162), while alcohol consumption decreased (p = 0.0019). Median LDL cholesterol level decreased significantly from baseline (87 vs. 166 mg/dL, p < 0.0001), and the proportion of patients with a level < 70 mg/dL increased (50.0% vs. 5.7%, p < 0.0001). Median HDL cholesterol increased (47 vs. 45 mg/dL, p = 0.0235) and median triglyceride level decreased (119 vs. 148 mg/dL, p = 0.0080). The proportion of patients receiving antihypertensive drugs and platelet aggregation inhibitors increased. The most frequent cardiovascular events during the 12-month follow-up were PCI (25.9%) and cardiac catheterization without PCI (12.9%); MI occurred in 2.4% of patients; no deaths were reported.

CONCLUSIONS

This study provides a contemporary picture of the treatment of hyperlipidemia after ACS in patients in Germany. Despite treatment with lipid-lowering therapy, many patients did not achieve recommended lipid targets by 12 months after an ACS event.

Contemporary National Patterns of Eligibility and Use of Novel Lipid-Lowering Therapies in the United States

Background The emergence of PCSK9i (proprotein convertase subtilisin kexin type 9 inhibitor) and icosapent ethyl (IPE) has expanded the role of lipid-lowering therapies beyond statins. Despite recommendations by clinical practice guidelines, their national eligibility and use rates remain unclear. Methods and Results In the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey data from 2017 to 2020, we assessed eligibility and the use of statins, PCSK9i, and IPE among US adults according to American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association guideline recommendations. Eligibility for PCSK9i and IPE were determined in the following 2 scenarios: (1) assuming existing lipid-lowering therapy as the maximum tolerated before assessing eligibility for novel therapies and (2) assessing eligibility after assuming initiation and maximal escalation of preexisting lipid-lowering therapies and accounting for expected lipid improvements. Of 2729 sampled individuals, representing 149.3 million adults, 1376 had indications for statins, representing 65.8 million or 44.0% (95% CI, 40.9%-47.2%) of adults. Current statin use was 45% of those eligible and was low across demographic groups. A total of 9.7 and 11.6 million adults would benefit from PCSK9i and IPE, respectively, based on lipid profiles and existing therapies. Assuming maximal escalation of statins and addition of ezetimibe, 4.1% (95% CI, 2.8%-5.4%) of adults or 6.1 million would benefit from PCSK9i and 6.8% (95% CI, 5.4%-8.3%) or 10.2 million from IPE. Conclusions Six and 10 million individuals have clinical profiles whereby PCSK9i and IPE, respectively, would be expected to improve cardiovascular outcomes even after maximum escalation of statins and ezetimibe use, but remain undertreated with lipid-lowering therapies. Optimal use of lipid-targeted agents that include these novel agents is needed to improve population health outcomes.

Cost Effectiveness of Inclisiran in Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Patients with Elevated Low-Density Lipoprotein Cholesterol Despite Statin Use: A Threshold Analysis

BACKGROUND

Inclisiran is a novel, cholesterol-lowering therapy, with a long duration of effect, administered every 6 months (subcutaneously by a healthcare professional). In the ORION-10 trial in US patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) in addition to maximum tolerated statins, with or without ezetimibe, inclisiran demonstrated statistically significant reductions in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) of up to 51%. This is the first peer-reviewed publication to investigate the price at which inclisiran is cost effective in the US.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to determine the maximum price at which inclisiran is cost effective in addition to standard of care, in US patients with ASCVD, versus standard of care alone, at different willingness-to-pay thresholds.

DESIGN, SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS

A lifetime Markov model from the US health system perspective, including 15 health states, was used to evaluate the cost effectiveness of inclisiran. The following states were separated by time from a previous cardiovascular event (0-1 years, 1-2 years, 2+ years ['stable']): initial, unstable angina, myocardial infarction, and stroke. Additional states included revascularization and death (cardiovascular or non-cardiovascular causes). Baseline risk of cardivoascular events were from US database sources or published literature. Reductions in LDL-C from inclisiran were from the ORION-10 trial. LDL-C reduction was used to adjust baseline risk of cardiovascular events, based on established relationships between 1 mmol/L reduction in LDL-C and decreases in cardiovascular events, from the Cholesterol Treatment Trialists studies. The population included adults with a history of ASCVD, and LDL-C ≥ 70 mg/dL, despite maximum tolerated doses of statin therapy.

INTERVENTIONS

Inclisiran as an adjunct to standard of care, compared with standard of care alone.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The threshold price of inclisiran.

RESULTS

Inclisiran as an adjunct to standard of care resulted in threshold annual inclisiran prices of $6383, $9973, and $13,563 at willingness-to-pay thresholds of $50,000, $100,000, and $150,000 per quality-adjusted life-year, respectively. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed that at a threshold of $100,000 per QALY, inclisiran had a 100% probability of being cost effective, with an annual price below $9000. At the publicly available price of $3250 per dose, inclisiran was found to have an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio just above the $50,000 per QALY threshold, of $51,686.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

This study identified the price at which inclisiran is cost effective for the US health system, at generally accepted willingness-to-pay thresholds.

Cost-Effectiveness of Icosapent Ethyl, Evolocumab, Alirocumab, Ezetimibe, or Fenofibrate in Combination with Statins Compared to Statin Monotherapy

BACKGROUND

Despite treatment with statins, dyslipidaemia patients with elevated cholesterol- and triglyceride-levels remain at high residual risk for major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE). New lipid-lowering drugs must prevent the occurrence of MACE and exhibit cost-effectiveness for their successful adoption to clinical practice.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the cost effectiveness of icosapent ethyl, fenofibrate, ezetimibe, evolocumab, and alirocumab in combination with statins compared to statin monotherapy for cardiovascular prevention from the perspective of UK's National Health Service.

METHODS

A Markov model simulated the progression of cardiovascular disease and MACE, including myocardial infarction, stroke, angina pectoris, and coronary revascularisation, in dyslipidaemia patients. The model was populated with cardiovascular outcome trial data for each drug. Cost and utility data were extracted from peer-reviewed literature. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) is reported per quality-adjusted life years (QALY) gained in 2021 Great Britain Pounds (£).

RESULTS

For primary cardiovascular prevention, icosapent ethyl increased QALYs by 0.79 and costs by £15,421 compared to statin monotherapy (ICER = £19,485/QALY). Fenofibrate yielded 0.62 additional QALYs at cost-savings of - £6127 (ICER = - £9932/QALY). For secondary prevention, the omega-3 fatty acid icosapent ethyl extended QALYs by 0.98 at costs of £12,981 compared to statin monotherapy (ICER = £13,285/QALY). Fenofibrate added 0.85 QALYs whilst saving - £637 (ICER = - £7472/QALY). Ezetimibe increased QALYs by 0.60 at cost reductions of - £2529 (ICER = - £4231/QALY). PCSK9 inhibitors provided QALYs of 0.53 and 0.86 at costs of £45,279 and £46,375 for evolocumab (ICER = £85,193/QALY) and alirocumab (ICER = £54,211/QALY), respectively. At a willingness-to-pay threshold of £25,000/QALY, there is a probability of 100% for icosapent ethyl (98% in primary prevention) and 0% for PCSK9 inhibitors to be cost effective in secondary prevention.

CONCLUSIONS

Icosapent ethyl is cost effective for primary and secondary cardiovascular prevention at an annual price of £2064 in the UK. For PCSK9 inhibitors, price discounts or prescription restrictions are necessary to achieve cost effectiveness.

How can we optimise health technology assessment and reimbursement decisions to accelerate access to new cardiovascular medicines?

Regulatory approvals of, and subsequent access to, innovative cardiovascular medications have declined. How much of this decline relates to the final step of gaining reimbursement for new treatments is unknown. Payers and health technology assessment (HTA) bodies look beyond efficacy and safety to assess whether a new drug improves patient outcomes, quality of life, or satisfaction at a cost that is affordable compared to existing treatments. HTA bodies work within a limited healthcare budget, and this is one of the reasons why only half of newly approved drugs are accepted for reimbursement, or receive restricted or "optimised" recommendations from HTA bodies. All stakeholders have the common goal of facilitating access to safe, effective, and affordable treatments to appropriate patients. An important strategy to expedite this is providing optimal data. This is demonstrably facilitated by early (and ongoing) discussions between all stakeholders. Many countries have formal programmes to provide collaborative regulatory and HTA advice to developers. Other strategies include aligning regulatory and HTA processes, increasing use of real-world evidence, formally defining the decision-making process, and educating stakeholders on the criteria for positive decision making. Industry should focus on developing treatments for unmet medical needs, seek early engagement with HTA and regulatory bodies, improve methodologies for optimal price setting, develop internal systems to collaborate with national and international stakeholders, and conduct post-approval studies. Patient involvement in all stages of development, including HTA, is critical to capture the lived experience and priorities of those whose lives will be impacted by new treatment approvals.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of semaglutide 2.4 mg for the treatment of adult patients with overweight and obesity in the United States

BACKGROUND: The rising prevalence and associated public health burden of obesity has led to advancements in pharmaceuticals for weight management. Semaglutide 2.4 mg, an anti-obesity medication (AOM) recently approved by the US Food and Drug Administration, has demonstrated clinically relevant weight loss in its phase 3 clinical trials. Economic evaluation comparing semaglutide 2.4 mg with other available weight management therapies is essential to inform payers for decision-making. OBJECTIVES: To assess the cost-effectiveness of semaglutide 2.4 mg in the treatment of adult patients with obesity (ie, body mass index [BMI] ≥ 30) and adult patients who are overweight (ie, BMI 27-29.9) with 1 or more weight-related comorbidities from a US third-party payer perspective. METHODS: A cohort Markov model was constructed to compare semaglutide 2.4 mg with the following comparators: no treatment, diet and exercise (D&E), and 3 branded AOMs (liraglutide 3 mg, phentermine-topiramate, and naltrexone-bupropion). All AOMs, including semaglutide 2.4 mg, were assumed to be taken in conjunction with D&E. Changes in BMI, blood pressure, cholesterol level, experience of acute and chronic obesity-related complications, costs, and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were simulated over 30 years based on pivotal trials of the AOMs and other relevant literature. Drug and health care prices reflect 2021 standardized values. Cost-effectiveness was examined with a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $150,000 per QALY gained. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to test the robustness of the cost-effectiveness results to plausible variation in model inputs. RESULTS: In the base-case analysis, treatment with semaglutide 2.4 mg was estimated to improve QALYs by 0.138 to 0.925 and incur higher costs by $3,254 to $25,086 over the 30-year time horizon vs comparators. Semaglutide 2.4 mg is cost-effective against all comparators at the prespecified WTP threshold, with the incremental cost per QALY gained ranging from $23,556 to $144,296 per QALY gained. In the sensitivity analysis, extended maximum treatment duration, types of subsequent treatment following therapy discontinuation, and weight-rebound rates were identified as key drivers for model results. The estimated probability of semaglutide 2.4 mg being cost-effective compared with comparators ranged from 67% to 100% when varying model parameters and assumptions. CONCLUSIONS: As a long-term weight management therapy, semaglutide 2.4 mg was estimated to be cost-effective compared with no treatment, D&E alone, and all other branded AOM comparators under a WTP threshold of $150,000 per QALY gained over a 30-year time horizon. DISCLOSURES: Financial support for this research was provided by Novo Nordisk Inc. The study sponsor was involved in several aspects of the research, including the study design, the interpretation of data, the writing of the manuscript, and the decision to submit the manuscript for publication. Dr Kim and Ms Ramasamy are employees of Novo Nordisk Inc. Ms Kumar and Dr Burudpakdee were employees of Novo Nordisk Inc at the time this study was conducted. Dr Sullivan received research support from Novo Nordisk Inc for this study. Drs Wang, Song, Wu, Ms Xie, and Ms Sun are employees of Analysis Group, Inc, who received consultancy fees from Novo Nordisk Inc in connection with this study.

Opportunità cliniche e impatto sul sistema sanitario di un trattamento ottimale del paziente post-sindrome coronarica acuta

Despite the improvement of revascularization procedures, patients with acute coronary syndrome often develop recurrent ischemic events, suggesting a high residual cardiovascular risk in these patients, which requires a strict clinical monitoring as well as an optimal control of modifiable risk factors.

To this aim, an optimal management of index event and appropriate preventive measures are equally important. Hospital care by cardiologists should be followed by outpatient management by general practitioners, as established by specific diagnostic and therapeutic pathways, which should warrant an optimal support to the patient. A strict collaboration between hospital and primary care is crucial to monitor and adapt drug therapy after the acute event and improve adherence of the patients to prescribed treatments and implementation of life-style modifications, with benefits also in term of cost-effectiveness. In this context, individualized rehabilitation programs should also be offered to patients with acute coronary syndromes, in order to improve survival and quality of life.

Diagnosis and Treatment of Acute Coronary Syndromes: A Review

IMPORTANCE

Acute coronary syndromes (ACS) are characterized by a sudden reduction in blood supply to the heart and include ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), non-STEMI (NSTEMI), and unstable angina. Each year, an estimated more than 7 million people in the world are diagnosed with ACS, including more than 1 million patients hospitalized in the US.

OBSERVATIONS

Chest discomfort at rest is the most common presenting symptom of ACS and affects approximately 79% of men and 74% of women presenting with ACS, although approximately 40% of men and 48% of women present with nonspecific symptoms, such as dyspnea, either in isolation or, more commonly, in combination with chest pain. For patients presenting with possible ACS, electrocardiography should be performed immediately (within 10 minutes of presentation) and can distinguish between STEMI and non-ST-segment elevation ACS (NSTE-ACS). STEMI is caused by complete coronary artery occlusion and accounts for approximately 30% of ACS. ACS without significant ST-segment elevation on electrocardiography, termed NSTE-ACS, account for approximately 70% of ACS, are caused by partial or intermittent occlusion of the artery and are associated with ST-segment depressions (approximately 31%), T-wave inversions (approximately 12%), ST-segment depressions combined with T-wave inversions (16%), or neither (approximately 41%). When electrocardiography suggests STEMI, rapid reperfusion with primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) within 120 minutes reduces mortality from 9% to 7%. If PCI within 120 minutes is not possible, fibrinolytic therapy with alteplase, reteplase, or tenecteplase at full dose should be administered for patients younger than 75 years without contraindications and at half dose for patients 75 years or older (or streptokinase at full dose if cost is a consideration), followed by transfer to a facility with the goal of PCI within the next 24 hours. High-sensitivity troponin measurements are the preferred test to evaluate for NSTEMI. In high-risk patients with NSTE-ACS and no contraindications, prompt invasive coronary angiography and percutaneous or surgical revascularization within 24 to 48 hours are associated with a reduction in death from 6.5% to 4.9%.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Each year, an estimated more than 7 million people are diagnosed with ACS worldwide. For patients with STEMI, coronary catheterization and PCI within 2 hours of presentation reduces mortality, with fibrinolytic therapy reserved for patients without access to immediate PCI. For high-risk patients with NSTE-ACS without contraindications, prompt invasive coronary angiography followed by percutaneous or surgical revascularization is associated with lower rates of death.

Cost-effectiveness of Icosapent Ethyl for High-risk Patients With Hypertriglyceridemia Despite Statin Treatment

Importance

The Reduction of Cardiovascular Events With Icosapent Ethyl-Intervention Trial (REDUCE-IT) demonstrated the efficacy of icosapent ethyl (IPE) for high-risk patients with hypertriglyceridemia and known cardiovascular disease or diabetes and at least 1 other risk factor who were treated with statins.

Objective

To estimate the cost-effectiveness of IPE compared with standard care for high-risk patients with hypertriglyceridemia despite statin treatment.

Design, Setting, and Participants

An in-trial cost-effectiveness analysis was performed using patient-level study data from REDUCE-IT, and a lifetime analysis was performed using a microsimulation model and data from published literature. The study included 8179 patients with hypertriglyceridemia despite stable statin therapy recruited between November 21, 2011, and May 31, 2018. Analyses were performed from a US health care sector perspective. Statistical analysis was performed from March 1, 2018, to October 31, 2021.

Interventions

Patients were randomly assigned to IPE, 4 g/d, or placebo and were followed up for a median of 4.9 years (IQR, 3.5-5.3 years). The cost of IPE was $4.16 per day after rebates using SSR Health net cost (SSR cost) and $9.28 per day with wholesale acquisition cost (WAC).

Main Outcomes and Measures

Main outcomes were incremental quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), total direct health care costs (2019 US dollars), and cost-effectiveness.

Results

A total of 4089 patients (2927 men [71.6%]; median age, 64.0 years [IQR, 57.0-69.0 years]) were randomly assigned to receive IPE, and 4090 patients (2895 men [70.8%]; median age, 64.0 years [IQR, 57.0-69.0 years]) were randomly assigned to receive standard care. Treatment with IPE yielded more QALYs than standard care both in trial (3.34 vs 3.27; mean difference, 0.07 [95% CI, 0.01-0.12]) and over a lifetime projection (10.59 vs 10.35; mean difference, 0.24 [95% CI, 0.15-0.33]). In-trial, total health care costs were higher with IPE using either SSR cost ($18 786) or WAC ($24 544) than with standard care ($17 273; mean difference from SSR cost, $1513 [95% CI, $155-$2870]; mean difference from WAC, $7271 [95% CI, $5911-$8630]). Icosapent ethyl cost $22 311 per QALY gained using SSR cost and $107 218 per QALY gained using WAC. Over a lifetime, IPE was projected to be cost saving when using SSR cost ($195 276) compared with standard care ($197 064; mean difference, -$1788 [95% CI, -$9735 to $6159]) but to have higher costs when using WAC ($202 830) compared with standard care (mean difference, $5766 [95% CI, $1094-$10 438]). Compared with standard care, IPE had a 58.4% lifetime probability of costing less and being more effective when using SSR cost and an 89.4% probability of costing less than $50 000 per QALY gained when using SSR cost and a 72.5% probability of costing less than $50 000 per QALY gained when using WAC.

Conclusions and Relevance

This study suggests that, both in-trial and over the lifetime, IPE offers better cardiovascular outcomes than standard care in REDUCE-IT participants at common willingness-to-pay thresholds.

PCSK9 inhibition-based therapeutic approaches: an immunotherapy perspective

Proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 (PCSK9) inhibitors (PCSK9-I) are novel therapeutic tools to decrease cardiovascular risk. These agents work by lowering the low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) in hypercholesterolemic patients who are statin resistant/intolerant. Current clinically approved and investigational PCSK9-I act generally by blocking PCSK9 activity in the plasma or suppressing its expression or secretion by hepatocytes. The most widely investigated method is the disruption of PCSK9/LDL receptor (LDLR) interaction by fully-humanized monoclonal antibodies (mAbs), evolocumab and alirocumab, which have been approved for the therapy of hypercholesterolemia and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (CVD). Besides, a small interfering RNA called inclisiran, which specifically suppresses PCSK9 expression in hepatocytes, is as effective as mAbs but with administration twice a year. Because of the high costs of such therapeutic approaches, several other PCSK9-I have been surveyed, including peptide-based anti-PCSK9 vaccines and small oral anti-PCSK9 molecules, which are under investigation in preclinical and phase I clinical studies. Interestingly, anti-PCSK9 vaccination has been found to serve as a more widely feasible and more cost-effective therapeutic tool over mAb PCSK9-I for managing hypercholesterolemia. The present review will discuss LDL-lowering and cardioprotective effects of PCSK9-I, mainly immunotherapy-based inhibitors including mAbs and vaccines, in preclinical and clinical studies.

Incremental net benefit of lipid-lowering therapy with PCSK9 inhibitors: a systematic review and meta-analysis of cost-utility studies

INTRODUCTION

Proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin 9 inhibitors (PCSK9i) are monoclonal antibodies that lower lipid levels. Although several cardiovascular outcome trials reported the effectiveness of PCSK9i, the evidence on cost-effectiveness is mixed. We systematically reviewed the evidence and synthesized incremental net benefit (INB) to quantify pooled cost-effectiveness.

METHODS

We systematically searched for full economic evaluation studies reporting outcomes of PCSK9i compared with other lipid-lowering pharmacotherapies. We searched PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Tufts Registry for eligible studies up to August 2021, adhering to preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses guidelines. We pooled INB in US$ with a 95% confidence interval using a random-effects model. We assessed heterogeneity using the Cochran Q test and I² statistics. We used the modified economic evaluations bias (ECOBIAS) checklist to evaluate the quality of selected studies.

RESULTS

Twenty-three studies were eligible, mainly from high-income countries (HIC). The pooled INB (INBp) of PCSK9i versus other lipid-lowering pharmacotherapies were estimated from n = 24 comparisons, with high heterogeneity (I² = 99.99). The INBp (95% CI) was $ - 78,207 (- 120,422; - 35,993) or € - 52,526 (- 80,879; - 24,174) (conversion factor 1 US$ = 0.67€) which shows that PCSK9i was not significantly cost-effective when compared to other standard therapies. On subgroup analysis PCSK9i was significantly not cost-effective [$ - 23,672 (- 24,061; - 23,282)] compared to other lipid-lowering pharmacotherapies in HICs, upper-middle-income countries [$ - 158,412 (- 241,738; - 75,086)] or when the target population was CVD [$ - 109,343 (- 158,968; - 59,717)]; and for treatment subgroup: against placebo or no treatment [$ - 79,018 (- 79,649; - 78,388 PCSK9)] and standard statin therapies [$ - 131,833 (- 173,449; - 90,216)]. The sensitivity analysis revealed that the findings are not robust for HICs and the treatment subgroups.

CONCLUSION

PCSK9 inhibitors are not cost-effective compared to other lipid-lowering pharmacotherapies in HICs. Further, current pieces of evidence are predominantly from HICs with largely lacking evidence from other economies.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION

ID CRD42020206043.

Icosapent ethyl: safely reducing cardiovascular risk in adults with elevated triglycerides

INTRODUCTION

In patients at high cardiovascular risk, the rate of events remains elevated despite traditional, evidence-based lipid-lowering therapy. Residual hypertriglyceridemia is an important contributor to this risk. However, prior medications with triglyceride-lowering effects have not reduced adverse clinical outcomes in the statin era.

AREAS COVERED

The present review summarizes evidence and recommendations related to triglyceride-lowering therapy in the primary and secondary preventive settings. We provide an overview of findings from recent meta-analyses, important observational studies, and a detailed description of landmark trials, including the Reduction of Cardiovascular Events with Icosapent Ethyl-Intervention Trial (REDUCE-IT). We further review recommendations from current guidelines.

EXPERT OPINION

Icosapent ethyl is a stable, highly purified ethyl ester of eicosapentaenoic acid that safely and effectively reduces cardiovascular events in the contemporary setting. It is prescribed at a dose of 2 grams twice daily and is indicated in patients at high cardiovascular risk who have fasting or non-fasting triglyceride levels ≥150 mg/dl despite maximally tolerated statin treatment, or in individuals with triglyceride levels ≥500 mg/dl. Conversely, omega-3 fatty acid preparations containing a combination of eicosapentaenoic acid and docosahexaenoic acid are not indicated for reduction of cardiovascular risk and should be actively deprescribed.

Efficacy and Safety of PCSK9 Inhibitors in Stroke Prevention

Proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 (PCSK9) interacts with the low-density lipoprotein (LDL) receptor and, by enhancing its degradation, has a pivotal role in the regulation of cholesterol homeostasis. Two fully humanized monoclonal antibodies targeting PCSK9, evolocumab and alirocumab, are available for clinical use. PCSK9 inhibitors reduce LDL-C 30% more than ezetimibe and 60% more than placebo when added to statins. This reduction in LDL-C is accompanied by a decrease in the risk of major cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events. However, questions have been raised in relation to the cost-effectiveness of these medications. In this article, we review the clinical evidence on the use of PCSK9 inhibitors in lowering LDL-C and their effect on cerebrovascular health.

Trends in the Utilization of Lipid-Lowering Medications in Australia: An Analysis of National Pharmacy Claims Data

Lipid-lowering medications comprise standard of care in the prevention of cardiovascular disease. This study examined the trends in the utilization of statin and non-statin medications in the Australian general population between 2013 and 2019. Pharmacoepidemiological analyses were performed using pharmacy dispensing data from Australian Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. One-year prevalence and incidence of statin and non-statin prescribing patterns were reported, and relative variations in prescribing examined via Poisson regression modelling. The one-year prevalence of statins' prescriptions decreased between 2013-2019 by 5.5% (from 25.0%-19.5%). Females were less likely than males to be prescribed statins (rate ratio [RR]=0.90, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.89-0.91). The one-year prevalence of ezetimibe alone, and in combination with statins, increased consistently from 2013-2019 from 1.5%-3.6% (P<0.01) and 0.1%-1.1% (P<0.01), respectively. The prevalence was higher among those aged 61-80 years (RR=1.20, 95%CI 1.10-1.21) and those aged older than 80 years (RR=1.34, 95%CI 1.22-1.47), when compared to people aged <60 years. The incidence of ezetimibe prescriptions was highest in people aged 61-80 years (RR=1.36, 95%CI 1.31-1.41) compared to those aged <60 years. The one-year prevalence of proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 inhibitor prescriptions was highest among those aged 46-60 years (RR=1.24, 95%CI 0.97-4.97) compared to people aged <46 and >60 years. Females were less likely than males to be prescribed a proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 inhibitor (RR=0.87, 95%CI 0.75-0.98). Statins remain the most prevalent lipid-lowering medication prescribed in Australia. The prescribing of non-statin medications remains low, but is increasing.

Cost-Effectiveness of Alirocumab for the Secondary Prevention of Cardiovascular Events after Myocardial Infarction in the Chinese Setting

Background: Proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 inhibitor alirocumab reduce ischemic events; however, the cost-effectiveness remains uncertain. This study sought to evaluate its economic value in patients with myocardial infarction (MI) from the Chinese healthcare perspective.

Methods: A state-transition Markov model was developed to determine the cost-effectiveness of alirocumab for preventing recurrent MI, ischemic stroke and death. Preventative effect of the therapy was gathered from ODYSSEY OUTCOMES trial and absolute reduction of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) in ODYSSEY EAST trial, respectively. The primary outcome was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), defined as incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained.

Results: Compared with statin monotherapy, the ICER of alirocumab therapy at its present discounted price [34,355 Chinese yuan (CNY) annually, 33% rebate] based on clinical follow-up efficacy was 1,613,997 CNY per QALY gained. A willingness-to-pay threshold of 212,676 CNY per QALY would be achieved when the annual cost of alirocumab was reduced by 88% from the full official price to 6071 CNY. The therapeutic effect evaluation estimated by the magnitude of LDL-C reduction was superior to the results of clinical follow-up, but this medication was still far from cost-effective. Multiple vulnerable subgroup analyses demonstrated that the ICER for patients with polyvascular disease in 3 vascular beds was 111,750 CNY per QALY gained.

Conclusion: Alirocumab is not cost-effective in general MI population based on current discounted price. High long-term costs of alirocumab may be offset by health benefit in patients with polyvascular disease (3 beds).

Baseline low-density lipoprotein cholesterol predicts the benefit of adding ezetimibe on statin in statin-naïve acute coronary syndrome

We aimed to evaluate the effect of baseline low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) on the outcomes of patients with the acute coronary syndrome (ACS) receiving pitavastatin monotherapy or the combination of pitavastatin + ezetimibe. In the HIJ-PROPER study, 1734 ACS patients with dyslipidemia were randomly assigned to receive pitavastatin or pitavastatin + ezetimibe therapy. Statin-naïve participants (n = 1429) were divided into two groups based on the median LDL-C level (131 mg/dL) at enrollment. The primary endpoint was a composite of all-cause death, non-fatal myocardial infarction, non-fatal stroke, unstable angina, and ischemia-driven coronary revascularization. The median follow-up was 3.2 years. In the < 131 mg/dL group (n = 686), LDL-C changes were − 34.0% and − 49.8% in the pitavastatin monotherapy and pitavastatin + ezetimibe-treated groups (P < 0.0001), respectively; in the ≥ 131 mg/dL group (n = 743), LDL-C changes were − 42.9% and − 56.4% (P < 0.0001, respectively. Kaplan–Meier analyses revealed that the primary endpoint was not significantly different between the treatment groups for the < 131 mg/dL group, however, it was significantly lower in patients treated with pitavastatin + ezetimibe in the ≥ 131 mg/dL group (Hazard ratio = 0.72, 95% confidence interval = 0.56–0.91, P = 0.007, P value for interaction = 0.012). Statin-naïve ACS patients with baseline LDL-C < 131 mg/dL did not clinically benefit from pitavastatin + ezetimibe, while patients with baseline LDL-C ≥ 131 mg/dL treated with pitavastatin + ezetimibe showed better clinical results than those treated with pitavastatin monotherapy.

Clinical Trial Registration: Original HIJ PROPER study; URL: http://www.umin.ac.jp/ctr. Unique Identifier; UMIN000002742, registered as an International Standard Randomized Controlled Trial.

A regional analysis of payer and provider views on cholesterol management: PCSK9 inhibitors as an illustrative alignment model

BACKGROUND: Multiple barriers exist for appropriate use of the proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 enzyme inhibitors (PCSK9i) in patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) or familial hypercholesterolemia (FH) with inadequately controlled hypercholesterolemia despite standard therapies. Among these barriers, high payer rejection rates and inadequate prior authorization (PA) documentation by providers hinder optimal use of PCSK9i. OBJECTIVES: To (a) identify and discuss provider and payer discordances on barriers to authorization and use of PCSK9i based on clinical and real-world evidence and (b) align understanding and application of clinical, cost, safety, and efficacy data of PCSK9i. METHODS: Local groups of 3 payers and 3 providers met in 6 separate locations across the United States through a collaborative project of AMCP and PRIME Education. Responses to selected pre- and postmeeting survey questions measured changes in attitudes and beliefs regarding treatment barriers, lipid thresholds for considering PCSK9i therapy, and tactics for improving PA processes. Statistical analysis of inter- and intragroup changes in attitudes were performed by Cox proportional hazards test and Fisher's exact test for < 5 variables. RESULTS: The majority of providers and payers (67%-78%) agreed that high patient copayments and inadequate PA documentation were significant barriers to PCSK9i usage. However, payers and providers differed on beliefs that current evidence does not support PCSK9i cost-effectiveness (6% providers, 56% payers; P = 0.003) and that PA presents excessive administrative burden (72% providers, 44% payers; P = 0.09) Average increases pre- to postmeeting were noted in provider beliefs that properly documented PA forms expedite access to PCSK9i (22%-50% increase) and current authorization criteria accurately distinguish patients who benefit most from PCSK9i (6%-22%). Payers decreased in their belief that current authorization criteria accurately distinguish benefiting patients (72%-50%). Providers and payers increased in their belief that PCSK9i are cost-effective (44%-61% and 28%-50%, respectively) and were more willing to consider PCSK9i at the low-density lipoprotein cholesterol threshold of > 70 mg/dL for patients with ASCVD (78%-83% and 44%-67%, respectively) or FH (22%-39% and 22%-33%). Payers were more agreeable to less stringent PA requirements for patients with FH (33%-72%, P = 0.019) and need for standardized PA requirements (50%-83%, P = 0.034); these considerations remained high (89%) among providers after the meeting. Most participants supported educational programs for patient treatment adherence (83%) and physician/staff PA processes (83%-94%). CONCLUSIONS: Provider and payer representatives in 6 distinct geographic locations provided recommendations to improve quality of care in patients eligible for PCSK9i. Participants also provided tactical recommendations for streamlining PA documentation processes and improving awareness of PCSK9i cost-effectiveness and clinical efficacy. The majority of participants supported development of universal, standardized patient eligibility criteria and PA forms. DISCLOSURES: The study reported in this article was part of a continuing education program funded by an independent educational grant awarded by Sanofi US and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals to PRIME Education. The grantor had no role in the study design, execution, analysis, or reporting. AMCP received grant funding from PRIME to assist in the study, as well as in writing the manuscript. McCormick, Bhatt, Bays, Taub, Caldwell, Guerin, Steinhoff, and Ahmad received an honorarium from PRIME for serving as faculty for the continuing education program. McCormick, Bhatt, Bays, Taub, Caldwell, Guerin, Steinhoff, and Ahmad were involved as participants in the study. Bhatt discloses the following relationships: Advisory board: Cardax, CellProthera, Cereno Scientific, Elsevier Practice Update Cardiology, Level Ex, Medscape Cardiology, PhaseBio, PLx Pharma, Regado Biosciences; Board of directors: Boston VA Research Institute, Society of Cardiovascular Patient Care, TobeSoft; Chair: American Heart Association Quality Oversight Committee; Data monitoring committees: Baim Institute for Clinical Research (formerly Harvard Clinical Research Institute, for the PORTICO trial, funded by St. Jude Medical, now Abbott), Cleveland Clinic (including for the ExCEED trial, funded by Edwards), Contego Medical (Chair, PERFORMANCE 2), Duke Clinical Research Institute, Mayo Clinic, Mount Sinai School of Medicine (for the ENVISAGE trial, funded by Daiichi Sankyo), Population Health Research Institute; Honoraria: American College of Cardiology (Senior Associate Editor, Clinical Trials and News, ACC.org; Vice chair, ACC Accreditation Committee), Baim Institute for Clinical Research (formerly Harvard Clinical Research Institute; RE-DUAL PCI clinical trial steering committee funded by Boehringer Ingelheim; AEGIS-II executive committee funded by CSL Behring), Belvoir Publications (Editor in Chief, Harvard Heart Letter), Duke Clinical Research Institute (clinical trial steering committees, including for the PRONOUNCE trial, funded by Ferring Pharmaceuticals), HMP Global (Editor in Chief, Journal of Invasive Cardiology), Journal of the American College of Cardiology (Guest Editor; Associate Editor), K2P (Co-Chair, interdisciplinary curriculum), Level Ex, Medtelligence/ReachMD (CME steering committees), MJH Life Sciences, Population Health Research Institute (for the COMPASS operations committee, publications committee, steering committee, and USA national co-leader, funded by Bayer), Slack Publications (Chief Medical Editor, Cardiology Today's Intervention), Society of Cardiovascular Patient Care (Secretary/Treasurer), WebMD (CME steering committees); Other: Clinical Cardiology (Deputy Editor), NCDR-ACTION Registry Steering Committee (Chair), VA CART Research and Publications Committee (Chair); Research funding: Abbott, Afimmune, Amarin, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Cardax, Chiesi, CSL Behring, Eisai, Ethicon, Ferring Pharmaceuticals, Forest Laboratories, Fractyl, Idorsia, Ironwood, Ischemix, Lexicon, Lilly, Medtronic, Pfizer, PhaseBio, PLx Pharma, Regeneron, Roche, Sanofi Aventis, Synaptic, The Medicines Company; Royalties: Elsevier (Editor, Cardiovascular Intervention: A Companion to Braunwald's Heart Disease); Site co-investigator: Biotronik, Boston Scientific, CSI, St. Jude Medical (now Abbott), Svelte; Trustee: American College of Cardiology; Unfunded research: FlowCo, Merck, Novo Nordisk, Takeda. Bays' research site has received research grants from 89Bio, Acasti, Akcea, Allergan, Alon Medtech/Epitomee, Amarin, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Axsome, Boehringer Ingelheim, Civi, Eli Lilly, Esperion, Evidera, Gan and Lee, Home Access, Janssen, Johnson and Johnson, Lexicon, Matinas, Merck, Metavant, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, Regeneron, Sanofi, Selecta, TIMI, and Urovant. Bays has served as a consultant/advisor for 89Bio, Amarin, Esperion, Matinas, and Gelesis, and speaker for Esperion. McCormick, Caldwell, Guerin, Ahmad, Singh, Moreo, Carter, Heggen, and Sapir have nothing to disclose.

PCSK9 Inhibition: Insights From Clinical Trials and Future Prospects

In 2003, clinical observations led to the discovery of the involvement of proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 (PCSK9) in lipid metabolism. Functional studies demonstrated that PCSK9 binds to the low-density lipoprotein (LDL) receptor directing it to its lysosomal degradation. Therefore, carriers of gain-of-function mutations in PCSK9 exhibit decreased expression of LDL receptors on the hepatocyte surface and have higher LDL cholesterol (LDL-C) levels. On the contrary, loss-of-function mutations in PCSK9 are associated with low LDL-C concentrations and significantly reduced lifetime risk of cardiovascular disease. These insights motivated the search for strategies to pharmacologically inhibit PCSK9. In an exemplary rapid development, fully human monoclonal antibodies against PCSK9 were developed and found to effectively reduce LDL-C. Administered subcutaneously every 2-4 weeks, the PCSK9 antibodies evolocumab and alirocumab reduce LDL-C by up to 60% in a broad range of populations either as monotherapy or in addition to statins. Two large cardiovascular outcome trials involving a total of ∼46,000 cardiovascular high-risk patients on guideline-recommended lipid-lowering therapy showed that treatment with evolocumab and alirocumab led to a relative reduction of cardiovascular risk by 15% after 2.2 and 2.8 years of treatment, respectively. These findings expanded the armamentarium of pharmacological approaches to address residual cardiovascular risk associated with LDL-C. Furthermore, the unprecedented low LDL-C concentrations achieved (e.g., 30 mg/dL in the FOURIER study) suggest that the relationship between LDL-C and cardiovascular risk is without a lower threshold, and without associated adverse events during the timeframe of the studies. The side effect profile of PCSK9 antibodies is favorable with few patients exhibiting injection-site reactions. Currently, the access to PCSK9 antibodies is limited by high treatment costs. The development of novel approaches to inhibit PCSK9 such as the use of small interfering RNA to inhibit PCSK9 synthesis seems promising and may soon become available.

Clinical implications of the log linear association between LDL-C lowering and cardiovascular risk reduction: Greatest benefits when LDL-C >100 mg/dl

BACKGROUND

The log linear association between on-treatment LDL-C levels and ASCVD events is amplified in higher risk patient subgroups of statin versus placebo trials.

OBJECTIVES

Update previous systematic review to evaluate how the log linear association influences the magnitude of cardiovascular risk reduction from intensifying LDL-C lowering therapy.

METHODS

MEDLINE/PubMED, Clinical trials.gov, and author files were searched from 1/1/2005 through 10/30/2019 for subgroup analyses of cardiovascular outcomes trials of moderate versus high intensity statin, ezetimibe, and PCSK9 mAbs with an ASCVD endpoint (nonfatal myocardial infarction or stroke, cardiovascular death). Annualized ASCVD event rates were used to extrapolate 5-year ASCVD risk for each treatment group reported in subgroup analyses, which were grouped into a priori risk groups according to annualized placebo/control rates of ≥4%, 3-3.9%, or <3% ASCVD risk. Data were pooled using a random-effects model. Weighted least-squares regression was used to fit linear and log-linear models.

RESULTS

Systematic review identified 96 treatment subgroups from 2 trials of moderate versus high intensity statin, 2 trials of a PCSK9 mAb versus placebo, and 1 trial of ezetimibe versus placebo. A log linear association between on-treatment LDL-C and ASCVD risk represents the association between on-treatment LDL-C levels and ASCVD event rates, especially in higher risk subgroups. Greater relative and absolute cardiovascular risk reductions from LDL-C lowering were observed when baseline LDL-C was >100 mg/dl and in extremely high risk ASCVD patient groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Greater cardiovascular and mortality risk reduction benefits from intensifying LDL-C lowering therapy may be expected in those with LDL-C ≥100 mg/dl, or in extremely high risk patient groups. When baseline LDL-C <100 mg/dl, the log linear association between LDL-C and event rates suggests that treatment options other than further LDL-C lowering should also be considered for optimal risk reduction.

Cardiovascular Outcomes and Proprotein Convertase Subtilisin/Kexin Type 9 Inhibitors: Current Data and Future Prospects

Cardiovascular (CV) disease remains the leading cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide and poses an ongoing challenge with the aging population. Elevated low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) is an established risk factor for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD), and the expert consensus is the use of statin therapy (if tolerated) as first line for LDL-C reduction. However, patients with ASCVD may experience recurrent ischemic events despite receiving maximally tolerated statin therapy, including those whose on-treatment LDL-C remains ≥70 mg/dL, patients with familial hypercholesterolemia, high-risk subgroups with comorbidities such as diabetes mellitus, and those who have an intolerance to statin therapy. Optimal therapeutic strategies for this unmet need should deploy aggressive lipid lowering to minimize the contribution of dyslipidemia to their CV risk, particularly for very high-risk populations with additional risk factors beyond hypercholesterolemia and established ASCVD. To understand the current clinical climate and guidelines regarding ASCVD, we primarily searched PubMed for articles published in English regarding lipid-lowering therapies and CV risk reduction, including emerging therapies, and CV outcomes trials with proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 (PCSK9) inhibitors. This review discusses the findings of recent clinical trial evidence for CV risk reduction with cholesterol-lowering therapies, with a focus on CV outcomes trials with PCSK9 inhibitors, and considers the impact of the study results for secondary prevention and future strategies in patients with hypercholesterolemia and CV risk despite maximally tolerated statin therapy.

Predicting 10-year risk of recurrent cardiovascular events andcardiovascular interventions in patients with established cardiovascular disease: results from UCC-SMART and REACH

BACKGROUND

Existing cardiovascular risk scores for patients with established cardiovascular disease (CVD) estimate residual risk of recurrent major cardiovascular events (MACE). The aim of the current study is to develop and externally validate a prediction model to estimate the 10-year combined risk of recurrent MACE and cardiovascular interventions (MACE+) in patients with established CVD.

METHODS

Data of patients with established CVD from the UCC-SMART cohort (N = 8421) were used for model development, and patient data from REACH Western Europe (N = 14,528) and REACH North America (N = 19,495) for model validation. Predictors were selected based on the existing SMART risk score. A Fine and Gray competing risk-adjusted 10-year risk model was developed for the combined outcome MACE+. The model was validated in all patients and in strata of coronary heart disease (CHD), cerebrovascular disease (CeVD), peripheral artery disease (PAD).

RESULTS

External calibration for 2-year risk in REACH Western Europe and REACH North America was good, c-statistics were moderate: 0.60 and 0.58, respectively. In strata of CVD at baseline good external calibration was observed in patients with CHD and CeVD, however, poor calibration was seen in patients with PAD. C-statistics for patients with CHD were 0.60 and 0.57, for patients with CeVD 0.62 and 0.61, and for patients with PAD 0.53 and 0.54 in REACH Western Europe and REACH North America, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The 10-year combined risk of recurrent MACE and cardiovascular interventions can be estimated in patients with established CHD or CeVD. However, cardiovascular interventions in patients with PAD could not be predicted reliably.