Re: Leiter LA, Berard L, Bowering CK, et al. Type 2 Diabetes mellitus management in Canada: is it improving? Can J Diabetes 37;2:82-9

GOAL Canada: Physician Education and Support Can Improve Patient Management

BACKGROUND

Despite the widespread use of statins, approximately 40% to 50% of Canadian patients with known cardiovascular disease do not achieve the low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) goal. Guidelines Oriented Approach to Lipid lowering (GOAL) is an investigator-initiated study aiming to ascertain the use of second- and third-line therapy and its impact on LDL-C goal achievement in a real-world setting.

METHODS

GOAL enrolled patients with clinical vascular disease or familial hypercholesterolemia and LDL-C > 2.0 mmol/L despite maximally tolerated statin therapy. During follow-up, physicians managed patients as clinically indicated but with online reminders of guideline recommendations.

RESULTS

Of 2009 patients enrolled (median age 63 years, 42% were female), baseline total cholesterol was 5.5 ± 1.4 mmol/L, LDL-C was 3.3 ± 1.3 mmol/L, non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol was 4.1 ± 1.4 mmol/L, high-density lipoprotein cholesterol was 1.3 ± 0.4 mmol/L, and triglycerides were 2.0 ± 1.5 mmol/L. Lipid-lowering therapy used at baseline was statin therapy in 76% (with 24% statin intolerant) and ezetimibe in 25%. During follow-up, the proportion of patients achieving an LDL-C level of < 2.0 mmol/L increased significantly to 50.8% as a result of additional lipid-lowering therapy. Patients achieving the recommended LDL-C level were more likely to not be statin intolerant (83.8% vs 70.7%, P < 0.0001) and to be taking a high-efficacy type and dose of statin (52.4% vs 35.9%, P < 0.0001). The 3 top reasons for not using the recommended therapy with ezetimibe were patient refusal in 33%, not needed in 22%, and intolerance in 20%, whereas for PCSK9i the reasons were cost in 26%, not needed in 27%, or patient refusal in 25%.

CONCLUSION

The results indicate the feasibility of optimizing management, resulting in achievement of the guideline-recommended LDL-C level. This has the potential to translate into reductions in cardiovascular morbidity and mortality of Canadian patients.

Pharmacist prescribing and care improves cardiovascular risk, but is it cost-effective? A cost-effectiveness analysis of the RxEACH study

BACKGROUND

The RxEACH randomized trial demonstrated that community pharmacist prescribing and care reduced the risk for cardiovascular (CV) events by 21% compared to usual care.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the economic impact of pharmacist prescribing and care for CV risk reduction in a Canadian setting.

METHODS

A Markov cost-effectiveness model was developed to extrapolate potential differences in long-term CV outcomes, using different risk assessment equations. The mean change in CV risk for the 2 groups of RxEACH was extrapolated over 30 years, with costs and health outcomes discounted at 1.5% per year. The model incorporated health outcomes, costs and quality of life to estimate overall cost-effectiveness. It was assumed that the intervention would be 50% effective after 10 years. Individual-level results were scaled up to population level based on published statistics (29.2% of Canadian adults are at high risk for CV events). Costs considered included direct medical costs as well as the costs associated with implementing the pharmacist intervention. Uncertainty was explored via probabilistic sensitivity analysis.

RESULTS

It is estimated that the Canadian health care system would save more than $4.4 billion over 30 years if the pharmacist intervention were delivered to 15% of the eligible population. Pharmacist care would be associated with a gain of 576,689 quality-adjusted life years and avoid more than 8.9 million CV events. The intervention is economically dominant (i.e., it is both more effective and reduces costs when compared to usual care).

CONCLUSION

Across a range of 1-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses of key parameters and assumptions, pharmacist prescribing and care are both more effective and cost-saving compared to usual care. Canadians need and deserve such care.